[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 60 KB, 492x657, 1296209988686.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1514868 No.1514868 [Reply] [Original]

thinkerfags

i grant you your perceptions.

justify your material existence.

>> No.1514874

>justify
Explain the causal chain that led to my material existence?
>justify
Explain why I have material existence?
>justify
That material is distinct from perception?

>> No.1514879

>>1514874
If you don't understand the meaning of justify then you are a fool.

>> No.1514887

>>1514879

I know so very little. Educate me.

Will I ever not be a fool?

Is it possible?

Have you ever strung more than two true sentences in a row?

>> No.1514885

i wasnt aiming this question at epistemology grad students.

i am well aware of the various uses of justify. none of your questions are relevant though.

more clearly,
get to the conclusion of your material existence, given that you only have perception to deal with.

>>1514874

>> No.1514891

>>1514887
You are still being a fool.

>> No.1514896
File: 338 KB, 850x638, ibanez-sv5470F-overall-850-100.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1514896

My mad 'lectric guitar skillz say fuck your existentialism, I can shred myself into real life.

>> No.1514900

>>1514885
>no grad students

Well, fuck you then. Regardless:

>get to the conclusion of your material existence, given that you only have perception to deal with.

Conclude that I exist, and am material, given that the only data I have is my perceptions?

1. I perceive that I have a hand.
2. I know that I have a hand.
3. I perceive that I have another hand.
4. I know that I have another hand.
5. I know there are two objects, so I know the material world exists (that is it's not some goofy unity of one-ness. we could get a material, goofy, unitary thing from 1 & 2)

Okay, so that's that there is a material world, using only my sense data. Proof that I exist, and am material, to follow.

>> No.1514902

>>1514896

i don't think you know what existentialism is, but i guess if i were you, somewhere I should not be, like you are now, with the baggage you currently possess, I'd probably say the same thing.

>> No.1514903

1. Blah blah hyperbolic doubt.
2. I exist.
3. Immaterial things are silly.
4. If I exist, then I'm material.
5. From 2 & 4, I exist in a material sense.

>> No.1514906

>>1514900

premise 2 and 4 are begging the question.

try again

>> No.1514913

>>1514903

no. that won't do

>> No.1514916

>>1514900

Uh, that argument makes very little sense.

For one thing, perception doesn't logically entail knowledge. For another, knowledge itself is a slippery concept in existentialism. How would you show that your belief is justified and true?

You probably can't. This is precisely what we're discussing.

>> No.1514921

>>1514916

Moorean propositions can't be justified, mang. If you don't assent to them you're speaking a different language. They are rules.

>> No.1514923

>>1514916

the belief is justified
the truth part of it casualty of skepticisms giant unstoppable boner

>> No.1514926

>>1514923

cool english bro

>> No.1514931

>>1514926
>>1514926

so i left an is* out, you get the picture you fucking eunuch

>> No.1514934

You can prove anything if you twist logic hard enough. I don't see the point.

>> No.1514936
File: 84 KB, 500x469, 1268963500472.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1514936

>>1514931

No, sorry.

I'm probably too stupid.

>> No.1514938

>>1514934
>Quine
>I don't see the point.

Well... okay....

>> No.1514948

>>1514934

what point is it exactly that you can't see.

and please to be detailing your magic evidence producing logic twists

>> No.1515472

>>1514896
this is a surprisingly good response >existence as an aesthetic experience.

>> No.1515479

i have just as much a right to exist as anything else

>> No.1515483
File: 95 KB, 752x559, dunno.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1515483

1 I can perceive the universe around me
2 I can interact with this universe in meaningful ways
3 If I lose one mode of perception (going blind) I can still verify the existence of the world around me by means of the other senses. Therefore my senses speak of the same universe.
4 Because my senses speak of the same universe, had I different senses (sensing x-rays, radiation levels, stored energy, dark matter) I would perceive the same universe in intricately more nuanced ways.
5 To see and understand all of their connections would be to have SOLVED every fundamental and practical question of science and religion.
6 Therefore the material universe probably exists, but cannot be proved short of omniscience.

>> No.1515488

OP you need to clarify though.

Do you mean prove logically why solipsism is false, and the universe is not just a creation of my mind?

Prove why material existence (ie, related to matter) can be verified as existed?

Prove ethically and philosophically why Materialism (ie, relating to consumerism) is A-okay?

i dunno if u no this, but 'material' and 'existence' both have many meanings :O

>> No.1516588

my perceptions tell me that they are not completely sure of what they are perceiving, hence this thread.

Conclusion of the above: If my perceptions can go as far as doubting material existence, I am reassured that I have a critical view on existence. Therefore material existence is a fact, because I can make it relative. Material and existence are two words made out of letters made out of my perceptions, so by definition my perceptions create the material existence.

I think, therefore I am. This is not an overdue sentence, it is simple definition.

>> No.1516591

here is a hand

lolololololo

>> No.1516593

I don't exist

>> No.1516597
File: 8 KB, 182x278, HCB.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1516597

>asking me to justify something
haha

don't talk to me

>> No.1516605

>justify your material existence.
I perceive materially

>> No.1516609

>>1516588
>my perceptions tell me that they are not completely sure of what they are perceiving
your perceptions don't tell you anything, that is what you are telling yourself lol

>> No.1516618

>>1516609

get out tripfag you get the flipping point

>> No.1516625

>>1516588
Actually this is some of the worst garbage I have seen on /lit/ for quite some time let's take a loot at this

>If my perceptions can go as far as doubting material existence
Guys when's the last time your sense data had the capacity to call itself into question? Complete misuse of the word 'perception'

regardless
>I am reassured that I have a critical view on existence
1)It does not follow, 2)Absolutely lollable one does not have a 'critical' view on something simply by doubting it

>material existence is a fact, because I can make it relative
LOL; contradictio in adjectivo

>Material and existence are two words made out of letters made out of my perceptions
your perceptions don't make anything
'material' and 'existence' are not simply words, they are concepts and so on

Absolute waffle, through and through

>> No.1516636

Orthodox Cartesian :
I'm afraid by getting hit by a train then it's enough for me to justify my material existence.

How do you justify your existence ?
/access denied human

>> No.1516641

>>1516625
>Guys when's the last time your sense data had the capacity to call itself into question? Complete misuse of the word 'perception'
Since always, optical (and other) illusions ftw.

Rest of the post is equally garbage, well done.

>> No.1516650

>>1516641
>Since always, optical (and other) illusions ftw.
There are no optical illusions. Your sense data never lies to you you are simply misinterpreting the data. This is kiddy stuff.

>> No.1516653

>>1516650
>Doesn't understand what sense data is
You are foolish, young one.

>> No.1516657

>>1516653
I understand what sense data is perfectly.

>> No.1516659

>>1516657
What a meaningless statement that goes nowhere.

Where do you think you stop sensing and begin interpreting?

>> No.1516662

you are all fighting over things which you will never truly understand

cliche, but there is a reason for that

>> No.1516664

>>1516659
Sense data does not interpret itself.

>> No.1516668

>>1516664
What cereal box you pick tidbit off of?

Still haven't answered the question, though now you've decided there's a clear demarcation between interpreting and sensing you've dug yourself a bit of a hole.

>> No.1516677

>>1516668
I've already answered your question the moment I replied to your garbage post.

>> No.1516678

well if you trust the structuralist or lacanian view that reality is essentially constructed via language and that languages and symbolism aren't created until we've reach a certain intelligence or mirror stage, then i suppose you can conclude that the concept of "existence" is itself human-made and a product of language. otherwise it turns into a semantics battle; also the fact that the physical world was here before we constructed languages and achieved reasonable intelligence proves something "existed" before "reality."

>> No.1516694

>>1514868
Justify the existence of that question.

>> No.1516697
File: 43 KB, 362x400, optical_illusion1_small.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1516697

>>1516677
Aww, he thinks he's answering and things. While that's cute and all, here's an optical illusion which sense data fails to handle. Which brings us back to the original point:
>Guys when's the last time your sense data had the capacity to call itself into question?
Nice entry level try, but you've got to get with the times on this one.

>> No.1516705

I refute Berkley thus

>> No.1516706

>>1516697
I will say this again:
sense data does not misinterpret anything

>> No.1516713

>>1516706
I agree, with Weak&Cagey on this one

>> No.1516711

>>1516697
>here's an optical illusion which sense data fails to handle

Also, so we can all have a good lol, please explain how sense data fails to handle anything in this picture

>> No.1516725

>Sense data does not misinterpret anything

ohgodihopethisisntatroll.jpg

>> No.1516732

>>1516706
We've moved on from the line of argument you wanted to go down:
>>1516650
Which is crap like the bent stick illusion.

I'm talking about illusions that sense data fails to handle, like the one in the pic above.

I've gone out of my way here to do this; I could just have easily gone "Sense data is called into question every time we realize there is something more to an object we are viewing".

>> No.1516742

>>1516732
>illusions that sense data fails to handle, like the one in the pic above.
You have yet to post one of these mythical beasts, or explain how sense data fails to handle whatever you've posted.

>Sense data is called into question every time we realize there is something more to an object we are viewing
But that's an entirely different claim to "sense data fails to handle x"

>> No.1516748
File: 149 KB, 468x344, 1294307861677.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1516748

>mfw this thread

>> No.1516750

>justify your material existence.

I am going to stop breathing now. If I die, then I knew I lived. Wish me luck.

>> No.1516751

Oh and by the way; if sense data "fails to handle something" you wouldn't know what it had failed to handle to begin with nor would it be applicable in the first place to say of it that it were 'handleable'

yesterday my sense data failed to handle a couple of ding an sichs guys :( but I'm pretty confident I'll get it 2morrow

this guy is such a fucking joke

>> No.1516761

>>1516742

>illusions that sense data fails to handle, like the one in the pic above.
>You have yet to post one of these mythical beasts, or explain how sense data fails to handle whatever you've posted.

I'm not the guy you're talking to, but this makes me think of optical illusions and also tricks that your body/mind can play on you. Our senses aren't infallible.

>> No.1516764

>>1516751
sense data refers specifically to theoretical entities in the sense datum theory. if you don't subscribe to dat theory then it's a bit senseless to talk of sense data.

>> No.1516765

>>1516761
What are we validating our senses against except other sense data?

>> No.1516767

>>1516742
Am I simply making a claim? Am I building an argument? It's also not an entirely different claim, since sense data is not totally static.

In simple terms: two possible ways of interpreting parts of the image. There is no clear distinction between where one interpretation begins, and another ends. It is at this point that sense data fails. Bridget Riley's work also produces a similar effect.

I'm guessing you're following Ayer on this, amirite?

>> No.1516771

>>1516765

>What are we validating our senses against except other sense data?

Well, yes, we compare it to our own experiences and the experiences of others.

>> No.1516772

>>1516751
Er, no. By the sounds of it we're not even talking about Sense data as it has been for the past 50/60 years. So in this case I must ask you to elaborate your position.

>> No.1516774

>>1516767
And why are you assuming that we interpret the picture as though it were a literal physical thing, the logical interpretation of the sense data that its a picture a fictitious thing, there is no conflict.

>> No.1516775
File: 58 KB, 311x311, Internet-Troll.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1516775

I think, therefore I am.

>> No.1516776

>>1516771
So why is there a problem, sense data as a whole is therefore infallible.

>> No.1516779

>>1516761
>this makes me think of optical illusions and also tricks that your body/mind can play on you
That is you telling yourself your body/mind is playing tricks on you. A sense organ such as an eye does not have the capacity for human behaviour ('playing tricks'), even the village idiot knows this.

>>1516767
>Am I simply making a claim? Am I building an argument
All you have been capable of doing in this thread is the first, you have been failing miserably, if you have been doing this at all, at the second

>there is no clear distinction between where one interpretation begins, and another ends
slippery slope, also hangs on what you count as an interpretation

>It is at this point that sense data fails
sense data does not fail. You could be dead and sense data would not fail, you would simply not have sense data. It is absolutely retarded to say of any sense data that it "fails" or "succeeds" or whatever.

>I'm guessing you're following Ayer on this, amirite?
I'm following not being a completely fucking retarded asshole

>> No.1516780

>>1516774
Because sense data exists in the mind. You may reinterpret it also as a picture, but you still cannot breakaway from your automatic interpretation of the picture. (without damaging certain parts of the brain).

>> No.1516781

ITT: some warmed-up Kant and a whole load of cant

>> No.1516784

>>1516780
What automatic interpretation? Do you seem a picture of a ladder and try to climb it? our brains can automatically distinguish a representation from reality.

>> No.1516788

>>1516779
Pssst... Ayer's arguments are not well thought of with regards them being sound. Take his argument from fallibility as an example.

>> No.1516790

>>1516776
>>1516776

Well, we would have a constant source of reference (everyones' experiences) for what is normal, but just because it's normal doesn't mean it's completely accurate. The map is not the territory and all that.

>> No.1516792

>our brains can automatically distinguish a representation from "reality"

lol, this thread is just so fucking retarded

>> No.1516794

>>1516784
You cannot help but see a picture of a ladder, just as you cannot help but see the letters in this post. Not without localized brain damage anyway. These kind of things have been incorporated into arguments about perception since the seventies, they're pretty standard now.

So Imma leave it at this, unless someone wants to join me in this decade. Hell, last quarter of a century.

>> No.1516796

>>1516790

>Well, we would have a constant source of reference (everyones' experiences) for what is normal,
In order to be infallible sure, but to be relatively certain we can make do with much less
>but just because it's normal doesn't mean it's completely accurate. The map is not the territory and all that.
Well than what is the territory? As far as I see it, an unknowable thing is as good as unreal.

>> No.1516797

>>1516792
welcome to your rightful kingdom!

>> No.1516801

>>1516794
You can't assume what is trendy to prove what is trendy.

>> No.1516802
File: 16 KB, 417x291, ceci-n-est-pas-une-pipe.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1516802

>>1516794
>You cannot help but see a picture of a ladder
the picture of a ladder is not a picture of a ladder

>you cannot help but see the letters in this post
the letters in this post are not the letters in this post

>These kind of things have been incorporated into arguments about perception since the seventies, they're pretty standard now. So Imma leave it at this, unless someone wants to join me in this decade. Hell, last quarter of a century.

This picture has been around since 1929

>> No.1516803

>>1516776
It's totally fallible. There's also no clear line where sense ends and interpretation begins, but hey, who cares about a doozie like that?

>> No.1516805

>There's also no clear line where sense ends and interpretation begins
An arbitrary cut off for the two can be established for whatever relative end is needed and there is no problem with this

>> No.1516819
File: 33 KB, 467x552, morsel.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1516819

>>1516802
>This picture has been around since 1929
Okay, just because I can't bear ignorance of Magritte: It is only not a pipe because we do not treat it as a pipe. If you look at this work here, "This is a Piece of Cheese", you will see the argument Magritte makes laid out in full. That is the treachery of images.

Therefore, based on the Magritte argument:
>the letters in this post are not the letters in this post
>the picture of a ladder is not a picture of a ladder
They are because you have treated them as such and they have been presented as such; you read the letters, you saw a picture of a ladder.

Stick to Baudrillard.

>> No.1516822

>>1516819
>They are because you have treated them as such
Sure

>and they have been presented as such
Sense data does not present itself as anything.

>> No.1516827

>>1516819
Stick to Baudrillard.

that's true actually...seems to be more your level D&E if you don't mind me saying

>> No.1516830

everyone in this thread besides me could do with several lines of Baudrillard

>> No.1516831

>>1516822
>Throw Magritte in
>Get out of comfort zone
>Run back to sense-data
Just don't bring in shit you can't back up.

>> No.1516842

>>1516831
this

i find it really easy to forgive his stupidity, but why such aggressive stupidity?

>> No.1516854

>>1516831
>>1516842

Geez guys it was a throwaway example, sense data is what we've been talking about all the way through here.

>> No.1516863

>>1516854
All dumb examples are throw away examples.

>> No.1516865

Pain & pleasure, S&M is the one true way to self

>> No.1516871

>Geez guys it was a throwaway example

yeah c'mon guys gees.

>> No.1516875

>Sense data does not present itself as anything.

Still waiting 4 someone dumb enough to contest this bros

>> No.1516883

>>1516875
c'mon man it was just a throwaway thing, geez

>> No.1516892
File: 35 KB, 519x395, cool.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1516892

>>1516678
so was what i wrote retarded? nobody put me in my place *blows kiss to d&e

>> No.1516893

>>1516883
cool red herring bro

>> No.1516902

>>1516893
agreed x100.
you can't just get out of stupid posts by saying it was 'throwaway' or some bullshit.

>> No.1516909

>>1516902
None of my posts have been stupid. In fact they are the best posts in this thread.

>> No.1516913

ignorantfag here

Wouldn't I need a thing different than "reality" and "material existence" to even compare? How can I be anything but?

>> No.1516917

>>1516909
no one said they had been. c'mon man, geez