The Philosophy thread

[Imitation Saccharin]

To not exist, I would have to be omniscient. As all I know and could know would have to be sourced from me.

What if your mind only generates ideas as you encounter them?
Further, if the universe is finite, you are not omniscient even if your mind does generate a universe's worth of interactions. You're just very smart.

That I am unsure of the nature of my existence confirms that I exist.

Are you sure about that?

 

[Drift-Bus]

Yes, we do know these things. Look it up.

String theory is unproven. It's actually something of a stretch to even call it a theory.

Not string theory, quantum mechanics. You might not think so, but they are different

EDIT: To clarify, it's the space and energy of atoms I'm referring to when I say "vibrating energy".

 

[SenseOfTumour]

I'd certainly be happy to force feed Ms Dahl the supermodel til she finally got a human figure back, yes.

Oh, sorry, I thought this was the Fill a Sophie thread

/getsmycoat

 

[Sisyphus0]

Why are so many people quoting augustine/descartes with the "I think therefore I am" argument. It is full of daring premises, such that it would be, for all practical purposes, impossible to prove these said premises and thus negating the arguments soundness and ultimately its validity.

The main problem with assuming that one thinks is that they assume they are the ones that are actually thinking. It is obvious that something we call thinking is going on, but we cannot say that we are the ones doing it. The "I think" statement implies what Nietzsche called an 'ego', meaning that something is doing the thinking rather than thinking simply happening on its own.

A further problem is we assume what thinking is, how can we discern it from a 'feeling'. To 'know' what things are we must compare prior learning to contemporary events, to know what thinking is one must do such a comparison to assign the current sensation a category. Meaning, that to know what thinking is we have to think about it. Logical fallacy anyone? Specifically a circular argument or begging the question. We can never know what thinking is, becasue we have to thinking about it to begin, which obviously isn't a valid method of deduction.

Finally the statement assumes that thought originates when we choose it. Using "I" in the sentence implies that you are the prerequisite to the action, and you originate it, when it seems just as logical that thought occurs for no reason, specifically not becasue anyone wishes it to be so. "Thinking" appears to force itself upon the "thinker" rather than the opposite.

Being an existentialist I see no need to build truths, furthermore I see all 'truth' as flawed as our senses are imperfect. However it appears to me that a certain 'feeling' or 'sensation' that we call thinking occurs, we cannot understand it or know anything about it other than it happens. A simple and pithily way to tie this rather axiomatic level of deduction up is "The only contingent certainty, is thinking occurs."

BTW The majority of the arguments I've put forward tie in with "Beyond Good and Evil" - Nietzsche. I'm open to a critique of my counter-argument to the descartes school of skepticism, if anyone would like to that is.

 

[superbleeder12]

I've never really cared for philosophy (though I like the cynics and a lot of post-modern philosophy, mostly because its a mindfuck)

I am more interested in theology and psychology.

 

[WhitemageofDOOM]

For all i know the post of yours was conjured by my repressed thought form wave functions collapsing into matter. The more we learn of quantum mechanics, the more likely these theories are.

No that's just taking the observer principle to apply to you instead of you know other particles. It's not sentient observation that collapses waveforms but any form of interaction. Thus the universe we thinking creatures observe remains the same regardless of the sentient that observes.

The "I think" statement implies what Nietzsche called an 'ego', meaning that something is doing the thinking rather than thinking simply happening on its own.

My brain does the thinking.

A further problem is we assume what thinking is, how can we discern it from a 'feeling'.

Not much, the definition thinking tends to involve more logical deduction while feeling more instinct. But there basically the same thing, we couldn't perform logical deduction if we weren't programmed for it.

We can never know what thinking is, becasue we have to thinking about it to begin, which obviously isn't a valid method of deduction.

Electronic and chemical reactions in the brain.
Possibly molecular or quantum reactions, but most likely just electronics and chemistry.

 

[Nathan A.]

Let's have fun with logic, shall we?

Starting with some premises:
1.) I think therefore I am - You must be willing to accept your own existence.
2.) Existence is defined by perception and experience - If you perceive or experience something, then it exists, if only to you.
3.) Communicating over the internet is sufficient grounds for experiencing interaction between two entities.
4.) By writing this post, and you reading it, I am communicating my argument to you over the internet.

Therefore: I exist.

Proving self-awareness is irrelevant to existence -- That is the common trap for people asked to prove their own existence. If you were trying to prove your own existence to yourself, then showing you are self-aware is an admissible means of proof. However, to someone else, you need to define how you relate to their own perception of the world. Hence, the basis of the argument.

 

[Lukeje]

I'll start:

You don't exist; prove to me otherwise.

Of course I exist! If I didn't exist, then you wouldn't exist...

Electronic and chemical reactions in the brain.
Possibly molecular or quantum reactions, but most likely just electronics and chemistry.

Since when were electronics and chemistry not molecular / quantum reactions?

 

[skoomaeater]

Existence is subjective. Thus if you believe you exist then you do.

What do we think on morals? Do we think we should strive for the greatest good for the greatest number? Or should we operate on self advancement and self preservation?

 

[Lord Krunk]

I drink therefore, I am.

I heard a similar one;

'Beauty is in the eye of the beer-holder'.

EDIT:

Immanuel Kant was a real pissant
Who was very rarely stable.
Heidegger, Heidegger was a boozy beggar
Who could think you under the table.
David Hume could out-consume
Wilhelm Freidrich Hegel,
And Wittgenstein was a beery swine
Who was just as schloshed as Schlegel.

There's nothing Nietzsche couldn't teach ya'
'Bout the raising of the wrist.
SOCRATES, HIMSELF, WAS PERMANENTLY PISSED...

John Stuart Mill, of his own free will,
On half a pint of shandy was particularly ill.
Plato, they say, could stick it away;
Half a crate of whiskey every day.
Aristotle, Aristotle was a bugger for the bottle,
Hobbes was fond of his dram,
And Rene Descartes was a drunken fart: "I drink, therefore I am"
Yes, Socrates, himself, is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker but a bugger when he's pissed!

Now that's awesome.

 

[Copter400]

Psh, philosophy's subjective, people who argue about it get nowhere >_>

Having said that, "You don't exsist" is quite a claim. What's you're definition of existing then? In my opinion, as long as you are "aware" you exist, if only to yourself.

But you can't prove to me that YOU'RE aware of yourself. For all i know the post of yours was conjured by my repressed thought form wave functions collapsing into matter. The more we learn of quantum mechanics, the more likely these theories are.

Quantum, schuantum. Reality exists. You could sit around all day babbling that reality is an illusion and that nothing is certain, but at the end of the day you'd still have to find food, water and shelter. I don't see any good coming from doubting the universe.

 

[Surreysmith]

As much as I love philsophy, I believe it should be done face to face not over the interweb.

 

[Lvl 64 Klutz]

I agree, proving existence is futile. Even Descartes, after coming up with his famous "Cogito ergo sum" principle, proceeded to utilize every logical fallacy conceivable to prove everything else exists as well.

 

[curlycrouton]

Now here's a question.

How do I know, that when you say something is green, you are in fact referring to what I see as red? Do other people see black as I see Orange? Is that why Goths like to wear black?

 

[Jharry5]

More to the point, do exist and if you do, why should I care? What's the point of you existing.

You could ask that about every human/animal/inaminate object/abstract concept on the face of the Earth...

 

[Lullabye]

umm, could we switch to another philisolficaly-ish topic. arguing about existence is, well, dumb. I'm always asking myself these questions but the answer i almost alwasys arrive at is yes, we exist. Even if it is all a dream or is a virtual reality we still exist. We are one, as well as many however you veiw the subject. We think, we do, as such we couldn't if are not. We could continue but let us persue more fulfilling questions such as What is the meaning of life? or how do women think? that is a truly philosophical question which has yet to be answered.

 

[PedroSteckecilo]

Existentialism WOOOO!

There is no deeper meaning! Hence everything we do has all the greater value!