seph likes to talk philosophy, so lets talk....existance

existance is commonly a good subject in philosophy. how would you justify existance? would a robot be existance?

 

so are you loonylion trying to say that as long as it is touchable, then it is existance.

 

I think existence is categorized into 2. One is on a global scale, and the other is a personal scale. Global meaning just to you. Existence on the global self depends on others' awareness of you. So if no one knows you exist, then you only exist in the personal scale.

Personal scale deals with a complex idea of identity and how you truly define you as you. Not on what you like, what you do, and what not. But things that are not changeable. Things which are in you through out your life time. And to truly know yourself you need to live your life to it's entirety to death. So I think on a personal scale, people don't exist to themselves in a absolute form. Rather its a constant changing of existence until they reach an older age where change doesn't occur.

Anyways that's what I think of existence. Of course this deals with existence as the most popular belief. Existence and the whole matrix theory is a completely different story. The whole maybe we don't exist thing, makes sense but then again existence is what you believe it to be in that case.

non-biological existence only exists in the global scale as the term self does not apply to it. Why it doesn't apply to it, in my opinion, is also another story.

 

I believe in existence because it seems to be a useful belief to have, I also believe it is useful to believe that there are observable laws and some kind of continuity otherwise once again I may worry about all sorts of things.

I am aware of the many problems involved with saying we do exist or even I exist and the huge possibility of doubt, but I think doubt shouldn't be used in this way but should be used as a tool for helping us to understand what we do believe and its value to us.

 

Proves nothing .

You cant use I in the initial part of the statement to prove I exists, you presuppose the result.

More correct way of putting it might be "there are thoughts therefore I am" but what evidence do you have for the thoughts coming from a thinker, they could be independent entities in their own right.

 

This entire thread is very confusing for me.

 

I know, but then most of his theories are questionable and people often quote that very line without knowing what else they may be implying by doing so.

 

Doesn't help me much because it's like using a synonym to define something. In which case, they are equivalent which turns out to be, through substitution, either: 1) Existence is existence or 2) Being is being. In which case, proves nothing and merely states a common sense statement.

 

(thinks to himself: how did i end up *back* in my university philosophy class with professor grayson???)

???

 

you think... interesting... ;D


joking dude...

 

that's a materialistic view, meaning as long as it is touchable, then it exists. but there is a problem with that statement. i don't remember fully what the problem is with materialism.

the quote from descarte, i think therefore i am, refers to the idea that as long as one is thinking and has a mind, then they are existing. the assumption with existing is that it is an existance as an individual as one cannot distinguish others if one closes there eyes.

 

The possible problems with materialism include such things as how we cannot locate the mind physically (although I don't see this as a problem as such) and also how we all have different perspectives, if things are as we see them then how can we explain the fact that we all do see things differently, two good examples being both optical illusions and people with senses that do not work correctly such as colour blindness.

When it comes to perspective we only know what our senses tell us and as they can be wrong ,as shown by optical illusions seeming something that they are not, then how can we be certain that anything they tell us is correct, and in truth we cannot be 100% certain and so there is possibility to doubt.

 

Ofcourse common sense statements make sense, otherwise they wouldn't be common sense, they'd be common...fallacies, I suppose It's just stating them won't get anywhere, nor help understand anything, because in the end it's trying to define something with something that's equivalent. What I mean is saying A=B and B=A, is the samething as stating A=A and B=B logically. Saying A=A doesn't bring anything new to the thought process and hence why I said it doesn't help me much.

Religious views? I didn't know I had a religion. heh. I don't seem to see any religious views in anything I stated so please point out which statement you're talking about.

Also, I hope no one takes this as an arguement, rather it should be seen more of a discussion where we gain knowledge and hopefully insight from on another.

 

with me existance mean the thing I feel and/or believe
that mean only the thing I feel and/or believe is exist

 

From that, its like saying that: Less things exist to someone who is ognirant to facts then someone who is not. e.g. If there was some one who did not know what dark matter is, it would not exist to them. But to someone who does know about dark matter, it would. But thats the fault; even if you can't feel or believe something, it does not neccasarily mean that it does not exist.
If this were the case, WE would be creating the existance of other objects by knowing that it exists.

Existance is already there, we just need to know about the thing for us to know it exists.