[porkmarras]

Happiness lies in being able to seat your butt on a comfy chair

[Glice]

Ooh, I likes you I do. [Edit: I was referring to Alyasa, not that I don't like any of you other schmucks]

This is pretty much the same question you were asking of spirituality a few posts previous - wherein lies proof? This is one of my favourite bits of theology, where you come across the diverging sense of proof between the 'rational' (using that term loosely) and the spiritual - spirituality & faith both have their proofs, but empirical ration may not admit these proofs to be valid; further, empirical ration is so wrapped up in its 'perfect system' that it will never admit of a proof which is not universally viewable. I like to counter that with "I don't understand microwaves" because I don't, and no amount of 'proof' is going to make them make sense to me. Rational, schmational, I get faith, I don't get microwaves.

Faith is, so far as I can make out, not an irrational response to the world, but a willing acceptance of questions which will never be answered. It would take an absolute masochist to break down all his/her edifices, and they would never succeed (to much not being clever when we're young/ too much being much cleverer when we're young). I summarise thusly: there are always questions to which we don't know the answer, for which we construct, consciously or unconsciously, edifices to protect ourselves. This does not apply merely to the religio-metaphysical questions, this applies to everything which we don't think about every time we encounter it (if you drive, do you think about whether or how the car works, or do you trust that the manufacturers, and all the other intermediaries and suchforth have not contrived to destroy it? Is this not a faith of sorts?)

I choose faith as a deferral of existential questions. Please feel free to do otherwise, should you so chose.

[porkmarras]

Originally Posted by porkmarras

Happiness lies in being able to seat your butt on a comfy chair

With someone on top of you possibly

[truncated]

Originally Posted by alyasa

Which brings us to another interesting question, spirituality. Spiritually speaking, regarding life, we don't have much to show for it. Except that which we can perceive. If, hypothetically, we are all in the afterlife, then our perception makes it real. We exist even if we don't. We believe it, so the power of our belief makes it real, even if, hypothetically, we ARE all already dead. A person on death row still believes in his own existence, his solidness, his reality; right until the moment he is strapped to a table, or to an electric chair. Then his perception is, for a moment, changed. He loses his belief and when he does that, his existence is questioned. "Is this happening to me? Is this real? Why?" But until that moment, he will keep on believing in his own existence, because it is his own perceptions, his own mind that defines what he is, where he is in relation to the other points in his life. His memories are real to him, they define him, they tell him what he is. Most people will not question their reality, their existence, because, that is the only thing they have, the only thing that puts them into forward motion and propels them through life, the belief in their own validity. I guess the question is, if you take that away, what else is left? The soul? Is the soul the spiritual evidence of our existence? Maybe, but first we have to figure out, what is our soul? Is it the thing that is left behind when we are completely devoid of everything extranous and external? When all our perceptions and opinons; everything we have been taught, been conditioned to believe in has been burned away? Or is there nothing, if that is taken away? If so, then maybe there is an unanswered question of whether or not we actually exist. If we feel nothing, become nothing; without our social conditioning, when we are alone with ourselves and we are nothing, then maybe we are just automatons, or even a figment of someone's imagination.

Well said.

On a tangent to this -

It's too early to get overly academic about this, but in my humble and uneducated opinion, 'cogito ergo sum' is nothing more than an intellectualization for its own sake.

There is, unarguably, nothing that 'exists' outside human definition. And so, insofar as existence is based on autonomy, there cannot be absolutes. There isn't anything that can be taken outside the context of human experience or imposed definition. (I realize I'm using ambiguous terms like "nothing" and "anything," but for the purposes of argument, they are appropriate.) Without the ability to remove the handicaps of imposed perception, one simply cannot isolate definitives. In short, nothing is "real."

This is why I avoid philosophy, and watch cartoons.

*Edit: And during my typing of this nonsense, you've gone and changed the subject. Assholes.

[SpectralJulianIsNotDead]

Originally Posted by qprogeny79

descartes made a fatal error. it should be "sum ergo cogito."

that said, i hate existentialism. objectively speaking, the power of our belief cannot make ANYTHING real. a thing is real only if it does not depend for its existence on our conscious mental states or activities (unless, of course, those things are the mental states themselves -- which does not make them ontologically inferior to more tangible existents). that said, the same applies to personal identity -- we are real independent of our own perception of reality. alyasa's posts, while interesting, i think conflate metaphysical questions with ethical questions -- just because we have nothing else for which to live does not mean we cease to exist or that our existence supervenes on our experience.

it is an intriguing question, however, whether we could define ourselves in meaningful terms if everything we value were suddenly ripped away from us. presumably we value our own lives, and our lives would be devoid of meaning or purpose without something to value (be it a person, a thing, a principle, etc.), so wouldn't the best among us have all the more reason to fight to get back that for which we so fervently wish? didn't the founding fathers, in the face of tyranny and under the threat of fierce retribution, write the declaration of independence? didn't galileo stare straight in the face of the omnipotent catholic church and challenge the entrenched ptolemaic doctrine of the earth as the center of the universe? didn't martin luther king jr. fight for equal protection under the law even when confronted with a bigoted populace intent on keeping entire segments of society as second-class citizens? wouldn't the man who had everything he worked for years upon years to achieve forcibly seized from him, not give up until he found a way out of his padded cell? wouldn't any man worth a damn, having truth and justice on his side, do the same?

Capitalization!

With "I think therefor I am" Descartes wasn't saying he was self-conceived, he conjectured only a perfect being could be self-conceived, and that he was fully aware of his imperfections. His thought was merely proof that he existed. "I am therefor I think" is nonsensical. A coma patient exists, a dead body exists, do they think? Existence can't create thought, but thought can prove existence.


By the way, Glice, your last 2 posts were very good and well capitalized. I owe you some rep, but I gotta pass it around first.


Lastly, with the regards to happiness, happiness comes from having some form of control in a world of chaos. So a man with a good job, a beautiful and loving wife, several wonderful children, and a house that is fully paid off would be happy. He feels that he feels he has a life that is under control within his own realms. Take everything away from him, odds are he will be depressed, because he will realize that he never really was in control. To regain his happiness, he must create a new sphere of control. He may turn to artistic output. He regains happiness. Now lets paralyze him and remove his 5 senses as well, but put him on an IV drip. This man will now be incredibly depressed, but perhaps, he can realize that he still has his thought. He can visualize and hear things in his head. Perhaps he can create a world in his head where he is still functioning, where his wife is alive as well as his children, he has his house, and he can even quit his career to become an artist. His mind is his last refuge of control, and he can still be happy with it.

From that, one can say that if hell exists, it is a place where you cannot even control your thoughts.

[h8kurdt]

#Oooh baby I love your ways#

[alyasa]

Originally Posted by SpectralJulianIsNotDead

From that, one can say that if hell exists, it is a place where you cannot even control your thoughts.

Would that be what generally is known as psychosis, delirium and/or dementia? A state of being mentally incapacitated? Your definition of happiness is enlightening...

[qprogeny79]

Originally Posted by truncated

There is, unarguably, nothing that 'exists' outside human definition. And so, insofar as existence is based on autonomy, there cannot be absolutes. There isn't anything that can be taken outside the context of human experience or imposed definition. (I realize I'm using ambiguous terms like "nothing" and "anything," but for the purposes of argument, they are appropriate.) Without the ability to remove the handicaps of imposed perception, one simply cannot isolate definitives. In short, nothing is "real."

at the risk of antagonizing everyone here yet again, wrong. as the most obvious counterexample to your point, consider the following: let us suppose that not only every human, but every sentient being were to suddenly disappear from the universe. now nothing would be left to perceive objective reality any longer, but the ONLY things that would cease to exist would be the sentient beings themselves, and the attendant mental and conscious states they possessed. our PERCEPTION of objects would no longer exist, but the objects themselves, being independent of anyone's perception of them, would persist. to say otherwise is to erroneously conflate epistemology and metaphysics, much as berkeley did when he asserted that there are only ideas and that the existence of x is dependent upon the perception of some consciousness y (with x's persistence through time without human perception attributable only to the constant perception of god).

to address spectraljulianisnotdead's point, "sum ergo cogito" in my view should be taken to be prescriptive rather than descriptive: "i am, therefore i'll think." because conceptual thought and rational activity are central to man's survival, his existence necessitates cognitive thought. obviously, some men are incapable of such thought, but that is not the point. and i maintain that descartes was wrong to begin his inquiry by questioning existence: existence is so fundamental a concept as to be axiomatic. also, descartes should not have questioned the evidence of his senses: any attempt to discredit the senses will contain at least one premise derived from the evidence of the senses.

and no, i will not capitalize. i'm too old to change.

 

[truncated]

Originally Posted by qprogeny79

at the risk of antagonizing everyone here yet again, wrong. as the most obvious counterexample to your point, consider the following: let us suppose that not only every human, but every sentient being were to suddenly disappear from the universe. now nothing would be left to perceive objective reality any longer, but the ONLY things that would cease to exist would be the sentient beings themselves, and the attendant mental and conscious states they possessed. our PERCEPTION of objects would no longer exist, but the objects themselves, being independent of anyone's perception of them, would persist. to say otherwise is to erroneously conflate epistemology and metaphysics, much as berkeley did when he asserted that there are only ideas and that the existence of x is dependent upon the perception of some consciousness y (with x's persistence through time without human perception attributable only to the constant perception of god).

Sorry, I'm on Berkeley's side.

Objective reality exists BY human definition. How can one validate the existence of objects/the universe by a means independent of human perception? It is, by nature of our being, the only way in which to process our environment. While I wouldn't be so arrogant as to assert that there is definitively no objective reality, neither would I assert that there is.

Observable patterns of behaviors and occurrences do not by default equate an absolute. The aforementioned are digested and processed by and in terms of human consciousness, so the claim that a reality independent of perception concretely exists is an impossible one to prove.

[Savage Clone]

Whoa, man.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by truncated

Sorry, I'm on Berkeley's side.

Objective reality exists BY human definition. How can one validate the existence of objects/the universe by a means independent of human perception? It is, by nature of our being, the only way in which to process our environment. While I wouldn't be so arrogant as to assert that there is definitively no objective reality, neither would I assert that there is.

Observable patterns of behaviors and occurrences do not by default equate an absolute. The aforementioned are digested and processed by and in terms of human consciousness, so the claim that a reality independent of perception concretely exists is an impossible one to prove.

no way. no way. kick the fucking stone with your eyes closed. ha ha. youve been poisoned by too many postmodernists, you english major

[truncated]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

no way. no way. kick the fucking stone with your eyes closed. ha ha. youve been poisoned by too many postmodernists, you english major

Alright pedant, you tell me how it's done then. PROVE objective reality to me, and I'll give you a cookie.

[SpectralJulianIsNotDead]

Originally Posted by alyasa

Would that be what generally is known as psychosis, delirium and/or dementia?

No, because even if you are delirious, from what I understand, you still have your own thoughts and reactions to things. It is possible to somehow find an inkling of happiness. Even if with delirium you had absolutely no control over your thoughts, you would then never realize that you couldn't control them.

In my hell, having a tormentor choose all of your thoughts for you.

Here is an example torture session:

The demon begins with the first thought, a seemingly happy one, the memory of his marriage. But the victim would not be allowed to respon with happiness or feelings of love for his wife. Instead, the demon would induce him to feel sorrow and guilt and recall all of his infidelities to his wife and all of his verbal abuse of his wife. Then the demon would place this thought into the man's head "If I were not in hell, I could control my own thoughts, and I could have remembered the good times I had with my wife." The demon would certainly have the man recall that there was happiness, to make it even more painful. Then the demon would follow that with more despair. The demon would never give him one thought to allow him to be happy, and this would continue for eternity.

[!@#$%!]

used the internet recently? science and technology would not work without it. (of course, the very fact of a shitty internet makes me think it's all a fucked dream anyway).

[porkmarras]

I think that from Hegel to Karl Marx a good point for objective reality has been made for quite a long time now

[eatmychild]

I think there's like a ratio where 94% of all humans are worthless shits. (96% on bad days)

[Savage Clone]

I think you're being a little kind there, Pollyanna.

[truncated]

It's useless and irrelevant to cite various schools of thought on objective reality, because it's common sense and deductive reasoning.

To get a bit abstract, take the concept of time - time in and of itself does not exist, but is an organizational tool imposed by the human mind. It is a construct of the sentient mind that divides up the infinite for purposes of convenience and functionality. Time DOES NOT EXIST outside of the human brain.

I don't think I need to draw the dotted line to make the leap from this concept to the concept of objective reality...

[porkmarras]

Originally Posted by eatmychild

I think there's like a ratio where 94% of all humans are worthless shits. (96% on bad days)

That would imply,though,that you know at least 96% of the human beings on this planet.Am i right?Are your figures accurate or is it just something that you are saying cause it makes you fell like''YOU KNOW'' something,you have learned something from your life etc etc.Keep me posted on that,i'm quite curious

[porkmarras]

The abstract works rather well with the arts but it just DOES NOT work well when it comes to human beings