Two types of existence?
Hello Rabbi.
On page 74 of the first book.
You distinguish between two types of girls in your mind:
1) Definition and understanding in the mind (without any connection to reality)
2) A view (or some perception of reality) and from it a definition for understanding in the mind.
And you say that if you defined something and then saw it in reality, it is not the same definition of the concept (such as the triangle).
Why separate? If I defined something, and then saw it in reality:
1) Or is it the same thing I defined (so why say the definition is different)
2) This is not what I defined, then I create a new definition and say – “Exists”
My question is why separate one definition that simply exists/does not exist (before/after) into two different definitions?
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Thank you very much,
By defining a concept and then knowing that it exists, have I changed the definition of that concept or just my level of intellectual understanding of it? (Now I understand that the same definition exists)
Thank you again
In a different formulation:
Why is the second conclusion: ”What exists in such a state of consciousness is different from the concept that was there without the realization.” required/necessary?
Another wording if not clear enough
1) The definition of God
2) The definition of God + I know that he exists (the definition exists)
Why do you believe that there is a difference in the two definitions?
Even if there is a difference and the knowledge of existence changes everything – why is the second *greater* than the first?
I explain there that existence is not a property, and therefore an existing chair is not a concept different from a chair.
I didn't understand the second question. If these are two different cognitions, meaning that their content is different, then what is in the cognition in the two situations is different. It's a tautology.
I really don't understand this discussion. Everything is discussed there. Have you read it yet?
I read but didn't really understand….
1) I still don't understand why these are two different definitions (who sees this as one simple definition with or without existence in reality - a side bonus that doesn't affect the definition itself, and therefore even a definition that exists doesn't seem different to me from its companion) (Where is the mistake?)
2) Even if we say these are two different definitions, why is one greater than its companion?
Thanks!
This is not a different definition but a recognition of something different. It is not different in its definition but in that it exists (which is not related to the definition)
Different recognition - I understand, thank you.
One big recognition from her friend, why?
I have no explanation. There is this feeling. I think I explain the status of this assumption there.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
