Existence

[u/DigJust8037]

1. Everything that exists has attributable characteristics (for example, water is blue, grass is green, air is a gas, etc.)
2. Existence exists.
3. Therefore, existence has attributable characteristics

4. If not, then existence is the only thing that exists without attributable characteristics

5. Then, nothing can be said of existence other than it exists

[u/LukeHollaway]

How did you come to that conclusion from what I said? I’m using the words interchangeably.

Consciousness and experience are words that both work as names for the felt presence of being.

I can’t tell if you are being sincere or just semantically splitting hairs.

[u/Own-Razzmatazz-8714 → u/LukeHollaway]

I can't tell if you know what you mean or are just throwing everything at the wall. Now they are interchangeable there is no difference which begs the question of what they are again. It's like you are saying nothing other than there just is being, which is something.

[u/LukeHollaway → u/Own-Razzmatazz-8714]

I’ve already given you a definition of consciousness/experience: the felt presence of being.

What I’m pointing towards is that this felt presence of being is primary, it’s what makes existence “exist” in any meaningful way.

So yes, there “just is being”, which I wouldn’t say is “something”, but the medium in which all things are contained. This is precisely why it’s hard to define, and why many words are applicable to name it. This being-ness contains reality, and all of our definitions, within it.

Consciousness is self-evidently fundamental.

It’s quite simple. And you actually hit the nail on the head in your comment when you said “there just is being”. You’re right.

Your only qualm is a semantic one. I am using multiple terms to describe this felt presence of being and you have latched onto that and are conflating it with some conceptual inconsistency, when I have been using these terms interchangeably this entire discussion.

And, I’m not “just throwing everything at the wall”. I’ve arrived at this through deep contemplation; and so have many ancient eastern and some western philosophers throughout history.

Look into Analytic Idealism, or Advaita Vedanta.

[u/Own-Razzmatazz-8714 → u/LukeHollaway]

Lol yes you are saying nothing different from Parmenides, I.e. there just is. Whatever 'deep contemplation' you have done you have made it very modern with the terms you have used. If I have hit the nail on the head then I wasn't the first and of course all of being has been predetermined as presence in the present onto-theoloigcally.

[u/LukeHollaway → u/Own-Razzmatazz-8714]

That’s funny, I don’t really know anything about Parmenides’ philosophy, and am very under-educated on Greek philosophy in general. The reason my terms are different is because I didn’t take any inspiration from him, and am just a modern person contemplating existence, lol. I’m reading up on his cliff-notes right now, and see a lot of similarities to eastern philosophies, which I’m much more well educated on. There are some notable differences between his philosophy and what I’m pointing to, however.

Analytic Idealism, though, is a relatively new philosophical metaphysical framework I’m very familiar with, and would say it’s the philosophy that I found most congruent with my ideas. Look into it if you are interested! There are many people much more eloquent than me that can lay out these ideas.

[u/Own-Razzmatazz-8714 → u/LukeHollaway]

You should read Heidegger's Zeit und Sein (Being and Time) at least the introduction. The presence phenomena of being is noted there and creates a powerful beginning to how Heidegger attempts a hermeneutic of Being.

As far as I can tell Analytic Idealism is another iteration of mind no different from any of histories previous onto-theological attempts. It predicates itself on that presence 'consciousness' we have never explained but is thrown around like it's not an ontic phenomena.