shaneytiger
(shaneytiger)
February 25, 2007, 10:39pm
21
KidA41:
shaneytiger:
Lord_Liberty:
Does it really matter? If the universe doesn’t exist, then you probably wouldn’t have made this thread. Really.
Besides, if the universe didn’t exist then you’d make your own. And since I’m writing this from my perspective, that means you are within my personal universe, which means that the universe you said didn’t exist actually does exist =D> . You follow? (I don’t know if I did…)
I’m afraid that I take an Existential/Descartes position on these kinds of questions. You’re there, that’s all that really matters. Besides…all a Universe needs to exist is just one object, so therefore, if you exist, so does the universe. And, as Descartes said, “I think, therefore I am.” And I assume that you think, since your posted on this forum.
I don’t know what Existentialism or Descartes think, but I kind of share that. In a sense, it doesn’t matter whether or not the universe actually does exist, because regardless you are living here, so do what you do.
I just like debate.
Debate is fun and healthy! It’s just a debate that seems to never really go anywhere. The only proof that there is a universe is that we experience it. It’s an empirical observation and thus a) contingent b) subject to error. There’s just no way around it. Unfortunately, it’s kind of the first empirical judgment we have to accept - there is something. If we don’t agree to agree on this point, about the only philosophical debate one can have is one regarding the empty truths of logic and math.
One thing that makes me laugh sometimes in my head is that people assume everything they are and ever have been.
Why do I need to read Descartes and Heidegger like now? According to other people, I also need to read Nietsche, Aristotle, Hume, Kant, Marx, and other people.
Or I can just go live in the forest.
nano-bug
(nano-bug)
February 25, 2007, 10:43pm
22
I’m not sure the universe exists…but I’m sure that statement exists. If I am mistaken and it is an illusion…then I am certain of the illusion.
When Berkeley was refuted by his buddy who kicked the rock, it wasn’t the kicking of the rock that proved it existed, but rather Berkeley’s own presence to his assertion and the fact that he made it, that proved something existed. Again, if even the assertion was an illusion, Berkeley is then aware of the illusion and it therefore exists.
I like Berkeley and I feel sorry for his sore foot.
KidA41
(KidA41)
February 25, 2007, 10:48pm
23
I’m not sure the universe exists…but I’m sure that statement exists. If I am mistaken and it is an illusion…then I am certain of the illusion.
When Berkeley was refuted by his buddy who kicked the rock, it wasn’t the kicking of the rock that proved it existed, but rather Berkeley’s own presence to his assertion and the fact that he made it, that proved something existed. Again, if even the assertion was an illusion, Berkeley is then aware of the illusion and it therefore exists.
You could have fabricated the assertion just as easily as you fabricated the existence of all of the material objects you experience.
KidA41
(KidA41)
February 25, 2007, 10:49pm
24
shaneytiger:
KidA41:
shaneytiger:
Lord_Liberty:
Does it really matter? If the universe doesn’t exist, then you probably wouldn’t have made this thread. Really.
Besides, if the universe didn’t exist then you’d make your own. And since I’m writing this from my perspective, that means you are within my personal universe, which means that the universe you said didn’t exist actually does exist =D> . You follow? (I don’t know if I did…)
I’m afraid that I take an Existential/Descartes position on these kinds of questions. You’re there, that’s all that really matters. Besides…all a Universe needs to exist is just one object, so therefore, if you exist, so does the universe. And, as Descartes said, “I think, therefore I am.” And I assume that you think, since your posted on this forum.
I don’t know what Existentialism or Descartes think, but I kind of share that. In a sense, it doesn’t matter whether or not the universe actually does exist, because regardless you are living here, so do what you do.
I just like debate.
Debate is fun and healthy! It’s just a debate that seems to never really go anywhere. The only proof that there is a universe is that we experience it. It’s an empirical observation and thus a) contingent b) subject to error. There’s just no way around it. Unfortunately, it’s kind of the first empirical judgment we have to accept - there is something. If we don’t agree to agree on this point, about the only philosophical debate one can have is one regarding the empty truths of logic and math.
One thing that makes me laugh sometimes in my head is that people assume everything they are and ever have been.
Why do I need to read Descartes and Heidegger like now? According to other people, I also need to read Nietsche, Aristotle, Hume, Kant, Marx, and other people.
Or I can just go live in the forest.
No, you should read all of those other guys as well.
shaneytiger
(shaneytiger)
February 25, 2007, 10:52pm
25
All reading philosophy is make me want to stop reading and think entirely on my own.
I am destined to be a rogue thinker.
Or I could just go live in the forest and be happy with the deer and trees and berries and bears.
Then I wouldn’t have to think so much and I’d become Walden, except more awesome.
detrop
(detrop)
February 25, 2007, 10:55pm
26
Then “mind” exists?
What does the fabricating?
(stop while you are ahead…you cannot win)
detrop
(detrop)
February 25, 2007, 11:12pm
28
Right…right…like the little choo-choo train that could.
KidA41
(KidA41)
February 25, 2007, 11:38pm
29
Before we can say whether or not a mind exists, you need to define your term.
Mostly because every kind of conversation you could have about it has been done thousands of times already.
It’s a dead horse. Nobody can prove anything beyond a shadow of a doubt. Challenging people to try is unfair. And boring.
AlternateParallelReality:
Mostly because every kind of conversation you could have about it has been done thousands of times already.
It’s a dead horse. Nobody can prove anything beyond a shadow of a doubt. Challenging people to try is unfair. And boring.
I would agree, except that what Descartes does with the topic is interesting: positing “I think, therefore I am” as self-evident, or at least as clear and distinct; and trying to prove God’s existence after that, so he can argue everything’s existence from God’s.
Also, Augustine deals with solepcism in a dialogue I read a long time ago, which dialogue came up with some interesting facts/deductions on learning later on in the text.
And finally, I wonder why the question is not rather put: Am I experienced by others? At least that phrasing is a more sociable form of inquiry ISTM.
thezeus18
(thezeus18)
February 26, 2007, 6:18am
33
The universe exists because it can kill you.
That is a serious possibility and not to be taken lightly.
Of course, some have said there are worse things that can happen to you.
How do you know it can kill you? Have you ever died?
I would agree, except that what Descartes does with the topic is interesting: positing “I think, therefore I am” as self-evident, or at least as clear and distinct; and trying to prove God’s existence after that, so he can argue everything’s existence from God’s.
Also, Augustine deals with solepcism in a dialogue I read a long time ago, which dialogue came up with some interesting facts/deductions on learning later on in the text.
And finally, I wonder why the question is not rather put: Am I experienced by others? At least that phrasing is a more sociable form of inquiry ISTM.
Except you have the tense kinda wrong. It’s not what Descartes does with the topic - it’s what he did with the topic. It’s not that Augustine deals with solipsism, it’s that he dealt with it.
Like I said, conversations that have already been had. Things that have already been said - and, in most cases, better.
Ever been to an open-casket funeral?
There is a type of philosopher who’s so dedicated to the smartass idea of not taking anythig that’s ever happened as any indication of what could - a version of Hume’s doubts about causality - that they deliberately do things that have proved fatal for others, and things that anyone with a sense of self-preservation would stay away from.
These guys loved their smug cleverness more than their lives. I wish I could remember what they were called, but they didn’t live long enough to conquer the world with this radical belief of theirs.
AlternateParallelReality:
Except you have the tense kinda wrong. It’s not what Descartes does with the topic - it’s what he did with the topic. It’s not that Augustine deals with solipsism, it’s that he dealt with it.
Like I said, conversations that have already been had. Things that have already been said - and, in most cases, better.
I’m pretty sure I have seen the present tense used to refer to past quotes before.
After all, knowledge has a somewhat eternal character.
Do you have an English degree or the like to support your position on this?
AlternateParallelReality:
There is a type of philosopher who’s so dedicated to the smartass idea of not taking anythig that’s ever happened as any indication of what could - a version of Hume’s doubts about causality - that they deliberately do things that have proved fatal for others, and things that anyone with a sense of self-preservation would stay away from.
These guys loved their smug cleverness more than their lives. I wish I could remember what they were called, but they didn’t live long enough to conquer the world with this radical belief of theirs.
I just love f*cking around with people.
You give me far too much credit.