To the Nihilist in you: I believe in EVERYTHING

Not to throw this in your faces, but I believe in everything. Why i tell you is simple. I get great relief believing in everything, and I would like to share this relief with you so that you may partake.

Even if you were to put random things out there, like a purple unicorn, i would say i believe in that too. You might laugh at that and say, I am wrong. and that being right is the only way to feel superior. Well you’d also be speaking of probalities, rather then possibilities which are endless. Both eternity and infinity allow for such possibilities.

You’d also be using reason to judge the irrationality of faith. I admit to leaning towards the irrational whenever i find it benificial to do so. There is such freedom in being irrrational.

Aliens, bigfoot, lockness monster, these are things that if they didn’t exist in the past, or even now, they have the chance to exist at some point later. What good are proabilities on a time line that does not end, or . . . does end, but restarts again?

At the very least, every single thing is an idea. Things exist as ideas. I know santa claus wears red because he is an idea with the chance to one day exist, eventaully, even in another demension.

To believe in everthing, try it. There is no shame in being wrong, especially when freedom feels so right.

Merry Christmas!

If someone believe a thing exists, then it exists.

This statement is nice like apples!

Not hardly.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correspond … y_of_truth

I’d say that with an infinite amount of time it’s hard to say that nothing exists. There is always that chance it seems.

And some people react negatively or positively to that chance. Its about their personal attitude. Which i dont know if they control, but if they get the chance to opt for positive, grab it.

You can’t really say “nothing exists” is possible, or even impossible for that matter, because the sense of that statement is horribly contradicting. For us to conceive of absolute nothingness, we would have to have in mind the smallest known “thing” and imagine a complete absence of this thing, everywhere. But we can’t. We cannot not know substance exists. The use of the term nothing in language must have had been as a simple linguistic device- to communicate a response concerning the nature of an affirmative intent, as in “there was nothing over there”- meaning- the thing which is conceived, and that the subject of the statement is not in a certain place. Or, “he is doing nothing”- meaning more or less the same as above. Indicating the negation of an affirmative subject. Something isn’t in a certain place at a certain time, or doing a certain thing at a certain time, when it is referenced as being absent, or “not” the case.

The fact that the term is a negation of “thing”, we already have in mind a thing which we imagine must be absent. So prior to the conception of “nothing” we experience things in the world.

=;

Let’s revisit and review my nothingness threads!

viewtopic.php?t=160690

=D>

I think that the act of believing implies that you are at least acquainted with the ideas in question, and surely you can’t be acquainted with every idea there is. So you don’t believing in everything, since, well, you’re not at least acquainted with everything. So instead you should say something like “I don’t dismiss any idea,” or, “I maintain that all of the ideas that pass through and reside in my mind are true.”

The latter is a bit ridiculous, if you don’t mind me saying, because you can’t possibly hold the idea that ‘A is true’ as true, whatever A may be, and also hold another idea, ‘A is false’ as true. In doing so you would disqualify both ideas so that each becomes barren. So, you probably should just stick to negating claims of falsehood. But even with that you would run into problems. You should just drop this whole thing.

ps. Okay, after having actually read what you wrote, instead of just the title, I think you should better rephrase your title so that it pertains to metaphysics, and ontology in particular, specifically. I still think that you should use a phrase that negates though, instead of one that affirms your assent to “everything”. Something like “I don’t believe that ideas, or what ideas stand for, are non-existent.” That’s lame, and not in the least bit catchy. Also, it’s not what you mean. How about this, “I do not make an ontological claim about the non-existence of either ideas, nor of the formal reality which those ideas might be of an objective reality.” …this last one was even worse.

I’ll just drop this whole thing and go off on a tangent here. Why do you say that possibilities are endless? Surely one cannot say that it is impossible that X, whatever x may be, happen, but do you think that, that one cannot justifyibly state that anything is impossible, implies and justifies the claim that X is possible?

Possibility is essentially a power that we ascribe to any idea we have of something. Whether that power be that of an idea of an object affecting another idea of an object, as in for example, when we believe that opium has the power to make those people who smoke it sleep, or of becoming something, such as with a seed of grain for example, which becomes something else, we ascertain via enumerative induction, where we’ve seen a bunch of times that opium causes people to doze off, or that a seed becomes something else. In these instances I mentioned, that the idea has objective reality, i.e. that it exists, goes without saying.

When it comes to ascertaining that there exists a power to exist in one of our ideas, or to become existing if it doesn’t immediately exist, I’m not sure how to…how does one go about soundly concluding that there exists a power in an idea to be, or become existing?

…I’m not sure what I’m saying either.

Send me a pet dragon, nano. And while you’re at it, send monica bellucci (mind-scrubbed to be my love-slave) too.

I’m waiting …

Penelope Cruz for me. :slight_smile:

You’re right, I’m not aquainted with every idea. I’m just open to being aquainted. I welcome whatever comes.

You sure?

youtube.com/watch?v=kMWWIRFVRfg&NR=1

That’s an amazing ability you’ve got there.

Nice.

I don’t think it’s a matter of probability or possibility but rather of locality. Unicorns do in fact exist in a Universe far, far from this one. What probability calculates is possibility in direct relation to locality. The chances that the Unicorn exists either in this dimension of time or in these dimensions of space or both is near zip.

But, yes, I do agree, anything and everything is possible. Just think, our level of consciousness, that is our ability to percieve and be aware of things, is in direct corrolation to finiteness in terms of dimensions. The more all-encompassing our consciousnesses become (via technology and such), the more infinite our sphere of preception draws, and the more these probabilities inflate into possibilities.

I’ve considered this too in a slightly different context, not myself having thought it, because I think it really is very difficult to genuinely believe some things; but what is thinkable has a truthiness about it. I may or may not have thought such-and-such, but someone else may have. I went down a similar road too on this, wondering about the totality of what has been thought; a sort of taxonomy of opinions.

I can’t say I believe in everything, but I will often find myself agreeing with both contending parties in a disagreement. I often agree with the people who disagree with me. I don’t think that’s out of some misfunctioning of the brain, but has something to do with simply seeing things from other points of view, or a broader point of view. While people can argue over whether it’s possible to see things from another’s point of view, it’s really of no great consequence - how could Shakespeare have created so many singular and colorful characters? Not by fixating on a belief in psychological egoism, true or not. I admire that you can believe in everything, and I aspire to it in many ways. I never really believed in that whole “ideas” thing, but I agree with you anyway - at least because it’s a relief to. :slight_smile:

every single thing is not an idea

somethings are beyond idea , are before any mind became 

further for example , somethings are constiuents of the building of the body and mind such as water ,air etc which obviously were before " ideas "