|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sat Mar 24, 2007 5:44 pm
Kulshedra The Resurrection I can never know more than that I exist. Even that isn't true. Oh, and for the record, no, I'm not saying that this isn't the truest truth. I'm saying that there are no truths. Nothing can lead the category of nothing.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 24, 2007 9:18 pm
That what you perceive as reality is no more substantial than the supposed delusions of a schizophrenic is exactly what brings this up. However, to think even if it is not free thought, you must exist on some level. Even if that level is simply as some extension of another's mind and will.
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Resurrection Vice Captain
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 24, 2007 10:21 pm
hmm, searching for the truest of all truths will only lead to lies, false hopes, and pretentions.
Rather than seeking to know all that is thought to be seen, we should merely see what is thought to be known and let the gravity of it all keeps us grounded
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 24, 2007 10:58 pm
I think those last two statements are right in a general sense.
However, Resurrection, who says you exist at all? I don't think that there's even any definite proof that you do. The main thought around that is that you may or may not exist, but it doesn't really matter at this point. You seem to exist, so you might as well see what you can do with it. Besides, would you rather go through your life regardless of the true reality of it all, or end up in misery trying to unravel the deceptions?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 24, 2007 11:00 pm
Random thought I just had. I remembered this one picture (bonus points to anyone that can find it) I saw once. This is what I remember of it, anyway.
There was a man standing on a beach, I think it was. There's a great expanse of stars above him. He yells out at the stars, "I am significant!", then slumps his shoulders, and says, "Cried the grain of sand. . . ."
Something to that effect, anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 25, 2007 4:50 pm
I think the problem is that I'm having double standards for certain definitions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Resurrection Vice Captain
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 25, 2007 6:12 pm
fairynuff Shikalee fairynuff I know I exist but I do find myself reaching out and touching objects, especially in new places abroad etc, to make sure they exist and I'm not just "seeing" them. A very strange concept, that what I see may just be a figment of my minds imagination. confused How do we, if questioning an object's existence, know that for sure we do? I presume I exist because I can affect the people and things around me. I can stamp on a flower and kill it,I can talk and be heard by other people. Wether I only exist inside my own mind and the whole world is some very detailed dream, I couldnt tell you.(or is this your dream that I'm in?) But I suppose actions or movements affecting another object or person (ie a cat stopping the traffic when it crosses the road but not a cat just crossing the road and having no effect on anything), have a direct relation in my mind as to what I instantly believe exists and what I question. I've never thought about it in depth before but I think thats one of my instant reactions to things. If you are not sure that flower exists, but you know that you exist by touching something that you are not sure exists, how is that a sure thing? As for that last question, OMG that has crossed my mind so many times. What if, everyone was some projection in my mind? But I hate to think that. I like people. Ah, well, I feel that if I am affecting an object, I can only know that I exist if I surely know it exists.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 25, 2007 6:13 pm
The Resurrection Shikalee I don't see how thinking is being. For something to do something it must first exist on some level. After all if something didn't exist, how could it ever hope to accomplish anything? How is this conclusion drawn? How do we know that we are really doing anything? How do we know, that when we die, we just don't entirely lose perception, and existence, because perhaps, we never did exist in the first place? What is an "accomplishment"?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 25, 2007 6:17 pm
Kulshedra Shikalee I am guessing it is my age that caused you to think that I hadn't already looked into this. I may have to remove it to prevent future assumptions from people in the guild. =_=; Sorry, I just felt like mentioning, that I saw no underestimation here. And, yes, I realize ageism is an issue. The fact that everyone knows that I'm a 9th grader definitely causes them to think I am without the ability to think logically. The fact that everyone knows that I spent years studying philosophy abroad would cause them to think that I had a knowledge of philosophy beyond what they would be able to comprehend. Fortunately, neither of these facts are true. Anyway, I believe somewhere on this page is a more full explanation than I have time to type out right now: Just]http://www.gaiaonline.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=24087411&page=2#1125981892Just because we think doesn't mean that thought throughly is in existence. Cogito ergo sum jumps from "I think" to "I exist." It is hard to say that just because we process, we exist. It is just as hard to prove as anything else "in existence." I did see you post arguments very similar to mine, but you never actually acknowledged it. You digressed to "divine beings."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 25, 2007 6:21 pm
Shikalee The Resurrection Shikalee I don't see how thinking is being. For something to do something it must first exist on some level. After all if something didn't exist, how could it ever hope to accomplish anything? How is this conclusion drawn? How do we know that we are really doing anything? How do we know, that when we die, we just don't entirely lose perception, and existence, because perhaps, we never did exist in the first place? What is an "accomplishment"? As stated above, I had double standards with my definition of "exist".
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Resurrection Vice Captain
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 25, 2007 6:42 pm
The Resurrection Shikalee The Resurrection Shikalee I don't see how thinking is being. For something to do something it must first exist on some level. After all if something didn't exist, how could it ever hope to accomplish anything? How is this conclusion drawn? How do we know that we are really doing anything? How do we know, that when we die, we just don't entirely lose perception, and existence, because perhaps, we never did exist in the first place? What is an "accomplishment"? As stated above, I had double standards with my definition of "exist". Ah, we all do that from time to time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 25, 2007 7:01 pm
Shikalee Just because we think doesn't mean that thought throughly is in existence. Cogito ergo sum jumps from "I think" to "I exist." It is hard to say that just because we process, we exist. It is just as hard to prove as anything else "in existence." I thought I mentioned something like that somewhere, but if you didn't find it, maybe I didn't. Anyway, it ties into what I'm sure I said somewhere, that it depends on what you perceive to be satisfactory evidence. If you can doubt that your thoughts don't really exist, than there's nothing anyone can do to prove that you exist. If you insist that your thoughts aren't necessarily within existence . . . well, all right then, you don't exist. It's up to you to decide for yourself whether or not you actually exist. Again, I refer to the last sentence in that link I made. Shikalee I did see you post arguments very similar to mine, but you never actually acknowledged it. What do you mean here? Which arguments, acknowledge what, and how did I fail to acknowledge it? Shikalee You digressed to "divine beings." The reason I brought up the divine beings argument was because it had been brought up in the thread that post was originally made in. No one has really brought it up here, so, yes, it is currently irrelevant. Realize that that post was not made for this one, so it may be slightly out of context here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2007 7:28 pm
truth: i "exist" in some way or form within some "world" whether it be a physical, spiritual, and/or mental one itself just as i could or am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2007 7:33 pm
Kajitora truth: i "exist" in some way or form within some "world" whether it be a physical, spiritual, and/or mental one itself just as i could or am All right, that seems like a sound assumption, but out of sheer curiosity, did you read anything else in this post besides the title and first post? Edit: Okay, that sounds too harsh. What I meant was, are you saying this in response to anything above, or just throwing in your initial reaction to the main theme of the post?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2007 7:57 pm
Kulshedra Shikalee Just because we think doesn't mean that thought throughly is in existence. Cogito ergo sum jumps from "I think" to "I exist." It is hard to say that just because we process, we exist. It is just as hard to prove as anything else "in existence." I thought I mentioned something like that somewhere, but if you didn't find it, maybe I didn't. Anyway, it ties into what I'm sure I said somewhere, that it depends on what you perceive to be satisfactory evidence. If you can doubt that your thoughts don't really exist, than there's nothing anyone can do to prove that you exist. If you insist that your thoughts aren't necessarily within existence . . . well, all right then, you don't exist. It's up to you to decide for yourself whether or not you actually exist. Again, I refer to the last sentence in that link I made. You had mentioned it, but you had not exactly made an arguement for or against it. Actually, it is not up to our decision. To say that is condoning the idea that people can lie to themselves and be in denial. If we were certain that we did not exist, and that this were all some sort of virtual aspect, created by a single blip of thought in spacetime, and that at the end of its recession all that ever existed would then cease, it would be as though it had never existed in the first place. It is not my personal opinion or belief that we do not exist, however, I am open to that possibility. Kulshedra Shikalee I did see you post arguments very similar to mine, but you never actually acknowledged it. What do you mean here? Which arguments, acknowledge what, and how did I fail to acknowledge it? Well, you had disagreed with my concept that there as a possibility that we did not exist. You had used as evidence, Cogito ergo sum. The "logical syllogism" turns out to be quite the logical fallacy, and almost falls as evidence to nothing, except the fact that humans, indisputably, are easily fooled by what they do not see. Kulshedra Shikalee You digressed to "divine beings." The reason I brought up the divine beings argument was because it had been brought up in the thread that post was originally made in. No one has really brought it up here, so, yes, it is currently irrelevant. Realize that that post was not made for this one, so it may be slightly out of context here. It did lack relevance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
