[quote]pookie wrote:
meangenes wrote:
It is very amenable to being poked fun at, though, since it seems so serious in it’s attempt to appear profound.
[/quote]
Missed the point. Thanks for clarifying that you missed the point of my Existentialism.
You seem like you’d rather question your existence than embrace it. If you need a reason to be here, go find one and stop wasting time.
[quote]meangenes wrote:
pookie wrote:
meangenes wrote:
It is very amenable to being poked fun at, though, since it seems so serious in it’s attempt to appear profound.
Missed the point. Thanks for clarifying that you missed the point of my Existentialism. [/quote]
A point? Where? Where was a point made? Has anyone here seen a point? Was it a two dimensional planar point that fell flat? Was is an infinitely expanding point that filled itself exponentially until it collapsed and disappeared?
[quote]pookie wrote:
meangenes wrote:
pookie wrote:
Now, please explain what “exponentially planar” existence is…
But of course the planes that life exists on in relation to consciousness and it’s infinite but expanding possible conclusions. Ultimately defined by your death which is but another level of consciousness or lack there of.
meangenes wrote:
How did I know I was going to end up with some twat trying to disagree with my philosophy on life.
Righteous bro.
Fucking traditionalists. Pff.
Your philosophy of life might be very interesting, but to be able to discuss it, you’d have to be able to explain it using sentences that actually make sense.
Saying stuff like “existence is infinite and exponentially planar” or “death is another level of consciousness or lack thereof” sounds real nice in a Dungeon & Dragons rule book, but it means absolutely nothing. It is an assemblage of terms in a syntactic and grammatically correct form, but they convey no information.
So, until you’re able to articulate it in adult terms, using clear words in meaningful sentences, there’s really nothing to discuss or debate. I’m not agreeing or disagreeing with your philosophy, since you’ve written nothing that’s amenable to agreement or disagreement. It is very amenable to being poked fun at, though, since it seems so serious in it’s attempt to appear profound.
[/quote]
Pookie, it would mean nothing to you unless you were able to translate the assemblage of terms into visual information and correlate that with science.
I was actually able to get a visual on what meangenes was saying when he said “…the planes that life exists on in relation to consciousness and it’s infinite but expanding possible conclusions.”
If you can picture different axes upon which multiple versions of this reality extend out like the frames on movie projector film, there could be many different versions of your lifetime and many different conclusions to it. Each choice you make changes the outcome to a different ‘set’ of conclusions, like switching rails on a train track.
Basically I think he’s referring to parallel universe theory.
When he says “Ultimately defined by your death which is but another level of consciousness or lack there of.”
I recall, there is a theory in the field of anaesthesiology that says consciousness is not a constant state, but a continuum, with more subtle states able to be accessed under anaesthesia. These can be defined as “levels” - i.e. say that waking consciousness is at 1, dreaming sleep is at -20, the different levels can go down to somewhere like -255. An expert anaesthesiologist can bring a person down to a selected ‘depth’ depending on the drug and dose used. I know this isn’t the most accurate or articulate explanation, but I vaguely recall this after reading of it many years ago.
So, I think he’s referring to death as being below the lowest level of anaesthetized consciousness, if told in light of this theoretical perspective.
[quote]meangenes wrote:
Acebgd12 wrote:
meangenes wrote:
Acebgd12 wrote:
meangenes wrote:
You said you question your own existence, not that you question why you exist.
If I was to question your existence, I might just be questioning you correct?
This gonna come down to a grammar lesson huh?
Well, I guess we should define nihilism. Do you believe it to be the non-existence of truth?
When I refer to Existentialism, I’m speaking of the basic function of questioning your existence. The ultimate “truth” of it might well be known when I’m dead. Until then, why can’t I just exist?[/quote]
I’m not playing a game of semantics, I’m trying to figure out WTF your first post meant. By “I have always questioned my existence”, did you mean you have questioned whether you exist, always questioned why you exist, or questioned the purpose of your existence? Your original statement was pretty damn vague.
I took it that you meant that you doubted whether you exist or not. If that’s the case, you’re shoveling out bullshit by the ton. If not, can you clarify what you did mean?
Now you’ve switched again. I know what existentialism is; but you said you were also partial to nihilism. That’s what i was asking about. The nihilism and your definition of it.
Fight Club was awesome. The Movie and the Book.
Tyler Durden was a Nihilistic character.
Friedrich Nietzsche predicted that the hopeless nature of Nihilist philosophy would make its way into people’s minds.
Nietzsche considered that the ensuing philosophical struggle man would have with Nihilism would be the ultimate test of man.
Nietzsche’s Ubermensch is first man who will accept that there is no God but is also able to reject Nihilism and forge his own ethics.
The Narrator in Fight Club, in my own interpretation, is an Ubermensch. He overcomes religion. His religion wasn’t Christianity or Islam. His religion was consumerism. Letting out Tyler Durden was the narrator’s way of leaving behind his worship of the all mighty dollar and embracing Nihilism.
In the end of Fight Club, the Narrator overcomes the hopeless nature of Nihilism by shooting himself. In shooting himself, he forges his own path and makes the first independent decision in his entire life.
Tyler Durden said that self-improvement was masturbation. In the movie he appeared to be 150 pounds. He’s a loser. If he were a real Ubermensch, a real T-Man, he’d hit the weights.
Nihilism originated as an insult and is more commonly used as an insult than a real belief.
[quote]Acebgd12 wrote:
meangenes wrote:
Acebgd12 wrote:
meangenes wrote:
Acebgd12 wrote:
meangenes wrote:
Now you’ve switched again. I know what existentialism is; but you said you were also partial to nihilism. That’s what i was asking about. The nihilism and your definition of it.[/quote]
Right.
Everything is everything.
It’s Ok to not be able to make the connection. I commend you for trying.
Not Existentialism.
Right. I’m sitting here, like chilling doing some homework, why? So I can go to school, why? So I can get a job, why? So I can make money, why? So I can get pussy, why? So I can have kids, why? So I can continue my genetic line, why? I don’t know, it makes sense to me.
That’s questioning your existence for example.
I mean do you have an opinion or do you just like questioning mine? I’m not getting what your motive is here.
[quote]analog_kid wrote:
You seem like you’d rather question your existence than embrace it. If you need a reason to be here, go find one and stop wasting time. [/quote]
Wish it was that easy then.
I had to. There was no alternative.
[quote]analog_kid wrote:
You seem like you’d rather question your existence than embrace it. If you need a reason to be here, go find one and stop wasting time. [/quote]
I mean, I guess the questioning of it kind of became a sort of humble embracing. A reason in itself. It was damn hard in the beginning but like I said, I didn’t have much of a choice.
[quote]meangenes wrote:
Acebgd12 wrote:
meangenes wrote:
Acebgd12 wrote:
meangenes wrote:
Acebgd12 wrote:
meangenes wrote:
Now you’ve switched again. I know what existentialism is; but you said you were also partial to nihilism. That’s what i was asking about. The nihilism and your definition of it.
Right.
The ultimate “truth” of it might well be known when I’m dead. Until then, why can’t I just exist?
Everything is everything.
It’s Ok to not be able to make the connection. I commend you for trying.
I took it that you meant that you doubted whether you exist or not.
Not Existentialism.
If that’s the case, you’re shoveling out bullshit by the ton. If not, can you clarify what you did mean?
Right. I’m sitting here, like chilling doing some homework, why? So I can go to school, why? So I can get a job, why? So I can make money, why? So I can get pussy, why? So I can have kids, why? So I can continue my genetic line, why? I don’t know, it makes sense to me.
That’s questioning your existence for example.
I mean do you have an opinion or do you just like questioning mine? I’m not getting what your motive is here.[/quote]
I have an opinion. Nihilism is dumb. Believing that life has no truth is paradoxical, because that would imply that you take “nothing has truth” to be a truth in and of itself. Liar’s paradox.
I’m not questioning your opinion. I’m trying to determine what the fuck your vague-ass OP even meant.
[quote]JohnnyBlaze wrote:
pookie wrote:
meangenes wrote:
pookie wrote:
Now, please explain what “exponentially planar” existence is…
But of course the planes that life exists on in relation to consciousness and it’s infinite but expanding possible conclusions. Ultimately defined by your death which is but another level of consciousness or lack there of.
meangenes wrote:
How did I know I was going to end up with some twat trying to disagree with my philosophy on life.
Righteous bro.
Fucking traditionalists. Pff.
Your philosophy of life might be very interesting, but to be able to discuss it, you’d have to be able to explain it using sentences that actually make sense.
Saying stuff like “existence is infinite and exponentially planar” or “death is another level of consciousness or lack thereof” sounds real nice in a Dungeon & Dragons rule book, but it means absolutely nothing. It is an assemblage of terms in a syntactic and grammatically correct form, but they convey no information.
So, until you’re able to articulate it in adult terms, using clear words in meaningful sentences, there’s really nothing to discuss or debate. I’m not agreeing or disagreeing with your philosophy, since you’ve written nothing that’s amenable to agreement or disagreement. It is very amenable to being poked fun at, though, since it seems so serious in it’s attempt to appear profound.
Pookie, it would mean nothing to you unless you were able to translate the assemblage of terms into visual information and correlate that with science.
I was actually able to get a visual on what meangenes was saying when he said “…the planes that life exists on in relation to consciousness and it’s infinite but expanding possible conclusions.”
If you can picture different axes upon which multiple versions of this reality extend out like the frames on movie projector film, there could be many different versions of your lifetime and many different conclusions to it. Each choice you make changes the outcome to a different ‘set’ of conclusions, like switching rails on a train track.
Basically I think he’s referring to parallel universe theory.
When he says “Ultimately defined by your death which is but another level of consciousness or lack there of.”
I recall, there is a theory in the field of anaesthesiology that says consciousness is not a constant state, but a continuum, with more subtle states able to be accessed under anaesthesia. These can be defined as “levels” - i.e. say that waking consciousness is at 1, dreaming sleep is at -20, the different levels can go down to somewhere like -255. An expert anaesthesiologist can bring a person down to a selected ‘depth’ depending on the drug and dose used. I know this isn’t the most accurate or articulate explanation, but I vaguely recall this after reading of it many years ago.
So, I think he’s referring to death as being below the lowest level of anaesthetized consciousness, if told in light of this theoretical perspective.[/quote]
Lol. Thanks. Spot on.
[quote]Acebgd12 wrote:
meangenes wrote:
Acebgd12 wrote:
meangenes wrote:
Acebgd12 wrote:
meangenes wrote:
Acebgd12 wrote:
meangenes wrote:
I have an opinion. Nihilism is dumb. Believing that life has no truth is paradoxical, because that would imply that you take “nothing has truth” to be a truth in and of itself. Liar’s paradox.[/quote]
You should stop thinking like that, or you’re going to get bored. Should start thinking for yourself.
You educated?
Yea sure anyway, you can only prove what you test right? In so far as concerning my own existence what I prove to be true for me, in mind minds right. Might not be “true” for you. E.g. Describe the color blue.
Life is perceptions, human relations are a testament to the perceptions. Thank you.
So what do you consider to be true? What Science can prove? Or what you have experienced? Or maybe what the Media tells you. Or maybe what your mother and father told you as a youth. They lied about Santa and the Easter Bunny you know that much, correct?
What truth do you speak of? When I speak of “ultimate truth” I speak of the things that I will consciously encounter in my departure from my physical means on this earth.
[quote]I’m not questioning your opinion. I’m trying to determine what the fuck your vague-ass OP even meant.
[/quote]
Are you angry because you questioned my opinion and I answered you? I gather that from your use of foul language, maybe wrong.
[quote]meangenes wrote:
Acebgd12 wrote:
meangenes wrote:
Acebgd12 wrote:
meangenes wrote:
Acebgd12 wrote:
meangenes wrote:
Acebgd12 wrote:
meangenes wrote:
I have an opinion. Nihilism is dumb. Believing that life has no truth is paradoxical, because that would imply that you take “nothing has truth” to be a truth in and of itself. Liar’s paradox.
You should stop thinking like that, or you’re going to get bored. Should start thinking for yourself.
Nihilism is often described as a belief in the nonexistence of truth. In its more extreme forms, such a belief is difficult to justify, because it contains a variation on the liar paradox: if it is true that truth does not exist, the statement “truth does not exist” is itself a truth, therefore showing itself to be inconsistent. A formally identical criticism has been leveled against relativism and the verifiability theory of meaning of logical positivism. - Wikipedia
You educated?
Yea sure anyway, you can only prove what you test right? In so far as concerning my own existence what I prove to be true for me, in mind minds right. Might not be “true” for you. E.g. Describe the color blue.
Life is perceptions, human relations are a testament to the perceptions. Thank you.
So what do you consider to be true? What Science can prove? Or what you have experienced? Or maybe what the Media tells you. Or maybe what your mother and father told you as a youth. They lied about Santa and the Easter Bunny you know that much, correct?
What truth do you speak of? When I speak of “ultimate truth” I speak of the things that I will consciously encounter in my departure from my physical means on this earth.
I’m not questioning your opinion. I’m trying to determine what the fuck your vague-ass OP even meant.
Are you angry because you questioned my opinion and I answered you? I gather that from your use of foul language, maybe wrong.[/quote]
I do think for myself. I don’t think nihilism works. Can you explain why you think it does? I am curious. That’s why I’ve been asking you questions-to understand your beliefs better, so that I may be able to get something from them.
I’m not educated, no. I’m going through that process, but right now I don’t even have a high school degree.
I’m pretty much a rationalist, but I don’t like categorizing my beliefs that way, either. If something doesn’t work logically, I tend to not believe it. That’s my problem with nihilism; it seems to fall apart at that juncture.
You seem to think I dislike existentialism. I don’t. It’s a cool philosophy. But I’m doing my best to differentiate between existentialism and nihilism. To me, they are pretty damn different.
I’m frustrated because you really won’t answer my question: how does a believer in nihilism not contradict himself?
[quote]meangenes wrote:
Yea sure anyway, you can only prove what you test right?[/quote]
Wrong. You’ve failed to distinguish between an a priori and a posteriori statement. Some truths are completely self-evident by definition and we are able to draw conclusions without having to experience them first-hand, e.g. We don’t have to encounter ice to know that it’s cold, provided we know the definition – cold water.
I’d call you out on the rest, but your vague rehashing of Descartes’ Meditations is pretty consistent throughout – vague for the sake of vague. His thought experiments in doubt ultimately yielded the conclusion that his extreme way of thinking had only backed him into a corner, as he could not doubt his doubt. The function of such a way of thinking has its place, in avoiding hasty conclusions, provided the student doesn’t go overboard with it. Sooooo…consider this your life vest.
[quote]JohnnyBlaze wrote:
If you can picture different axes upon which multiple versions of this reality extend out like the frames on movie projector film, there could be many different versions of your lifetime and many different conclusions to it. Each choice you make changes the outcome to a different ‘set’ of conclusions, like switching rails on a train track.
Basically I think he’s referring to parallel universe theory. [/quote]
Well that’s nice. But it’s still meaningless since you only get to experience one rail.
All that blather just comes down to saying that you think about past and future decisions. Everybody does that… most of us speak of it in terms of “experience” and “considering various factors before making a decision” instead of talking about exponential planes and infinite possibilities.
Should we consider you “special” because you’re able to make decisions by yourself? Sounds more impressive if you talk about it in terms of “navigating the planes of infinite possibilities” or “exponential expansions of choices” but at the end of the day, it’s the same thing everybody does everyday. Get over it.
Using big words and borrowing metaphors from quantum physics (where they’re actually useful) might dazzle some people and make them think you’re deep and mysterious, but anyone who takes a longer look can’t fail to notice that your lovely container is empty. When you’ve got nothing to say, it’s often best to just say nothing.
[quote]Then he says “Ultimately defined by your death which is but another level of consciousness or lack there of.”
I recall, there is a theory in the field of anaesthesiology that says consciousness is not a constant state, but a continuum, with more subtle states able to be accessed under anaesthesia. These can be defined as “levels” - i.e. say that waking consciousness is at 1, dreaming sleep is at -20, the different levels can go down to somewhere like -255.[/quote]
Just reading this has me at about -197.
And that defines his existentialist philosophy how exactly?
Unless the point is that he’s living his life while being barely conscious… that would fit. I doubt that’s what he had in mind. At least consciously.
So…?
[quote]Acebgd12 wrote:
meangenes wrote:
Acebgd12 wrote:
meangenes wrote:
Acebgd12 wrote:
meangenes wrote:
Acebgd12 wrote:
meangenes wrote:
Acebgd12 wrote:
meangenes wrote:
But I’m doing my best to differentiate between existentialism and nihilism. To me, they are pretty damn different.[/quote]
Should be easy then.
Which one?
[quote]That’s what i was asking about. The nihilism and your definition of it.
The ultimate “truth” of it might well be known when I’m dead. Until then, why can’t I just exist?
…
[i]Yea sure anyway, you can only prove what you test right? In so far as concerning my own existence what I prove to be true for me, in mind minds right. Might not be “true” for you. E.g. Describe the color blue.
Life is perceptions, human relations are a testament to the perceptions. Thank you.
So what do you consider to be true? What Science can prove? Or what you have experienced? Or maybe what the Media tells you. Or maybe what your mother and father told you as a youth. They lied about Santa and the Easter Bunny you know that much, correct?
What truth do you speak of? When I speak of “ultimate truth” I speak of the things that I will consciously encounter in my departure from my physical means on this earth.[/i]
I took it that you meant that you doubted whether you exist or not.
Not Existentialism.
If not, can you clarify what you did mean?
[i]Right. I’m sitting here, like chilling doing some homework, why? So I can go to school, why? So I can get a job, why? So I can make money, why? So I can get pussy, why? So I can have kids, why? So I can continue my genetic line, why? I don’t know, it makes sense to me.
That’s questioning your existence for example.[/i] [/quote]
how does a believer in nihilism not contradict himself?[/quote]
Is that a rhetorical question?
Partiality to belief is not wholly belief in. Careful.
I don’t know why you think I should defend this Nihilist vs. Existentialist perspective since it wasn’t my initial intention.
What I have, like I’ve been explaining is a true perception that only after I discovered what they were (ism’s) did I become partial to. Thinking for myself. Then later discovering that the ism’s had similarly constructed philosophies.
What major differences do you see in Nihilism and Existentialism. I’ll let you know more of what I am partial to and not.
Done repeating myself. Any other questions?
[quote]meangenes wrote:
E.g. Describe the color blue. [/quote]
Light at a wavelength of about 475 nm. Check it with a spectrometer, it’s blue for you, me and everyone who isn’t color blind.
Assuming that happens (ie, that there is something other than nothingness after death), why would it be an ultimate truth?
The major differences I see are that existentialism means giving things their own meaning/truth. Therefore, things have truth and meaning, if you give truth and meaning to them.
Nihilism, on the other hand, says that things do not have meaning, and that there is no truth.
What about nihilism are you partial to?
[quote]pookie wrote:
meangenes wrote:
Yea sure anyway, you can only prove what you test right? In so far as concerning my own existence what I prove to be true for me, in mind minds right. Might not be “true” for you. E.g. Describe the color blue. E.g. Describe the color blue.
Light at a wavelength of about 475 nm. Check it with a spectrometer, it’s blue for you, me and everyone who isn’t color blind.[/quote]
Exactly. What about that light we can’t see? Oh wait we have tools to “prove” that they’re there as well.
You perceive what you know. What you can prove. Thank you.
Best thing about my Existentialism is that it will evolve with me. Gotta love it.
[quote]What truth do you speak of? When I speak of “ultimate truth” I speak of the things that I will consciously encounter in my departure from my physical means on this earth.
Assuming that happens (ie, that there is something other than nothingness after death), why would it be an ultimate truth?[/quote]
Nothing is something. Thanks come again.
“Nothing is something” sounds philosophical, but it really doesn’t make any sense. It is inherently incorrect, because the definition of something is the exact opposite of the definition of nothing.
Nothing is not something because if it were, it would no longer be nothing.
It would be something.
It is inherently paradoxical.