On Philosophy

Dotoar · 01-19-2011, 09:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zevokes

i agree with proggyman in his having said you've missed the point.

I'm open for that possibility, but extraordinary claims call for extraordinary evidence.

Quote:

Originally Posted by zevokes

firstly, in order for someone to reach the conclusion that existence is a concept worthy of rejection, they would first have to conceptualize it. meaning, they would have already done some 'considering.'

Yes, of course. That applies to all cognitive processes that may or may not lead to conclusion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by zevokes

and secondly, instead of refuting proggyman's opinion of your statement with some of the foundations of your statement, you went straight to picking apart the things he said previous, which can be seen as having nothing relevant to say.

It was pretty easy to pick apart on a fundamental level. If the premises are wrong, the conclusions will be too. There's no use in dabbling in wrongly derived opinions if the issue lies within their foundation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by zevokes

no offense, but i opened that up and it was whack.

Whack or not, would you say that it was wrong?

Quote:

Originally Posted by ProggyMan

I see what you're saying but understand that there is no underlying reality behind the concept of a 'stone'. Just as there is no underlying reality to a concept of 'self'.

Now, remember what you said here...

Quote:

Originally Posted by ProggyMan

These are simply methods we've evolved of putting reality into pretty little boxes.

...contradicts with your obvious presumtion of 'reality' here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ProggyMan

Consider this: Would it be possible, hypothetically, to take the stone and put it into a vacuum? Is it possible to fathom such a thing? That's all I mean when I talk about no-thing existing.

Yes, it's perfectly possible on a logical level. Anyone can imagine a stone and nothing but a stone, right? A stone bears some typical qualities, such as colour, size, shape, structure, hardness and material, all of which consists the substance of the concept 'stone'. The concept is indeed imaginary, but it points to an object that we can identify in reality.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JackPat

Oh, these debates. I had a lot of fun with these on that Big View website. Eh, I like Persig's concept of existence which states how nothing can exist until a human being acknowledges its existence. Because enable for something to truly exist, then it must be perceived as such. Seems like an egotistical concept, but if you think about it a little while... well, it MAY make sense.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JackPat

EDIT: There's no such thing as truth. There's only opinion.

Is it the truth that that statement was made and is upheld by you?

TockTockTock · 01-19-2011, 05:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dotoar

Is it the truth that that statement was made and is upheld by you?

Nope.

ProggyMan · 01-19-2011, 07:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dotoar

Yes, it's perfectly possible on a logical level. Anyone can imagine a stone and nothing but a stone, right? A stone bears some typical qualities, such as colour, size, shape, structure, hardness and material, all of which consists the substance of the concept 'stone'. The concept is indeed imaginary, but it points to an object that we can identify in reality.

Really, you can imagine a stone with nothing to contrast it with? Seriously try to imagine only a stone and nothing else. It's impossible.

Quote:

Now, remember what you said here...
...contradicts with your obvious presumtion of 'reality' here.

a semantical error on my part, it's just a convenient word to use, no bearing on the discussion.

Dotoar · 01-21-2011, 10:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JackPat

Nope.

So it's the truth that that statement is untrue?

Quote:

Originally Posted by ProggyMan

Really, you can imagine a stone with nothing to contrast it with? Seriously try to imagine only a stone and nothing else. It's impossible.

Yes, I can do that. I can't really prove it unless you hook up my brain to a screen that extracts and displays my cognitive vision. Are you seeking to find an opposite to 'stone' or something, to which you can compare that stone?

Quote:

Originally Posted by ProggyMan

a semantical error on my part, it's just a convenient word to use, no bearing on the discussion.

I kinda thought it was, but I've met stranger arguments so one can never be sure.

Just as not to stagnate in nitpicking: Is it your conviction that there are no real objects, independent of a mind interpreting them, that bears the qualities equivalent to the mental conceptions which we commonly refer to as 'stones'?

TockTockTock · 01-21-2011, 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dotoar

So it's the truth that that statement is untrue?

No. It means you cannot know with certainty. I could really dive deep down into eastern philosophy when regarding this subject, but (being lazy) I don't see a huge point in it. You can think about it, but I don't feel up to getting into a debate about it. You seem to be a follower of western philosophy so I think it would get really complicated (not to say there's anything wrong with western philosophy - I love Plato).

ProggyMan · 01-21-2011, 06:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dotoar

Yes, I can do that. I can't really prove it unless you hook up my brain to a screen that extracts and displays my cognitive vision. Are you seeking to find an opposite to 'stone' or something, to which you can compare that stone?
ones'?

No, but I highly doubt that you are actually seeing the stone without something (Or nothing) else. I can't really 'prove' you wrong here so I'll just ask you to look at your mental image of the stone again, and ask yourself, 'am I really seeing this stone and nothing but this stone? Then read some Taoist philosophy.

Quote:

Just as not to stagnate in nitpicking: Is it your conviction that there are no real objects, independent of a mind interpreting them, that bears the qualities equivalent to the mental conceptions which we commonly refer to as 'st

No, that's the thing, I'm just saying that the way we classify things as objects is fairly arbitrary and is used simply because it was the most evolutionarily advantageous thing.

Dotoar · 01-22-2011, 06:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JackPat

No. It means you cannot know with certainty. I could really dive deep down into eastern philosophy when regarding this subject, but (being lazy) I don't see a huge point in it. You can think about it, but I don't feel up to getting into a debate about it. You seem to be a follower of western philosophy so I think it would get really complicated (not to say there's anything wrong with western philosophy - I love Plato).

The truth is not dependent on what one knows, but if we cannot agree upon that a statement can be either true or untrue and nothing else, then there's no point in discussing that alright.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ProggyMan

No, but I highly doubt that you are actually seeing the stone without something (Or nothing) else. I can't really 'prove' you wrong here so I'll just ask you to look at your mental image of the stone again, and ask yourself, 'am I really seeing this stone and nothing but this stone? Then read some Taoist philosophy.

I've nudged the subject of taoism but I don't see the point of it in here. I can imagine a stone and nothing but that stone, and you'll just have to take that. I believe you can too.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ProggyMan

No, that's the thing, I'm just saying that the way we classify things as objects is fairly arbitrary and is used simply because it was the most evolutionarily advantageous thing.

Yes, that I agree upon. In other words, we are obviously discussing the mental concepts here and not the actual objects to which they apply.