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

---

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.

---

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.

wilshire said:

what is the "i" to which the speaker refers?

---

wilshire said:

ego

meaning what in this context?

---

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.

---

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.

---

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"?

---

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.

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.

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.

---