Why don't more philosophers talk about the obvious inherent weirdness of existing? The fact that it's impossible and so strange to be at whatsoever in the first place like look around man, where are we. The fuck is this.

File: 301 KB, 498x498, pepe writing.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Sat Apr 9 16:34:08 2022 No.20198079 [Reply] [Original]

Why don't more philosophers talk about the obvious inherent weirdness of existing? The fact that it's impossible and so strange to be at whatsoever in the first place like look around man, where are we. The fuck is this.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 9 16:43:33 2022 No.20198111 >>20198079 start with the greeks kid

Anonymous Sat Apr 9 16:55:04 2022 No.20198163

>>20198111
I read Plato and Aristotle and Epicurus and the presocratics. They barely touched on my point and you saying that makes me feel like YOU never fucking read the greeks, man. They dealt with other interesting topics of their own. Logical questions, paradoxes, ethics. But not this one. Tell me where they talked about this specifically. All I know of is like one or two paragraphs from some of the presocratics that even mention something close to this, but even then don't address it directly.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 9 17:00:48 2022 No.20198176 >>20198163 Youre going to have to start all over and actually pay attention zoomer.

Anonymous Sat Apr 9 17:04:20 2022 No.20198193

Don't listen to him OP, I'm fully behind you and have wondered the same. Like what the fuck is going on? Why are we enfleshed here? Everybody seems to be taking it for granted. I believe that not feeling this misery is the true dividing line between NPCs and actually observant consciousnesses

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 9 17:05:21 2022 No.20198197 >>20198193 Mystery not misery but perhaps both work

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 9 17:25:16 2022 No.20198255 >>20198079 >>20198193 Wtf are you talking about? This is literally everything philosophy has ever talked about "wtf is happening?"

Anonymous Sat Apr 9 18:51:13 2022 No.20198646

>>20198255
No, I can't recall a single text whose sentiment is just total flabergastedness at existing. There's always an underlying sureness about something, even if it's just pure pessimism and negation, because it is deadset in its view of everything being pointless

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 9 18:55:03 2022 No.20198659 >>20198646 You doubt your existence?

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 9 18:56:42 2022 No.20198667 >>20198659 He's broken through.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 9 18:57:45 2022 No.20198671 >>20198659 No, where did you get that from

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 9 19:01:11 2022 No.20198693 >>20198079 Literally Heidegger lol. Read more youngling.

Anonymous Sat Apr 9 19:02:04 2022 No.20198700

>>20198646
what kind of sentiment would that be? it wouldn't be worth reading. Its fundamental. You want to read someone just going 'hhurr durr wtf is going on ahhhhhhh'
what you are describing is philosophy, you just cant seem to grasp that, but that's on you.

Anonymous Sat Apr 9 19:08:10 2022 No.20198729

>>20198079
You might enjoy absurdism or existentialism. The former is stressed as futile, repetitive and humorous to an extent, aiming to display life as mundane yet paradoxical. The latter focuses on creating your own meaning or life purpose. Overall both generally focus on authenticity and rebellion rather than conformism or tradition

Catch-22 or Kafka's books as well
>>20198111
This is good for logic and reasoning, you might also enjoy the early rhetoricians/sophists as well

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 9 19:09:12 2022 No.20198735 >>20198700 reddit

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 9 19:11:00 2022 No.20198746 >>20198735 No. Reeeeeeeaaad it. There.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 9 19:11:12 2022 No.20198747 >>20198193 asking things only things that exist can ask. it can also not exist, but it doesn’t get to ask this question

Anonymous Sat Apr 9 19:14:12 2022 No.20198764

>>20198700
I would want that. I would want a book that breaks the automatization of experience and actually places the reader in front of the mystery of existence. Because we are taught and conditioned to ignore this fundamental aspect, the utter mystery of existence. People even get mad if someone tries to point it out as this thread shows. I would like a book that only wants to deepen the feeling of mystery, not pile some ontological systems on it and act like it settles it

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 9 19:17:51 2022 No.20198788 >>20198764 Wasting your time with books. If you want the experience of mystery go for walk in a graveyard at night. Sit quietly. Silence you thoughts. Sit still. Look continuously at the stars without blinking. Stop being a bitch.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 9 19:19:25 2022 No.20198794 >>20198764 I like this request and I want works about this as well. I'm too dumb to make intelligent posts and the best I can do it say "reddit", but you wrote what I wanted to write. >>20198788 This guy is pure reddit.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 9 19:23:04 2022 No.20198813 >>20198788 I often go roaming through nature. Used to meditate too, but my practice faltered. Still, it wouldn't hurt reading books which have the sentiments I described. For some reason, people get very defensive when talking about this

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 9 19:24:50 2022 No.20198822 >>20198794 >reddit Read it. Just read Critique of Pure Reason and quit bitching like bitchy bitched bitchable bitch.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 9 19:26:31 2022 No.20198833 >>20198764 >>20198794 I mean, any book about alienation or existentialism deals with this in some form Nausea by Sartre The Stranger by Camus No Longer Human by Dazai The Trial by Kafka etc etc

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 9 19:26:44 2022 No.20198836 >>20198822 Noo, that is definitely not what we are seeking to find here

Anonymous Sat Apr 9 19:27:52 2022 No.20198838
File: 31 KB, 554x554, 1649546576974.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>20198693
Heidegger avoids answering ontological questions by saying that we are beings in a world, and that what the world is, or what the reasons for it existing might be are beyond our possible frame of reference. He sinks into a perspective similar to that of a church priest telling his followers that one cannot question God's intentions because God is a timeless, spaceless Supreme Being who acts in mysterious ways.

Anonymous Sat Apr 9 19:29:54 2022 No.20198849

>>20198813
Because nobody knows the fucking answer to the mystery. Two thousand years of philosophers have spent lifetimes trying to solve this fucking problem. And we're fucking tired, stressed, over worked and then every generation a newfag pops up having barely read a goddamn book on the topic talking about how no one talks about said topic. It's all very tiring and makes you want to fuck some shit up like flip a table or something.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 9 19:30:12 2022 No.20198851 >>20198833 No, this definitely doesn't fit the bill either. I like Kafka, though. Existentialism as philosophy still seems to shirk from standing in presence of mystery

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 9 19:31:02 2022 No.20198856 >>20198838 Yes. Thats literally the fucking mystery OP is talking about.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 9 19:31:27 2022 No.20198857 >>20198849 That's what we want, a book which embrace there not being an answer. You seem to got it all wrong

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 9 19:31:59 2022 No.20198858 >>20198079 I know what you're talking about. I sometimes catch myself wondering >why do i have to exist at all and why am i specifically this person?

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 9 19:32:39 2022 No.20198863 HOW STRANGE IT IS TO BE ANYTHING AT ALLLLLLLLLLLLLLL

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 9 19:33:05 2022 No.20198868 >>20198851 I see, what about absurdism then? Have you read the The Myth of Sisyphus? Camus sounds like he would be right up your ally, he rejects the existentialists and the nihilists, choosing to rebel against the fundemental nothingness

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 9 19:33:52 2022 No.20198871 >>20198849 >solve this fucking problem It's not a problem, and it doesn't need to be solved.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 9 19:33:58 2022 No.20198872 >>20198079 dude weed, the thread.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 9 19:34:06 2022 No.20198873 File: 2.25 MB, 940x627, joker.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>20198079 Babby's first philosophical thought. It's like when you stare into a mirror for too long and start to question your existence.

Anonymous Sat Apr 9 19:37:48 2022 No.20198884

>>20198857
That would require a fucking book. It would take a fucking sentence. Here: Holy fuck we're here and we don't know how we got here and we don't know why we're here, holy shit holy fucking fuck shit fuck.

There. That expresses what your looking for. My go read some poetry if you want existential feels. Idk read romantic poets or something.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 9 19:39:06 2022 No.20198891 >>20198871 Tell that to the philosophers. And they will laugh at your naivity.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 9 19:39:07 2022 No.20198892 >>20198884 nta but stfu you annoying faggot

Anonymous Sat Apr 9 19:40:01 2022 No.20198897

>>20198838
Heidegger also runs away from mystery into terminology. We want something like: Reader, there will be no answers here. Only a question. An expanding question subsuming everything available to your thought and sense. What is the structure you are observing? Are you aware that no one knows the answer? Are you aware that at this very moment you are witnessing a mystery of such scope and depth you can barely grasp it? A sense of it appears only in fleeting moments when the floor seems to disappear under our feet. And so on...

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 9 19:40:08 2022 No.20198900 >>20198892 No. fuck you and fuck you

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 9 19:41:02 2022 No.20198903 >>20198856 That's more or less the usual "Don't ask any questions" quietist stance that most major philosophers have adopted from Hume's time onwards. It's not even entertaining any possible explanations for the question.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 9 19:42:47 2022 No.20198912 >>20198903 You can ask the fucking questions, but good fucking luck finding an answer everyone can agree on.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 9 19:46:49 2022 No.20198929 >>20198884 Do you see how you can only approach this through irony? Why are you scared to truly feel the depth of the mystery? I understand you, it's the scariest thing there is.

Anonymous Sat Apr 9 19:52:42 2022 No.20198974

>>20198929
Because mystery entails uncertainty and uncertainty is very bad for a living organism trying to stay alive. You know what's the biggest fucking mystery? Death. You know what causes fear? Ignorance. Until that mystery is solved, as an animal lacking instincts to guide us, we are fucked, as the history of the human race demonstrates and it's obsession to secure certainty by collectively and individually accepting uncritically accepted narratives and metaphysics just so we can get by day to day demonstrates.

Anonymous Sat Apr 9 19:58:04 2022 No.20199000

>>20198974
Good, very nice thinking, it is scary, yes. But we shouldn't be like animals, running away from a strange sources of light. We should acknowledge it. Even death would become a minor issue if we acknowledged the totality of mystery. For human death is only a small part of the whole

Anonymous Sat Apr 9 20:07:05 2022 No.20199036

>>20198079
I don't like to think about it. Maybe they don't either. Even if you posit there's levels of reality higher or lower or whatever, or the eternal God, it only pushes the question aside temporarily because everything must have context. You're asking what's outside of the context. The only place it can lead ultimately is to a self-referential feedback loop.

Anonymous Sat Apr 9 20:10:49 2022 No.20199063

>>20199000
It is acknowledged. It is fucking acknowledged. The fact that two thousand plus years of trying to solve this mystery have resulted inconclusive is a testament to that fact. We would not try so fucking hard to solve it if it wasn't so fucking important to human beings. It's literally a matter of life and death. Without the answer to that question we are left with only pleasant and unpleasant as the guides to our life without a greater reason to live than to pursue the pleasant and avoid pain. But what happens when there is too much pain? What happens when humam existence is suffering? Then you stop giving a fuck about the FACT of the mystery, and start looking for a solution. Because, unless there is a greater reason to live, unless there is an answer to the mystery, to the question of a greater meaning and purpose, then when human life ceases to be enjoyable it ceases to have a reason to exist.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 9 20:14:41 2022 No.20199074 >>20198079 You might like something called absurdism Don't get too caught up in it though

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 9 20:18:26 2022 No.20199087 >>20198912 Who says everyone needs to agree?

Anonymous Sat Apr 9 20:23:37 2022 No.20199114

>>20199063
I don't think it's acknowledged at all. Those two thousands years were mostly spent in complete cultural confidence of what is happening. Today still everybody is selling absolute confidence and grand answers, but anyone somewhat honest would see they are empty. The mystery has nothing to do with human life and death. Humans are a tiny fragment of it. Perhaps there are moments of suffering in human existence, but I don't see how does that make the mystery any lesser. I don't really follow your point anymore, it is all over the place and contradicting also. Could your repeat your point calmer and clearer

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 9 20:26:02 2022 No.20199130 >>20198863 THE ONLY GIRL I'VE EVER LOVEEEEEEEED WAS BORN WITH ROSES IN HER EYEEEEEEEEEES

Anonymous Sat Apr 9 20:34:44 2022 No.20199163

>>20199087
Fucking Science says. Jesus. Look if something is necessarily and universally true, then it is true for everyone everywhere always. Any persone with a correctly functioning brain could be demonstrated this truth through some deductive proof. If it's empirically true it can be shown to any one with the same type of functioning sensory organs and cognitive organs. Truth is either showable or provable or both. But deductive proofs gotta start somewhere so they start with what can be shown directly, or seen directly, by anyone willing to look. If everyone looked at a scientific object they would in principle agree at least on the existence of the object. That's the point I'm making. Not that we do- that's another problem, but only that we can't even make any headway, at all, AT ALL, until we can ALL agree on some point of departure from which to attempt to solve the mystery. And even then, we're still not in the clear bc we could all just be retards in a collective delusion we've all for some reason failed to notice.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 9 20:35:55 2022 No.20199171 >>20199114 >Those two thousands years were mostly spent in complete cultural confidence of what is happening. Jesus fucking christ. Read more books.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 9 20:43:38 2022 No.20199217 >>20199171 Exactly, Jesus Christ served as the answer among others

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 9 20:47:52 2022 No.20199238 >>20199036 >a self-referential feedback loop I'm a turbobrainlet. Does this have anything to do with Kant's thing in itself?

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 9 20:49:17 2022 No.20199247 >>20198079 This question also pops up in my mind from time to time. It's weird.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 9 20:50:34 2022 No.20199254 >>20199163 >Look if something is necessarily and universally true, then it is true for everyone everywhere always. Reality is different for hylics. Some things are true for them that are not true for others.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 9 20:50:58 2022 No.20199256 >>20199163 Science is nonsense, kid.

Anonymous Sat Apr 9 20:56:21 2022 No.20199281

>>20199217
Plato- Phaedo, Meno, Symposium, Republic
Aristotle- De Anima, Metaphysics
Plotinus- Enneads
Iamblichus- De Anima, De Mysteriis
Proclus- Elements of Theology
John the Scot- Periphyseon
Deascartes- Everything
Spinoza- Everything
Leibniz- Everything
Locke, Berkeley, Hume- stuff on human mind
Kant- three critiques, inaugural dissertation, dreams of spiritseer
Fichte- Wissenchaftslehre
Schelling- Everything
Hegel- Everything

There that's only the beginning. Now go.

Anonymous Sat Apr 9 20:58:06 2022 No.20199289

>>20199238
It's a coincidence if it does, because I haven't read Kant. I'm just trying to describe my experience of contemplating what's beyond the context of existence. My mind rebounds off the unknown. Where can it rebound to? Itself.
It gives me a sinking sensation, sinking into myself, the mind turning inside out and projecting outwards so that it is the universe and can't therefore conceive of what's behind it. It might be a question impossible for philosophy to address.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 9 20:58:50 2022 No.20199293 >>20199256 Science is knowledge, kid. Truth, kid. Scientia, kid. Learn some fucking Latin, kid.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 9 21:01:28 2022 No.20199307 >>20199254 I said necessarily and universally. Objective truth not subjective. Is there such a thing? Idk. I rest my case.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 9 21:02:02 2022 No.20199311 >>20199281 A lot of people who couldn't just accept the fact they don't know t

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 9 21:06:33 2022 No.20199328 >>20199311 Socrates tried tho

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 9 21:06:43 2022 No.20199330 >>20199311 No retard. YOU don't know. They MAY have known or at least tried to establish whether or not it is IN PRINCIPLE possible to know and then HOW it can be made actual if it is possible. Read books.

Anonymous Sat Apr 9 21:06:51 2022 No.20199331

>>20199163
>Look if something is necessarily and universally true, then it is true for everyone everywhere always
Incorrect
>they would in principle agree
And you're entire rubbish worldview comes down to this little error. In principle (which is to say, something I consider subjectively objective) everyone would see the same thing, where by "everyone" I mean "everyone as myself." Truth and mutual agreement are fundamentally at odds with each other. The highest truth is subjective and in its subjectivity, it becomes objective.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 9 21:09:15 2022 No.20199340 >>20199330 Damn, vro, it's true i don't know, but I have no idea why are you mad and what's your point, but if those books made you like that maybe i should steer clear from them

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 9 21:11:43 2022 No.20199345 >>20199293 Words are not forever bound to their roots, kid. That's linguistics 101.

Anonymous Sat Apr 9 21:11:58 2022 No.20199347

>>20199330
The fact they think they know and are trying to establish principles of knowing is precisely what we are trying to dispel. A clear ground, to observe the mystery. People like you may have issues with losing their toys, but no one is gonna force them out of your hand. You can keep your eyes closed

Anonymous Sat Apr 9 21:13:52 2022 No.20199353

>>20199331
Read books retard. You have the logical ability of a first grader. Look up universal and necessary truth. I know universal assent is not a sufficient condition for objective truth, it's not even a necessary condition. Read the last sentence of the post you last replied to since you obviously didn't read it.

Anonymous Sat Apr 9 21:15:26 2022 No.20199362

>>20199347
If you dispel everything by which to see there is no longer even a mystery, there is simply darkness. You might as well be a rabid animal incapable of thought, just consuming, sleeping and mating. You'd be no different to them, blind and wandering driven by the sense pleasures.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 9 21:15:37 2022 No.20199363 >>20199340 Yes ignorance is bliss, knowledge brings sorrow, etc., etc., but eventually life throws you lemons and you want answers.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 9 21:15:54 2022 No.20199366 >>20198764 Beckett

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 9 21:17:44 2022 No.20199375 >>20199345 Only for the retards who don't study the etymology or true meaning of words.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 9 21:17:50 2022 No.20199377 Personally, I thought OP's request was for works that marvel at existing, and expand on how one can bask in it. Not works about understanding or solving any kind of mystery or problem.

Anonymous Sat Apr 9 21:17:57 2022 No.20199378

>>20199353
I know exactly what it means, I'm saying it does not exist as you think it does. There is no universal or necessary proof you can present to me which is not basically circular. And I know you will just cite mathematical axioms, because those are the only "truths" you have, which are just tautologies, and therefore only subjectively objective (objective when taken in themselves).
>I know universal assent is not a sufficient condition for objective truth
Yet you just stated this:
"That's the point I'm making. Not that we do- that's another problem, but only that we can't even make any headway, at all, AT ALL, until we can ALL agree on some point of departure"
Why can "we" not make any "headway" without agreeing on a "point of departure"?

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 9 21:18:16 2022 No.20199381 >>20198857 Outlines of Skepticism

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 9 21:19:06 2022 No.20199385 >>20198079 hehehheheheheeidegger my boi

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 9 21:19:43 2022 No.20199386 >>20199347 Read books. I can guarantee you haven't read half the authors I mentioned because your responses show it.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 9 21:21:26 2022 No.20199394 >>20199375 Meaning changes. That's the point.

Anonymous Sat Apr 9 21:21:50 2022 No.20199396

>>20198255
The problem with philosophy is it tries to generalize when consciousness is deeply personal. We label the personal element mysticism and do our best to handwaive it away, eliminate it, or outright resist it. It's a laughable affair all around because what we are denying isn't really "here" at all but "elsewhere". There's no philosophy that can wrestle our ability to experience through the imagination into submission because the act of giving form to the essence through any form: art, knowledge, or action, is not the essence. Philosphy is the absurdism of a taxidermist insisting it is a biologist. Only your own wild fantasies can fill this hole and, if you are discerning, greatly enrich your life experience rather than diminish it through filtered reason.

Anonymous Sat Apr 9 21:24:42 2022 No.20199412

>>20199378
Holy fuck you either haven't read or understood Kant. Read Kant.

Headway means progress in philosophy. If you can't agree on principles you can even have an argument. Not that the development will lead to Truth, unless you start with Truth. Read German Idealism.

Anonymous Sat Apr 9 21:25:06 2022 No.20199414

>>20199362
I have senses, perception, affections and language. Why would I have to be like an animal? You are blind, your eyes poked out by a bunch of thick goggles others told you to wear. This thread is about the appreciation of mystery and you are so scared of it that you are desperately trying to reign in everyone by answers. We don't seek answers here. We imbibe on the deepest draughts of unfathomableness. Now stop your sperging I ask kindly, there's surely other threads for you

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 9 21:28:05 2022 No.20199429 >>20199386 Your books are not welcome here. Barbarous sophistry, all of it, pompusly self-sure and horridly dated, unattuned to the deepest mysteries

Anonymous Sat Apr 9 21:28:06 2022 No.20199430

>>20199412
I've read Kant. And he is wrong about many things.
>Headway means progress in philosophy.
Yes, and philosophy is a fundamentally personal thing. Agreement between "philosophers", who can be the most neurologically divergent types of people, is not only impossible but also worthless in itself.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 9 21:30:48 2022 No.20199440 >>20199414 That wasn't me that one some other fag. Philosophy appreciates the mystery. It wrestles with it because only npc's go " whoa my existence is a mystery. Cooooool. Guess I'll just go back to being a normalfag now."

Anonymous Sat Apr 9 21:31:12 2022 No.20199442

>>20199414
>I have senses, perception, affections and language
Yes, and it seems you want to discard them all, or "dispel" them to embrace the "mystery" because none of them are able to give it to you. It sounds like a death cult.
>Why would I have to be like an animal?
Because you are attempting to eliminate your ability to see anything clearly, in the name of "The Mystery", which is just a figment of your imagination.
>We don't seek answers here. We imbibe on the deepest draughts of unfathomableness.
Which, as I just said, is nothing, except by the sounds of it, a merely ecstatic sensual experience paraded as intellectuality, when in reality it is the exact opposite.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 9 21:34:01 2022 No.20199449 >>20199440 No, your philosophy couches itself in comfy answers. Just look at its name, love of knowledge. We don't want their knowledge, we want to have space to witness mystery, without you spergs collectively going ACKSHUALLYY

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 9 21:34:12 2022 No.20199450 >>20198079 The Bible already addressed this. There isn't really anything left to talk about.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 9 21:35:18 2022 No.20199458 >>20199442 More of your blindness. I seek to dispel you, telling me what is it that I want to do. I'll be perfectly fine without your intellectualism

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 9 21:35:54 2022 No.20199461 >>20199442 >paraded as intellectuality You brought that here, buddy.

Anonymous Sat Apr 9 21:38:17 2022 No.20199468

>>20199430
>And he is wrong about many things.
Says you. But maybe you didn't understand. Because if you did you'd know that that the original synthetic unity of apperception is THE fucking mystery and at the same is what we must ALL , every self conscious human being, agree on. Hence the univeral and necessary truth.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 9 21:42:06 2022 No.20199488 >>20199449 >love of knowledge Love of wisdom retard >we don't want their knowledge So willful ignorance.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 9 21:43:04 2022 No.20199493 >>20199468 Thread is about the mysteriousness of existence and this guy comes to speak about universal, necessary truth. It's funny really

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 9 21:44:20 2022 No.20199497 >>20199488 Even worse They can't give the answer for what we are talking about

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 9 21:47:22 2022 No.20199509 >>20199493 The mystery is the universal and necessary truth.

Anonymous Sat Apr 9 21:47:46 2022 No.20199510

>>20199468
>Says you
Who else would be saying it? Our truths are entirely subjective. Kant's reasoning is most obviously flawed in the antinomies, where he presents one logically valid argument and one logically invalid. Schopenhauer was intelligent enough to point out many of these inconsistencies in the Fourfold Root, so perhaps it is you who did not comprehend Schopenhauer. Or maybe you only read Kant and none of his contemporaries or successors.
>Because if you did you'd know that that the original synthetic unity of apperception
The synthetic unity of apperception, as per the name ("synthetic"), is only a construct of reason, and one which is very dubious at best. And even if it were justified, it would still only be the case for me, there would be no necessary reason to apply it to other beings. If they choose to accept something like that, that would be their decision. At the end of the day it is a mere synthetic judgement, it remains questionable and unverifiable, ie unnecessary. If it is unnecessary, then it is not universal, if it is not universal, then your point loses validity.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 9 21:49:11 2022 No.20199520 >>20199509 It's a mystery so we don't know if it's universal, necessary or true. NEXT

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 9 21:49:24 2022 No.20199521 >>20199497 Which you just assume before the fact. Even if so far they haven't, that doesn't mean in principle they can't. But you won't ever know if you don't try npc.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 9 21:51:00 2022 No.20199526 >>20199520 No we do know. Thats the mystery. Retard. Keep those brain cells firing. You'll get there.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 9 21:51:41 2022 No.20199528 >>20199521 Their words against what we are facing is a pencil eraser trying to break through a mountain

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 9 21:52:07 2022 No.20199529 test

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 9 21:53:02 2022 No.20199536 >>20199526 Complete nonsense. Let me imitate you for a sec ACKSHUALLY

Anonymous Sat Apr 9 21:56:23 2022 No.20199548

>>20199510
>Our truths are entirely subjective.
You're not getting it bro

You don't know what ORIGINAL synthetic unity of apperception means. If you don't grasp the importance of this reread the 2nd edition transcendental deduction.

Schopenhauer got filtered hard. He even admitted he didn't understand what the schematism chapter was about.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 9 22:01:35 2022 No.20199572 >>20199442 >e attempting to eliminate your ability to see anything clearly, in the name of "The Mystery", which is just a figment of your imagination. Sounds based.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 9 22:02:00 2022 No.20199574 >>20199548 I didn't realize how toxic people who read and argue about German Idealism are until this thread

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 9 22:05:30 2022 No.20199592 >>20199572 It's not actually true tho, his notion of clear vision is relating quotes from skimmed translations of German Idealism to his direct experience and finding some sense of fundamental grounding in truth from this practice.

Anonymous Sat Apr 9 22:11:39 2022 No.20199618

>>20199574
We're not toxic it's just that we take this stuff way more seriously than anyone else. I don't see how you could even get anything out of it if you did otherwise. It's not for dilettantes and that sort of unavoidable elitism is anathema to the democracy equality loving npc.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 9 22:12:58 2022 No.20199623 >>20199618 >fucking fuck fuck fuck just read a book! Your elitism sucks.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 9 22:13:59 2022 No.20199628 >>20199618 You're very toxic. Thread is about mystery, you came saying you know what it is

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 9 22:14:13 2022 No.20199630 >>20199623 It is what it is.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 9 22:15:15 2022 No.20199640 File: 234 KB, 850x911, Ultimate_Of_Questionability.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] http://kiriakakis.net/comics/mused/a-day-at-the-park

Anonymous Sat Apr 9 22:17:57 2022 No.20199654

>>20199628
It still is a mystery wtf. Why are y'all being like this? I haven't dispelled the mystery. It's still a mystery. It's an even bigger fucking mystery. Except now you know more about the mystery. That's the mystery? How do we know? I don't know. Nobody knows. Holy fucking mystery.

N E M O . !!GgBWHLRiayD Sat Apr 9 22:19:24 2022 No.20199665
File: 51 KB, 802x556, 8e8.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>Why don't more philosophers talk about the obvious inherent weirdness of existing? The fact that it's impossible and so strange to be at whatsoever in the first place like look around man, where are we. The fuck is this.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 9 22:20:49 2022 No.20199672 >>20199654 I just know that a ghost of an internally supressed, disappointed German is using you as a mouth piece to spill out bile, you haven't shown anything except your blindness

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 9 22:21:34 2022 No.20199679 >wooooah it's just like unknowable let's think about how unknowable we can know nothing about but better spend time enjoying how spooky mysterious it is. This is just optimistic nihilism. Now stfu about how nobody understands you.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 9 22:22:39 2022 No.20199690 >>20199665 It's a noble question. Your sort, who has to respond to it with irony, was discussed already in the thread. Now green text me if you dare

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 9 22:23:58 2022 No.20199692 >>20199679 Another one. People are really scared of it

>>	N E M O . !!GgBWHLRiayD Sat Apr 9 22:25:58 2022 No.20199701 >>20199690 It is an oversubjectivistic, redundant question, of the g:Olem species.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 9 22:26:11 2022 No.20199702 >>20199672 I'm not the one willfully ignorant. If that's blindness I guess I'm blind.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 9 22:27:49 2022 No.20199712 >>20199701 Go ask objective necessary questions somewhere else. This thread is for people who want to appreciate the ultimate mystery

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 9 22:28:20 2022 No.20199715 >>20199692 Nobody is scared of it. They just grew up and realized you can't sit around mysterbating all day.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 9 22:28:20 2022 No.20199716 >>20199692 Because it is fucking scary. If you're not scared of it your either God or a liar.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 9 22:29:03 2022 No.20199724 >>20199702 What you think is knowledge in relation to what was supposed to be discussed in this thread is those blinders they put on horses

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 9 22:30:16 2022 No.20199727 >>20199715 So why can't we mysterbate only now and again without you coming to act all high and mighty about it

Anonymous Sat Apr 9 22:30:34 2022 No.20199728

>>20199548
>You don't know what ORIGINAL means
The conclusion of the argument is that it is original. Kant did not start from its originality, he concluded in it, which does not affect anything I just said. It's the same phenomenon as when religious philosophers conclude, through arguments which are not actually rooted in God's originality, that God is the origin (ie they attempt to deduce cause from effect in the orders of manifestation, without ever actually finding the cause, it just a problematic deduction based on dubious premises which can't be verified). The point is, regardless of whether or not apperception is original, it is still a synthetic judgement.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 9 22:31:08 2022 No.20199729 >>20199724 No it's choosing to at least try to solve the mystery instead of just standing there dumbfounded assuming it can't be solved.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 9 22:31:17 2022 No.20199730 >>20199715 And you are scared, you have no idea

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 9 22:32:33 2022 No.20199737 >>20199729 It's preposterous. Solve it? Solve THAT by pencil pushing? Nonsense

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 9 22:36:54 2022 No.20199758 File: 790 KB, 680x406, 1649432651522.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Pessimists are the most honest about this fact. We know that existence is inherently weird and unknowable but it also seems to hate us and want us dead.

Anonymous Sat Apr 9 22:37:32 2022 No.20199760

>>20199730
Not really. People create philosophical systems so they don't spend their (apparently) limited life in fear of the unknown. The mystery must be abstracted. You aren't even scared though you desperately want to be. Otherwise you'd be trembling in the dirt in agony instead of shitting up the literature board of a tibetan ginko biloba farm.

Anonymous Sat Apr 9 22:38:41 2022 No.20199763

>>20199728
You have it COMPLETELY backwards he starts from the GIVEN FACT of the ORIGINAL synthetic unity of apperception then works his way backwards explaining what has to be in place for that fact to be. The fact itself is a fucking mystery. The original synthetic unity of apperception is not a judgement, it is the act of unified awareness itself. Here 'synthetic' has a different meaning than 'synthetic' in a 'synthetic judgment'

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 9 22:40:22 2022 No.20199770 >>20199760 So fear is only supressed. This was discussed. My fear is what drives me to type this. I need to see a glint of understanding in someone's eye

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 9 22:41:18 2022 No.20199778 >>20199737 >Nonsense Only for the npc

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 9 22:42:35 2022 No.20199781 >>20199778 Tell me when you extinguish a star with your solution

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 9 22:46:01 2022 No.20199794 >>20199781 By the time I can extinguish a star I won't care to come back to Earth

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 9 22:49:51 2022 No.20199810 >>20199794 Why not? They have nice lemonade there

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 9 22:53:11 2022 No.20199830 >>20199810 There's a whole multidimensional reality to explore. Lemonade just won't cut it anymore.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 9 22:56:10 2022 No.20199838 >>20199830 At least say on which page in the Critique is the formula for the space vortex before you go

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 9 23:07:20 2022 No.20199893 >>20199838 B edition. Doctrine of elements pt.2 div.1 book.2 ch.2 section.3 subsection.2 The Anticipations of Perception specifically beginninng at B211.

Anonymous Sat Apr 9 23:08:12 2022 No.20199900

>At all levels, the systems of life - from sociopolitical systems to solar systems - are repugnant and should be negated as MALIGNANTLY USELESS.
Fact is, nothing can justify our existence. Existence of any flavor is not only unjustified, it is useless, malignantly so, and has nothing to recommend it over nonexistence. A person’s addiction to existence is understandable as a telltale of the fear of nonexistence, but one’s psychology as a being that already exists does not justify existence as a condition to be perpetuated but only explains why someone would want to perpetuate it. For the same reason, even eternal bliss in a holy hereafter is unjustified, since it is just another form of existence, another instance in which the unjustifiable is perpetuated. That anyone should have a bias for heaven over nonexistence should by rights be condemned as hedonistic by the same people who scoff at Schopenhauer for complaining about the disparity between “the effort and the reward” in human life. People may believe they can choose any number of things. But they cannot choose to undo their existence, leaving them to live and die as puppets who have had an existence forced upon them whose edicts they must follow. If you are already among the existent, anything you do will be unjustified and MALIGNANTLY USELESS.

But to actually address OP, I know exactly what you mean and the exact feeling you describe. It's just bizarre, incomprehensibly bizarre that I or anything at all exists, at all. The best way to grasp this is to lose your conceptual scheme in a state of "derealization" as if the world appears for the first time, alien, strange and unknown and ungrasped by you.

Realistically, philosophically speaking, what can even be said? To even coherently speak about this one must re-enter the conceptual scheme you've built over your lifetime, use language, your socialisation, communicate to others etc - which necessarily requires a loss of the sense of bizarreness. So what's there to say?

I used to have panic attacks where, frankly, I would enter these bizarre hallucinatory if not psychotic states of mind, and it was as if to me, panic, horror, fear, incomprehension was entirely justified. On comprehension of ones existence, what could follow but panic?

It reminds me of salvia in a way. You just enter this bizarre fucked up world, lose your conceptual scheme and exist in horror and panic. Our everyday existence is a salvia trip, but we have a lifetime of building up a conceptual scheme to normalize it. The loss of this scheme reveals the insanity of living.

What's there even to say though? Life is completely fucking weird and bizarre, we mask it and normalize it, and it is within this masking only that conversation and inquiry can even take place.

I think the real issue here though is that not only is life strange and absurd - it is actively bad. it is full of suffering and death and pain, entropy and a zero sum death struggle for survival.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 9 23:18:40 2022 No.20199959 >>20198079 >>20198193 >>20198646 >>20198849 >>20198897 Super based mystery revellers >>20198872 >>20198871 >>20198700 >>20198255 Super cringe "stop being so weird bro" faggots

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 9 23:18:46 2022 No.20199960 >>20199893 Supplement this with CG Fechner's Psychophysics, JP Müller's theory of sensation and modern discoveries of neuroplasticity and h o l y s h i t

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 9 23:19:37 2022 No.20199970 >>20199959 I am a based mystery reveller. Take my post off of your list now!

Anonymous Sat Apr 9 23:26:51 2022 No.20200008

>>20199900
>It reminds me of salvia in a way. You just enter this bizarre fucked up world, lose your conceptual scheme and exist in horror and panic. Our everyday existence is a salvia trip, but we have a lifetime of building up a conceptual scheme to normalize it. The loss of this scheme reveals the insanity of living.
Well said. I had a salvia trip about a decade ago that woke me up to these problems and the consequences have never been the same. We're barely removed from insects, struggling for survival at every moment all the way down to the cellular level. We're wet and constantly moving and gasping for air and needing to find/consume other living things. We engage in these complex abstract behaviors like exchanging money and entering into contracts but we're still living, at base, the existence of an animal, some chaotic form emerging from primordial slop constantly struggling to reproduce itself through time and space.

Anonymous Sat Apr 9 23:29:57 2022 No.20200023

>>20199763
>he starts from the GIVEN FACT of the ORIGINAL synthetic unity of apperception
No, that is what he deduces. He goes to pains to state it is not a "given fact", because, as he states repeatedly (and I remember this because of how long winded he is and how often he repeats himself), we cannot become aware, as an object of representation or sensibility, of the unity of our own awareness, mind (or apperception), as it is only capable of even conjecturing about itself through reason. It has to be problematic, for the same reason that we cannot say whether or not the soul (subject) is a simple or complex substance (according to his reasoning), or even a substance at all. He uses the term apperception to avoid this confusion with soul, because it is less sure of itself, and is basically problematic, just like all of Kant's so-called metaphysics, which is always a deprivation of claims to reality rather than saying anything about what exists or doesn't. At the end of the main section "On the Original Synthetic Unity of Apperception": "Only because I am able to combine a manifold of given representations in one consciousness is it possible for me to represent to myself the identity of the consciousness in these representations, that is, only under the presupposition of some synthetic unity of apperception [...]" He is clearly deducing the unity of apperception based on effects, as I have already stated in my previous post, and then once he has deduced it, takes it as the origin, just as Christians do, by going from effect to cause.

Also Kant: "Consciousness of oneself according to the determinations of our state in inner perception is merely empirical and always transient. There can be no fixed or permanent self in this stream of inner appearances. A condition that is to render such a transcendetal presupposition valid must be one which --precedes all experience-- (the transcendental apperception)."

Also Kant at the very beginning of the section: "It must be possible for the "I think" (the original unity of apperception) to accompany all my representations, because [insert deductions here]."

Anonymous Sat Apr 9 23:43:24 2022 No.20200077

>>20200023
You are confusing the original synthetic unity of apperception ( which is not an object) with the analytic unity of apperception ( the 'I think' , which is an object). The original synthetic unity of apperception is the subject, the TRANSCENDENTAL unity of apperception that has to be in place for there even to be such a thing as an object in the first place, even of itself as an object. He does not deduce the original synthetic unity of apperception but he does derive the analytic unity of apperception from it. That's what "Only because I am able to combine a manifold of given representations in one consciousness is it possible for me to represent to myself the identity of the consciousness in these representations, that is, only under the presupposition of some synthetic unity of apperception". Keyword there is 'presupposition' which means taking something as given, which in this case is the original synthetic unity of apperception.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 9 23:49:29 2022 No.20200098 >>20200077 As regards the paralogisms, remember Kant does not deny existence of the soul- only knowledge of its immortality.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 9 23:58:31 2022 No.20200129 >>20200000

Anonymous Sun Apr 10 00:02:14 2022 No.20200149

>>20200077
>with the analytic unity of apperception
The analytic unity of apperception is not the "I think", read the section I just quoted to you. The analytic unity logically comes after both the pure apperception and the original unity, which is the ability to extract concepts from the manifold.
>The original synthetic unity of apperception is the subject
No, it's not.
>the TRANSCENDENTAL unity of apperception
It is the same thing as the original synthetic unity.
>He does not deduce the original synthetic unity of apperception
Yes he does, I just quoted the section to you where he does that. He literally uses the word "Because" as he goes on to explain why it is logically necessary.
>Keyword there is 'presupposition'
Exactly, the presupposition is the deduced fact which stemmed from the more remote "effects." Are you even following along here? He uses it as a presupposition only because he requires it in order for the rest of his mess to make sense. It is not an essential presupposition, it is deduced to be a necessary presupposition in order for Kant's synthesis of representations to allow for his supposed "I", which is just a ghost, if even that. There is no necessary reason for that presupposition to be presupposed, which is why he spends so many lines trying to show why it is necessary to presuppose it. That is exactly what a deduction is.
>The original synthetic unity of apperception is the subject, the TRANSCENDENTAL unity of apperception that has to be in place for there even to be such a thing as an object in the first place, even of itself as an object.
Nowhere does he say this. He does not even posit the synthetic unity as subject, because that would be making it an object in its own way.
>the TRANSCENDENTAL unity of apperception that has to be in place for there even to be such a thing as an object in the first place
This is the exact deduction I'm trying to get you to justify. This is why it is not a presupposition without conditions, but an actual synthetic deduction which cannot be justified.

"I also call the unity of apperception the transcendental unity of self-consciousness, in order to indicate that a priori knowledge can be obtained from it."

Anonymous Sun Apr 10 00:03:16 2022 No.20200152

>>20200098
>remember Kant does not deny existence of the soul-
That's not what I said. I said that he leaves the soul problematic, he doesn't affirm it or deny it, which again is the basis for his entire metaphysics, inability to assert anything. Impotence.

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 10 00:10:16 2022 No.20200182 >>20200149 Bro let's clear things up. What do you think Kant means by 'deduction' in ' transcendental deduction of the categories'?

Anonymous Sun Apr 10 00:31:11 2022 No.20200257

>>20200182
The deduction of the categories of the understanding from the conditions of the possibility of experience in general. In other words, deducing that the categories must exist for experience to be possible. I was considering whether or not to make another ultimatum myself: If we accept that Kant's original synthetic unity of the apperception is a pure presupposition with no strings attached, then I have absolutely no reason to treat it seriously, because it is just that, a presupposition, and this discussion is already over. This argument is about the fact that, despite it being a presupposition in form, it is still deduced as conclusion through the way in which he argues in that section of the book. He is trying to assert that it is a necessary presupposition given our experiences, or even the possibility of our experiences. My assertion is that it is not a necessary presupposition at the very least, and I could even go so far as to deny that there is any manifold unity of experience.

Anonymous Sun Apr 10 00:32:13 2022 No.20200263

>>20199900
>The best way to grasp this is to lose your conceptual scheme in a state of "derealization" as if the world appears for the first time, alien, strange and unknown and ungrasped by you.
The most relevant sentence posted ITT

>Realistically, philosophically speaking, what can even be said? To even coherently speak about this one must re-enter the conceptual scheme you've built over your lifetime, use language, your socialisation, communicate to others etc - which necessarily requires a loss of the sense of bizarreness. So what's there to say?
What is to be said can be spoken with theater and music.

Anonymous Sun Apr 10 00:50:45 2022 No.20200330

>>20200257
He is not deducing the categories in the sense of inferring them from a prior presupposition. He is proving their legitimate use in our experience as objective, real not just subjective imaginary concepts. From 'Of the Principles of a Transcendental Deduction in General': "Teachers of jurisprudence, when speaking of rights and claims, distinguish in a cause the question of right (quid juris) from the question of fact (quid facti), and while they demand proof of both, they give to the proof of the former, which goes to establish right or claim in law, the name of deduction." He already showed we have them in the Metaphysical Deduction (the quid facti). In the Transcendential Deduction (the quid juris) he is not deducing them or inferring them; he is showing why we have the right make synthetic a priori judgments about experience by means of them. The concepts themselves are already facts in our present lived experience. We already use them. They are presupposed not in the sense that we postulate them in thought, but in the sense that they are ACTUAL, HERE, NOW, IN YOUR PRESENT AWARENESS AS YOU ARE READING THESE WORDS.

Anonymous Sun Apr 10 00:50:56 2022 No.20200331

>>20199900
>So what's there to say?
That there is nothing inherently valuable about bizarreness? That absolute knowledge, not in a milquetoast scientific sense but in absolute self-realization, is inherently more valuable than gawking at something which just appears foreign to the senses, which at best just has the same kind of value as the exotic and foreign in general, ie a limited and constrained value which will diminish as you become accustomed to what it is through experience.
>The loss of this scheme reveals the insanity of living.
There is nothing insane about living, it is all according to the nature of the beings who live within that system. That is what they basically want, at a very primitive level, and as such it is totally normal, not insane, not good or beautiful, it just is what it is. Those beings will their existence, which is why they do not end their existence.
>I think the real issue here though is that not only is life strange and absurd - it is actively bad. it is full of suffering and death and pain, entropy and a zero sum death struggle for survival.
You've only experienced one type of life and you've projected it onto "reality" or "life." You're still within your own conceptual games, so to speak. Although I'm not even the person to condemn conceptuality, only when it is hypostatized as something self-subsistent.

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 10 00:52:31 2022 No.20200339 >>20198897 This is Deleuze's methodology

Anonymous Sun Apr 10 00:54:34 2022 No.20200342

>>20200330
>He is proving their legitimate use in our experience as objective, real not just subjective imaginary concepts.
I know that's what he tried to do, however his proof is wrong and unconvincing.
>he concepts themselves are already facts in our present lived experience.
No they aren't.
>We already use them.
Which doesn't make them facts. I use the idea of God too.
>but in the sense that they are ACTUAL, HERE, NOW, IN YOUR PRESENT AWARENESS AS YOU ARE READING THESE WORDS.
Except that they're evidently not.

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 10 00:54:52 2022 No.20200344 >>20200330 In simpler words he is not using the word 'deduction' in the regular sense of logical infetence. He is using it in a different sense. This is why you are getting confused.

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 10 00:56:03 2022 No.20200348 >>20200342 You completely missed the point of the transcendental deduction then.

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 10 01:00:25 2022 No.20200358 >>20200348 No, it seems like you just refuse to accept that someone can disagree with you. "Anyone who disagrees just doesn't understand", the oldest adage in the book for people desperate to "be right."

Anonymous Sun Apr 10 01:04:05 2022 No.20200372

>>20200348
>the original synthetic unity of apperception is THE fucking mystery and at the same is what we must ALL , every self conscious human being, agree on. Hence the univeral and necessary truth.
I am still waiting for an explanation as to why I have to accept this as "the mystery", why I would have to agree with anyone about it, and also why or how it would constitute a universal and necessary truth. Basically I could not care less about the different meanings Kant imputes to the word "deduction", the point is he needs to show me why the transcendental unity of apperception is necessary.

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 10 01:04:37 2022 No.20200377 how do i exist? your parents created you. how did your parents exist? their parents created them.

Anonymous Sun Apr 10 01:09:42 2022 No.20200394

>>20200342
God is an abstract idea without empirical content. It is something different from the categories which unify and constitute your PRESENT HERE NOW experience as YOU. In other words, no categories, if and only if no YOU, yet here YOU HERE NOW ARE. And no experience for you if no you. Hence the conditions of there being a you are the conditions of there being a your experience. Hence the objective reality of the categories and the right to make synthetic a prior judgements about YOUR experience by means of them. So you see there existence is not deduced- that is already taken as given- but only there legitimate application in experience is proven- not deduced in the usual sense of the word.

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 10 01:16:03 2022 No.20200415 Heidegger now

Anonymous Sun Apr 10 01:17:01 2022 No.20200418

>>20200372
I'm sorry your conceptual confusion is too damn high. You still don't get it but it's ok keep trying. Kant very clearly defines his terms you just need to pay more attention. The meaning of the term he uses is very important as you've now learned by your misunderstanding or rather hasty overlooking of Kants definition of deduction. Otherwise your going to keep getting lost and upset. If you read more closely and then meditate on the text afterwards you'll receive the epiphany of the mystery of the original synthetic unity of apperception. Good fucking luck.

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 10 01:17:34 2022 No.20200420 >>20198079 Is that you, Joe Rogan?

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 10 01:19:51 2022 No.20200431 >>20200372 >why or how it would constitute a universal and necessary truth This just means you haven't understood Kant. Just keep reading and meditating. The Critique is a spiritual EXPERIENCE.

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 10 01:21:14 2022 No.20200434 >>20200372 >unity of apperception is necessary. IT'S NOT NECESSARY. IT JUST IS. THAT'S THE FUCKING MYSTERY.

Anonymous Sun Apr 10 01:33:17 2022 No.20200476

>>20200434
It's not though.
>>20200431
>The Critique is a spiritual EXPERIENCE.
No it isn't.
>>20200394
All ideas are abstract without empirical content. That's the point. I can even give God empirical content schematically if I so desire, that doesn't make the idea of God any more real.
>Hence the objective reality of the categories
There is no experience for me, therefore there are no categories.
>>20200418
I do get it, I just don't get why anything about it is necessary.

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 10 01:37:34 2022 No.20200495 File: 7 KB, 224x224, Heidegger wut.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>20198079 Literally this guy's whole shtick (along with the other existentialists).

Anonymous Sun Apr 10 01:40:27 2022 No.20200502

>>20200434
In other words, everyone, every self-conscious being, every I, is an original synthetic unity of apperception. But what is doing the synthesis? Why is there even a synthesis? There is no necessary reason why, not that we know of, yet. So why? Every I is, yet its existence is contingent not necessary. 'I am I' is a universal and necessary judgement as Kant states in the Transcendental Deduction. EVERY self-conscious ALWAYS AND EVERYWHERE know this fact and must know it necessarily by the very nature of what it is. But THAT IT IS, is purely contingent- it's not necessary- it could as well not have been- so why? Thats the mystery.

Anonymous Sun Apr 10 01:43:07 2022 No.20200513

>>20200476
You don't get it. At all. You are so far of the mark. You didn't even know what Kant meant by deduction. The definition of the title of the MOST CRUCIAL section of the whole work: The Transcendental DEDUCTION of the Pure Concepts of the Understanding. Think about that.

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 10 01:46:58 2022 No.20200524 >>20200513 You still haven't explained how this post is incorrect >>20200342 You just keep stating "you're wrong" over and over again as if that somehow means you're right.

Anonymous Sun Apr 10 01:56:45 2022 No.20200561

>>20200513
Let me actually quote from the section you're referring to, so that we can see you're simply trying to bungle words around, you've already quoted the first section which stated the use by jurists of "deduction." He then goes on to say,

>"We make use of a number of empirical concepts without opposition from anybody, and consider ourselves justified, without any --deduction--, because we can always appeal to experience to prove their objective reality."
Then in the next paragraph,
>"Among the many concepts which form the complicated fabric of human knowledge, however, there are some which are marked out also for pure a priori use (ie, not experience, not a juristic deduction), completely independent of all experience, and their right to be so used requires at all times a deduction. FOR PROOFS BASED ON EXPERIECNE WOULD NOT BE SUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH THE LEGITIMACY OF SUCH A USE. The --explanation-- of the manner in which such concepts can --a priori-- refer to objects I call their transcendental deduction.
In other words, literally the same way in which I have been using the word. Please stop your nonsense.

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 10 01:57:49 2022 No.20200567 >>20199394 >Meaning changes. That's the point No thats fucking problem.

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 10 02:05:47 2022 No.20200590 File: 481 KB, 1125x996, 1642968329781.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Why don't we philosophy harder?

Anonymous Sun Apr 10 02:21:19 2022 No.20200650

>>20200561
Bro I'm sorry. But you're beyond saving. I'm wasting my time. You still don't understand what Kant means by deduction. In neither of those quotes does Kant mean logical inference by deduction. AGAIN, in both those paragraphs, he means the RIGHT to use a concept. An empirical concept does not require us to show its right to use in experience because we literally derive it from experience. A priori concepts do not come from experience hence the need for a proof of this RIGHT to apply them to experience. Both those paragraphs clearly explain this. How you do not see this beyond me. Have you ever received any help in trying to understand Kant? Have you read Hume? Descartes? Leibniz? Berkeley? Have you read Kants Logic Lectures? Have you read Baumgarten? Any guides or handbooks on the Critique? Have you gone to college to study it? You need help bro. It's ok to admit it.

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 10 02:24:27 2022 No.20200658 Existing is weird because you believe in a self. Read Nagarjuna.

Anonymous Sun Apr 10 02:25:13 2022 No.20200664

Yes, they will discuss the purpose of existence (perhaps it doesn't have one), but rarely attempt to define what it is.
Materialists assume it is a property of matter. Another one of its qualities.
However, this quality is special, as it is predominant. Existence must come first, all other qualities must possess this quality.

The most relevant philosopher I can think of, the name eludes me(Parmenides?), but they had the argument that existence(reality) is one and the same for all. An indivisible essence of all.

I have my own ideas of existence, what it could be. I think at its root, it is a material idea of itself. Pure existence itself.

Then existence with an absolute (physically independent) structure, can gain other qualities such as awareness and love, like how the Hindu mystics described it.

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 10 02:37:06 2022 No.20200704 >>20200590 We're trying as hard as we can

Anonymous Sun Apr 10 02:49:27 2022 No.20200744

>>20200650
Kant states it word for word here, which is exactly what I stated before:
>"The transcendental deduction of all a priori concepts has thus a principle to which our whole investigation must be directed, namely, the principle that these concepts must be recognized as a priori conditions of the possibility of experiences (whether the possibility of the intuition which is found in experience, or the possibility of mere thought). --Concepts which form the objective ground of the possibility of experience are for this very reason necessary.--
This last bit is the exact "necessity" that I have been disputing the whole time. Either argue with me on your own terms, or argue with me on Kant's. Pick one, or show me that Kant actually meant something else with those words, which I've yet to see. How do these concepts necessarily form the ground of the possibility of experience?
>In neither of those quotes does Kant mean logical inference by deduction.
He does not use syllogistic form. He is still reasoning, because it would not be philosophy if he were not. Even if he is attempting to deduce a "right" (we could transpose all philosophy into an attempt to deduce "right", "right" and "truth" are essentially the same meaning here, so it makes no sense to fixate upon it like you have), he is still deducing it, and it requires reason to do so.
>he means the RIGHT to use a concept.
In the section I just quoted, he stated, "concepts which form the objective ground of the possibility of experience are for this very reason necessary." Another quote from the next section:
>If only by means of them [a priori concepts] any object of experience can be thought at all, it follows that they refer to objects of experience necessarily and a priori.
However he has not actually proven any right whatsoever, he just asserts that he has a right to it. In which case it all falls apart, as I originally suggested.
>hence the need for a proof of this RIGHT to apply them to experience.
Yes, which he has not given. Which is exactly what I've been saying the whole time. Deducing this right is exactly what he could never do.

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 10 02:57:02 2022 No.20200763 >>20198079 sigh Pascal

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 10 03:01:13 2022 No.20200775 >>20198079 my diary desu but unironically

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 10 03:12:58 2022 No.20200811 Take the "it is what it is" pill and call it a day.

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 10 03:18:01 2022 No.20200822 File: 2.92 MB, 1020x7200, universeorigin7.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>20198079 Andrés Gómez Emilsson has talked about it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdDNfTREQJU

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 10 03:29:49 2022 No.20200853 >>20198079 why is it impossible? for something to be impossible, it has to be weighted against or compared to the possible. what is your standard for the possible?

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 10 03:31:22 2022 No.20200858 >>20200811 i like this comment, because at least it isn't pretentious

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 10 03:45:07 2022 No.20200884 >>20199429 Go back to wherever putrid shithole you came from spawn of hell.

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 10 03:46:09 2022 No.20200886 >>20198897 You're literally describing Plato and the dialogues in particular.

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 10 03:48:05 2022 No.20200891 >>20199163 >Fucking Science says No it doesn't, science is a tool

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 10 03:56:49 2022 No.20200911 >>20198764 >the automatization of experience the watt?

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 10 04:31:51 2022 No.20201005 >>20200858 It is, it's a pretension of unpretentiousness.

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 10 06:18:45 2022 No.20201251 >>20200858 It's among the most pretentious in the thread

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 10 07:03:53 2022 No.20201334 >>20200744 Holy shit. You quote things as if you know what they mean. But you clearly have no fucking clue.

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 10 13:18:28 2022 No.20202442 Ardent truth

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 10 13:49:58 2022 No.20202581 >>20198079 Read Thomas Nagel

Anonymous Sun Apr 10 14:26:28 2022 No.20202747

>>20200658
> Existing is weird because you believe in a self. Read Nagarjuna.
Nagarjuna has no idea what he is talking about. There is literally no reason to believe that you don’t have a self unless you uncritically accept and let yourself be brainwashed by Buddhist dogmas. That we have a conscious center of our being that is our self is the most self-evident thing to everyone, and Buddhists behave and conduct themselves in a manner that presupposes it to be true while at the same time denying it and pathetically demanding without justification that people accept their absurd theories.

Anonymous Sun Apr 10 14:40:02 2022 No.20202812

>>20202747
That doctrine, of the self not being a permament essence, is not completely unfounded. Look how many shelves have been swept away like they never existed at all. If you observed life fast-forwarded, you would see countless humans arising and disappearing, continually changing between birth and death. What is self in such a picture

Anonymous Sun Apr 10 14:41:04 2022 No.20202819

>>20198079
>>20198163
For the Greeks, the most relevant texts are Heraclitus' fragments, both parts of Parmenides' poem, the Diotima portion of Plato's Symposium (especially the middle section about poetry and Eros), Plato's Sophist (which raises the question directly), Aristotle's Metaphysics (which admits of the difficulty of answering the question and the hypothetical nature of his attempts to answer it).

For Moderns, you'd have to look to Hegel, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, and Heidegger.

>>20198838
>>20198897
This seems like a misreading of Heidegger, whose work extends beyond Being & Time. Look maybe to his later works, like Discourse on Thinking, or Conversation on a Country Path, which seems to fit more precisely what you're after: a meditation in questioning that's skeptical of attempts to be too determinate in answering.

Anonymous Sun Apr 10 15:01:37 2022 No.20202906

>>20199429
So you're not merely ignorant, you're the kind of narcissist who can't imagine there's any value to anything not already inside his head and that reality is represented solely by whatever accretions of cultural trivia happen to have collected in the corners of his mind. Understood.

Anonymous Sun Apr 10 15:08:42 2022 No.20202945

>>20202812
> That doctrine, of the self not being a permament essence, is not completely unfounded.
Yes it is. That’s exactly what it is, completely unfounded. Experience neither confirms nor refutes the permanence of our knowing selves (it being impossible for ourselves to consciously perceive, experience or know the absence of ourselves, because then we’d still be present as ourselves), and so the claim of the non-permanence of the self is just as purely hypothetical and unproven as any other completely fanciful hypothesis.

>Look how many shelves have been swept away like they never existed at all.
No self has ever been seen to be swept away in all of history! The self is not the body but is the conscious knower; that physical bodies can die and decompose tells us nothing about what has happened to the conscious self when the body dies and whether it has continued on, or remains present invisibly or any number of other possibilities.

>If you observed life fast-forwarded, you would see countless humans arising and disappearing, continually changing between birth and death. What is self in such a picture
The self is the conscious knower which remains invariably present throughout all of our experiences, no changes in or to the body are seem to ever affect it or diminish its light, is has never been confirmed to ever be destroyed or harmed when the body is destroyed. That you immediately resorted to talking about the body as the self instead of the self as the conscious knower shows that you and Nagarjuna dont actually have any good arguments against the self.

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 10 15:16:17 2022 No.20202987 >>20198764 >I would like a book that only wants to deepen the feeling of mystery, not pile some ontological systems on it and act like it settles it Read about John Cowper Powys, I think, and his Mythology and his 'life-illusion'.

Anonymous Sun Apr 10 15:55:03 2022 No.20203159

>>20202945
Don't you think there's a non-trivial connection between what you call the conscious knower and the body? Empirically, the bounds of knowing of a conscious knower are limited by what is graspable to the senses of his body, and what one body grasps through senses is known to the knower associated with that body and not to others. Empirically, damage to the body can affect the knowledge of the conscious knower associated with that body. I agree that the understanding of consciousness is in its infancy, but to abandon its link with the body altogether at this point in history seems unfounded in anything concrete. Once the body is gone, the direct influence of the conscious knower associated with that body is also gone.

Anonymous Sun Apr 10 16:07:53 2022 No.20203227

>>20198079
this is an idea born of your own emotional feelings towards life, not life itself. you may have a powerful sense that life is weird or absurd but objectively it isn't, it's just life, and there is no external template to compare it to, nothing to judge it against. no referent to hold it to, so it just is. it's hard to explain what i mean in words because of how fucking abstract it is but its like the idea of life as something other than a simple process is pure hysteria, you know?

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 10 16:09:28 2022 No.20203232 >>20198838 >reason why do philosophyfags assume that there has to be a "reason"? what the fuck do they even mean by a "reason"?

Anonymous Sun Apr 10 16:12:46 2022 No.20203247

>>20203159
What you are saying amounts to “don’t you feel like it’s reasonable to infer from the ephemeral nature of B that the A that is found to occur alongside B is also ephemeral?” The answer is: No, that B would be ephemeral tells us nothing about whether A is ephemeral or permanent because A and B are not the same thing.

You are basically using a vague intuitionist appeal to materialism/scientism that bases itself in an attitude of implicitly assuming consciousness to be produced by the brain in order to backstop the lack of any Buddhist argument that would refute the selfs existence/permanence; and then citing the implications of this as presenting a threat to the premise of a self, when really it’s just examining the theoretical consequences of an unproven and contradictory worldview (materialism and its near-equivalents).

Anonymous Sun Apr 10 16:16:57 2022 No.20203269
File: 87 KB, 810x539, 0_Dragons-eye-cave-2JPG.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>20198871
most based post in this thread and objectively correct. the only problem is the sophist faggots who wrongfully assume that there "needs" to be an "explanation" for the problems that they've made up in their own haywire brains. there is nothing more to existence than the process of existence, simple as, to abstract any notion of a problem, quandry or mystery onto what is literally just the mundane is complete folly and dare I say tranny behaviour. ironic how these existentialists moan about there being so many presumptions in philosophy without understanding that their idea of absurdity is itself a presumption.

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 10 16:18:45 2022 No.20203277 >>20199163 >Fucking Science says. kek every single time

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 10 16:27:38 2022 No.20203322 >>20203232 the thing preventing it from things 8eing any other way. not every philosopher presupposes the principle of sufficient reason. many have many pro8lems with it

Anonymous Sun Apr 10 16:34:48 2022 No.20203349
File: 995 KB, 750x938, 1ff.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>20198079
The world is literally just a material abyss, a void of physical, tangible, hard, solid matter interacting with itself. It has zero "meaning" or any kind of grand lofty spiritual significance. It's existence is a pure process, nothing more. Midwits got filtered by this observable, neutral fact so much they invented an entire school of thought designed to allow them to huff their farts and blow smoke out their asses.

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 10 16:37:13 2022 No.20203360 >>20203322 >the thing preventing it from things 8eing any other way. natural laws?

Anonymous Sun Apr 10 16:40:31 2022 No.20203379

>>20198079
The book nausea deals with this. Haven’t read it yet by my professor described it as “a guy looks at a tree stump and because of that he becomes aware of his existence to the point of nausea” I’m paraphrasing here but it’s exactly what you want. Haven’t read it yet though ngl

Anonymous Sun Apr 10 16:51:44 2022 No.20203437
File: 33 KB, 750x691, trx5qmy74yl21.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>20203379
i think this is the result of the human brain being a problem solving tool, so when there is no problem to solve and lots of excess mental energy and focus to expend, the brain gets hitched on some random stimuli and begins to spiral into a tunnel of sheer schizo cognition where you start making bizarre, cosmic connections about seemingly unrelated things no matter how mundane, and start to grasp the viscera of the world with such lurid clarity it causes your noggin to overload.

Anonymous Sun Apr 10 16:52:46 2022 No.20203444

>>20203247
You didn't in any way deal with the examples I mentioned of consciousness and body being related. Can you enter memories and pools of information store within any other body in a demonstrable way? Most likely you can't because an incontroversial account of such doesn't exist. Anyone with a reasonable degree of honesty can attest to the fact that his consciousness seems tethered to one body in a non-trivial way. The thing of which a particulat consciousness is conscious of is always related to one body. You can observe this yourself in this very moment. This is a strong, non-trivial link. In what do you base your convinction that the two are unrelated?

Anonymous Sun Apr 10 18:06:20 2022 No.20203784

>>20203444
>You didn't in any way deal with the examples I mentioned of consciousness and body being related.
Because it contradicts, refutes or challenges exactly nothing that I’ve said and so there would be little purpose in me doing so, if you think the contrary is true then please give an example of exactly how. That consciousness can be related with something else doesn’t challenge the premise that its permanent. Damage to the body and brain only induce changes in known content like thoughts, memory etc that are witnessed as objects of the self (and hence are different from it), brain damage occurring doesn’t change the fact that you still have a constantly-present conscious knower to whom your mental content (whether screwed up or otherwise) is being revealed to as disclosed content that you know, this simple fact remains invariably true in all moments and has never been shown to be changed or affected by anything like brain damage, drugs, etc.

>Anyone with a reasonable degree of honesty can attest to the fact that his consciousness seems tethered to one body in a non-trivial way
This only means that in our experience so far we find that our self or consciousness is always found to occur alongside the body; this in itself is not something that does anything to prove that consciousness is produced by the body or that it does not continue on after the body, such as entering into other bodies etc. It’s actually dishonest to act as though the simple fact of them coinciding is sufficient grounds to conclude that one is dependent on another; this is an entirely unjustified leap of logic that most people trained in logic would never accept as self-evident in any circumstances, as when applied across the board its contradicted by numerous examples (plant growth in our experience occurs when light is present alongside the plant, but that doesn’t mean that the light in question is dependent on the plant or produced by the plant)
>The thing of which a particulat consciousness is conscious of is always related to one body. You can observe this yourself in this very moment. This is a strong, non-trivial link
Which proves nothing and disproves nothing about the ways in which consciousness could exist after the body dies. This another faulty example of reasoning, if the limits of your past experience determine the absolute limit of whats possible, then you could never die because you never experience yourself as being dead, and since future possibility is being determined by past experience it would thereby make one immortal automatically, which you and most people would reject as retarded reasoning, which shows that its inappropriate to use that sort of reasoning viz. the body and consciousness.

Anonymous Sun Apr 10 18:20:45 2022 No.20203838

>>20203784
You don't know how does extensive brain damagr reflect on the nature of consciousness, although it can be observed that the person affected appears significantly less conscious. And eventually, we all appear without any consciousness at all and our bodies desintegrate into nothingness. We have no way to access the consciousnesses of others in life or in death. That it disappears is a true possibility, there's nothing that points to it being impossible. What we can observe is the total obliteration of body, to which our consciousness is strongly linked and bounded. For the death one to be the death of other holds more weight than one continuing unaffected forever, since we have never observed a living thing with such a property. Better yet, nothing observed has such a property. You haven't said anything on why you believe consciousness and body is unrelated and why is the former permament.

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 10 18:24:11 2022 No.20203849 >>20198079 >Why don't more philosophers talk about the obvious inherent weirdness of existing? Because no one knows why we even exist. It's impossible to know and so kind a moot point to persue? At best you can entertain hypotheticals.

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 10 18:43:17 2022 No.20203923 >>20199163 Did you know the scientific method is a logical fallacy and everything it "says" is based on fallacious reasoning? Where is your god now?

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 10 18:50:22 2022 No.20203951 >>20203227 Good post

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 10 18:51:53 2022 No.20203960 >>20198163 Dude weed lmao

Anonymous Sun Apr 10 18:55:40 2022 No.20203978

>>20203838
>You don't know how does extensive brain damage reflect on the nature of consciousness, although it can be observed that the person affected appears significantly less conscious.
They don't appear "less conscious", because their consciousness is not something that appears to us and it isn't something that can be observed, it's instead something we infer based on their behavior and on the assumption that other people are conscious like we are. That they remain conscious at all and are able to act in ways that necessitate them having knowledge of things (like answering questions) indicates that the simple fact of them having a conscious knower within them has not itself been changed in any way by the brain damage or drug. A person who talks and thinks with ease and a person who struggle to do both, both possess a knowing consciousness.
>That it disappears is a true possibility, there's nothing that points to it being impossible.
I agree, although I think it's unlikely and there's nothing that points to it being assured
> You haven't said anything on why you believe consciousness and body is unrelated and why is the former permament.
Because that's not relevant for my original point that I made in response to your post, when I said that Nagarjuna and Buddhism writ large fail to refute the existence and permanence of a self. I accept the idea generally because Vedanta, Platonism and Neoplatonic Abrahamism all make more sense to me as world-views than Buddhism for a plethora of reasons, and various thinkers including Plato, Augustine, Descartes, various Hindus etc have put forward various arguments as to why it's eminently reasonable to accept the soul or self as eternal, if you are truly interested in the topic then I suggest you DYOR.

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 10 18:59:53 2022 No.20203993 >>20203978 *all make more sense to me as world-views than Buddhism AND materialism

Anonymous Sun Apr 10 19:13:52 2022 No.20204053

>>20203978
>They don't appear "less conscious", because their consciousness is not something that appears to us and it isn't something that can be observed, it's instead something we infer based on their behavior and on the assumption that other people are conscious like we are.
Usually i don't green text others because I found it bad taste, but I had to highlight this because it's kinda hilarious. I didn't say thay are less conscious, but they appear, do you know what appear means? Also, what happens with the conscious knower during dreamless sleep when 7 or more hours passes in a blink? It should be aware of something during the period the body rests, but there's nothing, not even a void. Just a shut down correlating with body being in a sleeping state, as if consciousness is connected with the body

Anonymous Sun Apr 10 19:34:55 2022 No.20204158

>>20204053
>Also, what happens with the conscious knower during dreamless sleep when 7 or more hours passes in a blink?
There are two possible options here, neither of which refute the premise that we have an unalterable permanent conscious knower as our self

option 1: During dreamless sleep we are aware of being in a state of blankness, comparable to remaining aware and with one's eyes open in a room that is absolutely devoid of light, simply cognizant of being conscious but without dualistic thought- and sensation-structures imposing themselves on our awareness. In order to have any knowledge of or firsthand access to this blankness whatsoever, such that we could later cite it as something that was experienced, we would necessarily have to be consciously present during dreamless sleep in order to have awareness of that experience, i.e. the conscious self is permanently present always even in dreamless sleep.

option 2: We can admit to having a lack of memory of what occurs during dreamless sleep, in which case we lose any sort of basis to claim that we were not conscious or aware during dreamless sleep like we are during other states; since there are plenty of instances of people losing memory of something that took place while that person was conscious.

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 10 19:42:45 2022 No.20204190 >>20204158 There's a third, consciousness shitting off, which brings into question its permanence. Also, how does a permanently vigilant watcher lose track of memories

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 10 19:43:47 2022 No.20204196 >>20204190 Shutting off hahah

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 10 19:47:27 2022 No.20204210 >>20199163 Science is system of logic we use to learn about the material world, It is not a belief system

Anonymous Sun Apr 10 20:02:41 2022 No.20204248

>>20204190
>There's a third, consciousness shitting off, which brings into question its permanence.
I meant to say there are two possible ways to approach the problem, as in that it's impossible for us to have any sort of epistemic confirmation of consciousness shutting off in dreamless sleep, because in order to do so we would have to be conscious at the exact moment of the confirmation when we supposedly were unconscious. So, you are unable to cite your own experiences of consciousness shutting off in sleep in order to adduce evidence that the self is impermanent without that very fact of you citing that experience itself becoming something which demonstrates that your consciousness was in fact present the whole time. Hence, it's impossible for the example of dreamless sleep to provide epistemic confirmation or proof that our consciousness is impermanent.

>Also, how does a permanently vigilant watcher lose track of memories
Because memories and the act of recalling a memory aren't the same thing as awareness! Being aware of something in the present moment doesn't automatically entail perfect recollection of that content at a later date via memory. If a permanently vigilant watch was present in dreamless sleep without the mind's faculty of memory also functioning, then it would just have awareness of the present moment of being conscious without a reference to past or future, in a sort of timeless simple uniform undifferentiated awareness without thoughts until the dreamless sleep ends, at which point normal thought and memory would suddenly start functioning again, but without any change in the same conscious knower which persisted between the changing states of the mind.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 11 00:21:34 2022 No.20205292 >>20198646 isn't this Sartre's 'Nausea'

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 11 02:11:05 2022 No.20205669 >>20198764 Zhuangzi

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 11 02:14:48 2022 No.20205675 >>20199692 It's the only worthwhile thing to ponder. And it incidentally sheds light on the ridiculousness of all our explanatory models; scientistic, religious or otherwise, which is why it makes people angry

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 11 02:31:26 2022 No.20205710 >>20198079 this is actually the only thing philosophers talk about imo

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 11 03:15:19 2022 No.20205817 >>20205710 Ikr

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 11 03:17:05 2022 No.20205825 File: 17 KB, 314x499, 31yGeY5-xoL._SX312_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>20198079

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 11 03:17:40 2022 No.20205827 because philosophers are retards

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 11 03:19:41 2022 No.20205830 File: 20 KB, 331x499, 41hInbvhOuL._SX329_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 11 03:29:49 2022 No.20205850 >>20198929 Holy cringe.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 11 03:32:59 2022 No.20205859 >>20198929 Based.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 11 03:34:55 2022 No.20205863 >>20198079 It's because until modernity everyone found existing to be totally normal and ordained by God(s).

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 11 03:43:42 2022 No.20205894 >>20198079 >dude mystery

Anonymous Mon Apr 11 03:57:08 2022 No.20205932

>>20204248
Quite wordy and all over the place. If consciousness were shutting off during dreamless sleep, it would feel exactly as it does, a sudden passage of time during which there's no awareness at all. This is observable through experience. It's very hard to grasp what you are saying. Our awareness is hanging in a void during this time and is totally conscious but we can't remember it because... Because you simply so? Sorry bud, that ain't really cutting it. If you are a permament, bodyless, ever vigilant overseer, why do your lapses of awereness and memory coincide always with bodily events?

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 11 04:11:58 2022 No.20205974 >>20205932 This is undeniable.

Anonymous Mon Apr 11 10:09:44 2022 No.20206990

>>20205932
>If consciousness were shutting off during dreamless sleep, it would feel exactly as it does, a sudden passage of time during which there's no awareness at all.
It’s impossible to “feel” this taking place without being conscious of it though, in which case you were actually conscious the whole time, ergo the conscious knower was and is incontrovertibly still present at all times.
>This is observable through experience.
Its literally impossible to observe one’s experiences without being conscious of them, if you observed what it was like during dreamless sleep, that means you were actually conscious of it occurring!
>It's very hard to grasp what you are saying.
Well then it’s fortunate for you that I’m willing to repeat myself
>Our awareness is hanging in a void during this time and is totally conscious but we can't remember it because...
Because the mind quiescent during dreamless sleep while consciousness remains in a simple undifferentiated timeless state until awaking. If you can’t remember it then how could you possibly assert that you weren’t conscious in dreamless sleep? You have no basis to assert anything about a state that you lack memory of.
>Sorry bud, that ain't really cutting it. If you are a permament, bodyless, ever vigilant overseer, why do your lapses of awereness and memory coincide always with bodily events?
We never have lapses of our foundational awareness, its impossible to provide any sort of epistemic confirmation that they ever occur, because confirming their absence would require us to be conscious of them when they are occurring, which falsifies the very premise that you would be trying to confirm.

>>20205974
lol

Anonymous Mon Apr 11 12:24:57 2022 No.20207525

>>20206990
>It’s impossible to “feel” this taking place without being conscious of it though, in which case you were actually conscious the whole time.
But I wasn’t conscious the whole time? I have witnesses who would say i was unconscious the whole time?

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 11 12:40:57 2022 No.20207582 File: 122 KB, 339x438, zhuangzi.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>20205669 in which passage does he satisfy OP's wishes? he's phenomenal, anyways

Anonymous Mon Apr 11 12:50:49 2022 No.20207626

>>20207525
>But I wasn’t conscious the whole time?
Yes, you are always conscious.
>I have witnesses who would say i was unconscious the whole time?
Other people can only see your body, they cannot directly see if you are conscious or unconscious. While they may see a sleeping body, what actually is happening is your consciousness is existing in an undifferentiated timeless extremely simple state without any thoughts occurring, until the body wakes up and thoughts etc start occurring again.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 11 12:51:16 2022 No.20207628 >>20199959 you are almost certainly samefagging

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 11 13:04:20 2022 No.20207697 >>20207626 Why call this conciseness if i am unaware?

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 11 13:12:16 2022 No.20207740 >>20207626 >see a sleeping body so is my body material? If i am in this “timeless” state, why would my body still be represented?

Anonymous Mon Apr 11 13:18:57 2022 No.20207785

>>20207697
>Why call this conciseness if i am unaware?
You aren't unaware though, you *are* aware during dreamless sleep, you are just aware of being an extremely simple undifferentiated timeless presence without thought and related dualistic distinctions.

In order to challenge my assertion that you are aware during dreamless sleep you would have to say "I wasn't aware, and I know this because I was aware of being unaware" which is a contradictory and self-refuting statement.

>>20207740
>so is my body material?
Yes
>If i am in this “timeless” state, why would my body still be represented?
Not represented to you, but to others, the body would still be visually seen by others because consciousness and the physical body are two different things, so while the physical body exists on the physical plain as a sleeping organism, consciousness retains its own invisible existence just like it exists invisibly during the waking state too.

Anonymous Mon Apr 11 13:28:31 2022 No.20207852

>>20206990
Oh my, your sophistry is so obvious and inefficient that it's entertaining. You are basing your entire argument on the most literal interpretation of the verb 'feel' which obviously doesn't match the context. If it makes it easier, let me rephrase, if consciousness was shutting down during sleep, it would seem to the one experiencing it the same as what people are experiencing, a sudden jump in time between the point their consciousness turned 'off' and when it turned 'on' again. If we are speaking of a self, denying the body from its conception seems arbitrary and even ignorant.

Anonymous Mon Apr 11 13:54:12 2022 No.20207988

>>20207852
>You are basing your entire argument on the most literal interpretation of the verb 'feel' which obviously doesn't match the context.
No, I'm not. That's incorrect. That has nothing to do with the main point of my argument.
>If it makes it easier, let me rephrase, if consciousness was shutting down during sleep, it would seem to the one experiencing it the same as what people are experiencing, a sudden jump in time between the point their consciousness turned 'off' and when it turned 'on' again.
I understand that, the point which I'm making though, and the point that seems to be eluding you is that what you just said isn't epistemic proof or epistemic confirmation of the claim that we lose awareness or become unconscious during sleep, because the exact same result as what you described would also be produced if we were simply conscious the whole time during dreamless sleep but retained no memory of it whatsoever; because upon waking the newly-resumed memory would just link the present moment to the last moment at which memory was still functioning intact, i.e. before falling asleep or during the dream before dreamless sleep. So, the claim you just cited isn't a proof or piece of evidence supporting your position over mine, because it can be interpreted equally in either way.

Anonymous Mon Apr 11 13:55:15 2022 No.20208001

>>20207852
>If we are speaking of a self, denying the body from its conception seems arbitrary and even ignorant.
No, the contrary is true, because we experience the body as something that is presented to our consciousness as something different from it, in a manner analogous to the sight of exterior objects; they are equally both brought before or revealed as known insentient content to our awareness, and so if we make inferences on the basis of our lived empirical experience and not contrary to our experience, then this would indicate our consciousness is different from the body. Moreover, it's contradictory and not logically sound to say that something can be the subject and object of a subject-object distinction at the same time, which is what saying consciousness is identical with the brain/body involves:

>Moreover, the Materialist ought to be asked what is the exact nature of that consciousness which he supposes to be exuded from the elements (of the body). For he does not admit the existence of any other principle apart from his material elements. He will perhaps try to define consciousness as consisting in the mere fact that the elements and their products are experienced. But then they would have to be its object, and it could not be a property of them at the same time, for it is contradictory to suppose that anything can act on itself. Fire may be hot, but it cannot burn itself, and not even the cleverest acrobat can climb up on his own shoulders.

>And, in the same way, the elements and their products cannot form objects of consciousness if consciousness is their property. A colour does not perceive its own colour or the colour of anything else. And yet there is no doubt whatever that the elements and their products are perceived by consciousness, both inside and outside the body. Because, therefore, the presence of a consciousness which takes the elements and their products as its objects has to be admitted, it follows that it has likewise to be admitted that consciousness is distinct and separate from them (i.e. those elements and their aggregation into the physical body)"

Anonymous Mon Apr 11 14:26:59 2022 No.20208180

>>20207988
If such be the nature of consciousness during dreamless sleep, a blind, deaf emptiness, without a centre, extension and progression of time, does it match what we call self and consciousness when we are actually aware and retaining memories? If such be its nature after death, is this permament existence, an infinity of nothing being perceived? Perhaps in death another door opens, perhaps it doesn't. What is observable is that what we deem as consciousness and selfhood during the time when we are conscious is deeply couched within the body and is perceiving phenomena as it relates to that particular body. Arguments trying to sever this tie saying fire can't burn itself don't seem convincing. If you are beyond the body, prove it somehow. Make your spirit known to my spirit directly

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 11 14:29:02 2022 No.20208193 >>20198079 If you think about it too deeply about it you go insane. You have to accept existence just is and there's nothing deeper than that

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 11 14:33:53 2022 No.20208208 >>20208193 Or read Philo's commentary on Genesis and meet God

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 11 14:39:13 2022 No.20208231 File: 86 KB, 886x720, 1649702350177.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>20198079

Anonymous Mon Apr 11 14:47:29 2022 No.20208278

>>20208180
>If such be the nature of consciousness during dreamless sleep, a blind, deaf emptiness,
It's not knowledgeless because it has reflexive access to itself as simple presence, this is just not remembered upon waking. This isn't the same thing when its actually occurring as a total lack of knowledge and presence, even of oneself as sentient presence.
>without a centre, extension and progression of time, does it match what we call self and consciousness when we are actually aware and retaining memories?
Yes it actually does, this extremely simple partless self-disclosing consciousness is also present as our very selves during the waking state, the difference between the two instances is just the presence or absence of additional things aside from it, like the body, sensory perceptions, memories, thoughts etc.
>If such be its nature after death, is this permament existence, an infinity of nothing being perceived?
No, I think that the self continues on from life to life until rebirth ends, when rebirth ends though that is different from the state of dreamless sleep because dreamless sleep is a state superimposed on consciousness by primordial ignorance, just like waking and dream are also superimposed on the self of consciousness, which in actuality is beyond and unaffected by the states of waking, dream and dreamless sleep. The self is inherently blissful, it's pure self-luminous bliss but this is only revealed to the spiritually enlightened who overcome spiritual ignorance, and they subsequently abide as that infinite undecaying self-luminous bliss forever after their physical body dies.
>What is observable is that what we deem as consciousness and selfhood during the time when we are conscious is deeply couched within the body
That claim was already refuted by this post >>20208001 explaining that this claim of yours is both inconsistent with our experience (which presents the body as an unaware content of our awareness) and is logically contradictory (due to it positing the same thing as both subject and object of itself in a dualistic distinction)
>If you are beyond the body, prove it somehow. Make your spirit known to my spirit directly
Why? The whole reason this conversation was started was that I was challenging that any Buddhist ever refuted the Self. I don't need to provide positive proof of the Self in order to demonstrate why all the Buddhist arguments fail. Do you even know that "prasangika" is and what it means for argumentation?

Anonymous Mon Apr 11 16:13:41 2022 No.20208671

>>20208278
As I said, I don't see how those arguments refute anything. It's ludicrous to think 'an acrobat can't climb his own shoulders' as being an adequate analogy to settle the mystery of consciousness. Besides, those arguments and you yourself say that it's impossible for something to perceive itself, yet you said the soul is self-reflexive, which is the same thing, ergo total contradiction. The attainment of those who claim enlightenment I can not comment. I would only be able to believe in them. However, such claims can be untrue. Only thing that I have direct insight in is an abiding connection between my consciousness and my body.

Anonymous Mon Apr 11 17:08:05 2022 No.20208944

>>20205669
It's described in the very first chapter however I'd see it as a constant theme throughout. Just like how the cicada cannot understand the vastness of the bird whose name is Roc we as humans cannot understand the vastness of the universe. 'The understanding of the small cannot be compared to the understanding of the great'

Anonymous Mon Apr 11 18:05:36 2022 No.20209253

>>20208671
>As I said, I don't see how those arguments refute anything. It's ludicrous to think 'an acrobat can't climb his own shoulders' as being an adequate analogy
Subject and object have opposite meanings and are defined in contradistinction to each other, so saying that X (brain or mind) can be the aware subject and also at the same time detect itself as its own object and see objective attributes about itself is logically contradictory, like saying "fire emits cold", it's violating the law of non-contradiction by ascribing two mutually exclusive statuses (subject vs object) to the same thing. The law of non-contradiction is one of the most basic and fundamental principles of logic and so to violate it as you are doing is immediately to have serious flaws in whatever you are propounding. When what you are saying both violates the LNC and is contradicted by how our experience takes place, then there is literally no good reason to believe that it's true anymore.

> you yourself say that it's impossible for something to perceive itself, yet you said the soul is self-reflexive, which is the same thing, ergo total contradiction.
It's not the same thing, the distinction between the two can appear subtle to someone who hasn't studied the topic, but in practice there is a massive difference between the two positions that has significant consequences.

My position is that consciousness is partless and inherently reflexive, self-directed by nature. The 'reflexivity' is not a separate action or relation, it's the very nature of consciousness and completely identical with it, i.e. 'self-disclosure' and 'consciousness' are two terms for the exact same thing. When reflexivity or self-disclosure is the very nature of consciousness and wholly identical with it, it means that consciousness is not taking itself as its own object. There is no multiplicity of parts or different information/content that needs to be bridged by a relation of observation, and so the entire 'agent-action-object' model is inapplicable. There is only reason to assert that a relation of subject vs object is needed to begin with when you have multiple things that need relating to each other.

What you are saying is different because you are talking about X (body or brain or mind) being the conscious subject, and also being the object of itself at the same time. Unlike my position this *does* require a relation of subject vs. object or agent-action-object, because you have multiple different components that need to be related to the subject as its various objects (like thoughts, memories, emotions, sensory perceptions). But this violates the LNC by having the same thing play both the role of the subject and the object. My position doesn't have this same flaw, because there are not multiple things that need relating to each other via a relation of subject and object or agent-action-object, there is just a singular partless thing remaining identical with its inherent nature.

Anonymous Mon Apr 11 18:29:57 2022 No.20209383

>>20208671
>>20209253

Madhyamaka-Yogacharins like Kamalasila, Shantaraksita, Mipham accept as valid this very same logic (that reflexivity doesn't presuppose subject vs object distinction). They recognized that denying the reflexivity of consciousness even on the level of the conventional leads to illogical contradictions (like an infinite regress) and is contradicted by experience. To adhere to Madhyamaka they maintained that consciousness is only reflexive conditionally/empirically, but not ultimately, but the problem is that once you admit it's reflexive empirically it removes any sort of justification for denying that consciousness is reflexive ultimately, and this is how other Madhyamakins like Gelugpas argue against that, by using a dogma-based argument that they are unacceptably making consciousness into something with svabhava

>Thus the character of self-awareness here has nothing to do with taking itself as an object in away which might lead to an infinite regress. Rather, self-awareness means reflexivity, where there is no sense of referring to an actual subject/object relationship and, therefore, no stage of validation beyond the consciousness itself. Kamalasila implies that it would not be correct to think of self-awareness on the model of ‘x is aware of y' where y = x In other words, the epistemological model based on act and agent where an agent acts on itself is inappropriate, and, therefore, the common criticism of self-awareness found in other Buddhist sources, grounded on the impossibility of an action directed towards itself, simply does not apply in this case. Svasamvedana is essentially not a case of a subjective aspect experiencing an objective aspect

>Kamalasila comments that ‘By self-cognition we do not mean the nature of a subject. Then what is it?' It has as its nature illumination by itself, intrinsically; it is just like the glow in the sky.’ likewise in his Madhyamakalamkarapanjika, Kamalasila observes that when we refer to svasamvedana we are not maintaining that it has the nature of object or subject. Both categories are inapplicable. The crucial verse on this issue is Madhyamakalamkara 17, in which Santaraksita explains that in the case of self-awareness of consciousness it is not to be treated on the model of activity and agent, since as regards what is by nature a partless unity a threefold division (into action—‘that which is done’— agent, and activity— the actual doing) is unacceptable. Thus when we refer to self-awareness in this sense, it is not self awareness in the sense of an awareness that takes itself as an object. What referent a consciousness takes is another issue. But in its own nature as consciousness it is always reflexive

However, ultimately this doesn't work for Kamalasila et al because they all also accept sahophalambha (whereby consciousness and thoughts are identical and hence X is both subject and object), however it works for Advaita because they reject sahophalambha

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 11 18:55:26 2022 No.20209482 >>20198788 >Silence you thoughts I have tinnitus anon

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 11 19:00:44 2022 No.20209498 >>20209383 >sahophalambha *sahopalambha-niyama

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 11 19:03:22 2022 No.20209505 >mind is separate from the body >yet it follows my body 10 feet to the left, upstairs/downstairs, on the freeway, flying cross country, etc Holy kek the stubborn delusion

Anonymous Mon Apr 11 19:03:45 2022 No.20209507

Question to the team: would modern day philosophers benefit from a return to exclusively gay sex? Modern women have to be far more insufferable than even the worst broads of two millennia ago. A refocus from whores to bussy might be just what the doctor ordered. Serious answers only please.

Anonymous Mon Apr 11 19:47:23 2022 No.20209622

>>20209383
This got me thinking about my position, but I still see in these argumentations a certain moralistic tone, which divides consciousness and the body simply because the body is deemed as being unworthy of creating it. What is the thing that sees? With the brain being the most interconnected thing in the observed universe, is it possible that electricity coursing through it reaches such a pitch that subjectivity emerges? I don't know. It's a mystery. But thanks for writing all of that out.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 11 19:57:33 2022 No.20209646 >>20198079 Simple. Our lord God created us. His exact intent I'm not sure of

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 11 20:22:06 2022 No.20209741 File: 20 KB, 333x499, intimatestrangenessofbeing.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] This book is literally about that.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 11 21:48:08 2022 No.20210075 >>20209383 Refuting existing or proposed philosophies is important, but do you have a theory or position of your own regarding this matter? If so can you share it with us?

Anonymous Mon Apr 11 22:56:39 2022 No.20210342

>>20209505
>>mind is separate from the body
>>yet it follows my body 10 feet to the left, upstairs/downstairs, on the freeway, flying cross country, etc
>Holy kek the stubborn delusion
I'm not saying that the mind is separate from the body, I'm saying that non-physical luminous consciousness is separate from the mind-body complex. You cannot attest to the location that your consciousness resides in, because your consciousness is invisible and not graspable by any sense-organs, you can only attest to the location of your body, since it's only the body that you are able to establish is actually located anywhere, through using the sense organs. The identity of consciousness with the mind/body has to necessarily be rejected, upon pain of violating the LNC, and upon pain of contradicting experience (since mental actions like thoughts as well as the body are always revealed as insentient phenomena i.e. not-awareness, that is flashed before our awareness just like images on a screen and not vice versa).
>>20209622
>but I still see in these argumentations a certain moralistic tone, which divides consciousness and the body simply because the body is deemed as being unworthy of creating it.
That's not the argument I'm making, I'm not making any sort of moralistic judgement about anything, I've been arguing for my position here in this thread solely on the basis of experience and logical principles. I personally don't find materialism or 'matter-producing-consciousness' convincing as a worldview, but I'm not taking that conviction of mine as the basis of my argument.
>But thanks for writing all of that out.
no problem
>>20210075
>but do you have a theory or position of your own regarding this matter? If so can you share it with us?
Yes, I am the anon known variously on /lit/ as Guenonfag, Advaitabro, Vedantaposter etc, I think Advaita Vedanta is the truth and I agree with their understanding of consciousness. The conception of the Self or consciousness I was arguing for in this thread is the same as Advaita's. The best way to understand Advaita is to read through Adi Shankara's works (4000+ pages plus the necessary introductory secondary literature), but if you want a concise overview written in an academic style of how Advaita understands Consciousness you can find it in these two well-written articles by Wolfgang Fasching:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/343665954_Prakasa_A_few_reflections_on_the_Advaitic_understanding_of_consciousness_as_presence_and_its_relevance_for_philosophy_of_mind

https://www.academia.edu/205196/_I_Am_of_the_Nature_of_Seeing_Phenomenological_Reflections_on_the_Indian_Notion_of_Witness_Consciousness

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/lit/ - Literature