User Tag List

123 Last

Results 1 to 10 of 31

  1. #1
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    2,152

    Default I assert the only thing that I know is this: I perceive existence.

    Any other conclusions that I draw from this are ultimately flawed. To assume they aren't is to assume that how I think is in accordance with perfection. It's almost arrogant.

    As humans we have developed systems to try to explain things. Religion, Science even what I'm trying to communicate to you...these are things that we have developed in order to make the world an easier place to live in.

    While this is useful, some people mistakenly believe that this system is so good that it actually is in accordance to "perfection". Yet it isn't. It can't be. We are flawed...we don't know truth/reality/perfection. The only thing we (I) do know is that "I perceive things to exist".

    Given that our perceptions are limited and we perceive things to be true that actually aren't...there is a chance that we don't exist...despite thinking that we do. All we (I) know is that "I perceive myself to exist."

    Thought? Comments? Critiques?

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    6w7 sp/so
    Socionics
    IEI
    Posts
    2,841

    Default

    I beleive this is the conclusion that Rene Descartes came to concerning what we know; "I think, therefore I am".

  3. #3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Savage Idealist View Post
    I beleive this is the conclusion that Rene Descartes came to concerning what we know; "I think, therefore I am".
    I think you're right, he did so because he was interested in the principle of refraction, like if you put a twig in water it may appear to be bent because of the angle at which the waters surface interacts with and distorts the image of the twig.

    I'm more interested in why people ask these questions and what it matters, unfortunately Descartes was the start of a philosophical trend through Kant, up until Nietzsche which was positively individualistic in its turning away from all other things or persons and simply affirming the self as more real or important than anything else.

    Even though Stirner thought he was being original with his philosophy of the ego and attack on other philosophers he was just part of a wider objective trend, I think that's more important than whether or not the theorising can be proven as objectively true.

    Holistic thinking and harmonising can a very, very poor second in the legacy of these grand theories.

  4. #4
    Senor Membrane
    Join Date
    May 2008
    MBTI
    INFP
    Posts
    3,190

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mkenya View Post
    All we (I) know is that "I perceive myself to exist."
    Do we perceive ourselves? We perceive something, but most of it is not me. The fact that it is perceived makes it a reality, but it is impossible to know what it is that perceives it. And even when saying this we are bound by the words we use. There is no reason to call it perceiving. It might be that this word doesn't correspond with what is at all. Actually we should not say anything of it. Thundering silence.

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    6w7 sp/so
    Socionics
    IEI
    Posts
    2,841

    Default

    Originally posted by Lark
    I think you're right, he did so because he was interested in the principle of refraction, like if you put a twig in water it may appear to be bent because of the angle at which the waters surface interacts with and distorts the image of the twig.

    I'm more interested in why people ask these questions and what it matters, unfortunately Descartes was the start of a philosophical trend through Kant, up until Nietzsche which was positively individualistic in its turning away from all other things or persons and simply affirming the self as more real or important than anything else.

    Even though Stirner thought he was being original with his philosophy of the ego and attack on other philosophers he was just part of a wider objective trend, I think that's more important than whether or not the theorising can be proven as objectively true.

    Holistic thinking and harmonising can a very, very poor second in the legacy of these grand theories.
    Well as I see it, we can't ever be entirely sure that the world that we percieve objectively exists at all, considering that we are trapped within the realm of our subjectivity. But, there is no reason to assume that the external world isn't real, we just can't know 100%. Thus I take a will of assumption as my safeguard, that is I assume that this world that I perceive; real, dream, whatever; this world is my true world, I cannot doubt it because it is the only world that I know of, and that everything within is real to me.

    I have a door analogy that basically sums this up:

    I suppose an analogy that might describe this better is if I imagine myself in a room with one door, I have always lived in this room and it is the only room that I know of. The door in the room has always been locked and there is no way to open it. Now it is possible that there is another room on the other side of that door. For all I know that other room could be the "real" room, and this one is nothing more than an imitation of it. It could also be possible that there is another room with another door, and another room beyond that etc. It could also be possible that the is nothing behind the door, that it's just part of the wall. But since I can never fully know what is on the other side of the door I can only conclude that the room that I inhabit now is the "real" room, while acknowledging the possibility that there are other rooms beyond this one.

  6. #6
    Senior Member Beargryllz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    2,739

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Savage Idealist View Post

    I suppose an analogy that might describe this better is if I imagine myself in a room with one door, I have always lived in this room and it is the only room that I know of. The door in the room has always been locked and there is no way to open it. Now it is possible that there is another room on the other side of that door. For all I know that other room could be the "real" room, and this one is nothing more than an imitation of it. It could also be possible that there is another room with another door, and another room beyond that etc. It could also be possible that the is nothing behind the door, that it's just part of the wall. But since I can never fully know what is on the other side of the door I can only conclude that the room that I inhabit now is the "real" room, while acknowledging the possibility that there are other rooms beyond this one.
    You are a philosopher

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory_of_the_Cave

  7. #7
    nee andante bechimo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    8,022

    Default

    Applying the same rationale but backwards, "death cannot exist since I cannot perceive it".

  8. #8
    Senior Member Beargryllz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    2,739

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jenaphor View Post
    Applying the same rationale but backwards, "death cannot exist since I cannot perceive it".
    I remember once when I poked a frog with a stick. I perceived death, but I didn't feel it, I won't ever feel it

  9. #9
    nee andante bechimo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    8,022

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beargryllz View Post
    I remember once when I poked a frog with a stick. I perceived death, but I didn't feel it, I won't ever feel it
    Darn, should have clarified!

    Knew it after posting but decided to leave it:

    "My death cannot exist since I cannot perceive it."

    But even with the clarification, there are still two challenges available.

  10. #10
    What is, is. Arthur Schopenhauer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    1,158

    Default

    2 + 2 = 4
    INTJ | 5w4 - Sp/Sx/So | 5-4-(9/1) | RLoEI | Melancholic-Choleric | Johari & Nohari

    This will not end well...
    But it will at least be poetic, I suppose...

    Hmm... But what if it does end well?
    Then I suppose it will be a different sort of poetry, a preferable sort...
    A sort I could become accustomed to...



Similar Threads

  1. [MBTItm] I know I can't be the only person that's had this problem…could somebody help me?
    By The Wailing Specter in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 10-24-2013, 05:33 PM
  2. The Percieving and Judging aspect is the only thing that can be changed naturally?
    By Illmatic in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 08-02-2011, 05:47 AM
  3. Replies: 57
    Last Post: 11-12-2009, 10:48 PM
  4. The Little Things That Make You Happy
    By Gloriana in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 09-23-2009, 06:36 AM
  5. The last thing that you lost that you wish you didn't
    By BlackCat in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 07-07-2009, 07:31 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO