External World

[Anonymous No.10868184]

You have 5 seconds to prove the existence of the external world.

Protip: you can't

[Anonymous No.10868196]

>>10868184
Here is one hand

[Anonymous No.10868197]

>>10868184
>go to bed
>wake up
>still here

I can't prove it but it's still in front of me

[Anonymous No.10868200]

>>10868184
>pulls out dick and jacks on your gf's face
There. I proved you were wrong and you got cucked, faggot. Nothing personnel, though.

[Anonymous No.10868240]

I have a consciousness of time.
Determination in time is only possible through a permanent thing in perception, a thing against which to weigh consciousness.
Consciousness of time is necessarily connected with a possibility of a determination of this consciousness within time.
This permanent thing in perception cannot be something within me, for the very reason that this thing is used to determine my own consciousness within time. Neither can this thing which actually aids the determination be a mere representation of a thing, for in the case of a mere representation in this sense (i.e. an image in imagination) the representation is properly interior, and has no connection to the possibility of determining consciousness in time.
Therefore there exists something permanent in perception that is not myself.

[Anonymous No.10868565]

>>10868240
How was he so smart?

[Anonymous No.10868594]

>>10868184
>>10852443

[Anonymous No.10868703]

Take "I think therefore I am" and "I can sense things therefore they exist" as axioms. You don't have to, but enjoy the constant "am I real?" and "are other things real?" questioning if you don't.

[Anonymous No.10868721]

>>10868703
>presupposing that you're sensing things

[Anonymous No.10868732]

>>10868240
>Determination in time is only possible through a permanent thing in perception, a thing against which to weigh consciousness.

What does this mean?

[Anonymous No.10868737]

>>10868240
>I have a consciousness of time.
Nice try but you only had five seconds.

[Anonymous No.10868767]

>>10868732
For something to be determined in time, it has to be determined in relation to something else, which is considered "permanent" in relation to the thing being determined. There must be some fixed point from which to discern directions.

[Anonymous No.10868832]

>>10868767
The past cannot be proven to exist. All evidence of the past is simply present sensation. So the past cannot be pointed at or proven definitively. So the permanent by which Kant seeks to definitively prove the external is itself in doubt.

[Anonymous No.10868903]

Pain and grievances with other creatures. If you're receiving unwelcome stimuli from the other, you can be relatively sure it isn't just a failing of your willpower and mental fortitude, but an actual response to your surroundings, which are phenomenologically real.

[Anonymous No.10869243]

>>10868200
you can cum in 5 seconds?

[Anonymous No.10869264]

She is not here with me

[Anonymous No.10869281]

>>10868184
The distinction between the external world and internal world is a false one.

Forms rely on consciousness, and consciousness relies on forms.

All reality is non-dual.

[Anonymous No.10869304]

>>10868184
>You have 5 seconds to prove the existence of the external world.
I can prove (and disprove!) it in less than that.

>>10869281
this. we partake of God's contradiction.

[Anonymous No.10869313]

Merleau-Ponty uses Descartes' own argument to do so, at least with the body. Ecological arguments can be used to extend that infinitely. Hilariously enough. these arguments are all largely based in medieval philosophy and theology.
>>10868240
>Consciousness of time is necessarily connected with a possibility of a determination of this consciousness within time.
Nope. Stop taking a shittalker like Kant seriously, please.
>>10868721
>presupposing that you're thinking things

[Anonymous No.10869317]

>>10868184
>Protip: you can't
<Punches you in the nose.>
I refute you thus.

[Anonymous No.10869320]

>>10869304
>I can prove (and disprove!) it in less than that.

[Anonymous No.10869336]

>>10869313
>Nope. Stop taking a shittalker like Kant seriously, please.

wat?

[Anonymous No.10869340]

>>10869320
well tbf so could you

[Anonymous No.10869375]

>>10868200
Circular logic, I can still doubt you, your cum on my girlfriend - if I have one.

[Anonymous No.10869384]

>>10869375
haha sorry faggot I have a boyfriend

[Anonymous No.10869397]

Calm down, me.

[Anonymous No.10869401]

>>10869397
>>10869384
Oops, meant for (me)

[Anonymous No.10869409]

>>10868184
Rational measurements of observed objects/phenomena are consistent with internal models that predict the existence of an external world. All human experience is mediated through symbols which exist in themselves concurrent with the independent objects they represent. Predictive capability determines the veraciousness of a given symbol/set of symbols.

[Anonymous No.10869637]

>>10868240
HNNNNNNNNG

[Anonymous No.10869771]

>>10868240
>1 person hilariously misreads the easiest section of CPR and nobody notices (to the contrary)

[Anonymous No.10870671]

>>10869313
>Ecological arguments can be used to extend that infinitely. Hilariously enough. these arguments are all largely based in medieval philosophy and theology.

Could you expand on this?

[Anonymous No.10870744]

>>10868184
Where and what are these 5 seconds?

[Anonymous No.10871033]

>>10869375
I suppose Descartes would say you don't have one, since a gf is material and the material world doesn't exist.

[Anonymous No.10871038]

>>10869243
Or can I? Huehuehue....

[Anonymous No.10871118]

>>10868240
>is only possible
why do you really on your imagination to talk about the other 5 senses?