what the fuck is thinking, and how does thinking, a purely abstract process, allow you to conclude youre being is a concrete entity.
descarte, socrates wasnt fucking around when he said human wisdom is inherently worthless. you cant even know you exist. you can only know you know nothing at all!
>not knowing you exist
>2016, January 18th, 25 minutes and 21 seconds past midnight
nigga thats the only thing you can know
unless we're debating the very nature of existence
in which case fuck you
I'm not necessarily saying anything about an ego
I'm just defending the fact that the only thing we know exists for sure is our own thinking process
against the replied against asshole, who seems to think that a body and a consciousness/thinking process are inextricably linked
that said the rest of descartes theories fall apart
like god exists because we, imperfect beings, can imagine a perfect one, and therefore a perfect one must exist?
fuck that, no one can fully understand the concept of perfection
If you didn't exist, you couldn't be thinking about whether or not you exist. Matter of fact, considering no one knows what a state of nothingness even is, how can you begin to make assumptions about whether or not you exist?
This is so fucking stupid to me. What the fuck are these philosophers smoking?
i know right? and faggoty fedoras bitch that post-structuralism is too wacky and meaningless, fuck no, there is way more value in foucault or derrida than there is in some 1600s edgelord who can't decide if he exists or not
Nonexistence is one state of nothingness. Nothingness has no shape or form, yet it is a singular concept that does not change.
In life, one can experience several different states of perception through hallucinogens. Therefore, one can conclude that they exist through the fact that their state of perception changes.
We cannot find a single instance of perfection on our physical plane of existence, but we refer to it mentally and negatively by negation. For example, one who is presented with two nearly perfect circles, one that is slightly too long and one that is slightly too wide, can tell that they're both "imperfect."
You don't really have to think to be aware of your own existence, at least if we see it from the Eastern philosophy point of view. According to it, we can only be "in touch" with our existence when we are completely "present in the moment".
And according to it, thinking is generally related to the ego. Animals exist; however, they do not have an ego. All the actions that an animal does are purely based on instict.
Although I assume that becoming aware of the existence of your ego reassures your own existence.
The fact that we can see physical objects aren't perfect does not immediately and necessarily imply that we, as humans, can conceive of perfection. It just means we can see that the object isn't right for the task at hand. Perfection is more complicated than that. How does a perfect object interact with others? How does it smell? Would it burn?
The thing I have with Plato is the Ideal thing. He talked about how every physically thing is basically a pale imitation of a perfect, abstract version of it that exists in our heads (this by the way is a meme, as in the old-school, pre-internet definition) so that while there are many chairs in the world, we each have in our mind the Ideal Chair, the Perfect Chair.
But if I ask you to picture a chair, it isn't a floaty angel God chair; it's one at home, or work, or one you had as a kid. For me it's those blue plastic pieces of shit from grade school. I'm not arguing that there is some realm of abstract concepts for real world objects, but I think the relationship is either matter over mind, or much complicated than Plato thought.
For instance, for awhile, there were no chairs. None. People sat on rocks. No one had an ideal in their head, or even an imperfect version. Then someone thought up a chair. You can argue that the perfect ideal came to him, but why so long after our existence? Did the cavemen think of rocks as chairs, or did they just think of the action of sitting on them?
>For instance, for awhile, there were no chairs. None. People sat on rocks. No one had an ideal in their head, or even an imperfect version. Then someone thought up a chair. You can argue that the perfect ideal came to him, but why so long after our existence? Did the cavemen think of rocks as chairs, or did they just think of the action of sitting on them?
He would just say that this world is deprived of certain forms.
the functional language of maths, yes conceptual. what the language is describing could not possibly be any more real, and is, given the philosophical climate of tt, more real than I.
>falling for "atoms and electrons in my mind interact with each other so I consider it as ""thinking"" therefore ""existence""" meme
>deprived of certain forms
Are their aliens getting these forms? Are they for future us?
Consider how everything invented is geared toward us. Us specifically. Did the perfect realm thing exist before us? Come into being before us?
Can anything made for human beings, imperfect, be perfect?
If we all die, what happens to the ideals?
no it was the buddha. and the the buddha says that it is not worth it to take this thinking seriously, especially when this thinking clings to emotions felt.
through meditation, you make this thinking and the consciousness cease and notice that they do not belong to you [since you cannot control them and their content].
>Consider how everything invented is geared toward us
Because we invented it you mongoloid. There is no such thing as a form of a chair for the same reason there is no such thing as a form of brickcorner when you cut the edge off of a brick. These things are composed of various forms, they are not the forms themselves
My first point was to bring up the difference between representations and what they represent, which despite being a pretty basic distinction was still too bewildering to >>7598063
My second point was to be a giant drooling cockgagged gimp, unworthy of an invitation to your thirteenth birthday party, master.