Sand can both run through an hourglass like a liquid and be solid enough to support buildings. A new research tries to understand how that can be possible. [1]
From sand, to humans (good and bad character in the same person), to atoms (superposition of different states), everything seems to exhibit dual antiphatic behaviours…
As if Nature wants to tip us off about something important…
Okanagan Specialty Fruits Inc. (OSF) has created a genetically modified apple that does not brown after being cut [1]. Is an apple that does not turn brown after being cut an apple?
What are the characterisitcs an apple has? How many characteristics of an apple can we change before we stop talking about “apples”? Are things really different or is the world ONE as Parmenides said? [Harmonia Philosophica]
What actually is “is” ? What makes something what it “is” ? If we change one characteristic of something, is that something the “same” ? Yes? What if we change two characteristics? Do we still have the “same” thing? If we change all characteristics of normal “apples” as we know them now, in 2010, will they still be “apples”? Imagine the same questions for humans and your mind can blow up… All of our cells change – are we still the “same” person? If yes, what about death? Is that also a small “characteristics change” in our body and existence? Do we still remain humans, as apples that do not brown are still “apples” ?
Can someone actually claim that Darth Vader exists?
Can someone think that Yoda actually exists?
Well, if you read Parmenides, you will answer “Yes” to both these questions.
How can you refer to something that does not “exist”? How can you even talk about something which does not “exist”? What “is not” does not exist and noone can grasp the “non existent”. There is only one solution to the “puzzle”: everything exists.
Too absurd. Or maybe too logical?
We see. We feel. We believe that things “exist”. And then we philosophize on what “existence” means. And in order to do that we attempt to see what “seeing” is. We try to model reality only to realize that reality continuously escapes us. We analyze things only to see that too much analysis destroys their original meaning. Complicated? Or too simple?
An ancient poem by Parmenides said it thousands of years ago…
«οὐδέ ποτ’ ἦν οὐδ’ ἔσται, ἐπεὶ νῡν ἐστιν ὁμοῡ πᾱν, ἓν, συνεχές»
(it neither is, nor it will be, because it is now all together, ONE, continuous)
The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (IEP) is asking for articles on specific subjects (see here). However do not be too enthusiastic: you can only submit an article if you are a philosophy professor or (and this is an exception) a graduate student of philosophy. Modern civilization is based on the notion of “peer review”. You can never write something novel or fresh, since you must first provide bibliography. You can never write something different than the mainstream philosophy of our time, since you must be be accepted by other “peers”. And you certainly cannot write anything “too innovative” – the fact that you must first be educated in philosophy (i.e. brain washed with the main ideas that are philosophically interesting and/or accepted) makes that certain.
Parmenides did not have any sources.
Parmenides was not an accredited philosophy professor.
In other words: Parmenides could not submit an article to IEP! 🙂
Try to think freely! Do not try to think like the others near you! Only then will you be yourself. Only then will you fullfil your existence to the fullest extent.
