Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by Enmos, Dec 29, 2007.
What is real ?
Existence is a fucking joke, meaning is an illusion, we die eventually..
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
There ya go.
i was think something similar the other day. what if what we are doing right now we already did? there is the slight possibility that there is a delay in reality, maybe by a few minutes. This is assuming there is an epicenter of time, which there may very well be.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Don't be so sure of that.
If reality exists, it's all there is. How can there be a delay ?
There can only be a delay in perception, and there is..
If you meant it differently, please explain ?
What I meant is that if meaning only exists in the minds of those that create it, does it really exist.. If not completely subjective, it is then at least temporary.
Does meaning you create affect people in the future ? And if it does how does that matter ?
I am sure.. can you show me otherwise ?
This sounds very much like the intrinsic value thread and another thread I can't remember.
Do you think it is possible that there is meaning that is not subjective?
The way you ask the question and seem to be bothered by the issue makes me think you are, at the very least, not reconciled to assuming there is no meaning.
I ask you and put you on the spot, because I think it might not be useful for you to be in the position of 'defending' the lack of real or objective meaning again. You've done that, and well. But here you are again. Maybe it would be better for you to come out with that portion of you that is not aligned with that belief.
Or to identify with the parts of you that are yearning for their to be something more. Or horrified that there isn't. Or irritated. Or whatever it is.
I think it can give a measure of illusory control to be in the position of revealing or defending the 'harsh truth' to others when one is not reconciled onself. It can give you, me, anyone a temporary impression that we are in the driver's seat - we are teaching - even if we are grimly doling out a truth we are not pleased with.
Why not shift off the 'prove it to me' position on this issue and come from the part of you that is not reconciled and build from there?
I obviously can't show you otherwise.
But I also see no proof that it is "all over" when the body dies.
I see so many people have such faith in death! What makes them so sure?!
If I were sure that it is "all over" when the body dies, I would have killed myself long ago. Yet there is the fear that I might be reborn, in some way or another, and this whole thing called "life" would happen all over again.
deja vu. and just the other day i was typing and really felt a distinct presence of delayed time. i would also add that everyone knows on long trips it takes longer to get to the destination than to return.
I realized that when I started to explain what I meant..
No, I don't think it is possible.
I am bothered by my own question..
I am not reconciled with assuming there is no meaning, because there is meaning. But it's only in our heads, to us it's real..
I think the other discussion went well.. sadly it kind of stopped when the others apparently lost interest.
Ok, I think the real issue is.. I can't decide, I want to believe there is more but I can't.
That is not my intention.. I want to be convinced of either possibility.
The yearning is to be truly convinced of one or the other. I am not convinced of any as it is now, although I am very (VERY) strongly leaning towards what I am 'defending'.
I.. what ? I don't understand.. what exactly do you want me to do ?
Because it's the most logical, and simplest, explanation. Frankly there is no reason to assume otherwise.. :shrug:
There is fear of hurt..
It seems to take longer.
What's real is what can be shown to objectively exist to a rational person. At some level, "real" becomes subjective.
(LG, if you're reading this, you're gonna love it).
Trees are real. Barring asinine semantic debates, any rational person understands this. But what about quarks? Are they real? A quark is a fundamental constituent of matter. They were theorized and have been detected in particle accelerators. Are they real to "any" rational person? I'd say only provisionally. Most have neither the training or desire to make quarks more than an idea. A concept that a bunch of scientists tell me is "real". Since I trust the methods of science, based on experience with them, I have as much confidence that they are real as I do in any other unseen phenomena that I accept to be real, like radio waves.
So, there are levels of reality that can't be denied (i.e. what's real fo me is not necessarily real at the same level for you). If you postulate an absolute reality, then you need to prove it to me (or anyone) beyond a reasonable doubt. You could never do this except maybe for a few experts in "ultimate reality studies".
Therefore reality is, in many cases, a subjective, slippery and shadowy idea that dosen't have a whole lot of meaning.
I largely agree, still clinging to absolute reality though.. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Isn't this absolute reality the very thing science is trying to figure out ?
Appreciated your honest answers to my post.
Yes, I got that you were leaning in that direction. I doubt very much that anyone is going to reconcile your uncertainty on this issue. I think you know the way to 'show' that what they are saying is 'really' subjective. Anything can be swallowed in that, at least apparantly. And it is easy for you to dismiss anyone's assertions or experience that there is objective meaning since you have not had experiences of this. So I thought it might be more useful to 'not defend'. Perhaps going into the other parts of yourself is not more useful, but I have a suspicion that repeating incorporating anyone's else's posited objective meaning into either
a) unproven metaphysics
b) things that are 'really' subjective
could be dead end process.
Let's assume for one second that there is objective meaning.
What would it be?
Or how could it be?
In the spirit of brainstorming.
Objective meaning for me would mean that the universe as a whole has values. If pieces of it can, why can't the whole thing?
The thing is, and maybe it's just me, that I cannot wrap my mind around the concept of objective meaning. It's seems utter nonsense to me..
Now if anyone can actually point out and explain to me why it is not utter nonsense.. or the other way around of course.. You know what I mean ?
We've touched on this before, so I'll jump in -
Instead of trying to abstractly figure out a seemingly objective philosophical problem - make things personal. Find out what exactly your fears and desires are and the underlying assumptions, and then work from there.
This way, the issue will be relevant for you and you'll be more able to work it out.
How do I do that ? (I'm serious)
Edit: I am assuming you meant that in relation to this thread..
I am not aware of any fears and/or desires in relation to this. Except maybe the desire to understand the matter.
I will think about this some more so that I can phrase it as briefly as possible.
I shall get back to you somewhat later.
Separate names with a comma.