Quran's use of the word name (Ism)
-
I wrote a blog post about how the imagination, reason and logic are all related. I then later found that it correlates with
231 And He taught Adam the names of all things, then He displayed them to the angels and said "Inform Me of the names of these if you are truthful."
Organising semantical gaps using reason
There are many different languages in the world and whilst they sound different, ultimately, they?re all doing the same thing. They all label semantical gaps. In this blog post, I will begin by giving an explanation of what I mean by semantical gaps before arguing that any use of language or method of communication either produces something absurd, potential, necessary or unknown.
Language is essentially made up of words that label semantical gaps. For example the Arabic word salam means peace in English. Here the semantical gap is what the words salam and peace refer to. There is an infinite amount of semantical gaps available. Anything meaningful that one can think of is either a semantical gap, or various semantical gaps that is/are being focused on by the mind at any given point in time. When you consider the nature of existence and the mind and what it can imagine, there being an infinite amount of semantical gaps available in existence starts to become clear.
It is important to note that just as there is only one existence, there is only one set of semantical gaps. Anyone that has awareness of semantical gaps or can focus on semantical gaps is aware of or focusing on the only set available in existence. How much of that set or which part of that set one focuses on or has access to may differ but the set itself has always been the same and will always be the same. So any suggestion that rational agents can have two different sets of semantical gaps is absurd. It would be like suggesting there can be two existences. Whilst there can be more than one reality, there cannot be more than one existence. I can create my own language, but I cannot create my own semantical gaps. I can only attach labels or sounds to the semantical gaps available in existence.
Even if I try to create my own concepts, for example a unidragon (a hybrid of unicorn and dragon) I haven?t created this concept, I?ve essentially focused on a semantical gap available in existence and labelled it. If I then draw a picture of a unidragon and show it to people who speak different languages, they will probably label it differently but the semantical gap that their mind would focus on would either be exactly the same or at the very least, sufficiently similar to the one that I had focused on when drawing the picture and attaching the label unidragon to the semantical gap in question.
To be fair, even the label unidragon that I?ve attached to this semantical gap is what existence allows me to produce. There is a spectrum in terms of the sounds or words that any existent being can produce. Humans have their own limits. What sound or word you attach to a semantical gap is up to you, you can even change these labels as you please, however what you cannot do is alter the available semantical gaps. You?d require a different existence for that, and there is only one existence. Anything other than this is absurd.
In my previous blog posts, I argued that anything that has meaning (essentially any semantical gap) needs to be accommodated by existence as all minds are entirely dependent on existence and there is nothing outside of existence for the mind to obtain. In order for reason to be adhered to and paradoxes avoided (such as the paradox of something coming from nothing) existence needs to accommodate all semantical gaps. Just as it needs to accommodate all potential sounds, pitches, colours and shapes that can be produced, it needs to accommodate all semantical gaps.
Any use of language will either produce something absurd, unknown, potential or necessary. Let?s start by looking at the absurd category
Absurd
For example the phrase square-circle is absurd as is a married bachelor, a bendy straight line and so on. Even the idea of a super task A task that consists in infinitely many component steps, but which in some sense is completed in a finite amount of time (Manchak and Roberts) is absurd. These are all paradoxical, contradictory phrases. They don?t have any meaning but reason can be applied in a way that conclusively rules them out of existence. They have never existed and can never exist. Conclusively, existence does not accommodate them.
Potential
Almost all semantical gaps fall under this category. They are things whoes potential to exist has always been there and will always be there. Examples include Unicorns, dragons, unidragons, trees, humans, galaxies, universes and so on. They can change from one thing to another. They are hypothetical possibilities (as in the potential for them to exist is always there) Unlike absurdities such as a square-circle which we rationally know can never exist, we know rationally that potentials such as a unidragons can exist. Try the following thought experiment Try to think of something or imagine something that has meaning but can never exist. Can you produce anything?
Necessary
Concepts that don?t fall into absurd or potential but have meaning, fall into the category of necessary. The most obvious example of which is Existence. The sentence ?the potential for existence to come into existence is there? is absurd. Existence is not something that is hypothetically possble, rather, it necessarily is. It?s not a potential. Either existence has always existed and will always exist or it never existed and will never exist. Also absurd is ?Existence can go in and out of existence?. Existence has clear meaning, therefore if it is not absurd and not a potential/hypothetical possibility, it is necessary; as in necessarily existent; has always existed and will always exist and is not amenable to change. Things within it may change but it itself cannot. For example, I am in existence, a part of existence. I can change, but that which is all-existing/omnipresent (whatever it may be) cannot.
Unknown
For example the phrase 20th dimension or the 20th sense, are unknown. There may be a 20th sense in existence that we have no awareness of or a 20th dimension that we are unaware of. We don?t know if they exist or if they can ever exit. These phrases don?t have any meaning, but unlike a square-circle we don?t know if they are paradoxical or contradictory, so we cannot apply reason to them to rule them out of existence or rule them as potential or necessary. Unknowns are simply unknown. Reason can?t be applied to them and so they are irrelevant to the exercise of reason.
When discussing potentials, I said try to think of something or imagine something that has meaning but can never exist. Can you produce anything? If you?ve attempted this and concluded yes I can, I will attempt to demonstrate how your conclusion is problematic.
We can all imagine what a triangle is. Having straight lines is part of the definition of a triangle. Consider the following two sentences
- Triangles can exist.
- Triangles can exist in our universe.
There is nothing wrong with the first sentence but the second sentence is absurd. Our universe has gravity and gravity is such that it does not allow for straight lines therefore triangles cannot exist in our universe. Sentence 2 is absurd. It is just like saying the bendy straight line.
To sum up, anything that is absurd, can never exist and will never exist. So a straight line can never exist in an environment that does not allow for straight lines. Some movies or thoughts of imagination contain contradictions. There is nothing wrong with the movie from a visual perspective or an active thought of imagination. But when you fully flesh them out, whilst the visuals or the image stays the same, their rational credibility goes from potential to absurd.
Consider the sentence Superman lifts a 25,000 pound bus. Now picture it. We can all imagine superman lifting something as heavy as a bus. Our imagination can produce the images and Hollywood can also produce a scene that visually shows superman doing this. A reality or universe existing wherein which this happens is entirely possible given existence being infinite and eternal. There is nothing absurd about this because the definition of superman, or the semantical gap that superman points to, entails that he is sufficiently powerful enough to lift something that weighs more than 25,000 pounds. The maths and the science add up fine so this sentence goes in the potential category. It is something that Existence can bring about.
Now consider the sentence Nelson Mandela lifts a 25,000 pound bus. Now picture it. Again we can all picture Nelson Mandela doing this and Hollywood can produce a video clip where Nelson Mandela is lifting a 25,000 pound bus. However, given the traits we associate with Nelson Mandela, given the definition of Nelson Mandela, and given the semantical gap that is Nelson Mandela, we cannot coherently imagine Nelson Mandela doing this. If we saw an advert that shows this, we automatically assume special effects or some other kind of mechanism wherein which the images of Nelson Mandela doing this have been produced. As in we change the semantics of the sentence somehow. For example we could alter the semantics of the bus in question. So we think something like maybe it was a picture of a bus that Nelson Mandela actually lifted. Nelson Mandela cannot lift a 25,000 bus, the math and science don?t add up, so it goes in the absurd category unless you alter semantics appropriately and adequately in some way.
The ability to imagine absurdities is impossible. A being lifting something so heavy that it does not have the sufficient force to lift (which is what the Nelson Mandela example amounts to) is an absurdity. It is because potentials are so amenable to change that the mind is able to consider and picture so many different hypothetical possibilities/potentials. There are so many hypothetically possible ways where in which Nelson Mandela can lift something that weighs more than 25,000 pounds, but they all require that the science and the math add up. So maybe Mandela?s physiology changes overnight to the point that he has the sufficient strength to lift something heavier than 25,000 pounds. Ultimately though, the semantical gaps focused on would have to change for absurdity to not ensue. So again, with this in mind, can you think of something that has meaning but can never exist?
Bibliography
John Manchak and Bryan W. Roberts, Supertasks, 5th of April 2016, Stanford Encycplopaedia of Philosophy
-
Peace nimnimak_11
Thank you for the info.
I just wanted to say nice to hear from you. Welcome back.
GOD bless you.
Peace. -
Peace nimnimak_11
Thank you for the info.
I just wanted to say nice to hear from you. Welcome back.
GOD bless you.
Peace.Peace good logic
Thanks! I never left )
God bless you too.
-
Thank you brother.
I have not come across recent posts from you. May be I missed them.
Sorry brother.
GOD bless you.
Peace. -
Thank you brother.
I have not come across recent posts from you. May be I missed them.
Sorry brother.
GOD bless you.
Peace.Peace
You're actually right, I hadn't posted in a very long time.
God bless you too.
-
Let us start simplifying it.
What is "Existence" (First question of Metaphysics or first philosophy as Aristotle calls it).
Peace Mazhar
That which is all-existing/omnipresent.
-
How can we jump to that conclusion? This is turning Existence into one entity. How can you perceive the Existence as an entity omnipresent?
There are no other conclusions to jump to. Anything else is absurd/paradoxical/contradictory/non-existence. You can have more than one reality, but all realities have to exist in existence. You cannot have more than one existence. What separates the two existences? Non-existence? Doesn't reason dictate this to be absurd?
-
There are no other conclusions to jump to. Anything else is absurd/paradoxical/contradictory/non-existence. You can have more than one reality, but all realities have to exist in existence. You cannot have more than one existence. What separates the two existences? Non-existence? Doesn't reason dictate this to be absurd?
I exist, Thereby some one else exists who brought me to existence. And both are a distinct reality.
-
I exist, Thereby some one else exists who brought me to existence. And both are a distinct reality.
The mechanisms of how you came to exist are irrelevant to what I'm saying here. You can have multiple realities in Existence but you cannot have more than one Existence.You exist but you are not Existence.
-
The mechanisms of how you came to exist are irrelevant to what I'm saying here. You can have multiple realities in Existence but you cannot have more than one Existence.You exist but you are not Existence.
Please simplify or just define what you mean by exist and Existence and the difference between two.
-
Please simplify or just define what you mean by exist and Existence and the difference between two.
Ok sure. Exist is a verb. Anything that has any kind of reality, is existing. Existence is that which is all-existing/omnipresent. Only Existence exists in an all-existing manner/omnipresently. Everything else exists non-omnipresently. For example, you and I exist non-omnipresently. Does that clarify the difference between the two?
-
Ok sure. Exist is a verb. Anything that has any kind of reality, is existing. Existence is that which is all-existing/omnipresent. Only Existence exists in an all-existing manner/omnipresently. Everything else exists non-omnipresently. For example, you and I exist non-omnipresently. Does that clarify the difference between the two?
omnipresent
mnprz(ənt/Submit
adjective
widely or constantly encountered; widespread.
"the omnipresent threat of natural disasters"
synonyms present everywhere, ubiquitous, general, universal, worldwide, global, all-pervasive, all-present, infinite, boundless; More
(of God) present everywhere at the same time.When I am not omnipresent how can I know some omnipresent exists?
-
omnipresent
mnprz(ənt/Submit
adjective
widely or constantly encountered; widespread.
"the omnipresent threat of natural disasters"
synonyms present everywhere, ubiquitous, general, universal, worldwide, global, all-pervasive, all-present, infinite, boundless; More
(of God) present everywhere at the same time.When I am not omnipresent how can I know some omnipresent exists?
Does the concept of omnipresent make sense to you? Do you have an understanding of it?
-
Does the concept of omnipresent make sense to you? Do you have an understanding of it?
How can you have a concept created in your mind to get into my mind when like me you are not omnipresent. Proceed with some logic, not with preconceived understanding or belief. You may consult all theories of philosophy, and then tell me how can you perceive the omnipresent when you cannot make an image or feeling of it in your brain.
-
EIjazah Institute is an online website for learning Quran, Arabic, and Ei ijazah. Our site is available online for all people and anytime. We tackle the way of how to read the Quran correctly. We have our best online Quran classes for beginners and adults. Also, we offer free online Quran learning classes.
https//www.eijazah.com -
How can you have a concept created in your mind to get into my mind when like me you are not omnipresent. Proceed with some logic, not with preconceived understanding or belief. You may consult all theories of philosophy, and then tell me how can you perceive the omnipresent when you cannot make an image or feeling of it in your brain.
If you don't have any understanding of what Existence is and you disagree with the following definition Existence = that which is all-existing/omnipresent, then our conversation will bear no fruit.
-
If you don't have any understanding of what Existence is and you disagree with the following definition Existence = that which is all-existing/omnipresent, then our conversation will bear no fruit.
But prove it? Is it rational to ask somebody to believe something which you cannot prove by rational argument? I asked you to skim Philosophy to see whether it answered my question.
You can read for background knowledge on Existence here
https//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existencehilsophical Monism here
https//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monism
Since you had quoted an Ayah of Qur'aan in your write-up I thought you would mention the Philosophy of Existence from Qur'aan which is obviously the first source of First Philosophy.
Men of ordinary prudence like me should not enter into rather "dark oceans" of theories, be it of philosophers or the scientists. All along history the psyche of philosophers and scientists seems strange; they do all sorts of mental exercises and observations to know the truth but seldom read the Book of Hour.
The majority of wise-men, be they the "Seven Wise Men of Greece" or Sophists, Gorgias or renowned Protagoras and Plato or his illustrious student Aristotle, or other "men of wisdom" before and after them, tried and delved deep in their imagination to understand the boundaries of "Knowledge" but seldom cared to benefit from "The Book of Hour". The "imaginative knots" never produce a ladder and rope that could take one to the point of certainty and conviction. It is unfortunate that majority of the "wise-brains" in philosophy gave more confusion and conflict than benefit to humanity since they in time and space remained neglectful to "The Book of Hour".
A book was there for guidance knowledge Life Manual for each period of time.
-
Since you had quoted an Ayah of Qur'aan in your write-up I thought you would mention the Philosophy of Existence from Qur'aan which is obviously the first source of First Philosophy.
You don't prioritise the Quran over reason. You use it to supplement reason to aid and benefit reason. You verify it with reason.
Again, if you don't acknowledge Existence as omnipresent/all-existing, given everything else in our conversation so far, our conversation will bear no fruit. If you can think of any other possible definitions for existence, then by all means share. But as I have argued, anything other than Existence = that which is all-existing/omnipresent, is absurd.