No. you're not just imagining them.
I'm pretty sure everyone who's posted here can testify to doing so.
I dunno man, this isnt something really that good to talk about in philosophy.
It is not "I" that has existence but a "relationship" in which "I" and "not I" are complements of a mutual reality. The boundary between "I" and "not I" is constantly shifting.
Consider driving a car...we say "I will turn left".....
the car is an extension of "me".
Consider an amputee....in what way has the "self" been altered because it has lost a limb ?
Whatever can be said about the variable status of "we" can be said about the status of "I".
I'm not sure I follow you Fresco
You're in the car going straight, and then you turn left. The car isnt an extension of you, It's just something that lets you do a certain thing...
Being in a car doesnt change your state of existness i wouldn't think.
Ahh Nick,
Wouldn't cha like to know nya nya nya nya
RoyalesThaRula
I express the non-dualistist view that all "reality" is "relationship".
All "things" including "persons" are mutually co-existent. Things require "thingers" which define their transient boundaries. Where does an ocean wave begin or end ? ....Where is the "you" of seven years ago now all your atoms and molecules have changed ?.... When does "an apple" become a "core" or part of "the consumer" ? ...Where is "self" during "sleep" ? ....All is in flux like an ecosystem with temporary cycles of "structures". All "permanence" lies in the eye of "an observer with memory".
(Berkeley ended up evoking "God" as an "ultimate observer" in order to account for "objective existence")
Why dont you just read my 'who exists' thread
I think we just generally concluded, that we dont know the answer and it doesnt really matter, and for the sake of your own sanity it may be wise to not take the question so seriously.
The Pentacle Queen wrote:Why dont you just read my 'who exists' thread
I think we just generally concluded, that we dont know the answer and it doesnt really matter, and for the sake of your own sanity it may be wise to not take the question so seriously.
This reminds me of that little book I can't get out of my head everytime I go through these threads. Candide by Voltaire.
why? what did voltaire say on the subject
After Candide gets dragged all over the planet with this philosopher advising him (pangloss). They finally end up old together working in there garden and pangloss starts talking to candide about philosophy and Candide looks at him and says what has become one one my faverite since coming to A2K. He says......"???????"
After Candide gets dragged all over the planet with this philosopher advising him (pangloss). They finally end up old together working in there garden and pangloss starts talking to candide about philosophy and Candide looks at him and says what has become one one my faverite since coming to A2K. He says......"???????"
Read the book.
Nothing we perceive can be proven to exist. That is a fact.
Rather than to ask 'Do all of you exist?'
I'd rather ask, 'Do I exist?'
That's one I stand a chance of answering. My answer is no. I do not exist.
I'm trying to figure out what philosophy that falle under?
Amigo wrote:Nothing we perceive can be proven to exist. That is a fact.
Is that an empirical fact?
Quote:My answer is no. I do not exist
"The one" who came to this conclusion...who are you?
joefromchicago wrote:Amigo wrote:Nothing we perceive can be proven to exist. That is a fact.
Is that an empirical fact?
Is that a trick question?
Maybe it is more accurate to say that 'nothing we can percieve can be proved to be as we percieve it.
That would mean their would be different ways to perceive things by multiple people. That would be acknowleding existence.
That we cannot prove anything we perceive is real ends and begins all arguments and is pointless. It puts us right back to square one in a giant circle.
Personally I feel all you gotta do is read Voltaires candide. I am with Voltaire.
