|
Inlägg #21: Postat: 2002-10-29 09:22:00
|
|
Sebastian Weil answer to 16 |
Existence is something that exists. Consciousness is a form of existence. What I wrote was that something can exist without a consciousness being there to percieve it. However, consciousness requires existence to be able to function. What I wrote does not at all contradict itself. Please read it again.
|
| |
|
Inlägg #22: Postat: 2002-10-29 09:25:00
|
|
Sebastian Weil |
You refer to the ancient greek definition of the word philosopher. However, _philosophy_ is mans perception of reality, and what he makes out of it. Regarding God and the rejection of empiricism: And? What is your point with writing that there have been people rejecting logic in the past? There are plenty of them in the present, and will unfortunely be in the future as well.
|
| |
|
Inlägg #23: Postat: 2002-10-29 09:27:00
|
|
Sebastian Weil answer to 18 |
The last text was an answer to 17. Intuition is based on knowledge. Intuition is to throw yourself on the floor when a man runs through the door at the postal office with a gun... However, do you think a person in the 17th century would have done the same? No of course not, since he hasnt been able to form a concept of what a gun is. Intuition relies on your present knowledge, knowledge which you - hopegully - have made with regard to logic and rationality.
|
| |
|
Inlägg #24: Postat: 2002-10-29 09:29:00
|
|
Sebastian Weil answer to 19 |
As I have written. A consciousness requires existence to be able to function, since it per definition "percieves existence". However, existence doesnt requie a consciousness to function. Think about the falling tree in the forest. It doesnt require you beeing there to be able to fall. However, the tree must fall for you to be able to percieve it fall.
|
| |
|
Inlägg #25: Postat: 2002-10-29 09:31:00
|
|
Sebastian Weil answer to 20 |
No, we are not at all bound to subjectivity. If we reject logic and rationality, then yes, then we cant truthfully analyse reality, but if we use logic and rationality, we can.
|
| |
|
Inlägg #26: Postat: 2002-10-29 10:13:00
|
|
Frederik |
21, 24: "...in your observation that experiences exists, you also observe that existence exists. We can be sure that existence exists." Heres where you equal experience i.e. consciousness with existence, or otherwise make a step thats logically not justified. Mind me, as an assumption/definition you could use your understandings of experience and existence.
|
| |
|
Inlägg #27: Postat: 2002-10-29 10:13:00
|
|
Frederik |
However, if you check out some texts on logic, you’ll read that it *always* starts with assumptions. These are yours, then. But you should not make the mistake of assuming that what you say is ‘truth’. When someone me for instance says that consciousness and existence are one, then simply no logical way for us to prove the other wrong.
|
| |
|
Inlägg #28: Postat: 2002-10-29 10:14:00
|
|
Frederik |
Could you give me a reference of where you got that definition of philosophy from? Here’s mine: ‘Philosophy – an Introduction to the Art of Wondering’ by James L. Christian. He writes ‘Philosophy is critical thinking about thinking, the proximate goal of which is to get in touch with the truth about reality, the ultimate goal being to better see the Big Picture’. Christian by the way admits that there have been many definitions. Again, do not assume that yours is the only valid one.
|
| |
|
Inlägg #29: Postat: 2002-10-29 10:14:00
|
|
Frederik |
What you describe is not intuition, but reflex. In WWI there were soldiers who were known to intuitively ‘know’ when a spot was dangerous. They’d run away, and seconds later an artillery shell would explode precisely where they stood before. Similar examples of ‘sensing danger’ abound, even though the people in question have no known sensory perception or logical reason to feel that danger. What’s that, according to you?
|
| |
|
Inlägg #30: Postat: 2002-10-29 10:24:00
|
|
Frederik |
25: you should read the book Philosophy in Practice by Adam Morton Blackwell Publishers. Its an interesting read to illustrate what you can and what you cant do with logic and rationality when it comes to perceiving reality. With my subjectivity claim Im not rejecting logic and rationality; Im only placing them in the right context, not asking them to do things that they cant do.
|
| |
|
Inlägg #31: Postat: 2002-10-29 10:26:00
|
|
Frederik |
Sorry, forgot: 28 replies to 22 and 29 to 23
|
| |
|
Inlägg #32: Postat: 2002-10-29 10:35:00
|
|
Frederik |
A last one to 22: so youre claiming that Socrates and Spinoza, Pascal and Berkeley and so many others all rejected logic? Isnt that a little arrogant?
|
| |
|
Inlägg #33: Postat: 2002-10-29 12:22:00
|
|
Kent Davidsson |
SW: do you think that you can prove Gods non-existance, from the statement that experiences exist?
|
| |
|
Inlägg #34: Postat: 2002-10-29 12:26:00
|
|
Kent Davidsson svar på 25 |
What can you say about reality? If it is based on anything else than your beliefs then what is it based on? If it is based on your beliefs only, I would call you religious.
|
| |
|
Inlägg #35: Postat: 2002-10-29 14:51:00
|
|
Sebastian Weil answer to 26 |
A consciousness is something that percieves existence, but it does also exist - of course. That proves that existence is primary, and that consciousness is not.
|
| |
|
Inlägg #36: Postat: 2002-10-29 15:07:00
|
|
Frederik |
?!? Im sorry, but I really dont see how you can logically deduce one from the other. It might help if youd define exactly what you mean with consciousness, and what you mean with existence.
|
| |
|
Inlägg #37: Postat: 2002-10-29 15:16:00
|
|
Frederik |
...and but thats personal if youd ask yourself on what empirical data you base your definitions. Be a bit more self-critical, and youll soon realise the limitations of words and definitions. If you dont, you run the risk of mistaking the map you use to navigate a country with the country itself.
|
| |
|
Inlägg #38: Postat: 2002-10-29 18:21:00
|
|
David Woxberg |
To be exakt, the primacy of existence is a corollary: a self-evident implications of established knowledge. The PoE-principle can instantly be grasped after one has grasped the axioms of existence, identity and consciousness explicitly or implicitly.
|
| |
|
Inlägg #39: Postat: 2002-10-29 18:22:00
|
|
David Woxberg |
Any attempt to "prove" the PoE-principle would result in question-begging, since a process of proof consists of reducing a proposition to the facts of reality.
|
| |
|
Inlägg #40: Postat: 2002-10-29 18:23:00
|
|
David Woxberg |
One would thus presuppose what one is trying to prove in the process of proving it.
|
| |