Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by wesmorris, Dec 7, 2007.
pardon my phrasing. how about "cannot be said to exist"?
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
In the 24 hours that there are in a day, the 7 days that there are in a week, the 365 days that there are in a year - do you ever simply are, do you ever just exist, and nothing more?
Or is that in the 24 hours that there are in a day, the 7 days that there are in a week, the 365 days that there are in a year, you either eat, drink, work, read, write, type, think, daydream, concentrate, zone out, sit, walk, lay down, sleep, shower, shit, comb your hair, clip your nails, put on socks, talk to people, talk to yourself, and so on and so on?
Is there anything about this "you" that just is, just exists - or does it always do something (or has something done to it)?
Define "I" and define "exist".
This is roundabout the same as saying "it doesn't exist", is it not?
Or are you aiming at that which would between "indeterminate" and "non-existant"?
There is also the term "inapplicable" or "it doesn't apply".
Well, there you have it.. it's subjective..
yes - material standards are relative
assuming that "Value is in the eye of the beholder" is also not a value
Indeterminate is close enough. "cannot be said to exist" I believe satisfies the same conditions as indeterminate.
I'd say it would seem not to exist and in the model of existence I generally employ I don't think it could, but then again who the hell knows, which is why I think your statement is more prudent.
1. Objective reality exists, this is how things really are. And may be only knowable in part or not not at all.
2. Subjective reality exists, this is the reality as we perceive it. Subjective reality is a representation of objective reality by our minds and impaired by our senses. The brain for instance fills in things, that it thinks are missing, from experience.
3. Objectively speaking, subjective reality exists just as well as objective reality.
Objective reality: Light with a wavelength of 700 nm hits cells in your retina. (not perfect but to describe objective reality one will have to describe every minute process step by step. This is nearly impossible, especially without the proper knowledge. I guess you get the idea though Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!)
Subjective reality: You see a red light.
1. Written language exists but in objective reality they are locations with a high density of certain molecules that are configured in some particular way.
2. In subjective reality words are writing or printing, that symbolizes and communicates a meaning and may consist of a single morpheme or of a combination of morphemes.
Meaning exists but only subjectively, meaning has no place in objective reality. Objectively the subjective concept of meaning exists.
"as seen objectively" just doesn't work
Once again, I am bound by language. But I guess you know what I trying to say..
I hope this post clears things up a bit ? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Speaking of "personal" vs. "impersonal" would cause less trouble and be more applicable than "subjective" vs. "objective".
assuming of course that there is no objective personal element
From a human perspective ? Who can determine intrinsic value then ? If no one can, it does not exist.
If no one can determine it, it could exist in a manner that we simply can't determine, or could be determined in the future or something. Even saying "it does not currently exist" is misleading, as we don't know yes or no and apparently, currently can't - therefore "indeterminate", as greenburg pointed out... is the appropriate status
If no one can determine the intrinsic value of a 'thing', there is no one that the 'thing' has intrinsic value to. So the intrinsic value of the 'thing' is then non-existent.
That is assuming that the model "without someone to value it, there is no value" is objectively true, which IMO - we can't say positively. Within the scope of our perspectives, we can perhaps agree that this seems to be the case. However, since we cannot escape our perspectives to validate this conclusion - "indeterminate" still seems more appriate to me. But by all means if you wish to state whatever, more power to you. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
IMO, it's is important to recognize possibilities beyond our perspective - which is basically what warrants "indeterminate" rather than "doesn't exist". I think that would be the scientific way to look at it as well. *shrug*
Value of a 'thing' only exists from the moment someone attributes value to the 'thing'. The value attributed to the 'thing' can change or become nullified over time. Also different someones can attributed different value to the same 'thing'.
The values attributed are thus completely subjective ALL of the time. This is why intrinsic value does not exist.
lol well I kind of forced my self to that reasoning. It is of course flawed because in it intrinsic value is made into extrinsic (<-is that right?) value.
Wes, I replied to an earlier post of yours in post 68. I think you missed it Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Patience! Hehe... I'll get to it, I just got caught up in other stuff first.
Ok Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Meanwhile.. I have come to the conclusion that objective reality cannot be described.
One needs subjective reality to do so, and then it is no longer objective reality you are 'painting'... :bawl:
I'm going insane...lol
Before bothering with the rest, I want to understand your reasoning more clearly by asking this: How do you know?
Is this a definition you're offering?
I'd agree that objectively reality exists, but not necessarily that "it's how things really are", because the only means through which we can relate to the idea that it's there is through our perception. Thus we cannot know for certain that what we think of as objective reality is "how things really are". Bah I'm hopeless. Lol.
Separate names with a comma.