The entirety argument states that there is got to be more more to it than this. This is not everything that there is to it. What's more, is something that is not, by definition. When we say it is not, that is to say it is not "here" and not that it is not in existence. But where is it, then? The entirety argument concludes that it "is" and surely there is more to it than this and that this is not all that there is to it.
it’s a copy of a copy of a copy: sounds like a good definition of crap. In other words it’s like an illusion of an illusion (rather than illusion of reality). Why do I make myself watch it because I think it will becoming the fabric of our consciousness? Interestingly, this post too become a self-referencing garbage.
snow is white is still true, and podium is for standing, and socrates is for snub-nosing, and alexander is for student of student of socrates, and a = a and 2+2=4 is for declaring true self-evidently … and “what is philosophy for?” you ask?
This state of affairs seems to press that having an inadequate and incomplete reality with a perfect idea of it is advantageous to having nothing and a mere perfect idea. The former is much closer to its perfect reality form than the latter.
The school of thought that promotes reducing things down to common forms. Reductionists tend to like ideas like category, essence, form, idea. This school of people oppose productionists.
Productionism: Seeing special, particular, peculiar, and distinguishing features of particulars, peculiars, distinquished and personalized. Productionists see everything differently and try to see things differently. The focus on everything is in a way narrowed to only the immediate and practical and at hand. The school undermines understanding and relation of everything to everything to the relationship of the everything and the individual.