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

[xisnotx]

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?

 

[Savage Idealist]

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

 

[Lark]

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.

 

[nolla]

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.

 

[Savage Idealist]

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.

 

[Beargryllz]

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

 

[rav3n]

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

 

[Beargryllz]

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

 

[rav3n]

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.

 

[Arthur Schopenhauer]

2 + 2 = 4

 

[Sniffles]

Existence is far more than just perception.

 

[KDude]

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

I saw a kid poke a frog with a stick. It was one of the worst things I've seen. It was like all of his guts came out of his mouth. The second thing I know next to existence is this feeling of identifying with the frog. I regret that I didn't stop the kid in time. Wussed out, I guess. I've tried responding since to others who would do that. I want them to feel themselves. And there's no way to go about it than by my enforcing my sense of existence and feeling on to them, just like they're doing. Which brings me to the third thing that's real. Power. It's almost a party now. I wonder what else I need to balance this shit out.

 

[Savage Idealist]

Originally posted by Beargryllz
You are a philosopher

Hooray! I imagine so, considering its my college major.

 

[KDude]

Hooray! I imagine so, considering its my college major.

You'll have 3 career options.

Hemlock, pacing, or syphilis.

 

[Stanton Moore]

If I perceive myself to exist, I must be using my senses in the act of perception. And if that is true, then I can use those same senses to percieve things outside myself. I can then form a concept of world, with no contradiction.
I sense, therefore the world exists for me.

 

[NickNaylor]

Perception in itself is a flaw.

 

[Beargryllz]

Perception in itself is a flaw.

A flaw to what? It certainly helps a large number of organisms sustain their existence. You wouldn't want to be the blind hawk diving for a meal, would you?

 

[xisnotx]

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.

This is beautiful. It has taken me years to get to this conclusion..funny thing is I'm almost positive that I've read this before. I was stubborn..I needed to learn it, to experience it...being told didn't help. It's something that comes from within..

 

[Savage Idealist]

Originally posted by NickNaylor
Perception in itself is a flaw.

Explain.

originally posted by Mkenya
This is beautiful. It has taken me years to get to this conclusion..funny thing is I'm almost positive that I've read this before. I was stubborn..I needed to learn it, to experience it...being told didn't help. It's something that comes from within..

Why thank you I beleive that I'm not the only one to arrive to this conclusion (although I did come to it on my own), but learning for yourself is certainly important (that, and if you learned of this conclusion from the outer world, how could you be sure that it would be true information is we can't be 100% certain that the world we percieve is real ).

 

[milkyway2]

Yes, I was gonna say go read some Descartes or maybe some Merlau-Ponty