|
dorkus
Registered: 04/12/04
Posts: 1,511
|
Re: Irrational Skepticism *DELETED* [Re: Veritas]
#5191744 - 01/17/06 04:16 PM (18 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Post deleted by dorkus
Reason for deletion: .
|
Veritas
Registered: 04/15/05
Posts: 11,089
|
Re: Irrational Skepticism [Re: dorkus]
#5191797 - 01/17/06 04:28 PM (18 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
The name for our particular variety of human being is "homo sapiens sapiens," or (roughly) "thinking thinking man."
We are the first humans to be capable of thinking about our own thoughts. Sometimes I'm not sure this is an improvement.
|
dorkus
Registered: 04/12/04
Posts: 1,511
|
Re: Irrational Skepticism *DELETED* [Re: Veritas]
#5191826 - 01/17/06 04:40 PM (18 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Post deleted by dorkus
Reason for deletion: .
|
Veritas
Registered: 04/15/05
Posts: 11,089
|
Re: Irrational Skepticism [Re: dorkus]
#5191837 - 01/17/06 04:43 PM (18 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Who else would do it for us?
Are you saying that we are not capable of knowing whether we are thinking, or that we, as individuals, may not be the ones doing the thinking?
|
dr0mni
My Own Messiah
Registered: 08/21/04
Posts: 2,921
Loc: USF Tampa, Fl
Last seen: 16 years, 9 months
|
|
Quote:
SkorpivoMusterion said: "We know that we know nothing," they chatter, blanking out the fact that they are claiming knowledge -- "There are no absolutes," they chatter, blanking out the fact that they are uttering an absolute -- "You cannot prove that you exist or that you're conscious," they chatter, blanking out the fact that proof presupposes existence, consciousness and a complex chain of knowledge: the existence of something to know, or a consciousness able to know it, and of a knowledge that has learned to distinguish between such concepts as the proved and the unproved. Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
Exactly...
|
fireworks_god
Sexy.Butt.McDanger
Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 2 months
|
Re: Irrational Skepticism [Re: wilshire]
#5194300 - 01/18/06 08:23 AM (18 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
wilshire said: it's coming from my personal experience. people who claim to be non-existent usually have no idea what they are talking about... they're usually trying to hard to adhere to a philosophy they don't understand and don't honestly believe.
Sorry, but saying that it is coming from your personal experience is absolutely no basis upon which to place such a statement in a philosophical context. Your personal experience is exactly what is being called into question here. *claps hands and beckons you to wake up*
Why should we trust your personal experience, that leads you to state that others usually have no idea what they are talking about, when it is just as likely that you are the one who has absolutely no idea what they are talking about?
I'm sorry, but you can't get away with making a vauge, generalized statement that has nothing to validate it and act as if it is a leading point to pronounce in this discussion. You have provided no basis so that we can assume that "these people" "didn't understand" "some philosophy" "because I feel that they didn't".
Quote:
the original post also referred to existence.
You associated the statement "you cannot prove that you are conscious" as being the same as saying that one believes that they do not exist. This is clearly evidenced by the fact that you directly quoted "you cannot prove that you are conscious" and then addressed it with your vauge, unsubstantiated generality.
Do you discern the difference between the statement that one cannot prove one exists and that one believes that one does not exist? You might find Dictionary.com to be an exquisite resource that will assist you in understanding the definitions of the words within each sentence, so that you can see that each setence means completely different things.
Quote:
it means exactly what it says, and it's probably one of the most easily disproven ideas in all of philosophy.
By all means, then, if it is such an easily disproven idea, even though you have neglected to elaborate on what the idea itself is (it simply does not appear to be a concept that is represented by three measly words), do enlighten us by demonstrating to us how easily disproven it is.
Quote:
phony intellectual posturing.
Asking pertinent questions relevant to my arguement (as well as yours, no doubt) is phony, intellectual posturing? What do you classify evasion of answering a direct question as? I'm contemplating if it is either laziness or, perhaps, evidence of making unsubstantiated claims that one doesn't even understand?
I directly asked you what you think is being expressed by a three word statement that, on its own, does not effectively represent the concept that one who would make such statement is attempting to convey. Simply, what is this idea that is so easily disproven and is merely the result of foolish people who can't understand "some Eastern philosophy text"?
Peace.
-------------------- If I should die this very moment I wouldn't fear For I've never known completeness Like being here Wrapped in the warmth of you Loving every breath of you
|
wilshire
free radical
Registered: 05/11/05
Posts: 2,421
Loc: SE PA
Last seen: 14 years, 2 months
|
|
do enlighten us by demonstrating to us how easily disproven it is.
in order to contemplate your existence, you must be able to think. you cannot think, or do anything else, if you do not exist.
take the statement itself:
"i do not exist".
what is the "i" to which the speaker refers? what is the speaker?
what do you mean by "existence is an illusion"?
ps. just to clear things up, i wasn't calling your question phony intellectual posturing. i was answering the question.
|
it stars saddam
Satan
Registered: 05/19/05
Posts: 15,571
Loc: Spahn Ranch
|
Re: Irrational Skepticism [Re: wilshire]
#5195862 - 01/18/06 05:41 PM (18 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
wilshire said: what is the "i" to which the speaker refers?
ego
|
shroomydan
exshroomerite
Registered: 07/04/04
Posts: 4,126
Loc: In the woods
|
|
"Ego" is the Latin word for "I". That's really all it means.
|
wilshire
free radical
Registered: 05/11/05
Posts: 2,421
Loc: SE PA
Last seen: 14 years, 2 months
|
|
ego
meaning what in this context?
|
it stars saddam
Satan
Registered: 05/19/05
Posts: 15,571
Loc: Spahn Ranch
|
Re: Irrational Skepticism [Re: wilshire]
#5196476 - 01/18/06 08:19 PM (18 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
wilshire said: ego
meaning what in this context?
It's a survival mechanism.
|
wilshire
free radical
Registered: 05/11/05
Posts: 2,421
Loc: SE PA
Last seen: 14 years, 2 months
|
|
that isn't a definition.
|
fireworks_god
Sexy.Butt.McDanger
Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 2 months
|
Re: Irrational Skepticism [Re: wilshire]
#5198253 - 01/19/06 09:32 AM (18 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
wilshire said: in order to contemplate your existence, you must be able to think. you cannot think, or do anything else, if you do not exist.
I fail to understand how this disproves the statement in question.
Quote:
wilshire said:
What does the statement "existance is an illusion" mean to you?
it means exactly what it says, and it's probably one of the most easily disproven ideas in all of philosophy.
Your demonstration is effective at determining that one exists, but it does not reveal in any way how the concept of one's existance involving a mistaken perception of that existance.
In fact, I would go as far as to state that there is absolutely no manner by which one could demonstrate that one's existance involves erroneous perceptions of reality. Is existance itself a mistaken perception? Does "I think, therefore I am" really prove otherwise?
Quote:
take the statement itself:
"i do not exist".
This is not the statement that you referred to as one of the most easiest ideas disproven by philosophy. Refer to my direct quotation of that aspect of our discussion for confirmation of this.
Quote:
what do you mean by "existence is an illusion"?
I've never proclaimed to mean anything by it in this thread. Are you asking what I think it means?
In actuality, I wouldn't personally think that existance itself is an illusion; however, I would state that our experience of existance is an illusion. This is currently being discussed in Skorpivo's other current thread.
Quote:
ps. just to clear things up, i wasn't calling your question phony intellectual posturing. i was answering the question.
Being insanely tired dulls my awareness. I need to pay more attention. I realize now what was meant.
Peace.
-------------------- If I should die this very moment I wouldn't fear For I've never known completeness Like being here Wrapped in the warmth of you Loving every breath of you
|
wilshire
free radical
Registered: 05/11/05
Posts: 2,421
Loc: SE PA
Last seen: 14 years, 2 months
|
|
Is existance itself a mistaken perception?
no. a non-existent entity cannot make mistakes (or think, or do anything else).
Does "I think, therefore I am" really prove otherwise?
yes.
|
SkorpivoMusterion
Livin in theTwilight Zone...
Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 9,954
Loc: You can't spell fungus wi...
|
|
In actuality, I wouldn't personally think that existance itself is an illusion; however, I would state that our experience of existance is an illusion. This is currently being discussed in Skorpivo's other current thread.
Here we have another case of irrational skepticism.
You agree that existence is not an illusion, and then you proceed to state that our experience of existence is an illusion, blanking out the fact that experience itself exists, therefore it is not an illusion. Objectively, our experiences are all reality, because of the fact that they exist. Existence exists, ergo, they cannot be deemed unreality. To state that one aspect of existence is reality, and that another aspect is [somehow] "unreality" is to deny the fact that an entity is the sum of its parts - and the fact that reality is one integrated whole.
-------------------- Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.
|
fireworks_god
Sexy.Butt.McDanger
Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 2 months
|
|
Quote:
SkorpivoMusterion said: Here we have another case of irrational skepticism.
As a result of your perception, perhaps.
Quote:
You agree that existence is not an illusion, and then you proceed to state that our experience of existence is an illusion, blanking out the fact that experience itself exists, therefore it is not an illusion.
The fact that experience itself exists does not demonstrate that experience is not an illusion. Illusion itself means a concept, belief, or perception that is erroneous, which means it contains or is derived from error. Stating that experience is the result of a perception derived from or containing errors does not mean that experience itself does not exist. An illusion exists, just as any other aspect of reality does. I have never made a statement otherwise.
Now where does this purported irrationality lie, exactly?
Peace.
-------------------- If I should die this very moment I wouldn't fear For I've never known completeness Like being here Wrapped in the warmth of you Loving every breath of you
|
wilshire
free radical
Registered: 05/11/05
Posts: 2,421
Loc: SE PA
Last seen: 14 years, 2 months
|
|
do you agree or disagree with the statement:
"non-existent entities cannot make perceptions or form thoughts."
???
|
shroomydan
exshroomerite
Registered: 07/04/04
Posts: 4,126
Loc: In the woods
|
|
Quote:
The fact that experience itself exists does not demonstrate that experience is not an illusion. Illusion itself means a concept, belief, or perception that is erroneous, which means it contains or is derived from error.
If one were to have an illusion, then one would be experiencing the illusion.
The point is that experience is real even if the content of the experience is an illusion.
"I hallucinate, therefore I am." -shroomydan
|
MushmanTheManic
Stranger
Registered: 04/21/05
Posts: 4,587
|
|
In actuality, I wouldn't personally think that existance itself is an illusion; however, I would state that our experience of existance is an illusion. This is currently being discussed in Skorpivo's other current thread.
I disagree with the word "illusion" describe all our perceptions of reality. If our perception is based on a false stimulus, then I think its accurate to label it an "illusion", but the majority of our perceptions are derived from stimulus which has some basis in reality, which I would label "representations", "models", "maps", "percepts", etc.
|
|