Philosophical pondering

Huntingtons

Resident Freddy
Joined
Jan 19, 2004
Messages
10,770
Calaen said:
We dont :) without us the world would be full of random wildlife where the strongest reigns supreme in their territory. Alot of people do believe we are here for some bizarre reason.
correction. with us the strongest reigns supreme in their territory (i.e. Humans in most cases).

to me everything is an evolution. we exterminating life on earth is what has happend through billions of years. some animals are lucky, they have adepted to the strongest animal alive (humans), for example pigs who can breed inprisoned while others cant (i.e they go extint). therefore nothing matters because its just evolution. did it or did it not happen has no effect on evolution because its gonna happen either way. in that sence i agree with crispy - it doesnt matter what you know or do not know because the world spins either way - it doesnt matter if the world was blown up or not coz the sun still shines and it doesnt matter if the universe exsisted or not because no one would bother if it didnt.
that doesnt mean i dont cherish life and enjoy living.
 

noblok

Part of the furniture
Joined
Jan 2, 2005
Messages
1,371
Dillinja said:
The cold, terrifying truth is that we don't really know what the hell is going on, because all we see, hear, feel, touch, taste, is whatever is fed into our brain(go watch the matrix). And since our brain is locked tightly inside our skull where it cannot actually interact with the outside world at all, how do we know that it is telling us what is really going on?
We act on what we believe to be true. We act on our experience, custom. If I walk down the road, I assume that the wall I see, is actually a row of buildings and not just a brick wall with nothing behind it. I don't know if there's anything behind it, I don't even know if there's anything except my mind (so even the existence of a brain is doubtful), but I don't take this into account in my actions. In my actions I can't but assume that the brick wall is in fact a row of houses and I can't think that it doesn't exist. Proof of this is that you wouldn't just run into it at full speed without expecting to smash into it and getting hurt.
 

Alliandre

Fledgling Freddie
Joined
Dec 28, 2003
Messages
202
I used to think the same thing about the colours, but when you think about it, everyone's brain is made up of pretty much the same stuff. We think similarly to eachother, we act similarly, we all want and don't want the same things. In some ways we are like clones of eachother, I think I read that humans have over 99% identical DNA to eachother or something. So, I'm guessing that we see colours the same way too.

We may see colours in the same way, but do we perceive them in the same way? And while we're on the topic of colours, what is a colour? The red dress that you see isn't red. It's a dress. The only thing that defines the dress being red is our perception of what "light waves" are reflected off the dress. Our perception of the world could be completely deceived, as Descartes argued. Even Descartes' Cogito, ergo sum can be proved wrong. See Nietszche for details. It's hard to explain. In effect, what Nietszche says is that there could just be a collection of thoughts floating around. How they are positioned at that times gives those collection of thoughts the belief that we "are" at a specific moment in time, and that we have memories, and that all will be as it will be in a moment of time.

There's no way of disproving it, but it's highly unlikely based on the evidence. I wouldn't lose any sleep over it though. I doubt Descartes lost any sleep over it either. I mean, he stayed in bed til about midday "meditating". I don't believe that any more than my manager would if I tried to blag it with him ;)
 

noblok

Part of the furniture
Joined
Jan 2, 2005
Messages
1,371
Edit:
Alliandre said:
How they are positioned at that times gives those collection of thoughts the belief that we "are" at a specific moment in time, and that we have memories, and that all will be as it will be in a moment of time.
However, this means that the collection of thoughts exists and that collection of thoughts at that time is a subject, since the subject is nothing more than a (self-aware) bundle of thoughts in Descartes' view. Thus, the 'cogito, ergo sum' still holds true, but it just doesn't offer any guarantee for my future existance, as the thoughts may reposition themselves?
 

noblok

Part of the furniture
Joined
Jan 2, 2005
Messages
1,371
Although, now I think about it again, the term 'cogito' could be considered incorrect in that case, since in this view the thoughts aren't really thought by me, they just float around. In this case claiming that "I think" would be incorrect. However, if this bundle of thoughts believes that there is something having those thoughts, then that belief as such is a thought. This thought is thought by the bundle of thoughts, thus once again confirming the 'cogito ergo sum'.

I get the feeling I've misunderstood Nietzsche's argument though... :)
 

Alliandre

Fledgling Freddie
Joined
Dec 28, 2003
Messages
202
noblok said:
Although, now I think about it again, the term 'cogito' could be considered incorrect in that case, since in this view the thoughts aren't really thought by me, they just float around. In this case claiming that "I think" would be incorrect. However, if this bundle of thoughts believes that there is something having those thoughts, then that belief as such is a thought. This thought is thought by the bundle of thoughts, thus once again confirming the 'cogito ergo sum'.

I get the feeling I've misunderstood Nietzsche's argument though... :)

Exactly. What Nietzche was pretty much saying, as far as I know (I'm currently in the process of reading his books. I have only read his views second hand so far) is "Something thinks, therefore something is." The concept of me, as a person does not have to exist. I could just be a figment of your imagination. Does that make me an individual? I don't know. But I know I couldn't claim that "I think". That'd be stealing your thunder.
 

noblok

Part of the furniture
Joined
Jan 2, 2005
Messages
1,371
Hmm, but the something thinking is a bundle of thoughts and the bundle of thoughts thinks itself as me. This means that the 'I think, therefore I am' holds true, since the 'I' refers to the bundle of thoughts. Or is there some subtlety I'm missing? :)
 

Coldbeard

Part of the furniture
Joined
Jun 14, 2004
Messages
5,183
Gah, just handed in an exam assignment in philosophy, mainly about Duchamp and his readymades (I didn't get to pick the assignment myself :/) and about defining art!

Now the damn philosophy is stalking me on FH as well!
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom