/lit/ - Literature

>>7363197
>>>/his/
Not literature

>>7363197
Depend on how you define existence. But the current mainstream philosophy (that is, philosophy of science) presumes the first one.

>>7363219
you can't seriously expect us to post philosophy threads there?
it's a bunch of fucking children from /pol/, philosophy thread have gotten exponentially worse since we've had to post them in that fucking shit hole.

>>7363197
imo things exist in the world before you think about them, and the things that you think of without them existing in the world, exist in the mind as a result of those things which exist in the world.
“existence” typically implies /in the world/. “conceivable” is used to imply that something exists in the mind.
>does Q exist before you conceive of it, or does conceiving of it cause it to exist.
Neither.
Things can exist, can be conceivable and exist, can be conceivable but not exist, and can be inconceivable.
The issue here is that conceivability is limited by education. Perhaps fairies and centaurs are visually conceivable but biologically impossible. Likewise we can picture a square without corners but we know this image contradicts the mathematical definition of a square. In this sense, a square without corners is conceivable visually but not mathematically.
As a result I’m not sure if things can exist and not be conceivable.
Thoughts?

>>7363197
>>7363462

>>7363385
I think you misunderstood his point.
We can think about voldemort, and yet he does not exist.

>>7363470
>his point
>his

>>7363470
That again depends on definitions.

>>7363197
We're surrounded by a soup of matter, the brain creates definition based on arbitrary differences of light refraction between varying arrangements. The universe is one thing but the mind artificially imposes distinctions to form objects.

>>7363468
/lit/ is literally the best equipped of all the boards to answer philosophical questions. The idea that people who fancy history are somehow better equipped than people who read books, to handle philosophical questions unrelated to history is a bit inane. OPs question is far more relatable to philosophical literature than history in any sense of the word.

>>7363489
Why would it necessarily be one thing?

>>7363491
Doesn't matter. Not literature, not /lit/

>>>/his/

>>7363495
There is nothing to begin with. When everything is nothing, everything is the same. We smash matter into smaller and smaller pieces, only to find more emptiness. The emptiness is everywhere, in everything.

>>7363197
solipsism ...read about it.

ideas are superior to sensations but they derive from them, truth arrives from the accumulation of relative truths

>>7363512
Anon gave a good fucking response and you want him in that shithole? Really?

>>7363462
I'm freestylin' here but I usually separate existence in the world from that in the mind (what you named existing and conceivable) but most things we conceive and exist (will use your terms here) in physical form need to be a combination of thing and concept of thing. The concept is plastic and changeable so if we're to change the definition of "fairy" to "pretty, short, magical-looking young female" then fairies begin to exist.

I don't deny the existence of an a priori physical world but as far as we are concerned the thinking of the thing is what creates it inside our own understandable world (consciousness).

I'm sure someone smarter than me have argued this point before. I just need to find out who it was.

>>7363197
No. The act of thinking or perceiving does not create. This is why the ontological argument is ultimately such shit.

Yes, things exist TO YOU from having perceived them but a blind and deaf person isn't about to not be subject to reality just because he can't sense the world around him.

Things exist objectively regardless of your perception.

>>7363512
>i don't understand that rules are based on reason.

>>7363556
i seem to agree with your other two points but what do you mean by "superior"?

>>7363578
but "objectively" doesn't really mean anything does it.
If a tree falls in a forest it's safe to assume that it makes a sound, but if no-one is around to hear/see it, it <cannot be said> that the tree fell. the tree fell according to whom?
it seems to me that a state of affairs is objective only in so far as capable people agree. How can you possibly divorce objectivity from inter-subjectivity.

>>7363578

>>7363641 here
what i meant to say is
>Things exist[ing] objectively regardless of your perception.
Is difficult to pin down because things exist regardless of your perception, but they do not exist regardless of perception itself.

>mfw i realize that every possible technology exists, even those we haven't started utilizing yet

>>7363717

most of these arguments wether things exist or not stem from people failing to separate objective reality from the simulated reality that their minds create, desu.

being is independent of thought

thought adequates itself to being

>>7363556
to expand:
the knowledge of the object proceeds the knowledge of the knowledge of the object therefore ontology proceeds epistemology and the missing link between the LOGICAL and the REAL is LABOUR, knowledge is acquired through labour not contemplation, but all permutations of matter did or will exist at some point so existence just IS none the less
>>7363618
by "superior" I mean ideas are in fact TRUER than mere sensations

>>7363853
how do you mean truer? more accurately corresponding to the set of existing things? but the existing is itself a set of perceptions.
Or do you mean closer to tautology (the perfect truth)?

>>7363912
truth is knowledge, knowledge is the product of human labour and consciousness, sensations cannot be knowledge and truth is knowledge, ideas > meaningless sensations

>>7363925
consciousness is perceiving the world
what is this "labour"? experience? this is also perception. are you talking about Mary's room? Because everything she learned was through the perception of others, biologically or mechanically.

>>7364129
consciousness and labour are CREATIVE activities not just PERCEPTUAL

>>7363512
im not even in this thread, but after posting in /his/ multiple times, im going to have to agree that /lit/ is STILL the place to discuss philosophical topics.

However, there is nothing in OP that alludes to the discussion of "literature", there has to be some philosopher that has written on such topics about existence and their manifestation in the mind and reality.

So instead of shitposting about your opinions on the validity of the thread and its respective board it belongs on, why dont you instead google on your google machine to formulate an opinion about the actual subject of the thread?

lets all be friends. OP, all things exist. Your very nature brings into existence the things you are destined to contemplate. But your mind can never bring into existence anything physical, unless it is something you can make or create.

Whom knows?

>>7363197
Hey Bertrand, I heard you died.

>>7363641
>>7363659

Ah. Ok, I see what you mean.

The clincher that I see is merely that there are many things that we currently we perceive that we didn't in the past, but that they still existed.

For instance, it couldn't necessarily be said that "germs" existed in the medieval ages, because no one could perceive them. But REGARDLESS of their inability, the germs DID exist during the medieval era.

If what you're really arguing is solipsism than i suggest you call it by its real name, because there is no ultimate solution to solipsism, just as there isn't for God or the matrix. Its self-supporting and irrefutable ultimately.

>>7364290
i wouldn't say i believe in solipsism
i suppose germs still existed, but it could not be said. The issue is i have a big boner for Russell's teapot, and not having evidence for germs means their existence had to be false, and yet they were.
This is the sort of shit i'll end up thinking about for days until i decide to put my thoughts to paper and if i get lucky i'll figure something out. I think time is a necessary part of this diagram.

>>7363197
Everything that exists to you has already been sensed, processed, and stored in your memory. What exists in the world is extension (spacial magnitude), the other characteristics (color, taste, sound, temperature) are created by the body. See Descartes and the most beloved and holy Spinoza.

>>7364832

> The issue is i have a big boner for Russell's teapot, and not having evidence for germs means their existence had to be false

No - without evidence, you can't be justified in believing that they exist, but they can exist all the same. You're confusing epistemology with ontology - what we know of what exists, and what exists whether we have knowledge of it or not. We can conceive that a thing x exists AND that x is wholly inaccessible by our senses; in other words, it's not unjustifiable to say that x could exist - it's only unjustifiable to say that x does exist.