Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Gossip & Opinions => Topic started by: Bast000 on March 22, 2009, 05:05:14 AM
-
in some hypothetical other reality u made this decision...if so what do you have to or need to learn or accomplish in this life
-
Steady as she goes, Siddhartha.
-
i've (honestly) come to terms that i was a "mistake"
btw, i'm not saying that for comedy effect...........my dad totally fucked up
-
i've (honestly) come to terms that i was a "mistake"
btw, i'm not saying that for comedy effect...........my dad totally fucked up
First time I have agreed with you.
-
btw, i wasn't trying to do the "that johnnynoname sure likes to make fun of himself" angle
again, I know my dad must have forgot to pull out when he came inside my mother
to support my case both my parents were old school ie no kids till you are married- they were not married when i was born. You can draw your own conclusions from there
-
you choose where and when according to your mind pattern
you choose the parents who will provide the genetics also according to your mind pattern
you telepathically send them your name before birth...it's your personal signature in hyperspace and is unique to you
-
btw, i wasn't trying to do the "that johnnynoname sure likes to make fun of himself" angle
again, I know my dad must have forgot to pull out when he came inside my mother
to support my case both my parents were old school ie no kids till you are married- they were not married when i was born. You can draw your own conclusions from there
Stop talking shit about your parents, you bastard
-
the sperm i was a part of won the race, that's a choice i suppose.
-
It's not my fault or choice that my DNA kicks ass.
-
in some hypothetical other reality u made this decision...if so what do you have to or need to learn or accomplish in this life
No.
Nobody gets a choice in the matter.
-
in some hypothetical other reality u made this decision...if so what do you have to or need to learn or accomplish in this life
nothing
-
No.
Nobody gets a choice in the matter.
::)
-
I still can`t fathom why anyone would actually want a baby by choice.
-
::)
You crave a privilege that does not exist. Your human conceit and anthropocentricism are not based in reality other than the one YOU have created and put a value towards.
-
I still can`t fathom why anyone would actually want a baby by choice.
agreed. i think having children would be the worst thing ever. i;m much too selfish to deal with kids.
-
All I remember is that it was me and about 80,000 other sperm cells. We were racing like crazy to get to that protein-rich egg. I was behind in the race, but realized if I didn't hustle i'd be nothing but splooge running down an ass crack. So, I got my ass in gear and I went and got to the fvcking egg first.
-
I still can`t fathom why anyone would actually want a baby by choice.
Parenting may not be for everyone. But, it is one of the most rewarding things in life.
-
Here is a great song about a man coming to terms with life and death. It starts out he is having a conversation with another and is not yet convinced that you are born, live and die and that is the end. A want of transcendence is expressed.
He fights this notion but by the end of the song, he comes around to the same opinion that his friend had given him. "Goodbye Horses", meaning he is able to conceive leaving his 5 senses behind. In an Eastern philosophy "horses" are symbolic/representative of the 5 senses - the things that keep us tied to the physical/material plane of existence. When you can transcend the limitations of these senses and achieve a higher level of consciousness, you are leaving the "horses" behind - "flying over them."
-
you choose where and when according to your mind pattern
you choose the parents who will provide the genetics also according to your mind pattern
you telepathically send them your name before birth...it's your personal signature in hyperspace and is unique to you
where do you get this from?
It kind of sounds like numerology some of it..
-
(http://www.kheper.net/integral/wheel_of_life_427px.jpg)
You reincarnate by choice, again and again, until you managed to reach the 13th dimension. But I'm not really sure about that. :)
-
(http://www.kheper.net/integral/wheel_of_life_427px.jpg)
You reincarnate by choice, again and again, until you managed to reach the 13th dimension. But I'm not really sure about that. :)
would believing in Jesus bypass that process?
-
would believing in Jesus bypass that process?
Jesus is misunderstood by Christians. Reincarnation is denied by the Christian church, only to have power over people who do not know anything except what's been told to them by the Christian church.
-
Jesus is misunderstood by Christians. Reincarnation is denied by the Christian church, only to have power over people who do not know anything except what's been told to them by the Christian church.
So Jesus was pro reincarnation?
-
Here is a great song about a man coming to terms with life and death. It starts out he is having a conversation with another and is not yet convinced that you are born, live and die and that is the end.
He fights this notion but by the end of the song, he comes around to the same opinion that his friend had given him. "Goodbye Horses", meaning he is able to conceive leaving his 5 senses behind. In an Eastern philosophy "horses" are symbolic/representative of the 5 senses - the things that keep us tied to the physical/material plane of existence. When you can transcend the limitations of these senses and achieve a higher level of consciousness, you are leaving the "horses" behind - "flying over them."
In this song, a man is telling us about the time he asked his lover to stay but the answer given was that love doesn't last and is always superceded by lust sooner or later. He is presumably telling us this story by way of making the same point to us that his lover in the story made to him.
-
lots of thebrology in this thread I would rate A-
-
in some hypothetical other reality u made this decision...if so what do you have to or need to learn or accomplish in this life
in order for a person to make any kind of choice about anything, they must first exist. it follows that its impossible to choose to exist.
-
In this song, a man is telling us about the time he asked his lover to stay but the answer given was that love doesn't last and is always superceded by lust sooner or later. He is presumably telling us this story by way of making the same point to us that his lover in the story made to him.
Interesting interpretation you have there, mine comes from the artist. :)
-
Don't know.
Believing in objective reality = a leap of faith.
-
Don't know.
Believing in objective reality = a leap of faith.
yes when all our experience is subjective.
-
yes when all our experience is subjective.
Think about it.
How do you know that your memories = real? Can you prove that they are not just implanted a few seconds ago? How do you know that things you are currently not aware of actually exist? Can you prove that the other side of town = existing if you are not aware of it? Can you prove that objective reality exist the way we think it do beyond what you are experiencing right now?
Perhaps you = just living in a simulation. Can you prove otherwise? :D
Interesting questions. Debussey thinks answering yes to them requires a bit of faith.
-
I remember one day, when I was a sperm, chillin' in my dads balls hanging out. That's when I decided the next time there was a black hole, I would let it take me into the abyss. I grabbed about 100 million other friends and we all patiently waited. I remember swimming up a this tube and was drawn to an immense circular orb. I had to have it. While many of my buddies were lost, the last few of us tried to bust through the orb's tough wall. Fortunatly for me, I made it. The rest is history... ;D
All willpower bitches.
-
Goodnight Wiggs,a good man,an intelligant man and a man always wanting to better himself
Its bedtime in Ireland now
-
where do you get this from?
It kind of sounds like numerology some of it..
I don't see any numbers in what I wrote...and why do you think I "got it" somewhere??
I think
-
I don't see any numbers in what I wrote...and why do you think I "got it" somewhere??
I think
Hey dear Spermytaste. Are you doing fine down in eastern europe? Lots of fine cock to suck?
-
Think about it.
How do you know that your memories = real? Can you prove that they are not just implanted a few seconds ago? How do you know that things you are currently not aware of actually exist? Can you prove that the other side of town = existing if you are not aware of it? Can you prove that objective reality exist the way we think it do beyond what you are experiencing right now?
Perhaps you = just living in a simulation. Can you prove otherwise? :D
Interesting questions. Debussey thinks answering yes to them requires a bit of faith.
What you can be sure of is consciousness. It's required for both implanted memories and living in a simulation.
Objective reality apart from consciousness is however an illogical concept.
-
What you can be sure of is consciousness. It's required for both implanted memories and living in a simulation.
Objective reality apart from consciousness is however an illogical concept.
That was what Debussey was somewhat aiming too. The only thing you can truly "know" is that you are aware at this moment in time.
-
That was what Debussey was somewhat aiming too. The only thing you can truly "know" is that you are aware at this moment in time.
IMO the problem with implanted memories and living in a simulation is that it doesn't really dismiss the concept of objective reality, it just puts a layer in between. It can be used to show the absurdity but in the end must be dismissed together with objective reality.
-
When i was a sperm i was juicing which is why i kicked all the other sperms asses to the egg.......... 8)
-
No. The condom broke. My dad jokingly calls me a mistake all the time. Who the fuck cares? We're all here now. It's party time. Life is about getting roided up, fucked up on nubain and doing G4P all greased up in a tiny banana hammock for rich schmoes.
Remember, it's only degrading if the client steps passed the line. 8)
-
you choose where and when according to your mind pattern
you choose the parents who will provide the genetics also according to your mind pattern
you telepathically send them your name before birth...it's your personal signature in hyperspace and is unique to you
babhahahahahahahaha you need help you fukin gypsy moron hahahahaha
-
Hey dear Spermytaste. Are you doing fine down in eastern europe? Lots of fine cock to suck?
;D
-
No. The condom broke. My dad jokingly calls me a mistake all the time.
hahaha
-
That was what Debussey was somewhat aiming too. The only thing you can truly "know" is that you are aware at this moment in time.
I'm ill informed on Kant's philosophy so won't be able to answer any "probing" questions, but his Critique of Pure Reason revisits and examines Plato's notions of form and that which is knowable without experience or observational data (pure reason, rather than reasoning about the observed world). The vastly oversimplified upshot is that time and space, and our understanding of them and sequencing of phenomena within them, are precedent to experience. So too is our understanding of form. He termed this sort of knowledge "a priori" and carried on about logical causality (rather than physical), such as a geometric proof which is not only universally true and knowable without observation but which is incapable of being proven through observation, since for instance no one could draw a flawless right angle triangle and take perfect measurements of it. Rather, our understanding of the nature of the triangle is based upon our purely intellectual apprenhension of it's form.
I'm going by hazy memory here so gimmie a pass if I'm a little off target.
Interesting interpretation you have there, mine comes from the artist. :)
You know Prince?
-
I'm ill informed on Kant's philosophy so won't be able to answer any "probing" questions, but his Critique of Pure Reason revisits and examines Plato's notions of form and that which is knowable without experience or observational data (pure reason, rather than reasoning about the observed world). The vastly oversimplified upshot is that time and space, and our understanding of them and sequencing of phenomena within them, are precedent to experience. So too is our understanding of form. He termed this sort of knowledge "a priori" and carried on about logical causality (rather than physical), such as a geometric proof which is not only universally true and knowable without observation but which is incapable of being proven through observation, since for instance no one could draw a flawless right angle triangle and take perfect measurements of it. Rather, our understanding of the nature of the triangle is based upon our purely intellectual apprenhension of it's form.
Regarding space and time he actually identified them as pure methods of human consciousness. Not something that has objective reality but merely a concept bound to human consciousness.
-
I'm ill informed on Kant's philosophy so won't be able to answer any "probing" questions, but his Critique of Pure Reason revisits and examines Plato's notions of form and that which is knowable without experience or observational data (pure reason, rather than reasoning about the observed world). The vastly oversimplified upshot is that time and space, and our understanding of them and sequencing of phenomena within them, are precedent to experience. So too is our understanding of form. He termed this sort of knowledge "a priori" and carried on about logical causality (rather than physical), such as a geometric proof which is not only universally true and knowable without observation but which is incapable of being proven through observation, since for instance no one could draw a flawless right angle triangle and take perfect measurements of it. Rather, our understanding of the nature of the triangle is based upon our purely intellectual apprenhension of it's form.
I'm going by hazy memory here so gimmie a pass if I'm a little off target.
You know Prince?
That is NOT Prince`s song my friend. Q Lazzarus is the original artist singing and the lyrics and music are written by William Garvey, Q Lazzarus has an interesting voice and is actually a woman.
Where on earth did you get the idea this was Prince`s song?
You might wanna get rid of your earlier posts regarding Goodbye Horses. LOL
-
I'm ill informed on Kant's philosophy so won't be able to answer any "probing" questions, but his Critique of Pure Reason revisits and examines Plato's notions of form and that which is knowable without experience or observational data (pure reason, rather than reasoning about the observed world). The vastly oversimplified upshot is that time and space, and our understanding of them and sequencing of phenomena within them, are precedent to experience. So too is our understanding of form. He termed this sort of knowledge "a priori" and carried on about logical causality (rather than physical), such as a geometric proof which is not only universally true and knowable without observation but which is incapable of being proven through observation, since for instance no one could draw a flawless right angle triangle and take perfect measurements of it. Rather, our understanding of the nature of the triangle is based upon our purely intellectual apprenhension of it's form.
I'm going by hazy memory here so gimmie a pass if I'm a little off target.
You know Prince?
Hope this helps.
http://www.garveymedia.com/garvey/goodbye_horses.html
As the writer, musician and producer of this song, I wanted to add a bit of light to it, as it has a rather grisly association with the serial killer in “The Silence of the Lambs”, but really the song is about transcendence over those who see the world as only earthy and finite. The horses represent the five senses from Hindu philosophy (The Bhagavad Gita) and the ability to lift one’s perception above these physical limitations and to see beyond this limited Earthly perspective.
I mixed this version to be slightly more vibrant using some late 70’s percussion (Eno, OMD). It’s sort of a pre-mix, as if it were done back when electronic music was still new, utopian and innocent. I didn’t want to distract those familiar with the original, I only wanted to enhance it, therefore I left the song’s event structure intact.
1.
-William Garvey 2008
GOODBYE HORSES
He told me, “I’ve seen it rise,
But, it always falls.
I’ve seen ‘em come, I’ve seen ‘em go.”
He said, "All things pass into the night.”
And I said, "Oh no sir, I must say you're wrong,
I must disagree, Oh no sir, I must say you're wrong,
Won't you listen to me?”
He told me, “I've seen it all before,
I’ve been there, I've seen my hopes and dreams
lying on the ground.
I've seen the sky, just begin to fall.”
He said, "All things pass into the night"
And I said, "Oh no sir, I must say you're wrong,
I must disagree, Oh no sir, I must say you're wrong,
Won't you listen to me.”
Goodbye horses, I'm flying over you.
Goodbye horses, I'm flying over you.
William Garvey - BMI
Words & Music Copyright 1988
Q&B Publishing
Vocals: Q Lazzarus
Words, Music & Production: Garvey
Copyright © 2008 Garvey Media LLC
-
That is NOT Prince`s song my friend. Q Lazzarus is the original artist singing and the lyrics and music are written by William Garvey, Q Lazzarus has an interesting voice and is actually a woman.
Where on earth did you get the idea this was Prince`s song?
You might wanna get rid of your earlier posts regarding Goodbye Horses. LOL
Punning on "the artist." Nevermind.
Ok, if that's what dude[te] says but still I like my interpretation. Seen 'em come and go is about as double entendre as it gets. Hopes and dreams lines sound a lot like heartache to me. All things pass into the night. The lover is going to leave, into the night, leaving the narrator in darkness too, and darker drives being the truth. "I must say you're wrong" lines convey a now past naivete. I thought the horses were both optimistic innocence and a string of past lovers.
See if you can listen to it with a view of it being a story of someone who rejects the possibility of lasting love because he (or she, who knew?) was rejected in the past. It makes very good sense, and doesn't presuppose a knowledge of the role of horses in eastern thought. I think that guy is pulling your leg dude. Just listen to the song.
-
Regarding space and time he actually identified them as pure methods of human consciousness. Not something that has objective reality but merely a concept bound to human consciousness.
Sure, we could say the same for form. It doesn't physically exist but it's a conceptual construct.
Say for the sake of argument we wanted to take a skeptic's POV like DF, that nothing is knowable with any certainty since the senses can't be trusted. In doing so we're rejecting objective reality, so the objective world is no more real than concepts, and is probably less so since we have immediate knowledge of our own cognition. Such knowledge doesn't stop at 'cogito ergo sum' as DF claims but allows for further introspection, such as the fact that the realization of the reality of cognition presupposes the faculty of reason and logic in order to be able to conclude that the thought is necessarily real by virtue of its being thought.
Am I flailing? I'm flailing, aren't I? :D
-
Forgive me Wave, I didn't say that very well. What I'm driving at is:
-Recognition of a tautology like cogito ergo sum requires conceptualization and reason.
-Therefore concepts and reason exist.
-So we have a much broader intellectual reality than just immediate knowledge of being.
This is by way of answering Debussey's assertion that "the only thing you can truly "know" is that you are aware at this moment in time."
-
First time I have agreed with you.
hahahahahahahahahahahaha haha x2
-
Sure, we could say the same for form. It doesn't physically exist but it's a conceptual construct.
Say for the sake of argument we wanted to take a skeptic's POV like DF, that nothing is knowable with any certainty since the senses can't be trusted. In doing so we're rejecting objective reality, so the objective world is no more real than concepts, and is probably less so since we have immediate knowledge of our own cognition. Such knowledge doesn't stop at 'cogito ergo sum' as DF claims but allows for further introspection, such as the fact that the realization of the reality of cognition presupposes the faculty of reason and logic in order to be able to conclude that the thought is necessarily real by virtue of its being thought.
Am I flailing? I'm flailing, aren't I? :D
Forgive me Wave, I didn't say that very well. What I'm driving at is:
-Recognition of a tautology like cogito ergo sum requires conceptualization and reason.
-Therefore concepts and reason exist.
-So we have a much broader intellectual reality than just immediate knowledge of being.
This is by way of answering Debussey's assertion that "the only thing you can truly "know" is that you are aware at this moment in time."
Well IMO the problem is that your argument starts with "since the senses can't be trusted". That's a world view which already implies an objective reality which our senses translate into our own reality. This is called "Abbildungstheorie" (transformation theory). Whether one thinks this translation is accurate or not, one does not dismiss the concept of objective reality this way.
"Cogito ergo sum" is different from "I know that I'm aware". The theory of proving one's existence by means of the process of thinking has actually been philosophically disproven (or at least challenged) by Kant.
In any case, I agree that there are absolute truths other than "I know that I am aware". The philosophic proof for that is however much simpler than your attempt IMO.
-
Well IMO the problem is that your argument starts with "since the senses can't be trusted". That's a world view which already implies an objective reality which our senses translate into our own reality. This is called "Abbildungstheorie" (transformation theory). Whether one thinks this translation is accurate or not, one does not dismiss the concept of objective reality this way.
"Cogito ergo sum" is different from "I know that I'm aware". The theory of proving one's existence by means of the process of thinking has actually been philosophically disproven (or at least challenged) by Kant.
In any case, I agree that there are absolute truths other than "I know that I am aware". The philosophic proof for that is however much simpler than your attempt IMO.
-
I wanted to use DF's extreme scepticism as a starting point, but I didn't define his position very well with casting doubt on the senses. I should have just said, "Lets discount the observable as unproven for now, accept the sceptic's position that it may or may not exist, then go from there and see what we can prove we know."
My grounding is pretty weak (just getting back to it), but Descarte's self evident truth seems like the ultimate proof of existence and an ideal and necessary starting point for inquiry. What about it stuck in Kant's craw?
-
"Metaphysics 101 dropout... go back to high school."
"Metaphysics 101 dropout... go back to hiiiigh schooooooool."
We have unresolved issues. ;)
-
this is a good topic and one i would like to think about before giving my views.
-
why can we not remember the time before birth ? or after?
-
"Metaphysics 101 dropout... go back to high school."
"Metaphysics 101 dropout... go back to hiiiigh schooooooool."
We have unresolved issues. ;)
No, that's not it. Wavelength and I have debated shit like this too often in the past but it just becomes repetitive after a while.
-
No, that's not it. Wavelength and I have debated shit like this too often in the past but it just becomes repetitive after a while.
Actually I don't think we have. Most of our discussion revolved around the limits of natural science as far as I can remember. :)
-
in some hypothetical other reality u made this decision...if so what do you have to or need to learn or accomplish in this life
Well excuse me! I woz a survived abortion, a teen distortion, a rebel from the waste down.
-
Actually I don't think we have. Most of our discussion revolved around the limits of natural science as far as I can remember. :)
Ja, da aber dein allgemeiner Standpunkt bezueglich derartiger Sachen hoechstwahrscheinlich derselbe ist, wie eben der bezueglich der Beschraenkungen der Naturwissenschaft, ist leicht anzunehmen, dass es hierbei auf dasselbe hinauslaeuft, wie immer, nicht wahr, 'Bruder'? ;)
-
Ja, da aber dein allgemeiner Standpunkt bezueglich derartiger Sachen hoechstwahrscheinlich derselbe ist, wie eben der bezueglich der Beschraenkungen der Naturwissenschaft, ist leicht anzunehmen, dass es hierbei auf dasselbe hinauslaeuft, wie immer, nicht wahr, 'Bruder'? ;)
Naja "derartige Sachen" ist ein bisschen gar weitläufig. :D
-
I wanted to use DF's extreme scepticism as a starting point, but I didn't define his position very well with casting doubt on the senses. I should have just said, "Lets discount the observable as unproven for now, accept the sceptic's position that it may or may not exist, then go from there and see what we can prove we know."
My grounding is pretty weak (just getting back to it), but Descarte's self evident truth seems like the ultimate proof of existence and an ideal and necessary starting point for inquiry. What about it stuck in Kant's craw?
What is usually meant when discussing "Cogito ergo sum" (regardless of what Descartes actually meant by it) is that the actual process of "thinking" would be a prove of existence. This theory was not only challenged by Kant but is in fact pretty much an obsolete concept in philosophy today. Kant criticised that existence can principally not be applied to a subject alone "I am". You must always say "I am this or that" (Kritik der reinen Vernunft). Others critizise that you can't derive "I" from "I think", only "something is thinking".
-
What is usually meant when discussing "Cogito ergo sum" (regardless of what Descartes actually meant by it) is that the actual process of "thinking" would be a prove of existence. This theory was not only challenged by Kant but is in fact pretty much an obsolete concept in philosophy today. Kant criticised that existence can principally not be applied to a subject alone "I am". You must always say "I am this or that" (Kritik der reinen Vernunft). Others critizise that you can't derive "I" from "I think", only "something is thinking".
Interesting. My gut says that unless you're prepared to deny the nature of consciousness as self observing, that the "I" in "I am" is both subject and object. Same objection to the second criticism, since a consciousness is aware of itself as the thinking being.
Admittedly, I have a lot of learning left to do yet tho... I'm only halfway through "Great Ideas in Philosophy" audio book from The Teaching Company. ;D God bless torrents.
-
Interesting. My gut says that unless you're prepared to deny the nature of consciousness as self observing, that the "I" in "I am" is both subject and object. Same objection to the second criticism, since a consciousness is aware of itself as the thinking being.
Admittedly, I have a lot of learning left to do yet tho... I'm only halfway through "Great Ideas in Philosophy" audio book from The Teaching Company. ;D God bless torrents.
What you argue here is awareness vs. self-awareness. Kant's critizism however was that the statement "I am" is inherently incomplete (without predicate) and therefore meaningless. His argument was not subject vs. object but applying existence to a subject without a complete predicate ("being is obviously no complete predicate").
Regarding the second critizism, your argument seems to be that thinking always implies awareness and awareness always implies self-awareness. That is however basically what is attempted to be proven in the first place and therefore only a repetition of the thesis and not an argument for it.
-
What you argue here is awareness vs. self-awareness. Kant's critizism however was that the statement "I am" is inherently incomplete (without predicate) and therefore meaningless. His argument was not subject vs. object but applying existence to a subject without a complete predicate ("being is obviously no complete predicate").
Regarding the second critizism, your argument seems to be that thinking always implies awareness and awareness always implies self-awareness. That is however basically what is attempted to be proven in the first place and therefore only a repetition of the thesis and not an argument for it.
The fact that we are governed by uncontrollable instincts which override other mechanisms, i.e. thought, appears to me to be far better proof for some sort of existence than thought.
As for me, my motto has always been: dubito, ergo sum.
-
Admittedly, I have a lot of learning left to do yet tho... I'm only halfway through "Great Ideas in Philosophy" audio book from The Teaching Company. ;D God bless torrents.
I think I also have that one. My experience with TTC is that the quality of lectures varies a lot.
-
The fact that we are governed by uncontrollable instincts which override other mechanisms, i.e. thought, appears to me to be far better proof for some sort of existence than thought.
As for me, my motto has always been: dubito, ergo sum.
I'm not so sure I would call it "instinct" but generally I agree that it is not thought.
A Buddhist would say: "I don't think, therefore I am".
-
-
What you argue here is awareness vs. self-awareness. Kant's critizism however was that the statement "I am" is inherently incomplete (without predicate) and therefore meaningless. His argument was not subject vs. object but applying existence to a subject without a complete predicate ("being is obviously no complete predicate").
Regarding the second critizism, your argument seems to be that thinking always implies awareness and awareness always implies self-awareness. That is however basically what is attempted to be proven in the first place and therefore only a repetition of the thesis and not an argument for it.
I confess that I don't see the problem in saying, "I am thinking, therefore I am existing." It's the kind of statement that won't make you very popular at parties, but I don't see the need for further qualification of the subject (if my aim is simply to prove that I exist).
If the aim were to prove the self aware nature of consciousness then obviously saying "because it is so" is no proof at all, but if the aim is to prove existence then Descartes cogito would seem to continue to apply unless we are prepared to throw out the definition of consciousness as reflexive. Or do you mean that it's a circular argument insofar as it is impossible to conceive of a thinking consciousness which does not exist, so by assuming consciousness I am assuming existence? That doesn't seem like an assumption of conclusion to me, but more like a statement that action, in this case thought, implies existence.
You are clearly better informed than I am Wave. I've got to hit the sack but I'll get back to the philosophy after my James Burke history audio book. Hopefully I'll be better informed on the history of thought next time and you won't have to keep bringing me up to speed. ;)
I think I also have that one. My experience with TTC is that the quality of lectures varies a lot.
Ya, I tried a History of the English Language but it seemed to assume a basic knowledge of linguistics, which I lack. World Literature was excellent, as was Decline and Fall of Rome. Burke is good value for history, and A Short History of Everything by Bill Bryson was entertaining. I listen to them at work tho, so when I combine distractedness with inherent feeblemindedness, I'm happy if even 5% sticks. :P
-
I confess that I don't see the problem in saying, "I am thinking, therefore I am existing." It's the kind of statement that won't make you very popular at parties, but I don't see the need for further qualification of the subject (if my aim is simply to prove that I exist).
If the aim were to prove the self aware nature of consciousness then obviously saying "because it is so" is no proof at all, but if the aim is to prove existence then Descartes cogito would seem to continue to apply unless we are prepared to throw out the definition of consciousness as reflexive. Or do you mean that it's a circular argument insofar as it is impossible to conceive of a thinking consciousness which does not exist, so by assuming consciousness I am assuming existence? That doesn't seem like an assumption of conclusion to me, but more like a statement that action, in this case thought, implies existence.
You are clearly better informed than I am Wave. I've got to hit the sack but I'll get back to the philosophy after my James Burke history audio book. Hopefully I'll be better informed on the history of thought next time and you won't have to keep bringing me up to speed. ;)
Ya, I tried a History of the English Language but it seemed to assume a basic knowledge of linguistics, which I lack. World Literature was excellent, as was Decline and Fall of Rome. Burke is good value for history, and A Short History of Everything by Bill Bryson was entertaining. I listen to them at work tho, so when I combine distractedness with inherent feeblemindedness, I'm happy if even 5% sticks. :P
I'm only talking out of my ass myself, it's been a long time since I read "Kritik der reinen Vernunft". ;D
IMO consciousness is not reflexive by definition, rather it is a necessary precondition to self-awareness. All questions of definition of these terms of course. In any case, I can recommend reading the original from Kant, it's quite an interesting work.
-
I confess that I don't see the problem in saying, "I am thinking, therefore I am existing." It's the kind of statement that won't make you very popular at parties, but I don't see the need for further qualification of the subject (if my aim is simply to prove that I exist).
If the aim were to prove the self aware nature of consciousness then obviously saying "because it is so" is no proof at all, but if the aim is to prove existence then Descartes cogito would seem to continue to apply unless we are prepared to throw out the definition of consciousness as reflexive. Or do you mean that it's a circular argument insofar as it is impossible to conceive of a thinking consciousness which does not exist, so by assuming consciousness I am assuming existence? That doesn't seem like an assumption of conclusion to me, but more like a statement that action, in this case thought, implies existence.
You are clearly better informed than I am Wave. I've got to hit the sack but I'll get back to the philosophy after my James Burke history audio book. Hopefully I'll be better informed on the history of thought next time and you won't have to keep bringing me up to speed. ;)
Ya, I tried a History of the English Language but it seemed to assume a basic knowledge of linguistics, which I lack. World Literature was excellent, as was Decline and Fall of Rome. Burke is good value for history, and A Short History of Everything by Bill Bryson was entertaining. I listen to them at work tho, so when I combine distractedness with inherent feeblemindedness, I'm happy if even 5% sticks. :P
I only you knew...
-
I only you knew...
Actually, it wasn't overly technical. I just didn't find the lecturer very engaging. He spent way too much time talking about indo-euro roots, the philology of some Sanskrit word, etc. He only tied things in with modern English usage occasionally, which made things kind of dry. It seemed like a discussion Shakespear was never going to eventuate so I packed it in. If I acquire a greater interest in general linguistics in my travels I might get back to it and find it more interesting.
What started you down your path, Dei?