@Olivier5,
Quote:So if everyone was making the assumption that nothing exists, you'd certainly get to a point where the opposite 'assumption' that stuff actually exist becomes clearly evident?.. Because that pretty much defines my philosophical position on this board.
if everyone assumed nothing exists, they are all stupid. i am not doing that at all. furthermore, if you do assume nothing exists, you do not at all get to any opposite point where things actually exist. you can find things appearing to exist, but if you question further, it was always be an infinite questioning, so no, you do not finally arrive at knowing that things exist.
Quote:Ignoring your own limits is your most obvious limit...
no limits exist in the entire universe, proven scientifically, educate yourself. all limits are relative and conceptual only. on that level, yes there are billions of limits and yes you can think i am very limited in ignoring my own limits. but the truth of limitlessness in all experience eternally never changes.
Quote:Nope. I am just presenting my own view, my own (western) version of your existential anguish.
i have zero anguish, non-existence does not leave room for anguish.
Quote:Truth is elusive, doubt is omnipotent.
yes, and this is a very basic intellectual level which will certainly evolve further in you in good time. who knows, maybe 5 years, 500 years, but doubt eventually ends and truth is paradoxically found as absence of truth.
Quote:Socrates put it best: 'all I know is that I know nothing.' Kant elaborated that our mind can only access phenomena, appearances, and can never perceive the essence of things, their 'noumena'. That is beyond us, by virtue or fault of our own essence as 'minds'. In this view, there is a radical divide between the material world and the mind. It's a form of radical dualism therefore. The mind will never ever understand the universe fully. The best we can do is approach its appearance, asymptotically (closer and closer). That's exactly what science does, according to Popper, it works by trial and error, not by assuming to know the essence of things and deriving their behavior from such ontological insight.
i could say i agree with everything you have written there. unfortunately it does not contradict anything i am saying. i am never assuming to know anything, nor deriving any behaviour about anything. the noumenon you describe is clearly defined by non dualists as the ultimate truth, brahman in hinduism, many non dualists use the very word noumenon to describe it.
Quote:Hmmm... The I is indeed present (and needed, and cannot be supressed anyway) but nobody I know is 'there' yet... We're not 'there' in the world, technically speaking we are out, looking in. See above Kant's and Popper's epistemology.
But others disagree and point out to the importance of intuition as a force to reckon with.
i never said we are there in the world, nor we are out looking in. there is no us or world other than a limited, time-bound perception as such existing in eternal awareness.
