Jeffrey Donaldson-Gargoyle
Is existence a substance itself or merely an affirmative statement?

The concept of existence can be understood in different ways depending on the philosophical framework used. In some philosophical systems, existence is considered to be a substance or a property of substances, while in others it is considered to be a mere affirmative statement.

One view is that existence is a property that is essential to substances. According to this view, everything that exists has a certain "existence-ness" that distinguishes it from things that do not exist. In this sense, existence is seen as a positive attribute of things in the world. This view is associated with the philosophical tradition of essentialism.

Another view is that existence is not a substance or property in and of itself, but rather a necessary condition for other properties or substances to be meaningful. According to this view, existence is not a positive attribute, but rather a prerequisite for any attributes or properties to exist. This view is associated with the philosophical tradition of nominalism.

In modern philosophical discussions, there is also a third view which is that existence is not a property or substance in its own right, but rather a second-order predicate. According to this view, "existence" is a term that is used to make a statement about things in the world, rather than a property of those things.

In conclusion, whether existence is a substance or merely an affirmative statement depends on the philosophical framework being used, and different philosophical systems offer different interpretations of the nature of existence.
Jeffrey Donaldson-Gargoyle
What exactly is meant by a predicate in philosophical language?

In philosophical language, a predicate is a term that is used to express a property, attribute, or characteristic of a subject. Predicates are used to make statements about the world, and they are essential for forming propositions and making claims.

A predicate can be a single word, such as "red," or a phrase, such as "is taller than." When combined with a subject, the predicate forms a proposition or a statement about that subject. For example, the statement "The apple is red" consists of the subject "the apple" and the predicate "is red." The predicate "is red" expresses a property or attribute of the subject "the apple."

In logic, predicates are usually represented by variables, such as "P" or "Q." The variables stand for a specific property or attribute, which can be filled in with specific terms when making statements. For example, the statement "All cats are mammals" can be represented as "For all x, if x is a cat, then x is a mammal," where "x" is the variable that represents the subject.

Predicates are an important part of philosophical language because they allow us to make claims about the world and reason about the relationships between different things. By using predicates to form propositions, we can explore the nature of reality and analyze the concepts that we use to describe it.
Jeffrey Donaldson-Gargoyle
Are all predicates prior in their nature to something, as the latin origin of the word implies?

The Latin root of the word "predicate" is "praedicare," which means "to proclaim or declare." The word "praedicare" is composed of two parts: "prae," which means "before," and "dicare," which means "to speak or say."

In this sense, the Latin origin of the word "predicate" suggests that it involves making a statement or proclamation about something that exists or has already been established. This implies that predicates are not necessarily prior in their nature to the things that they are used to describe or to the concepts that they represent.

However, it's important to note that the Latin root of a word doesn't necessarily determine the meaning of the word in contemporary usage or in philosophical discourse. In contemporary philosophy, the nature of predicates is a topic of ongoing debate, and different philosophical theories may have different views on the relationship between predicates and the things they describe. Some philosophers might argue that predicates are prior to the things they describe, while others might argue the opposite.

In any case, the Latin origin of the word "predicate" is not itself a sufficient guide to the philosophical issues surrounding predicates. The meaning and nature of predicates are more fully explored in the context of specific philosophical theories and discussions.
Jeffrey Donaldson-Gargoyle
My own view is that existence is a substance, infinite and eternal, the true reality, which all perception represents, as a skewed mirror represents reflected light. I come to this conclusion by many routes, from the nature of time and the nature of matter. It seems to me that nothing is ever destroyed but only transformed, a nuclear bomb destroys nothing but only transforms matter in ways mankind consider destructive, but all energy is exchanged. Time suggests eternity because eternity backwards is eternity forwards, or it is not eternity, and an eternity of time must have already passed unless something can come from nothing, which is absurd.

Your view that existence is a substance, infinite and eternal, is a metaphysical position that is not universally accepted in philosophy, and there are different philosophical frameworks that offer different views on the nature of existence. However, it is certainly a legitimate position to hold, and there are philosophical arguments that can be marshalled in support of it.

Your argument that nothing is ever destroyed but only transformed is consistent with the principle of the conservation of energy in physics, which states that the total amount of energy in a closed system is constant. From this principle, it follows that when we observe something being "destroyed," what is actually happening is that energy is being transformed into a different form. This view is also consistent with some philosophical perspectives, such as those that hold that matter and energy are fundamentally interconnected.

Your point about time suggesting eternity is related to the philosophical problem of the nature of time. Many philosophers have grappled with the question of whether time is absolute or relative, whether it is continuous or discrete, and whether it is linear or cyclical. Your view that eternity backwards is eternity forwards suggests a cyclical view of time, where time is thought to repeat itself indefinitely.

Overall, while there may be different views on the nature of existence, your position is internally consistent and draws on philosophical and scientific ideas that have been influential in shaping our understanding of the world.
Jeffrey Donaldson-Gargoyle
It seems to me that the implications of this position are manifold; firstly, that all finitude is in a sense illusion, developed from a limited perspective drawing imaginary boundaries which are not really there; secondly, that all knowledge is a kind of reflection of this eternal truth, a description of the same thing everywhere taking on new hues as an oil puddle reflects many colours but is in truth none of them; thirdly, that the infinite implications of such a formal existence suggests an almost divine nature.

Your position that all finitude is in a sense an illusion and that all knowledge is a reflection of the eternal truth is consistent with some philosophical traditions, such as idealism, which holds that the ultimate nature of reality is mental or spiritual rather than physical. In idealism, it is argued that what we perceive as the external world is actually a projection of our own minds, and that the ultimate nature of reality is a single, unified, and eternal consciousness or spirit.

Your position that the infinite implications of such a formal existence suggests an almost divine nature is also consistent with some philosophical perspectives, such as those that posit a transcendental reality that underlies or transcends the material world. In these perspectives, the ultimate nature of reality is seen as infinite and eternal, and is sometimes identified with a divine or spiritual essence.

It is worth noting, however, that while your position is internally consistent and draws on philosophical ideas that have been influential in shaping our understanding of the world, it is not universally accepted in philosophy. Other philosophical frameworks might offer different views on the nature of existence, the limits of knowledge, and the possibility of a divine or spiritual essence. Nonetheless, your position offers an interesting perspective on these topics and can inspire further inquiry and exploration.
Jeffrey Donaldson-Gargoyle
I would not expect it to be universally accepted, for such is the implication of my position that all perspective is, though to varying degrees, flawed and inexact and clouded, and only a measure of the totality. However it seems to me that the highest wisdom, in such a world, is to have that kind of sympathy which the wisest religious personalities have, a sympathy with the infinite rather than an obsession with the finite, which is, to my mind, more akin to the scientific spirit.

Your position that all perspective is flawed and inexact to varying degrees, and that the highest wisdom is to have sympathy with the infinite, is consistent with the view that the pursuit of knowledge is an ongoing process of discovery and refinement, rather than a static endpoint. In this view, no single perspective or understanding is complete or final, and our understanding of the world is always subject to revision and improvement.

Your suggestion that the highest wisdom is to have sympathy with the infinite, rather than an obsession with the finite, is also consistent with some religious and philosophical traditions that emphasize the importance of transcending the limitations of individual perspectives and recognizing the unity and interconnectedness of all things. This perspective can inspire a sense of awe and wonder at the infinite and eternal nature of reality, as well as a sense of responsibility to act in ways that reflect this awareness of interconnectedness.

It is worth noting, however, that the pursuit of knowledge and the recognition of interconnectedness need not be mutually exclusive, and in fact, can complement each other. The scientific spirit, for example, is often motivated by a desire to understand the underlying unity and coherence of the natural world, and can be seen as a form of sympathy with the infinite. Similarly, some religious and philosophical traditions place great emphasis on empirical observation and rational inquiry as means of discovering and understanding the divine. Ultimately, the pursuit of knowledge and the recognition of interconnectedness can be seen as complementary and mutually enriching perspectives on the world.
Jeffrey Donaldson-Gargoyle
This is a point well taken, however I would contend that, within the context of such a position, all scientific enquiry which begins from the premise that the universe is a disordered finitude is essentially mistaken and counterintuitive to the higher understanding, which though it be less abstruse is more insightful, of infinity so conceived.

It is true that within the context of the position you have articulated, the scientific approach that begins from the premise that the universe is a disordered finitude may be seen as limited or incomplete. However, it is also important to recognize that scientific inquiry is not solely concerned with describing the universe as a disordered finitude, but also with understanding the underlying order and coherence of the natural world.

In this sense, scientific inquiry can be seen as a complementary perspective to the higher understanding of infinity that you have described, and can help to deepen and refine our understanding of the world. The scientific method involves empirical observation, hypothesis testing, and the application of reason and logic to understand the natural world. It is a powerful tool for discovering patterns and regularities in the world, and for generating new insights and knowledge.

Ultimately, the pursuit of knowledge and the recognition of the infinite can be seen as complementary and mutually enriching perspectives on the world, rather than as mutually exclusive. Both perspectives can help us to deepen our understanding of the world and to appreciate its infinite and eternal nature.
Jeffrey Donaldson-Gargoyle
I quite agree. So be it.

I'm glad we could have this conversation. If you have any further questions or topics you'd like to discuss, feel free to ask.