>a tree is both a tree and not a tree >what is the sound

>>2525029
Water is soft and hard, it can be fluid and soft or frozen and hard. If you hit or fall into water at a high velocity its surface the experience will be similar to hitting a rock wall

File: trinny.png (10KB, 310x278px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 310x278px

>>2525029
>Is there any eastern philosophy that isn't full of this contradictory nonsense?
>Water is soft and hard, it can be fluid and soft or frozen and hard
Why do we pretend this is an Eastern problem?

>>2525079
They were trying to solve a logical paradox, they weren't introducing a logical paradox.

>The nature of things is to have no nature; it is their non-nature that is their nature. For they have only one nature: no-nature.
- Buddhist philosopher Nagarjuna

>>2525175
>The nature of things is to have no nature; it is their non-nature that is their nature. For they have only one nature: no-nature.
This doesn't seem that bad to me. It's not that a chair has an inherent "chair nature" sitting in the realm of ideas as the ideal form of a chair. The term "chair" is just a convenient shorthand for describing a particular collection of smaller objects working as a system, which are themselves working as another system, etc down until whatever the most fundamental "thing" is, which is barely comprehensible to the human mind. It'a convenient to say that "things" have a "nature", but it is just that, a convenience, which should not be confused for reality.

>>2525029
I don't know why people pretend there is something deep and profound about such things. I guess they are afraid to look less "wise" than their peers. It's just emperor's new clothes.

>>2525210
I like where this is going but it's hard to dismiss the claim of forms by calling it a "convenience."

Why does this "convenience" arise the way that it does, and why does it identifying it abstractly produce a unified metaphysic?

>>2525029
imo Hinduism and especially Buddhism lead to the understanding that the infinite reduction/ emergence of "experience of being" and "contents of said experienced being" are not causally linked but wholly reflective.

Paradox arises when prioritizing one over the other, and a central nothingness/ wholeness arises when focused on the reflection (aka meditation, which is why they got this so right without the use of a skeptic approach to the structure and metastructure of the contents themselves, which lead to the dismissal of experience itself).

>>2525175
>that quote

Sounds like an early attempt at expressing nominalism.