What is existence?

truth
I'm thinking, I'm thinking.

Re: truth

Therefore you are.

truth
That's exactly what I was thinking.
Rene

You are thinking, so therefore you are... Is this really rock bottom? In this old "truth" there are still aspects that are open to discussion. One is the nature of this self. One says "I think", but is it really true? I have thoughts in my head. This seems clear to me. The origin of these thoughts on the other hand is somewhat unclear. Can I truthfully say that I am in control of the process? It is the lie most philosophers are guilty of that they present their thoughts as a coherent story from start to finish. I say this because everyone that has experimented with philosofical thought knows that the thoughts come when they want, not when the thinker wants them to. There is something beyond the conciousness that affects our thoughts. Can we truthfully say that we are the fathers and mothers of our own ideas, or is it more that we are conduits for some divine process that we don't fully understand?

The questions of perception and conciousness, and the struggle to define our reality seems somewhat futile, because I have a sneaking suspicion that it is rather these things that define us, and that in seeking to come to terms with our ignorance through concious thought is like drinking water with a fork.

truth
Cyracuz.

That's the second great posting I've seen from you in one day, Cyracuz.

You get my New a2k'er award.

I don't have an answer to the meaning of existence, though I have plenty of thoughts about it...images of philosphies of which I have inadequate grip to present a coherent argument.

So I'll offer a poem, instead.

Days - Philip Larkin

What are days for?
Days are where we live.
They come, they wake us
Time and time over.
They are to be happy in:
Where can we live but days?

Ah, solving that question
Brings the priest and the doctor
In their long coats
Running over the fields.

Thanks

I think the poem you present is very appropriate. We have this one question, no matter wich question it is, and the answer immediately kills it. That is the nature and purpose of a question, to give birth to an answer. The birth inevitably kills the womb.

That is why questions are useless in the search for true understanding. Answers are seen as the end of ignorance, but what if they are no more than a product of it? Causality is, after all, self driven. So when you ask, and exert your will in search for understanding, the answers of the questions you didn't ask will sail by you unheard, and you will remain none the wiser. I think that what I'm trying to say is that questions disable our abillity to listen without predispositions.

Where can we live but days? ...nowhere.

But then again "nowhere" is formed by two words that imply the complete opposite: "now-here". Curious.

truth
That's woncerful, Cyaruz. To be "nowhere" is to be in an eternal "place", something like the spatial counterpart of the a-temporal Eternal "present"
Your comment about questions and true understanding suggest you've read Krishnamurti.

I haven't read Krishnamurti, JL, but it sounds like something I have to check into. I have thought alot about the subject of truth, and realized again and again that it was when I wasn't searching that I was most likely to find. It's like walking in the woods to look at birds. You can't rush out and try to grab them to study them. They will only fly away. If you find a quiet place, and just sit there quietly, on the other hand, the birds will not be afraid of you, and they will come to you ultimately. We cannot control anything until we learn to let go of the desire to do so. Before that we are controlled ourselves by that very desire... It's a pickle..

Existence is a primary, IOW, there is existence and then there is consciousness, as you're being conscious of something{existence}.

Having said that, I don't think this automatically rules out a God concept, all it does is affirms that there is a persistent existence that was there before our consciousness and will be there after.

I don't necessarily agree with the notion of an eternal universe, but do posit that existence is out there and that the primacy of consciouness is a Kantian joke.

Btw, whilst some of this is clearly Objectivist epistemology, I'm not an objectivist and have been banned from at least one Objectivist forum for recounting my scientific knowledge on Global warming, ie, Objectivists by definition are hardcore Capitalists who seem to denounce any doctrine threatening science, and being pro-capitalism seems to be an essential aspect of objectivist dogma.

You are the glue that holds your world together. I can't help thinking that the concept of continuation is vital in a discussion about existence. By this I mean the way we experience a connection from one moment to another. How does this work? I cannot begin to imagine...

And Kant is the Objectivists' Devil. (?) And if that is so, Hegel, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche and all other idealist/subjectivists would be his demons.

I judge philosophy by the value is gives to my life and by its ability to improve the human condition.

I don't think anyone has ever understood Hegel, Schopey was a weirdo and Nietzche decided that he'd handle reality with mental illness.

Also I'm not a hardcore objectivist.

I think Kant has a few interesting points with his Copernican twist. (Directly translated from norwegian, so it might be the wrong name for it). I do not think very highly of Kant, or any european philosopher, because they tend to put pride in front of genuine hunger for understanding, but when we ponder the concept of perception Kant's philosophy can be a welcome wake-up call...

Re: truth


I'm curious about your use of the word 'a-temporal'; the 'a-' part, I see it a lot, when added to a word it transforms the word into the "mean" of it's two most extreme concepts, right? Am I missing something?

The bottom is gotten to before the thinking - the I is enough to say that one exists. Whatever causes you to say (or think) "I" causes you to exist.

I have to pee.

Ameth, I only meant "timeless." The "a" before a word is simply the negation of the word, for example, apolitical (means non-political), atheist means non-theistic).

Gee - I feel stupid (-but not really). I wasn't preparing to pounce you with pretension - that was just the over-cautious philosophy affectation I most often assume in these places; I earnestly didn't know (one of those things I neglected to check out (for sure)) until now.

P.S. Do you have a messenger? PM me - as I did you.