>I think, therefore I am
This may be the worst and most unfortunate argument that has been created and accepted by mankind. Anon here explains the problem, but suffice to say that “I” is not defined properly. People still cannot define I or self coherently. They cannot explain what constitutes the self, and why it only exists between birth and death, or why it is not common to all experiences, or why it is unique to every experience, or why it is different from experience itself.
The self is an incoherent idea, so it follows that free will is incoherent as well. Self-reference is revealed to be a trick and nothing more, and it should be obvious why paradoxes are merely logical m contradictions and not actually valid or real in any sense. What this means for Gödel’s incompleteness theorems, I’m not sure, but self-reference cannot stand as a valid logical concept. I’m not even sure how a God can have a self.
Most of western philosophy is built on a great illusion. Once you realize this everything becomes clearer
 |
 Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
|
>>Not that guy and I don't think I agree with him exactly but maybe you'll find this interesting or elucidating, or not.
>"I think, therefore I am" assumes the existence of an "I" that thinks. But while it does seem self-evident that there is at least experiencing of thought, it's not self-evident that an "I"
yeah, unless you fricking learn latin and you understand that cogito is an action not ''i think'''
it is not descartes' fault if atheists created pronuns
The original argument actually appeared in French as “je pense, donc je suis.” Regardless, the argument is used to posit the existence of a thinking entity, and not merely the thinking itself.
Does Descartes not start from the act of doubting rather than what "I" is?
If we look at the second meditation, he states "But what am I? A thing that thinks. What is that? A thing that doubts, understands, affirms, denies, wills, refuses, and that also imagines and senses". This summary comes after he exorcizes the Evil demon from the notion that even his existence can be brought into doubt; this being done by realizing that, if he is being deceived, then there must be something to deceive.
A physical "I", which I think is what the referenced anon and yourself, is not being pondered at, like this anon says here .
The self, as a performer of thinking, is the creation of the separate but concomitant acts of the intellect, the will, and the imagination.
Yes but the problem here is assuming a division between the perceiver and the perceived. They are never separated. All we can say is that the perception exists, or that the experience exists. What does it even mean to think? Or to observe? It makes more sense to simply say “there is thinking” or “there is observing” without a subject to perform it. This requires fewer assumptions, so it should have been the real basis for Descarte’s meditations. But if he realized this, he would have realized that nothing more can be said
I think he somewhat approaches this with the distinction between what is taught by nature verses what the light of nature reveals. Those things taught by nature seem to be things which experience teaches and requires a body, while the light of nature only requires the intellect and is what intuits metaphysical truths.
The light of nature may not, in a strict sense, require a perceiver, as you are saying, since this type of knowledge is necessary. These two parts of nature are inseparable from us because of the body. The body being imperfect (at least, compared to God) is why perceptions are necessary and we cannot always see the light of nature. Hence, we have the will and the imagination which adumbrate the world and causes false beliefs.
>what is taught by nature verses what the light of nature reveals.
>According to Erigena, there are four main species of nature: 1) that which creates and is not created, 2) that which creates and is created, 3) that which does not create and is created, and 4) that which neither creates nor is created.
And?
If there is just "experiencing", there is no one to state "I think". "I think therefore I am", in a circular way (just like the argument itself is circular), already proves there is an agent, and the least wild assumption is that this agent is "I".
Cogito is the first person conjugation which implies the subject, it would be cogitare if it were merely the abstract action.
yeah but there is no ''I'' living alone in latin
There is and it has multiple inflections.
In "Discourse on Method," he wrote in French: je pense, donc je suis. In "Principles of Philosophy" he used "cogito." What does "je" mean? Hell if I know!
So, throw away that point, you can't ever use that in philosophical conversation again. "Created pronouns." Tee hee.
what a stupid post
>but suffice to say that “I” is not defined properly.
I have such a deep disdain for philosophy.
based, autistic grammar debates are not philosophy
explain what the self is, what constitutes it, how it might change, how it might cease to exist, whether there are multiple selves, one self, or no self.
not an argument
>explain what the self is, what constitutes it, how it might change, how it might cease to exist, whether there are multiple selves, one self, or no self.
I literally do not give a shit and none of this will ever change my life, or yours, in any meaningful way at all.
It’s very relevant. The implication of open individualism is that all suffering is equally real. The suffering you experience when you turn 50 is just as real as the suffering that another person is experiencing. All suffering is “yours” in the sense that there is no self which is bound to experience only certain experiences. Identity is just an illusion, a perception within experience. You cannot die because experience does not die.
*shoots you*
*reincarnates*
*steps on an insect which is what you'll be*
I will be you as well
I’ve never read anything so meaningless.
Never said we knew what it was. It seems like a philosophical akin to “dude, what is life.”
Depends on what lens you use, or if you want to merge these perspectives. Atheists would say the self is purely chemical reactions. The Christian’s would say it’s soul and your spiritual morality that is you. Buddhists would say there is no you.
How do you even evaluate the worth of each definition? What authority can you give it on? You think you can read some thick novels, and cook up something that can rival the wisdom of ancient religious groups & philosophers? It’s more hubris than anything to think you can even tackle such a question. I feel like I’ve lost just responding to such a moronic fricking thread. I’m going to be productive instead of trying to convince some arrogant pseud he is an arrogant pseud.
>How do you even evaluate the worth of each definition? What authority can you give it on? You think you can read some thick novels, and cook up something that can rival the wisdom of ancient religious groups & philosophers?
I’ve already explained that none of this is new, I’m just advertising. Why did you even join this thread? If you want a recommendation, read Hume, or simply research the problem of personal identity, or open individualism. You don’t have to argue with me
Ignore that anon, dear intellectual! He is a mere brute. He doesn't understand all the subtleties of the arguments being presented. Let's continue the discussion. Come on! Let's keep discussing. So much fun!
The "intellectual" will never understand, how in every situation, the man he considers brutish and dim consistently gets the better of him.
A good example of this would be a conversation between a redneck hick and a modern city liberal, the liberal, being an "intellectual", will disregard his failure to pursuade the hick of his wrong views as him not having the knowledge / tools / intellect to reach the same conclusion he has on the topic of politics, but the reality could not be further from the truth.
The truth is that the liberal, like the majority of intellectuals, spews his rethoric and thoughts, without ever having put them to use in a practical manner, he has no more experience in the proper way to conduct yourself than the redneck does, he has not put his reason to the use of bettering himself, he has not tamed his desires, he is full of weakness, he meanders and scowls when he's sad, he avoids going outside so he does not fall ill, because falling ill is bad! Just like X branch of politics / religion is bad!
And so, even the redneck hick can see the intellectual for what he is, someone who while expousing apparently coherent and orderly thoughts, has not taken a single step towards what is good and proper of him, evidenced by the fact that he feels changing his neighbours political opinion is akin to bettering him as a whole.
Judgement reigns supreme over everything, and the goal and action of bettering Men around you is a task that is reserved only for the most giften of all excellent man, the intellectual, will NEVER have this capability. For he will never be excelent, he'd much rather practice his rethoric and flatullent wording so he can convince others of his "good taste" or his "good choice of politics" or even worse, his crafty little "thoughts" and "ideals"
>there is no self therefore all suffering is equally relevant to me and I shouldn’t torture animals for my own pleasure
What about this is so triggering for you morons? Are you so attached to personal identity? Do you want to die that much? Do you want to stop existing forever? You will never get your wish
I don't waste my time with asinine drivel and self masturbatory thoughts, nothing you said here or can say has or will trigger me, but what I wrote to you resonates on a fundamental level. If you were trying to be good and excellent, you wouldn't be wasting your time on these trivial topics. But you are an intellectual, so even if your thoughts were to hold some kind of truth and reason to them, they would be lost upon the ears of man, for you are not excellent, and for all the little thoughts you have, one can easily identify the big flaws in your character, and so you go on, constantly having brutes and man you consider dumber than you consistently outwit and disregard you for the rat that you are.
So if were a handsome millionaire with abs and liked by everyone, they would agree with me? Is that what you’re saying? Do you want me to go to the gym? Is that it? But why stop there? Why not tell dozens of anons that already agree with me to do the same, to increase the probability of this message being heard?
Whoa there anon! Forget about him. Us intellectuals truly understand how deep and subtle thoughts and ideas are.
Those fools never once spent a second in reflection and thought. They are probably all gymrats and chuds, hell bent on holding onto their opinions, am I right dear intellectuals? They don't ever consider the arguments presented to them. Never. Not once. If they deny and disagree with us intellectuals, well woe to them, they just can't see how our exquisite word games about moot absurdities are so relevant and important.
Ignore these fools. We intellectuals know what is most important, that which happens to also be the highest pleasure: endless discussion! So let's continue discussing anon!
Go us!
Man, in what sentence, did I ever claim to say even in passing, that the good and excelent man is an "handsome millionaire with abs and liked by everyone".
Go away and reflect on the absurdity you've just said, is that how an intellectual would make the standards by which man are to be compared in order to measure their excelence?
Were you an horse you'd be saying to your fellow horses "See how I am better than you, my master is more skilled and far richer than yours!"
Pure drivel.
Okay, I was just giving an example. If you’d like to clarify what is an excellent man, go ahead. I will just restate what I said originally but with a revised description of the excellent man
Eh ok enough fricking around. I was playing with OP to see if he catches on. But he doesn't and instead replies the way he does. Frick it. Don't waste your time. I won't waste mine.
Hmmm you want an "intellectual" answer, I'll give you one, the world contains logic, but isn't limited to it. This means all philosophizing is "relevant", "pertinent" only to a certain point, after which it devolves into endless word games. Among you intellectual types, discussion is your primary hobby. So you love these "paradoxes" and "aha insights" you get by combining certain words. So your theory of pain being universal, if we ignore any internal and axiomatic errors, is utterly irrelevant and useless.
Please don't go on a rant like "oh but that's not the point of philosophy, it's to understand patterns and our existence" and "haha look at this moron, he's saying that we shouldn't think". You know that's not what I'm talking about. But I have a feeling you will give such a week reply anyway to assuage the "hurt" you feel by my remarks.
Carry on. For the next task, I want you to logically and self-sufficiently differentiate between man and woman. Just don't turn into a troony.
>So your theory of pain being universal, if we ignore any internal and axiomatic errors, is utterly irrelevant and useless.
I see a claim but no logic. I think most people would agree that this is useful (if it were true of course). I think you just think it’s useless because you disagree with the idea completely.
Wrong, I say the things I say not because I agree or disagree with your theory, but because it is utterly useless and irrelevant. As I will demonstrate on multiple levels:
1. Your argument is: because we can't logically define the self, it must not exist. Hence the universality of experience.
2. What me and you experience as "self" is not important because, what it REALLY is like in the metaphysical realm is logically underfined, hence point 1.
3. Then you piggyback on point 1 to push your personal sadness against animal torture and general suffering by claiming that a man hurting a living being is also hurt, even if he doesn't experience any pain, that he is hurt in the REAL realm of metaphysics, where all experience is universal.
4. And finally you claim this theory will be the foundation of a new moral system for the future, even though variations of the same logic has been used throughout history, usually with some unquestionable theological axioms underneath.
So every step of your reasoning is limited in scope to logic itself. You also make a fundamental logical error in point 1. Because something isn't legible doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Why is your theory irrelevant and useless, only good for endless discussion and pleasure obtained thus you ask? Ok let's pretend your theory doesn't have internal flaws and isn't limited in scope for a moment. So what if pain is universal? Did you convince someone to stop hurting animals by drumming your theory into their head and now you feel good about it. Okay. Did you spend your time discussing it endlessly? Okay. But what if pain isn't universal on a fundamental metaphysical level? Your theory is disproven. Okay. In all these cases, so fricking what? Your pet theory is just that. Nothing more.
And finally...
We aren't Gods. We aren't standing outside existence looking in. Meaning we don't have a final reference to claim such and such is how it TRULY is. It could be universal pain, it could not. It's a belief. Nothing wrong with a belief. Just stop with the endless mind-numbing philosophizing please.
Happy? Funny how you "intellectual" types lack the basic intellectual rigor you people ardently profess you live by. Funny how you "intellectual" types are the exact morons who can't think things through, but point at everyone else for doing so.
Frick off.
>You also make a fundamental logical error in point 1. Because something isn't legible doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
The point is that it requires fewer assumptions to identify with experience itself rather than a particular set of experiences (those between the birth and death of this body). Personally I think it’s absurd that I won’t exist even after dying. Maybe I cannot explain this logically to you so that you have this intuition, but it is my intuition. I don’t claim to have perfect logic or perfect understanding, I just think I’m proposing something less incoherent. Hopefully more people will gain this intuition as I did and many others before me.
>Did you convince someone to stop hurting animals by drumming your theory into their head and now you feel good about it. Okay. Did you spend your time discussing it endlessly? Okay. But what if pain isn't universal on a fundamental metaphysical level? Your theory is disproven
I’m sorry, where exactly did you explain how it’s irrelevant? Maybe it’s just irrelevant to you, but it’s very relevant to me. Again I can’t give everyone this intuition, but other people can receive it. Who has ears to hear, let him hear
>Personally I think it’s absurd that I won’t exist even after dying.
Ok, but why do you think that this one absurd thing won't be when so many others are?
>doesn’t explain what an excellent man is
yawn
>the world contains logic, but isn't limited by it
Elaborate futher.
If the world is logical, how could logic limit it? Or are you stating that the world is only logical to a certain point, i.e., it is actually illogical?
>intellectual types
The same types that led to the creation of the civilization you comfortably live in? You are free to act without thought in the wilds, if you will.
>The same types that led to the creation of the civilization you comfortably live in? You are free to act without thought in the wilds, if you will.
Aaah yes the classic "hurr durrr you must be an unthinking brute, a man of mindless action, who never thinks. everyone who disagrees with me is obviously a mindless brute, go be a man of action elsewhere". Frick off.
You assume things of other people; you lack self criticism and come up with this stupid concept of "intellectual types". If the discussion of the self is not relevant to you, leave it.
>it's just words
You could arbitrarily say this about anything that doesn't revolve around materialistic benefits to you; this statement doesn't create or invalidate anything.
Wrong again. I use that term in a derogatory way to show you lot that your line of reasoning is weak throughout and outright wrong in one place.
Then I also show that beyond a certain point, it is all just words because there is no final reference to say "THIS IS HOW IT IS", as we aren't Gods look in to all of existence. And because we don't have a final reference, it becomes word games again.
Response to your first part: Did you miss the part where I said that since we aren't Gods looking in we can't ever say "THIS IS HOW TRULY AND REALLY IT IS" because we lack a final design plan, a reference? You can't logically prove or disprove your statement because there is no way to finally verify it and hence it devolves into word games. "Actually the tree's experience is the self" "No no, everything except the tree is the self of the tree". These are interesting surface levels remarks. Nothing more.
In response to your second remark: Did you miss the part where I called these discussion a personal hobby to you? You find immense pleasure in the mental clarity you perceive you receive when engaging philosophical discussion. That doesn't make it relevant, though it might be relevant to your personally for pleasure.
Ok I have to go. Bye bye anons.
Let me add, before you lot go off psychoanalysing me and accusing me of projection "haha what about you even you take immense pleasure in pointing out logical fallacies, on some level even you take pleasure in intellectual pursuit, hence you lack self reflection, or some variant.
I just want you lot to really think your philosophy through and to not take it too seriously after. That's all. Because half knowledge coupled with the arrogance of intellectual superiority, combined with an extremely serious outlook on what is truly just word games wont benefit you in any way.
That's all.
Ok bye.
He's saying that the world is logical, but it's not JUST logic (that is, "limited to logic"). The problem is that when you argue about things from the comfort of your own home that do not merely follow by logic, the most you can do is play lame word games. That's what he is trying to say.
He ignores, though, the possibility of using experience as the basis of an argument, and thus being able to encompass philosophically more than just solving logical problems.
>The "intellectual" will never understand, how in every situation, the man he considers brutish and dim consistently gets the better of him.
Its why the global IQ has been dropping
In the majority of the cases the "redneck" is personally determined to not be convinced. Why? Because people have egos. I won't deny the influence of your argument, but this is undeniable. People do disagree with others just for the sake of disagreeing; the facts don't matter to most once they are not in accordance to their own view.
>The "intellectual" will never understand, how in every situation, the man he considers brutish and dim consistently gets the better of him.
Yeah.
>A good example of this would be a conversation between a redneck hick and a modern city liberal
Cringe. God I fricking hate rednecks. Oil barons that'll melt you for fuel are rednecks if they wear snakeskin and are racist enough.
I lift 2/3/4/5. I am the philosopher and the brute, an all round higher life form than you. It’s pathetic watching people like you try to understand people like me. I’d almost think this was bait with the amount of cope you just spewed but there are many gays like you on this board.
Damn anon! Wow! This is the best mark of an intellectual, twisting a simple argument into the age old division between man of though and man of action. But you, oh great intellectual, go one step further and say you are both!
My my, those brutes must feel idiotic right about now, but they can't think or feel am I right fellow intellectuals so they're probably doubling down on their primitive thoughts.
It takes a peak intelligence to discuss nonsense endlessly, which they don't have. They will never experience this pleasure!
Too easy
Behold, the excellent man! He craves attention and wants others to admire him! The superior life form!
Are you sure you're not a women?
I’ll bite. I’m shamefully going to reply.
>”why did you even come to this thread?”
Because it offended me, deeply. It offends me that someone who has the intellect trying to understand or discuss this topic is doing so. I know you don’t fricking care about the question sincerely. You came here to flaunt your self-perceived intelligence for attention. You couldn’t think of a better way to spend your time? Really? You could have looked at something far more intriguing like anthropology, finance, politics etc. instead you invested your time into something literally no one can help you with. I’m saying that as if you had some type of philosophical dilemma, but you don’t fricking care for it with conviction. This thread screams “I misspending my time.” And it truly upsets. I made this personable because I don’t like seeing people being gay frick ups. I’m a hypocrite for replying. Sincerely go outside and lift weights, then you won’t give two shits about this debate.
“Uhh what is ‘I’?”
Shut up, homosexual.
I do care, because this is the future of morality. If people understood there is no boundary of identity then they would understand that all suffering is relevant. I would like to suffer less in my reincarnations anon
have a nice day.
The more you talk the more you sound like a b***h. Stop trying to justify yourself, goddamn.
Why are you so triggered? Do you act like this in all disagreements? What’s wrong with wanting to suffer less?
That was literally my first reply to the thread. You do act like a b***h trying to justify yourself and your discussing to other people online. "I want to suffer less"; "if people understood...". Utopic b***h trying to live in a fantasy world.
you’re just not ready, anon. It’s ok I don’t blame you. You can leave the thread
>You could have looked at something far more intriguing like anthropology, finance, politics etc.
Anon, these are just your opinions. Are you not self-aware enough to separate personal interests from what other people find interesting?
Those have a practical benefit that could improve class-consciousness, improving quality of life. The other is gay bullshit, being discussed in a time where action has never been more important. Have fun talking in circles, while I try to do something PRACTICAL about my living standards, and the future for my bloodline. As I write on a IQfy thread lol.
You’re too stubborn and pathetic for your own good. I invested my time and tried at least.
Something like Infinite Jest is more thought provocative and relevant than anything you’ve said.
Sad to think OP has been updating this thread and replying the same thing to everything in the past 3 hours. He must be indeed dedicate his days in search for the truth.
>improve class-consciousness,
This explains it.
>You could have looked at something far more intriguing
....
>like anthropology, finance, politics etc
Are you for real?
Baby don't hurt me.
To sum things up for you:
>I think experience and the self are both illusions, except for some experience.
>I share nothing to support this claim.
Why even bother with a post like this?
I’m not sure how believing experience is “real” is an illusion. But believing that identity exists between birth and death is the illusion. If you think other-suffering isn’t yours then you lose the opportunity to improve your other lives. Illusions aren’t so bad if they’re harmless. But this case is different
You are arguing for experience without subjectivity.
Just stop.
I could easily say that the subject is just the experiencer of every experience and only this. It is practically the same.
I never understood this. Maybe "my" construct of what I am is wrong and maybe there is no true separation between the subject and the experience. I also see that everytime I think "I" that's only a thought/feeling and not what I truly am.
But there still seem to be different minds, for example when I stub my toe you don't feel it, however we might look at it. We are separate bubbles of consciousness and unless you believe in reincarnation there is no reason for me not to cause suffering. Is there anything I'm missing?
>But there still seem to be different minds, for example when I stub my toe you don't feel it
you don’t feel stubbing your toe when you were 10. You don’t even remember it. “But that is not now. You and I exist at the same time.” But this is true for you and your 10 year old self as well. Modern physicists tend to think that the universe is a 4-dimensional block with all moments in space and time existing with no preference of time. There is no present moment, it is just illusion. So you are every moment in your life as well as every other moment in all other lives. Just because you can’t remember it or access it doesn’t mean anything. If I injected a whole lifetime of experience into your consciousness right now, but made you forget everything afterwards, you wouldn’t be able to tell the difference. You think you are trapped in this body, but it’s only because every experience in this body can only relate to other experiences in this body
>Modern physicists tend to think that the universe is a 4-dimensional block with all moments in space and time existing with no preference of time.
Lol.
Lmao, even.
special relativity supports it. Educate yourself
Science and Atheism are utterly moronic and super easy to debunk like a russian fake news: you have atheists who claim that immaterial math formulas they themselves invented run the material universe every millisecond across billions of light years, since 13 billions years ago LOL. how is this not moronic.
Oh and by the way, when they are asked to say where do those immaterial formulas live and where they come from and how they act on matter, they can't fricking answer, can they?
Ask an atheist how a photon, stemming from the annihilation of an electrons (e–) and a positron (e+) , knows that it has to follow Maxwell's rules, as soon as the photon comes into existence. Just ask him. And I can tell you what you will observe, because it's cause and effect: the atheist will be in his most vulnerable state, drymouthed, sweating profusely, hands trembling, in a state of intense anguish, because he knows he has no comeback. Zero. Jack shit. At this point in time, the atheist is consumed by a fear that is darker than the terror of death and which will never leave him until he dies.
You know how atheists say a bunch of deformed illiterate inbreds rolling in shit, beating their children and women personalized Nature when they said gods were an amalgamation of the base fears of early humans. Well since the day a few atheist bugmen created computers, they are saying the universe is a computer too lol. That's their big brain idea and that's how dumb atheists are lol.
The reason I loled is not because of antiscientific pseud religiosity, but how utterly uninformed it is. Current dimensional count is either 10(+1), 11 or 26.
Sure buddy, come back when someone actually sees a string please.
anon, even actual scientists think string theory is a joke
I don't know if that's OP or someone else but the argument seems to stem from the concept of ego being an illusion. Which, like, yeah no shit it is.
Any thinker eventually realizes their very selves are modular, a collection of experiences and reactive drives, and of learned behaviors with instinctive knowledge, with a number of factors, from the biological to the environmental to the random that all make up the illusion of "I" that you are. There is no (You). At best you are a representation of The Will, which is the closest any western philosopher got to even touching this very key point of human nature.
But it doesn't matter. Especially not when talking about Descartes. This entire 100+ post thread is halfway made by an unhinged schizo without the educational or intellectual framework to rationalize his thoughts b***hing about semantics.
In a way I guess it's very apt to the field.
I can't even imagine what my life would be like today if it weren't for those kinds of questions.
>none of this will ever change my life, or yours, in any meaningful way
So what? That's not the point of philosophy. If you think something tangibly changing your life is the only reason to be interested or care about philosophy you are incredinly shallow and narcicisstic.
>determining exactly how many angels can dance on the head of a pin is DEEP and IMPORTANT, you stupid pleb
>Screwing bolts onto pipes and calculating my yearly federal income tax is DEEP and IMportant
Stick to your cubicle and excel spreadsheets, brainless insect homosexual.
What do you favor then?
Same, its pretty stupid.
OP is a pseud, just ignore
Damn, thousands of years of philosophy and people still can't agree if they even exist or not.
Holy pseud this shit is bad.
If Diogenes saw you write this, he’d tear you limb from limb. I read everything twice over and it was fricking gay abstract nonsense, that’s not relevant to any current dilemma or issue. Pseud nonsense like this dilutes relevant discourse. You thought & wrote about fricking bullshit. You know it’s bullshit. Even if you were to define the “I”, what then? Any definition is a construct made by the human brain, defining itself, so it’s not truly objective; rendering the entire topic moot. Stick it up your c**t or write this in your diary. No one cares you 14 year old pseud.
This isn’t original stuff. Hume makes the same argument that I’m making. I believe Kant and Russel also criticized the argument. I’m sure there are countless others. You can disagree, that’s fine. But at least answer the basic questions:
>explain what constitutes the self, and why it only exists between birth and death, or why it is not common to all experiences, or why it is not unique to every experience, or why it is different from experience itself.
>”Uhh actually these smarter guys made the asked the same question.” Cool don’t care lol.
The question is essentially a Kafka-trap. It’s parameters are essentially impossible to meet, and who could be possibly qualified to answer it? No matter what answer anyone gives: you wouldn’t be satisfied. Do we really need an answer? We know about the ego, self-cognition, perspective, brain chemistry etc.
What more could you possibly want? Maybe divert your attention to current cultural and political issues, instead of completely irrelevant, abstract philosophy
>free will? Can’t define it, but we know what it is obviously. Stop asking questions
>irrelevant
It’s actually the most relevant philosophy of all
Different anon here.
>It’s actually the most relevant philosophy of all
Yes I agree. Because us intellectual types love to discuss things. And reflect on them. And discuss them again. The more paradoxical, absurd, unsolvable and idiotic the topic becomes, when it devolves to mere word games, the more our intellectual minds quiver with pleasure. Because we love discussion! Yay!
Look at those "practical" and "action loving" brutes. They haven't spent a second in reflecting and discussing. That's why they are primitive and less evolved than us intellectual brethren.
Go us!
Idiot, if there is no self, it is the same as there being one universal self. This provides the closest thing possible to objective morality. The justification for why we shouldn’t torture a pig is that the pig’s suffering is YOUR suffering. All other justifications rely on personal preference, such as empathy. But why should anyone without empathy be convinced not to torture the pig? You can only convince people to be moral by appealing to preference. If they understand that the pig’s experiences are just as real as theirs, then the suffering is also real, and suffering is unpreferable. This is the future of morality
Wow so much discussion! I love it. Us intellectual types sure do love spinning words endlessly! It's almost like we fixate on absurd word games because that is what grants us the greatest pleasure, namely that of discussion, because such a discussion can never come to a conclusion.
Whew! You show them fellow intellectual!
>current cultural and political issues
piss off to /misc/
Way to miss the entire point. You misunderstand both the premise and the conclusion of one of the simplest arguments in modern philosophy, neither of which depend on the notion of "self" and can be easily reformulated without it. Anons who insult you instead of explaining why you're wrong are right, because you're clearly not interested in fruitful discussion, only in broadcasting how smart you think you are (and failing). Stupid c**t.
>This isn’t original stuff. Hume makes the same argument that I’m making.
No he doesn't you absolute moron. In fact, he invalidates your juvenile musings, because he performs the exact reformulation that I just mentioned.
>Most of western philosophy is built on a great illusion. Once you realize this everything becomes clearer
McFricking have a nice day pseud.
Please provide the reformulation or contribute to the discussion in a meaningful way.
Please read beyond a single quote before you develop sophomoric criticisms and then maybe you'll never make threads based on moronic premises. Failing that, don't ask to be spoonfed after you're already pointed in the right direction. But of course I couldn't expect someone of your level of illiteracy to find the message hidden among the much deserved insults. You're responsible for this idiocy shitting up the catalog for days now. You are a net negative and you should have a nice day. Failing that, just stop posting and start reading.
>The whole point is demonstrating the existence of a thinking subject. The only sense in which you're correct is that Descartes doesn't care about defining what a self is, merely that the I is logically necessary is sufficient for his purpose.
The peabrain who just conflated two (possibly three) distinct terms has the confidence to tell me exactly where I go wrong. Too bad the peabrain clearly doesn't even realize what I'm referring to in the first place. A simple google search could have saved you from writing this moronic post. Are you morons scared of researching and reading, because it exposes your limits to you? Is that it? Or is it just laziness and buffoonery?
>and can be easily reformulated without it.
The whole point is demonstrating the existence of a thinking subject. The only sense in which you're correct is that Descartes doesn't care about defining what a self is, merely that the I is logically necessary is sufficient for his purpose.
>The whole point is demonstrating the existence of a thinking subject
Absolutely not, the whole point was finding one epistemological statement that could be certain and used as foundation to others.
It's just buddhism.
filtered
Manichaeism larp thread.
You can tell most philosophy was written by rich men who had 50 maids to wash their dirty crapped briefs for them. They do some mental masturbation while maid with 12 kids goes to the shack in the garden and dies of syphilis. But that's not important, what about like, free will dude. I don't have to fricking fight for food so I can just nitpick wordings and call it philosophy.
This is shit for people who were already on top and had nothing to actually worry about.
Criticize this viewpoint of mine.
Except this philosophy would make the rich man understand that he is also the maids and slaves. Keep calling it irrelevant though
Will he actually do anything about their situations then?
Various Buddhists have said that there is no self and we're all essentially part of the same whole. Then they create institutions where they hold slaves and and frick the underling monks and call for genocide. Saying does nothing, actions do. I do no actions at all but I'm not proud of it.
"The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various. The point, however, is to change it."
>Will he actually do anything about their situations then
Perhaps not, but he would be less likely to abuse them for small pleasures. He would still be influenced by his own preferences, because he can’t escape them, but the goal is that the preferences themselves will be affected, and aligned with the preferences of others. Again, people aren’t perfect. Christians sin as if hell is imaginary. But when we are an advanced species, what will be our goal? To reduce suffering as much as possible, because there is nothing better to do. This is the ultimate goal, to maximize preference across all beings, because it is likely that we are all beings. I’m not sure why people are so resistant to this. I guess we as a species just aren’t ready for it. People like this anon
irrationally lash out against what they are not allowed to understand. It’s a humbling experience. Perhaps I also am ignorant about some things. But in this case I am confident, and it is practical to believe in it in the case that it is true. Otherwise I am left with ethical egoism, because no other moral system is logically coherent or emphasizes the importance of personal preference.
Descartes formulated analytic geometry and the the foundations of his philosophy (including "cogito ergo sum) during his time as a mercenary in the Dutch army. He was nearly freezing to death and locked himself alone in a room with a furnace, where he had fevor dreams which resulted in the formulation of his early mathematical and philosophical ideas.
Is it possible that there is an "I" from a materialistic point of view, i.e., we are simply atoms interacting with each other? In this conception, perception is just atoms interacting with each other; therefore, it really just is more "experience", right?
>The self is an incoherent idea
Experience is incoherent, there is no understandable context that gives rise to it. No logic to follow that describes it.
I's still the only thing you have access to. Your ideas about how the external world including logic operates can't logically invalidate the immediate reality where your entire existence revolves around choices because no relationship between the two has been established.
You experience what we call "free will" before you start thinking, if your thinking leads to saying you don't have free will at all then your thinking is misrepresenting some part of what's happening. Clearly there is a phenomena there.
yes we experience free will, self, and time. But all that can be said is that we experience them. With enough introspection you can even dissolve or at least weaken some of these illusions. You can go from viewing a human as having an evil soul that freely chooses to be evil, to understanding the deterministic causes for their behavior. You can stop identifying with thoughts or desires or even actions. This is common practice in eastern spirituality. You can transcend free will by being free from this illusion, and view freedom in this light. But it is all just experience
>weaken some of these illusions
Experience is definitively not an illusion.
>deterministic causes for their behavior
Doesn't address anything about experience, only action. There's a logical relationship between preceding events and action taken by a human but the process you call experience is nowhere to be found in the description. That means your description is flawed and misrepresenting reality. It only operates within a context given by your models of the external world with no connection made at all to experience. That you completely fail to describe something using your models doesn't mean the thing doesn't exist. I know the thing is some-thing. That you can't describe it doesn't make it an "illusion", it makes your models shit.
>There's a logical relationship between preceding events and action taken by a human but the process you call experience is nowhere to be found in the description.
Any model that describes experience will seem insane to us. It has to be something crazy like your experience sits outside time and the context is established by "you" exploring infinite possibilities so in a way the condition that preceded the reaction was created by the reaction or whatever. The normal assumptions about how reality is won't cut it.
The problem is that we use experience to form opinions about reality. This is where the illusion comes from. An experience itself is not an illusion. You can feel free, you can feel as though you have a self, but to say something like “I exist between my birth and death and cease to exist in all other moments” is illusion, incoherent language. You have to justify why the “I” doesn’t persist across all experiences.
>but I am not other people. If I were, then I would be experiencing them
illusion, for similar reasons that you don’t experience your 5 year old self in this moment. You simply can’t remember being other people. If something is possible, yet you have never considered it possible, and believe something else, then you believe illusion. To never have the thought “maybe I am not bound to this body and this brain. Maybe I am experience itself, and cannot die” and to believe the opposite is to have illusion.
“Can you define the self?” is an ill-posed question. There’s already an anon trying to explain that to you in that thread you posted, reply to his posts instead of shitting out more midwit garbage.
It’s not an ill-posed question in the context of differentiating closed, open, and empty individualism. The problem of personal identity is not a new one, as I’ve said. Read Hume
The assumption with least conditions, the simplest description that's still some kind of description is that the fundamental phenomena of experience is universal.
It's then modulated by brains and memories to create a perceived identity.
This means rocks are "conscious" but in a way that has basically no meaning. It doesn't really change anything, it doesn't give a reason to be more empathetic, that's a separate issue.
>People still cannot define I or self coherently.
Easy. It's everything that's not "other."
>what's a tree?
>Everything that's not not a tree
From a tree's perspective, that would be a self-verifying, experiential truth.
What the frick are you talking about? I was commenting and making fun of your obviously circular, uninformative, and tautologous and empty attempt at a definition.
Any categorical distinction which distinguishes an entity from the rest of the world can be picked apart until it no longer exists. This is true of the self as much as the distinction between a lake and a pond. At the end of the day, I know a lake when I see one.
>Any categorical distinction which distinguishes an entity from the rest of the world can be picked apart until it no longer exists
Why?
The categories which we use to describe the world are subjective constructions with little basis in objective reality. Look at the Mississippi river. At what point does it "begin" and "end"? What distinguishes the mighty Mississippi from a little trickle of water which feeds into it? You can poke holes in any definition you care to give. To broad a definition will make the Mississippi cease to exist in any meaningful sense. To narrow a definition will exlude essential parts and properties of the river. Nevertheless, you can stand on the bank of the river, look out at it and say "that is the Mississippi river".
Too*
You can very easily define "I" in this context to make it consistent with Descartes' argument. Just say I is the experiencing, or the presence of things to you now. "I think" would refer to an act of doubting being experienced, and the "I am" would refer to the experiencing / present that is implied therein.
A much more effective argument would be to look at Descartes method of reaching this conclusion. Why does descartes doubt the things he does? Why is the method circular? I'm not going to give you the answer straight away, think about it for a bit.
>The self is an incoherent idea
Wrong, the cogito is perfectly logical. The apodictic intuition of the self is at the basis of every intentional act, because every act is based on a doxatic positioning.
Imagine I were to offer you a wager, that I win if you do not exist and you win if you do exist. Now the question is not how to prove it, but rather how to define the strength of that belief in logical terms. The strength of a belief can be "quantified" in relations to how much should you be reasonably willing to bet on it. The usual analytical position is that you should therefore never be willing to bet everything as you cannot reasonably have an absolute confidence in your belief.
The Cogito logically & eideticaly defeats this, as it is obvious that given that particular bet, you should be willing to bet everything you have, as if you lose the bet, you didn't have anything to start with, as you did not exist.
Read some Husserl, btw, it'll help you see the truth.
I would bet that closed individualism is false. There is experience, that is all that the Cogito proves
>There is experience, that is all that the Cogito proves
That is precisely like saying that there is only information, missing completely that information eideticaly implies an interpreter.
information often exists without an interpreter, unless you want to be pedantic about the word “exists.” But experience, the experiencer, and the experienced cannot be separated. It is just experience. Even if you want to say there is a subject, it is hopelessly tied to the object. “I see the tree” is no more reasonable than “I am the tree” when describing the same experience. But of course we perceive more than just a tree. We perceive everything else, and the body, thoughts, desires. All is self, all is not self. It is the same thing
>information often exists without an interpreter
Nothing can be said to be information without the potentiality of an interpreter, same with experience.
>Even if you want to say there is a subject, it is hopelessly tied to the object.
Only insofar as exposing the subject is done through exploring objects.
>“I see the tree” is no more reasonable than “I am the tree” when describing the same experience.
Jesus Christ how dumb. Those are two completely judgements with two completely different forms of validation. Even their experiential background is completely alien to one another.
What if a quantify the strength of a belief based on how much I would lose betting on it, yet believe it anyway? I'd say that's a better measure of strength, because it presupposes a lack of attachment (passivity).
Quibble about this all you want, you know the essence of Descartes' argument is still irrefutable
>There is thinking taking place, therefore the void featureless awareness which can perceive that thinking is taking place exists, which awareness is called ‘I’.
If you grammatically reformulate it you can see the incoherency of it. Why didn’t he just as well say, “I can feel hot and cold, therefore I am.” “I feel emotions, therefore I am.” Closer to the truth might be:
>I know, therefore I am
>I experience, therefore I am.
or
>I am a knowing experiencer (knowing or experiencing this which I know or experience right now), therefore I am
Or even more tautologically:
>I am therefore I am.
Which, as you point out, is more like a cleverly useless paradox or bit of self-reference. “There is therefore there is.” “I am.” “I am what I am.”
All discussions of Being, of ontology, or investigations into the nature of concepts like “the self,” “existence,” “objects,” “subjects,” “subject vs. object duality” eventually flounder in the incomprehensible mystery and unspeakableness.
>I’m not even sure how a God can have a self.
With this, you’re getting into trends in Buddhist philosophy, process philosophy, Taoism and the like. “Even if we admit the existence of God, God is not an objectively definable ‘self’ or ‘object’, but exists in interdependent connection with every’thing’ and every’one’ else, having the nature of sunyata (emptiness) of intrinsic qualities or selfness, self-nature (swabhava), analogous to the metaphor of Indra’s israeliteeled net, where every israeliteel simultaneously is reflected in every other israeliteel and reflects every other israeliteel in itself. There are no independent objects, no objectively definable or graspable self of anything or anyone anywhere whatsoever.”
On the converse hand, there’s always the possibility of the Vedantic affirmation (as opposed to the Buddhist-style negation) lying open, which is, “‘I am’ is the necessary predicate of all that exists. There is only ‘I am.’ Even if God exists, I can only take God, phenomenologically and logically speaking, in relation to my own existence and experiencing — there is, so to speak, only ‘I’, and hence God can only be taken in relation to ‘I’. I therefore deduce that I and God, Atman and Brahman, mutually blend into samarasa, homogeneity or literally ‘same taste.’ It is not that, ‘I am God’ in the prideful sense that this limited selfhood, personality, and body is omniscient and omnipotent, but rather, it can only be a homogenous PARTICLE of that very omnipotence and omniscience which created it, which is the very mystery of all-pervading Being which allows me and others to even say, know, experience the mystery of ‘I’, that ‘I am.’”
Philosophy hence eventually gives rise to supra-philosophical experiencing and meditation through a process which could be called self-inquiry, yoga, dhyana (meditation) or the Japanese corruption of it into the word ‘Zen’. Patanjali’s Yoga Sutras, Ramana Maharshi’s or Nisargadatta Maharaj’s self-inquiry, breaking one’s brain on a Zen koan, the Gurdjieff/Ouspensky conception of self-observation and self-remembering, and the like — eventually it has to give way to something like this, and obviously not in the sense of becoming a culture-bound Eastern yogi or meditator, either, which is a paradoxical self-blinding to the very concepts promulgated by certain of these traditions. No conscious human being is more or less privileged in how deeply they can inquire into this (or refuse to) do this based on their cultural starting-point. Hence, Western schools of philosophy such as of phenomenology, ontology, existentialism, some forms of theology such as Meister Eckhart’s, can reach it just the same.
If you want to get into so-called “metaphysics,” literally beyond physics, beyond physicality or matter, you can compare and contrast a corpse with yourself. You can conceive of the corpse as lacking animation, psyche, soul, the possibility of conscious experiencing, but you somehow have it.
If you then ask “where” your selfhood is “physically located”, you might get a bit flustered. Are you your brain? If you look at a dissected dead brain on a scientist’s operating-table, it is hard to believe there’s a self in that very brain — it’s simply biological material, matter. And yet, neuroscientists tell you all “you” are is the epiphenomenon of biological, neurochemical reactions in your nervous system which somehow spontaneously assembled to give you the experience of “you”, or selfness.
Perhaps more accurate is that Self, I, Being, Self-Conscious Awareness, uses the matter of the brain and body as a vehicle to manifest through, enlivening and animating it. Therefore we paradoxically “return” to “outdated crankish Mesmerism”, and the “antiquated foolishness of those ancients who actually believe we are immaterial souls inhabiting bodies.”
The Pascalean anti-belief, disbelief that this very supramaterial soul exists and could continue existing after death independent of the body, and that it uses the brain and body as vehicles or receivers of such a being (the damaging or breaking of which, the receivers, can indeed actually corrupt or change how the signal comes through, as neuroscientists so cleverly like to assert — “If we dissect this part of your brain you’ll become a zombie or mentally moronic. Hence you’re just a walking bag of flesh dependent on the material reactions of your brain” — but might not have any bearing on the source of the signal itself) hence seems no more “rational”, “scientific”, “strictly logical” than to believe that it could exist and that the greatest purpose of life is to cultivate this very soul and prepare one for the afterlife state, which could be said to be religion, or philosophy (philosophia, love of wisdom) in the classical, old-fashioned Socratic sense of preparing oneself for death, as in Plato’s Phaedo — a conception we’re of course all too “hip,” “clever,” and “modern” for, but which the afterlife state may ultimately end up proving who really was more “clever” than who in choosing the gamble of disregarding or very concernfully regarding the cultivation of the soul while still alive.
no, the jhanas are conditioned and philosophy is not the condition for their arising. and the result of the jhanas is not whatever the frick the hindus made up by corrupting buddhism
They are not strictly the condition for their arising, true, philosophy can so to speak be “skipped” and just get straight to the real deal, what I rather meant is that serious, honest, and rigorous philosophy eventually and perhaps apparently paradoxically has to reach the point at which one realizes one’s own consciousness and state-of-being is what has to be deeply investigated and, so to speak, “improved upon,” to speak in a crudely dualistic or additive sense — assuming it really is fully honest and fearless and hasn’t fallen into either the crudely materialistic atheistic denial, that there is no need to investigate and expand the nature of your own awareness, or some Kierkegaardian-style-leap-of-faith into some perversion of an Abrahamic religion and notions of salvation by simply believing in some savior figure.
And this type of self-investigation and refining of one’s own consciousness is properly “meditation,” rajayoga samadhi, the Neoplatonic quest for henosis or union with the Monad, the unio mystica or theosis of certain Christian mystics and theologians, fana (annihilation) and then baqa (abiding, subsistence, permanency in Allah as opposed to a mere fleeting ecstatic mystical experience) of Sufism, the Tao, unity with Brahman, or even the nirvana, the seeing of Buddha-mind, which in all case inevitably must and can only be reached through “I am.”
If you speak of it to the silly, ignorant, and proud, they will get outrageously angry and think you’re a pompous person, think you’re going to “hell” since you don’t adhere with their religious formulations, etc., or, conversely, get very greedy and desperate to get some more of this “wisdom” from you. Also, stupid “Buddhists” will say, “We don’t believe in God or a self so it’s not like what you’re saying at all,” and stupid “Hindus” will say, “The Buddhists don’t believe in God or a self so we can’t be compared to them at all,” instead of just seeing the point behind them both and getting it over with, which is the omni-central recursive Absolute point of Being simultaneously manifesting throughout everyone everywhere and in every thing.
Hence why throughout history there’s been the tendency towards trends like esotericism, initiation, etc. or speaking of this relatively more secretly, because of these reactions people can have — “I’m going to execute you for blasphemy,” “It’s not like what you’re saying at all and I need to have a stupid argument with you to clear up some philosophical and theological points,” “If I fall at your feet and worship you will you work a few dramatic miracles for me with your miraculous siddhis,” and so forth.
>If you grammatically reformulate it you can see the incoherency of it.
He said "Je pense" because he had reduced himself to a purely intellectual entity by previous exclusion of the doubtful. Experience is doubtful, except the transparent experience of the thinking agent acting in thought. Ffs read the book.
Also "je pense", "la pensée" (I think, thought) has a slightly more fluidic meaning in French than in English.
Noun
> pensée f (plural pensées)
> a thought (first attested 1176 in Chrétien de Troyes, Cligès, ed. A. Micha, 5246)
> reflection, meditation, faculty of thinking (late 12th century)
> (in the expression “être en pensée”) worry, concern (late 12th century)
> the mind as the seat of thinking (c. 1200)
> (obsolete) amorous attachment (c. 1200)
> manner of thinking (c. 1215)
> an idea coming up in one's mind (c. 1220 in Anseïs de Carthage, 332)
> the guiding idea of a decision made or one's will (c. 1274 in Adenet Le Roi, Berte, 1644)
> moral disposition (first quarter of 13th century)
> an operation of the mind (since 1636)
idea expressed by an author in a literary or artistic work (since 1621)
> thinking, worldview of an author "Travestir la pensée d'un auteur."
and hilariously
> a pansy (c. 1460)
Even behind the very intellect, mind, thoughts, thinker, thinking, is the very awareness which even allows thinking to take place.
Closer to being is "I know, therefore I am.", for thinking cannot observe thinking, which means that it cannot be the observer of thinking. Consciousness is beyond thought, for otherwise we would not even know whether we are thinking or not, nor would we be aware of any other function connected to consciousness, such as seeing the blueness of the sky or feeling hunger or thirst in the sensate body.
Because I am conscious, I have being; because I am, I have consciousness. It is through consciousness that I am conscious of being. Because I know, perceive, observe and cognise, I therefore am, I continue to exist, to continue being. Even in deep sleep, when I am apparently unconscious, I retain a consciousness of an unconsciousness that allows me to claim that it was my being that lost a great portion of consciousness and re-acquired it upon awakening. Even in sleep there is a consciousness of being asleep.
>Even behind the very intellect, mind, thoughts, thinker, thinking, is the very awareness which even allows thinking to take place.
Sure, but that wasn't the point made by Decartes. His point was that as you exclude the doubtful you can exclude everything up to the doubter. As *he* is doubting, *he* is beyond doubt.
Descartes didn't explore the transcendental field that lies beyond the Cogito, pointed toward by it, and he didn't bother to turn his discovery into an ontological/phenomenogical fact, for him its interest lied in its epistemological properties.
Well, that would be a specifically romantic mindset, which goes against the assumption of rationality that american analytical philosophy has. I'm not saying people don't act like that, but that you could use the model as a way to represent the strength of many of your beliefs in an almost mathematical way, that this allows analyticals to suggest that as such no beliefs should be rated at 100% (an obviously atheistic position, but lets skip that), and that even with this fuzzy quantification, assuming rationality, the Cogito shows a radicalization of the strength of your thetic acts.
I would argue that the possibility of the romantic stance would be proof of the existence of Will.
I think this is speaking past OP and restates what he wishes to contest and not addressing his concern.
OP is targeting I, as some ill-defined term permitting the common resolution of the dilemma. I think his argument is a bit ad hoc, tailored specifically to this small little disagreement and fails to connect to any substantial understanding. It is utterly absurd to imagine that a particular person - me - would entertain opinions, or even supposed statements of facts, from another person who can't even demarcate the impressions of thoughts that come to him. If I were seriously considering it, I would just take his position as entirely bad faith but I think he was just trying to mix some ideas together and see what comes out.
This is pretty clear with the other ruminations
>I only exists between birth and death
Who posits what they know about what comes after death? It seems to me that the opposite must be the claim as anybody with death experiences haven't described them in anyway that wasn't related to their own intimate experience: family members, love, sensations, etc. Rather, it is people on drugs that describe things like ego death, or disease like Alzheimer's which seems to claim selfs. Many religions posit some kind of continuation of self and science simply has nothing to say on the matter, except through those with some creative extensions of their reality models. If the universe randomly repeats forever, you might come around again.
>experience itSELF
>SELF is an incoherent idea
What does he mean by this?
>SELF-reference is revealed to be a trick
Where is this revelation? He asserts I not defined properly, but does not defend this or refute any I concept. I guess is that we are supposed to submit some I for him to eviscerate, but it is shoddy form to assume the conclusion to an argument before having it.
>Gödel's Incompleteness theorem
Single-handedly responsible for the common response found in this thread.
Spinoza -> Whitehead -> Deleuze -> Baudrillard
For the true pseud experience drink in the pop culture as pertains to normative expression shortly after Columbine and continuing through today. Particularly kino moments was the fear porn around trenchcoat mafia a la The Matrix, "hands up, don't shoot," swineflu to COVID, the terrorist shell game, Floyd murder, and so many other things that did not happen.
>Spinoza -> Whitehead -> Deleuze -> Baudrillard
What do these dudes have to do with GitS?
Pretty hard to find a topic that Spinoza or Whitehead wouldn't have some relation to. I think of it like a solar system. You have GITS on planet Buadrillard, with Deleuze as the moon. And you zoom out to find it is kind of like Tatooine with two suns, Whitehead and Spinoza. You can kind of shift Spinoza to a great number of rationalists and be fine, but you couldn't replace someone like Whitehead with Hegel without drastically deforming the GITS story. It would probably me more like a gritty version of Eden of the East.
One of the interesting things about GITS, it really really REALLY seems like sci-fi, but it is primarily a psychological drama dressed up in cyberpunk. They pay actually zero attention to any of the miraculous technologies which just connects the plot. Robots, dystopic surveillance states, corrupt bureaucrats, shadow governments, and all matter of other machinations are in heightened contrast next to the very human motivations of the provocateurs. While the institutional incarnates in the show certainly have modern incarnations, particularly to the real US as it has evolved after WWII but also the US-Japan relationship, the parallels to the modern world can hardly be said to come from anyone but Baudrillard. In fact, he will go down as the most underappreciated gigagenius of the 1970s to whatever decade clown world ends. I guess he is a different topic, but let me just say it is fricking hilarious that the climate food shortages will result from climate change policies and not climate change itself.
I think each incarnation of GITS should be seen as something different even though half-ass feed into each other. It managed to sequel its way into a parody of itself and got that Hollywood flick to cameo a bunch of iconic scenes in no particularly meaningful way. Did you read the manga, or watch the movies or which series do you find the most interesting?
The too most philosophically dense GiTS properties were S1&2 SAC and Innocence. Prove me wrong.
Just skip straight to secondary Baudrillard lit then homosexual
they are secular humanists and mass entertainment is the pinnacle of the humanist bugmen to feed the cattle ''makes you think'' moments.
>I think this is speaking past OP and restates what he wishes to contest and not addressing his concern
Well I wasnt addressing OP, or at least not that very post.
However you are correct that OP's position centers around a poorly-directed attack on the concept of I and not on the value of the Cogito itself.
It assumes, amongst a plethora of other ridiculous claims, that reference requires definition, while reference itself can work as a definition. Even if the only definition of the Ego was 'what is referred to by the Cogito', that would be sufficient to hold it beyond doubt.
OP; Adi Shankara refuted you and proved the self of luminous witness-awareness which is constantly present and which all our thoughts behaviors and actions require and presupposes; you are never absent from yourself; all experiences are experiences for YOU the self
>but rather, it can only be a homogenous PARTICLE of that very omnipotence and omniscience which created it, which is the very mystery of all-pervading Being which allows me and others to even say, know, experience the mystery of ‘I’, that ‘I am.’”
That's like Vishishtadvaita, Advaita says that there are not separate Atman-particles but that everyone's consciousness is actually wholly and numerically identical with the infinite undivided partless consciousness of the Paramatman. according to Shankara saying that the Absolute has parts violates both the scriptures and reason
>luminous witness-awareness
> You are sentient light
Wiccan-tier spiritualism.
Its called luminous because it discloses or reveals itself as well as other things; a lamp provides light allowing is to see it and also reveals other objects
The self exists, and only bugmen disagree
Philosophy has never achieved anything, and never will. There is no proof of progress. There is nothing to show for. Allow me to quote Richard Feynman, a quote that applies to much philosophy I see discussed on this board and elsewhere:
>My son is taking a course in philosophy, and last night we were looking at something by Spinoza – and there was the most childish reasoning! There were all these Attributes, and Substances, all this meaningless chewing around, and we started to laugh. Now, how could we do that? Here’s this great Dutch philosopher, and we’re laughing at him. It’s because there was no excuse for it! In that same period there was Newton, there was Harvey studying the circulation of blood, there were people with methods of analysis by which progress was being made! You can take every one of Spinoza’s propositions, and take the contrary propositions, and look at the world – and you can’t tell which is right.
Feynman was a sex addict, like all NPCs since the Renaissance.
>There were all these Attributes, and Substances, all this meaningless chewing around, and we started to laugh.
So this is the power of empirical thought.
>ou can take every one of Spinoza’s propositions, and take the contrary propositions, and look at the world – and you can’t tell which is right.
>Substance necessarily exists
>look at the world
>it is substantial and cannot be decreased or increased (laws of conservation)
>Spinoza is right
Ok Feynman.
Just because something isn't describable in definite terms, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist, or that it's a trick.
/thread
Exactly, this argument can be made about literally every single philosophical that which has been ever made and is completely useless and unrelated from nearly all of them. OP is the biggest pseud ever
This. OP, read Wittgenstein. We do not need to define words to use them.
Thought not that, my bad
"I think I think, therefore I think I am." -Ambrose Bierce
This thread makes no sense at all. Descartes was basically just saying that he is aware of his own perception and thought and that's all he can confirm "exists" from his own consciousness, and you're arguing that that's not true because what defines and makes up the idea of self isn't universally agreed upon, which makes no fricking sense.
>heard of pragmatics once
god """analytic philosophy""" is badly autistic
>I think therefore, giver her the dick.
No thank you
Why so "why so?"?
>give her the dick
IQfy recs to begin my pseudo-intellectual dive into the concepts explored in GitS?
Why the frick are there so many redditors in this thread. Who the frick
else would write "yay!" And "wow!" And would throw around the most limp-wristed, weak insults and ad hominems I've ever seen.
Anyways, here's my definition of the self. Our mind and metaconsciousness relies on axioms to sustain itself, first of all, and these axioms can only be observed and not defined, and to distinct these axioms from logical deductions we must find the presumptions we hold that have no smaller part in any way, and these presumptions are that which ne necessarily are completely unable to deny. Such as "there is".
The self is a distinction between any two things that are both needfully externally and different from the self, but once the self is defined, then of the two things one becomes the self and the other is not the self, or the non-self. In theory this means that a mind can basically believe in whatever it wants, but as we can observe we have a human mind with certain axioms, which by their own existence means that we cannot think without those axioms, so as far as our ignorance goes it's very much possible that we have an axiom as to how our self is generated, or at least a tendency towards what we define as the self which itself comes from an axiom. How is this distinction between two things done?
Perhaps through an actual systematic investigation (either to be done or already done in the past that I've yet to be aware of) this question can be answered. It'll require an actual self-investigation that I'm too lazy to do right now, but as far as I'm concerned it sounds about right for now, I'll investigate the question later.
>And these axioms can only be observed and not defined
And not "deduced"**or "concluded from prepositions"
Very few people respond to the things I say
Then it's a failure on your fricking part to communicate properly, you can't just start or go into a thread and start shitting up the place with your god-awful vocabulary. have a nice day
Lord!
The I does not imply whatsoever a being or thinking subject. It is simply that the experience proves more that there is more than nothing.
imagine getting your philosophy from IQfy
if you really want to read a serious refutation of descartes, read hume or nietzsche on him. or dennett for a more contemporaru take. i think quine also has something on him