Existentialism, Descartism, and restricting discussion to the thread subject!!

[A & B]

Ponder all your existential querries here, where they ought to be.

No more hijacking threads with this philosophical debate.

[A & B]

Originally Posted by stinker

No need to get upset.

Let's start from the beginning, you and A & B can both reply if you are as done as you have emotionally claimed you are then it can just be A & B and I.

I am assuming that you both agree with Descartes statement "I think therefore I am".

This statement acknowledges four axioms.

(1) Existence exists ("therefore I am")
(2) I (or you) exist ("I")
(3) You are concious ("I think")
(4) You exist in a definite way ("I am")

This statement also acknowledges the law of identity; (2) + (4) = (5) The law of identity, A is A, things are what they are.

(2) + (3) = (6) My (your) conciousness is a thing that exists.
(5) => (7) Either the primacy of conciousness is true or the primacy of existence is true, not both.
(6) + (7) = (8) The primacy of existence is true. (I think therefore I am- anything that is concious must exist; why? Because existence has primacy over conciousness)

(5) => (9) Reality is either objective or subjective, not both.
(8) + (9) = Reality is objective.

Now, if I were arguing philosophy on my own terms I would have included the axioms (X) Other things exist , and (Y) Other things exist in a definite way. But, you guys don't want to recognise these axioms, you need them demonstrated to you and so I had to begin with something you do recognise- a statement by Descartes that only recognises the first four axioms.
However, we now reach the end of this problem because from those axioms we are able to demonstrate to ourselves that reality is objective, now that we have quallified this position (using only axioms you already profess to recognise) it should be acceptable to include these new axioms.

(X) + (Y) is another way of deriving the law of identity

(Y) + (9) = All things that exist have a definite nature.

So, if we are all finished pounding our fists on the table we can begin to agree on the subject of metaphysics; most importantly on the law of identity, the primacy of existence and then the objectivity of reality.

Do we need to go on to epistemology or is solving your metaphysical crisis enough?

Originally Posted by jehst

Even if an object does not presently exist, it can be THOUGHT of, which doesn't summon it into existence. It's "there" and non-existing at the same time. You're basically abusing a deficit in the English language because we only have a single, one-dimensional word for existence. If you think of a giant gold cube, it exists, but it's not IN existence. There's nothing definite about anything outside of yourself.

I'll even do a little work for you.

[FatFat Bastard]

what do those 3 complex words stand for?

[A & B]

What 3 big words?

[FatFat Bastard]

existentialism /descartism...
wait a minute
there is only 2 complex words in here...
i know what the word "discussion" means

[Fuelish]

Originally Posted by FatFat Bastard

existentialism /descartism...
wait a minute
there is only 2 complex words in here...
i know what the word "discussion" means

existentialism : A philosophy that emphasizes the uniqueness and isolation of the individual experience in a hostile or indifferent universe, regards human existence as unexplainable, and stresses freedom of choice and responsibility for the consequences of one's acts.

descartism.....am assuming it would be following the ideas of Rene' Descartes.
French mathematician, philosopher, and scientist who is considered the father of analytic geometry and the founder of modern rationalism. His main works, Meditations on First Philosophy (1641) and Principles of Philosophy (1644), include the famous dictum "I think, therefore I am."

.....it all sounds good from here (stuck in "the buckle of the bible belt" )

[coontang]

Yeah some people are getting annoying with this existentialism stuff. You can't debate anything unless you have some common ground with somebody, some premise that you both accept, and that's not possible when somebody is constantly saying "but how do you KNOW??" Keep that unconstructive stuff in it's own thread.

[xer0xed]

Existence is dictated by function.

[Stinker]

I don't feel challenged as yet. Jehst is accusing me of "abusing the english language" because he feels that I am not giving propper recognition to the difference between existing and being thought of- I don't know why, never did I assert that something exists because it can be thought of, in fact I disagree entirely- something exists when it exists, the subject of thoughts may not exist but thoughts themselves do exist. Actually I would say this difference is essential to my argument.

Regardless. Some think they are clever because they ask the hard questions, personally I have more respect for those who answer the hard questions and the answer to this question came about twenty-three hundred years ago when Aristotle recognised the primacy of existence.

[jehst]

Originally Posted by Stinker

I don't feel challenged as yet. Jehst is accusing me of "abusing the english language" because he feels that I am not giving propper recognition to the difference between existing and being thought of- I don't know why, never did I assert that something exists because it can be thought of, in fact I disagree entirely- something exists when it exists, the subject of thoughts may not exist but thoughts themselves do exist.

Regardless. Some think they are clever because they ask the hard questions, personally I have more respect for those who answer the hard questions and the answer to this question came about twenty-three hundred years ago when Aristotle recognised the primacy of existence.

So let's recalibrate our standings here. You are saying:

I know that jehst exists and that he is not being imagined because ______________________.

[Stinker]

Originally Posted by jehst

So let's recalibrate our standings here. You are saying:

I know that jehst exists and that he is not being imagined because ______________________.

I know you exist because I can varify your existence and your definite nature against other existents, for example I see other existents interract with you on this board not only as an existent but as I would expect them to react to this specific existent, in other words others react to you the same way I do which implies a definite nature.
Your next objection is going to be "how do you know those others exist, or how do you know the BB.com boards exist?" The answer again is that I varify their existents against other existents.
You can keep going with this game, you can keep going until you raise the same objection to every percieved existent, you can put to me that everything is a fabrication of my imagination.
However, as long as I know for a fact that there is at least one existent and that it is concious then I am able to varify all other existents against it- The suggestion that everything could be a product of my imagination implies one concious existent- me, and from this we can derive the law of identity because I know and acknowledge that I exist as myself and not something else, I must exist as myself and not something else because at this point there are no "something else's" to exist as.

Because we now acknowledge the law of identity we can now acknowledge the primacy of existence based on the fact that my conciousness exists.

Based on the primacy of existence and the law of identity we can conclude that reality is objective and not subjective as you would have me believe that it could be.

We can't argue for primacy of conciousness because existence is not created by conciousness because that conciousness would first have to exist. We do therefore know that conciousness does not produce existents rather it percieves them.
Or if you want to talk about this another way; you are arguing that I can't be sure that what I percieve is real, that I am not imagining these things- this however does not acknowledge the fundamental difference between perception and imagination, where perception requires there to be something else to percieve. I would also note that imagination cannot create on it's own, imagination first requires perception; a being aware only of itself can't imagine because the imagination only functions on stimulous, not without, so by the very nature of the mind we can be sure not only that there are existents outside of ourselves but that we have percieved them at least once.

Your argument falters because of metaphysical primacy. Subjectivism is not a sound philosophy.

[xer0xed]

Everything is real. Some realities are just more useful and productive than others. Hence why we put schizophrenics on medication.

[A & B]

Originally Posted by xer0xed

Everything is real. Some realities are just more useful and productive than others. Hence why we put schizophrenics on medication.

Nothing is real.

[jehst]

Originally Posted by Stinker

Or if you want to talk about this another way; you are arguing that I can't be sure that what I percieve is real, that I am not imagining these things- this however does not acknowledge the fundamental difference between perception and imagination, where perception requires there to be something else to percieve. I would also note that imagination cannot create on it's own, imagination first requires perception; a being aware only of itself can't imagine because the imagination only functions on stimulous, not without, so by the very nature of the mind we can be sure not only that there are existents outside of ourselves but that we have percieved them at least on

OK. Imagine a person who could see only two colors, black and white. You give him a white canvas with a set of varying paints, all of which he would identify as black. Then you tell him to imagine the most beautiful thing that he has ever percieved and then to draw it as accurately as he can so long as the canvas is completely filled with paint. Is he really able to draw anything?

The only reason we can both describe the same thing in similar ways is because we are almost 100% identical. A deaf man would describe a whistle being blown into his ear at full intensity quite differently than a person with perfect hearing would, wouldn't he?

See, you cannot separate imagination from perception. Imagination IS perception. Are you aware of the fact that you've never touched anything in your life? My fingers are not touching the keyboard right now. I am simply imagining that they are. Electrons and protons cannot "rub" each other. When you eat an apple, it has never touched your body.

I know it's hard to grasp, Stinker, but you've never seen, heard, smelled, touched, or tasted heard anything in your entire life. Thus, perception is indistinguishable from imagination.

[xer0xed]

Originally Posted by A & B

Nothing is real.

Either way, it's all semantics. Everything is just as real or just as much of an illusion as anything else. Some things just work better than others. The "others" should be ignored.

[dannytaki]

Stinker I haven't completely analyzed your first post but I will, I'm just real tired right now. I just kind of skimmed through it, but I wanted to know if the fact that the "I" is not something permanent would change the argument? Because we don't really know a permanent "I" exists. We do know something is seeing, not necessarily that a permenanet "I" is seeing.

[xer0xed]

Originally Posted by dannytaki

Stinker I haven't completely analyzed your first post but I will, I'm just real tired right now. I just kind of skimmed through it, but I wanted to know if the fact that the "I" is not something permanent would change the argument? Because we don't really know a permanent "I" exists. We do know something is seeing, not necessarily that a permenanet "I" is seeing.

Correct. There is an inherent physical/biological perception delay to top it off.

[Stinker]

Originally Posted by jehst

OK. Imagine a person who could see only two colors, black and white. You give him a white canvas with a set of varying paints, all of which he would identify as black. Then you tell him to imagine the most beautiful thing that he has ever percieved and then to draw it as accurately as he can so long as the canvas is completely filled with paint. Is he really able to draw anything?

The only reason we can both describe the same thing in similar ways is because we are almost 100% identical. A deaf man would describe a whistle being blown into his ear at full intensity quite differently than a person with perfect hearing would, wouldn't he?

See, you cannot separate imagination from perception. Imagination IS perception. Are you aware of the fact that you've never touched anything in your life? My fingers are not touching the keyboard right now. I am simply imagining that they are. Electrons and protons cannot "rub" each other. When you eat an apple, it has never touched your body.

I know it's hard to grasp, Stinker, but you've never seen, heard, smelled, touched, or tasted heard anything in your entire life. Thus, perception is indistinguishable from imagination.

This is a curious post indeed. Perception is highly and completely distingishable from imagination, you may care to accuse me of abusing the english language but what of this post? You tell me that touch does not exist because particles do not meet surface to surface- Your supposed disproof of the sensation of touch is a mediocre attempt. Touch very much exists, it is a sensation we feel when our parts come in close enough contaxt with something to transfer force one way or the other. It is irrelevant that my paricles are not touching the keys, because my particles are not touching eachother, nor are the particles of the keys touching eachother- perhaps you could abuse this fact and attempt to prove that solids do not exist.

I have indeed seen, I have heard and smelled, touched and tasted every day of my life, and so have you- Do you know why your supposed disproof of the senses fails? Because contact between particles is not required for these senses to exist. For the sake of my own entertainment I will formalize your argument, you may choose to take something from it but you don't have to.

1. Particles can not touch
2. Human beings can sense touch
3. Therefore human beings are imagining their sense of touch

The problem- the definition of "touch" changes between the first and second premise. In (1) touch means having no space between, in (2) touch means the sensation that we feel when we put our hand to something. If the sensation of touch relied on the first definition then the argument would be solid, but as it stands your argument commits the fallacy of equivocation.

Imagination is dependant on perception, but perception debends on outside existents of which the senses percieve.

Originally Posted by dannytaki

Stinker I haven't completely analyzed your first post but I will, I'm just real tired right now. I just kind of skimmed through it, but I wanted to know if the fact that the "I" is not something permanent would change the argument? Because we don't really know a permanent "I" exists. We do know something is seeing, not necessarily that a permenanet "I" is seeing.

In my opinion the fact that the "I" is not perminent adds immeasurable strength to the argument, because the primacy of existence dictates then that there must be something that exists which is not "I" because nothingness can not exist. You could almost add axiom (X) in after (8), however I would argue that "I" is perminent and would therefore not argue for the inclusion of axiom (X) at an earlier stage than after the derivation of the objectivity of reality.
...Well, being an axiom I would normally argue that it comes much earlier in the process but given that I am trying to appease a crowd that chooses not to recognise axioms I have to first derive the objectivity of reality.

[jehst]

Originally Posted by Stinker

I have indeed seen, I have heard and smelled, touched and tasted every day of my life, and so have you- Do you know why your supposed disproof of the senses fails? Because contact between particles is not required for these senses to exist. For the sake of my own entertainment I will formalize your argument, you may choose to take something from it but you don't have to.
.

You still don't get it.

If your senses merely RELATE you to a particle, then there's no way that you've actually EXPERIENCED the object in any tangible way. You've only RELATED yourself too it. You've only "sensed" the energies of it due to intense proximity. You have not truly.."seen" the object for lack of a better word. You're like a blind person touching someone's face in order to figure out what he looks like. What people don't realize is that looking at a person with your eyes is just as futile. When you've spent your entire life merely RELATING to things and then comparing those relations with each other, you have NO authority to say that something is "objectively" existing.

[Stinker]

This discussion has been entertaining but we are not headed toward resolution. Let me assure you that I do understand your points no matter how frequently you assert that I do not, it's just that they do not hold nearly as much weight as you consider them to, in fact metaphysically I can't say you have offered much relevant discussion at all. X-mas is a busy time and I'm sorry but I won't be lending much time time to posting. Have a merry X-mas.

[jehst]

Originally Posted by Stinker

This discussion has been entertaining but we are not headed toward resolution. Let me assure you that I do understand your points no matter how frequently you assert that I do not, it's just that they do not hold nearly as much weight as you consider them to, in fact metaphysically I can't say you have offered much relevant discussion at all. X-mas is a busy time and I'm sorry but I won't be lending much time time to posting. Have a merry X-mas.

Maybe that's a good idea..considering that I might've just been talking to myself this whole time.

[delta9]

Originally Posted by jehst

If your senses merely RELATE you to a particle, then there's no way that you've actually EXPERIENCED the object in any tangible way. You've only RELATED yourself too it. You've only "sensed" the energies of it due to intense proximity. You have not truly.."seen" the object for lack of a better word. You're like a blind person touching someone's face in order to figure out what he looks like. What people don't realize is that looking at a person with your eyes is just as futile. When you've spent your entire life merely RELATING to things and then comparing those relations with each other, you have NO authority to say that something is "objectively" existing.

I touch my keyboard, but that experience is only a relation to the keyboard and I haven't actually experienced the keyboard?

[jehst]

Originally Posted by delta9

I touch my keyboard, but that experience is only a relation to the keyboard and I haven't actually experienced the keyboard?

Its far from theory. Its in the books. When you punch someone in your face your fist never hits their face. All the damage is done from your fist getting way too close to their face way too fast and then having the protons and neutrons repel and THAT is what ****s their **** up. Its like trying to put two superstrong opposite magnets together. They are going to violently repel and if theres a bunch of cells and **** around then they are going to get ****ed uip.

EDIT: That was kind of a sloppy example. I don't know why I've been thinking so violently lately but instead of a punch, think of a quarter resting in your palm. Its actually hovering slightly above your palm.

[delta9]

Originally Posted by jehst

Its far from theory. Its in the books. When you punch someone in your face your fist never hits their face. All the damage is done from your fist getting way too close to their face way too fast and then having the protons and neutrons repel and THAT is what ****s their **** up. Its like trying to put two superstrong opposite magnets together. They are going to violently repel and if theres a bunch of cells and **** around then they are going to get ****ed uip.

the physical seperation between me and you, does it really exist?

[jehst]

Originally Posted by delta9

the physical seperation between me and you, does it really exist?

That's interesting that you bring that up. Tell me more about why you said that.

[delta9]

Originally Posted by jehst

That's interesting that you bring that up. Tell me more about why you said that.

to ask you why you have confidence in the physical separation between me and you.

[xer0xed]

....I like how jehst has been right in his statement of facts but no one yet has realized it.

*snicker*

[delta9]

Originally Posted by xer0xed

....I like how jehst has been right in his statement of facts but no one yet has realized it.

*snicker*

booga bogga boo dam do ga la ma ru sha ma la tsu ka

[Kramer25]

Let me illustrate for you gentlemen, if I may, another example similar to the black and white painting idea suggested a few posts up: (This came from Plato).....Imagine if you will four people stuck in a cave. They are all restrained so tightly that they can not turn their bodies or heads more than two inches in either direction. They are facing a blank cave wall, and thats all they can see. There is a roaring fire on a ledge above them, illuminating the cave. Every so often, their captors will walk across the cave with some objects, varying in size (sometimes a rock, sometimes an animal of some variety) which in turn casts a shadow of said object upon the wall. This is these peoples existance, all they know in the world is the shadow of these objects, nothing more. One day a captive breaks free, and runs out into daylight. He comes back for his friends to explain to them the world outside the confines of their chains and blank wall and the other captives are so confused and distraught by what they hear that they kill the man. There are certainly bounds on ones imagination.

[jackfast1]

Originally Posted by A & B

Ponder all your existential querries here, where they ought to be.

No more hijacking threads with this philosophical debate.

do you consider yourself inescapably free?
does this knowledge produce angst?