Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
therefore I think.
thus contradicting, amongst other things, the idea of eternal essences. Or rather, existence is the only concrete. I dunno.
traditional notions of cause and effect
Existence is basically a type of essence. I wasn't being serious - I don't think my original post makes any sense whatsoever.
I reckon 'I' think, therefore 'I' think 'I' am, makes more sense.
by existence being concrete. Sorry I took you seriously :os
I don't think existence is remotely concrete.
or should I say "I" doesn't really want to talk about this?
why you dont think it is first?
as i have to go to work very soon. but i am interested!
that this is going to be a simple disagreement over semantics. Obviously, as perhaps, all discussions are)
ok so there's no one unified self that exists, is that what you're going to say? the separation of the self into the ego/drives,etc
I would say that, certainly, but also that you can't take 'existence' as some kind of unquestionable first principle.
Separating the 'self' or trying to look beneath it to find out what it 'is' is to enter a kind of analytical whirlpool. All you do is end up uncovering more layers.
I knew I shouldn't have started this thread!
but what you seem to be doing, at the way it seems to me and forgive me if I'm wrong/offensive, but you seem to be taking a deconstructionist viewpoint without even taking their acknowledgment that escape from the structure is nigh on impossible. Though, dont get me wrong, I pretty much agree wholeheartedly, what I'm trying to wonder is whether your approach is perhaps more futile and less productive (though I admit that your way is the eminently more truthful and honest way). Do not take what I say to be a declaration of something akin to a political position!
i use like productive are utterly utterly loaded
story short, the position I'm coming from shares most common ground with Deleuzian 'trancedental empiricism', where he turns Kant on his head.
I'm interested in the kind of 'excess' of experience, the kind of pure, imminent novelty that undermines categories. The process of category creation fascinates me. It seems to illuminate a lot.
Deleuze is next on my to read list. I shall explore further, it sounds interesting.
i wouldnt take it personally, i know what its like to get bogged down in these things!
I am currently awfully weary of trying to explain what I'm talking about when people totally don't even have the first idea where I'm coming from and insist on raising criticisms I've already addressed for myself a long time ago.
I'm just really sleepy at the moment. Maybe another time!
It's more of a "why would it be?" I mean we thinking organisms cut the world up into discrete chunks and ascribe to them some kind of integrity and this strange state of 'existence'.
It's just a very particular human concept. Its pretty necessary in a colloquial sense, but if you get down to a semantic or metaphysical level, I'm not even sure what it's supposed to mean, to 'exist'.
its another form of dissecting in order to make something more palatable. I dont know where I ever stand on things like this, I'm certainly not an absolutist whenever I discuss ideas as many people tend to be. But do you not think, as Beckett said, that "Haze (is) sole certitude"? And isnt there something that can be gained from that without saying that its just another form of dividing up the world? Because really, although it has its problems that we can scrutinise at length, its impossible not to.
I do think there's something to be gained from it, because when people have the ability to pronounce that certain things 'just are', it offends my sensibilities.
Not just that though, there are other important concepts to investigate, besides 'existing' like 'becoming'; 'emerging' etc.
The notion of the primacy of 'existence' completely cripples most of the philosophy of physics, for instance. Ideas about nonlinearity and self-organisation are actually quite transferrable to other fields too.
hence my many disclaimers about not being absolute about anything. I'm just trying to prompt and stab for answers thats all. Its a fallacy that truth lies in contentious, polar debate, and while such discussions may throw off more sparks, they leave me feeling a little cold.
I dont think, therefore i fail.
Existence is using your 14,000th post to write about existence
I drink therefore I am HAHAHAHAHAHAHHA
I'm a Deist
Oh right. I just scrolled up. You said that. Actually, I'd go so far as to say that your initial post is self-defeating. That's quite cool. I love you Tim.
this used to be my Facebook status, to make light of the fact you could only begin it with "I am...". I went "Adam is, therefore he thinks. Unless he's a rock." Hehehehehe.
i'm losing you