/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.15478256]

>I think, therefore I am.
Philosophy has never actually evolved past this sentence. The only thing you can prove is that YOU exist. You can’t be sure whether reality as you see it is actually there. It could all be some kind of hallucination. How do I know that any of you actually exist, huh? How do I know that this life isn’t just a vision created by my mind. The only thing I know is that I exist.

Prove me wrong. Prove that objective reality exists. You can’t.

[Anonymous No.15478271]

Start with the Greeks

[Anonymous No.15478285]

>>15478256
"reality doesn't exist" philosophers were all schizos

[Anonymous No.15478286]

Well, if life is just a vision created by your mind then why don't you shoot yourself? Reality is objective.

[Anonymouse No.15478288]

>>15478256
How can you even prove you exist though? It’s just a statement, a string of words with an abstract but intangible meaning. What are you?

>>15478271
cringe, no need to read that unless you are very bored

[Anonymous No.15478292]

>>15478256
The Vedics agreed with you over three millennia ago. This is the bedrock of all branches of transcendentalism -- the idea that the only thing you can prove is the recursively subjective experience of your subjective experience. Transcendental religions attempt, through various means including meditation and psychedelic drugs, to reduce the barrier between self and other so you can experience anything that lies beyond your ego's parapets. The only real proof of other is to feel no sense of self.

[Anonymous No.15478315]

>>15478288
Newfag

[Anonymous No.15478324]

>>15478292
how do you know the 'other' isn't just another vaguely intertwined, extended piece of the self? If it really was other, wouldn't we be incapable of really seeing it? And if you can understand the other as an abstract concept, why would you need drugs?

[Anonymous No.15478327]

>>15478286
>if your house is really orange why don't you castrate yourself?

[Anonymous No.15478335]

yes, you cant escape the cage of your consciousness. Philosophy 101 stuff

[Anonymous No.15478350]

no kant did advance Descartes' position by holding that the self so spoken is temporal/temporalized for speaking, the statement means the cogito is performative. it has to enact itself in its thinking to itself as thinking, which means something has to transpire. or what Lacan says, saying "I" enunciates the enunciation but never that which enunciates. the voice from inside the locus twisted-out is displaced by its own constitutive factor

[Anonymous No.15478351]

>>15478256
Why don't you read the book you're quoting?

[Anonymouse No.15478356]

>>15478324
im not him or “pro-drug” but understanding an abstract concept is materialistic. knowledge can only come through experience, not thoughts. abstract beliefs are useless.

[Anonymous No.15478359]

>>15478356
>thoughts aren't experienced

[Anonymous No.15478363]

>>15478324
I don't know, because the only thing I have ever experienced is myself from my own point of view. This is also a fundamental turning point among the transcendentalist religions. The Buddhists believe what you're proposing, that the concepts of Brahman and Atman, are actually conflated for a unary ultimate reality in which all things are one.

[Anonymous No.15478372]

>>15478363
>I don't know, because the only thing I have ever experienced is myself from my own point of view.

How would you know that?

[Anonymous No.15478374]

>>15478356
Understanding ANYTHING is retarded when you can’t even prove that objective reality exists.

[Anonymous No.15478385]

>>15478351
Bothering to read ANYTHING is retarded when you can’t even prove objective reality exists. You might as well just be reading thoughts that are protected from your own mind. But you already know the answer, because it came from you.

[Anonymous No.15478394]

>>15478292
If you can prove something with maths it is real and not imaginary by definition

[Anonymous No.15478400]

>>15478359
are they? you are only thinking about what they thought may have been

[Anonymous No.15478408]

>>15478394
Can you prove mathematics itself?
Is it not entirely reliant on unproven axioms?

[Anonymous No.15478411]

>>15478372
The way my brain interprets the world around it tells me so. The structure of my brain has developed around this concept that I am me, that I end where my physical body ends. Otherwise, what is the function of nerve endings? My body is very invested in convincing me that there are discrete barriers to my sense of self. I know this because I experience these barriers. When I walk, my feet contact the ground, something I cannot interpret any other way than other. Though I am aware of abstractions, the character of my individual qualia is delineated by what I perceive as my physical form. You're asking me questions for which the solution is a concept larger than language can express. Whatever its name; Brahman, Atman, Nirvana, these are placeholders for not just a concept, but the EXPERIENCE of an alternate form of reality. The experience itself is what's referenced. Transcendentalism in its pure form is the attempt to reach this experience for yourself, where you view the nature of everything through an objective lens, rather than through the lens of the self.

[Anonymous No.15478414]

Reminder that you and me are the only people left on this board. I write multiple responses every minute and you still think there are other people here. Most threads are just auto-generated by this point.

[Anonymous No.15478424]

>>15478408
Some maths is invented some is discovered

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TKlPj_qGIt8

[Anonymous No.15478426]

>>15478385
Why wouldn't reality exist? logically speaking its impossible for it not to.

[Anonymous No.15478429]

>>15478424
And can you prove the basic axioms of mathematics?
No.

[Anonymous No.15478438]

>>15478414
Why would that bother me? From my perspective, it seems as though I am communicating with 14 individual posters, even if I'm not, what difference would it ultimately make?

[Anonymous No.15478456]

>>15478429

I = I
I + I = II

It is fundamental and proves itself faggot

[Anonymous No.15478460]

>>15478256
Alright, dubs and God exist

[Anonymous No.15478474]

>>15478456
Yeah, they're fundamental, yet still assumed axioms.
Where exactly is your proof for the Peano axioms? They're stated to exist, they're fundamental for mathematics, yet where exactly do they come from? What proof do you have for them?
>I = I
Prove it. Prove their equality.
>proves itself faggot
Circular reasoning doesn't prove anything.

[Anonymous No.15478510]

>>15478474
If we can assume that self and other exist, then the existence of self implies the mathematical concept of "one," and the existence of other implies the mathematical concept of "two." I think it's more than a little lazy to try to frame everything in the context of your belief in an argument that states nothing is provable. With a different set of assumptions, there is a somewhat easy proof of the basic mathematic axioms that can be derived. Mathematics is simply a language. 1 + 1 = 2 in the same way that "elephant" represents a large gray mammal with horns and a long nose. It's just an abstraction.

[Anonymous No.15478515]

>>15478510
>If we can assume that self and other exist
We can't. Prove they exist.
You're just falling into infinite regression if you keep this up. Have you never even heard of the Münchausen trilemma?

[Anonymous No.15478516]

>>15478256
Uh, you're MY hallucination. Not the other way around.

[Anonymous No.15478523]

>>15478515
Do you feel the need to prove that the word "elephant" exists?

[Anonymous No.15478542]

>>15478523
Yes.
"elephant" exists certainly only to the extent of this immediate qualia. The qualia of "elephant" right here exists, but that is it. Anything else you would fail to prove.

[Anonymous No.15478580]

>>15478542
>only to the extent of this immediate qualia
Sorry, and what exactly is that extent? How can you prove it if the proof is also just a function of an instantaneous, infinitesimal slice of subjectivity? Really trying to understand here.

[Anonymous No.15478594]

You ultimately can't prove the external world exists. But it's more parsimonious to accept the external world as reality, so that should be the starting assumption.

[Anonymous No.15478681]

>>15478580
>Sorry, and what exactly is that extent?
I'm unable to translate qualitative experience into text.
>How can you prove it
I can't.
The existence of experience is simply certain through its experience itself. If something is experienced, then something is experienced.
>if the proof is also just a function of an instantaneous, infinitesimal slice of subjectivity
All experience is subjective, but the existence of that infinitesimal slice of subjectivity shows that at the least that slice of subjectivity is. If there is an experience, then something is.

[Anonymous No.15479214]

>>15478256
Yes, but can YOU prove that YOU are thinking - or might it be that you are simply responding to thinking occurring?

[Anonymous No.15479273]

>i think therefore i am
>also god is real lmao
Descartes was a fucking mongoloid

[Anonymous No.15479279]

>>15478288
>t. never read Descartes

[Anonymous No.15479303]

>>15478256
Descartes himself proved more than the cogito, literally a few sentences after stating it.

[Anonymous No.15479322]

>>15478256
If you can't then whats the point in even discussing it? I don't understand why people get bogged down in shit like this and it causes an existential crisis.Its an important thing to discuss but when you let it get in the way of other things you may as well just blow your brains out because the bullet wouldn't be real anyway.

[Anonymous No.15479323]

>>15479273
This. And I still don't get why everybody thinks his "intuition" should be the foundation for all knowledge lol

[Anonymous No.15479327]

>>15478256
If you believe "Reality is an Illusion", the word "Illusion" implies a falsification of Reality, but if Reality is an Illusion, there is no Reality to falsify.

There. Done.

[Anonymous No.15479330]

>>15479327
(not OP) only according to logic but logic is fake and gay

[Anonymous No.15479355]

>>15479327
What if there is a hidden reality underneath the apparent reality we perceive?