Does reality exist?

Half-formed posts, inchoate philosophies, and the germs of deep thought.

Moderator: Only_Humean

Re: Does reality exist?

Postby AutSider » Fri Jun 30, 2017 11:04 am

Mr Reasonable wrote:For all the people who use the foe list, you're a bunch of pussies. What a pussy thing to do.

You people are those "millenials" that I keep hearing about. A whole generation of vaginas. "I'm putting you on a list so I don't have to see what you type".

PUSSY SHIT GROW A PAIR


It's like covering up a piece of shit so I don't have to smell it. Your post is like:

"hurr durr you must smear shit all over your face or you're a pussy"

Nah.
User avatar
AutSider
BANNED
 
Posts: 3337
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 9:04 pm

Re: Does reality exist?

Postby Magnus Anderson » Fri Jun 30, 2017 12:16 pm

You might as well foe entire forum.
I got a philosophy degree, I'm not upset that I can't find work as a philosopher. It was my decision, and I knew that it wasn't a money making degree, so I get money elsewhere.
-- Mr. Reasonable
User avatar
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3656
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: Does reality exist?

Postby Magnus Anderson » Tue Jan 30, 2018 3:38 pm

http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/M ... xists.html

Existence exists is an axiom which states that there is something, as opposed to nothing. At the core of every thought is the observation that "I am aware of something". The very fact that one is aware of something is the proof that something in some form exists -- that existence exists -- existence being all that which exists. Also, to grasp the thought, "I am aware of something," you must be conscious. Existence is axiomatic because it is necessary for all knowledge and it cannot be denied without conceding its truth. To deny existence is to say that something doesn't exist. A denial of something is only possible if existence exists.

To exist, an existent (an entity that exists) must have a particular identity. A thing cannot exist without existing as something, otherwise it would be nothing and it would not exist. In the statement "something exists", the something refers to the axiom of identity and the exists refers to the axiom of existence. They cannot be separated and are like two sides of the same coin or two ways of understanding the same axiom.


"Existence" means "all that exists". So when he says "existence exists" what he's saying is "all that exists exists" which is a tautology. What's the purpose of such a statement? Is it not redundant? I think that what is more fruitful is to make an attempt to understand what the word "exist" means. This requires that you shift your attention away from metaphysics and towards epistemology.
I got a philosophy degree, I'm not upset that I can't find work as a philosopher. It was my decision, and I knew that it wasn't a money making degree, so I get money elsewhere.
-- Mr. Reasonable
User avatar
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3656
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: Does reality exist?

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Wed Jan 31, 2018 11:06 am

Magnus Anderson wrote:You might as well foe entire forum.

And then you know it is time to leave the forum. It's a nice way to keep a tally.
Karpel Tunnel
 
Posts: 176
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Does reality exist?

Postby Gloominary » Sun Feb 04, 2018 1:07 am

On the surface of things, reality appears to exist, but the more you peer into them, the emptier they become.
Mainline science tells us atoms are 99.99>% empty space, and star systems too are almost entirely empty.
They also tell us there's a fine line between particles and waves, the many individuals and the one collective are interchangeable.
Scientists once thought atoms were indestructible, but it turns out you can tear them asunder into smaller things still.
There might be no limit to how small things can be, just as there might be no limit to how big the universe is, it may be limitless.

Rocks seem solid, but there's little-nothing solid about them, every particle/wave in them is always in motion, and as a whole, they're always fluctuating, their size, shape, position and chemical composition.
They're also constantly exchanging materials/energy with their surroundings, so there's a fine line between them and everything else, if there's a line at all.

As solid as a thing is, it could always possibly be infinitely more solid or gaseous.
There are states of matter in between solid, liquid and gas, various creams, foams, gels and pastes, it's a continuum, a spectrum of possibility.
Anything you can say about a thing really, that it's a tetrahedron or a cube, that it's red or blue, it could always possibly be infinitely more of a tetrahedron or a cube, red or blue.
It could even always possibly be infinitely more of a thing than a non-thing, or a non-thing than a thing.
All ideas/ideals, words/concepts are at best approximations of things, or stuff, revealed to us empirically via the five senses, and at worse, completely relative.
even just stating it's A at all implies B, and so there'd be no consciousness or appreciation without contrast.

And of course reality itself may be a kind of mirage, or a subconscious creation or projection of our minds, or even a hoax, a conspiracy.
The mind itself may fabricate parts of itself, or may be a fabrication of something else.
Perhaps we're not really intelligent, maybe we have Ai, or maybe our reasoning, memories and so on are unreasonable, fictitious.

But really how could it otherwise be, I mean whatever can affect us, we can affect.
Reality is a two way street, give and take.
If you can frig me up, I can frig you too.
We alter the relaity we're interacting with by virtue of what we are, just as it alters us.
And the more different we are from one another, the more different the alterations of our shared reality, but who says it's shared for that matter, perhaps it's only shared in part.

What are things but affectance/the capacity to affect themselves and other things?
Things define us just as we them.
What would a cat be without a mouse and vice versa?
What would we be without our adversaries and adversity?

And so cats and mice, heroes and villains aren't really separate things actually, but they go together, they're part of a higher cat/mouse hero/villain order.
Sure, you are what you are by virtue of what you are, but also by virtue everything around you.
It's the whole cosmos making us, and the more the cosmos changes, the less you you could be.

If we were able to pluck just one atom from the cosmos, well we might wind up with a completely different cosmos, because that atom had relationships with surrounding atoms, which'n turn, had relationships with other atoms, and so on down the line, everything affects everything.
You couldn't break wind on mars, without it affecting everyone on Venus sooner-later.

Children tend to see things like that, innocently, things seem really, solid, like they, matter. everything seems wonderful, until they discover how ephemeral it all is.

A billion years from now, life itself might be extinct, or on the other hand, it might've evolved into
something unrecognizable today, it mightn't even be recognizable as life...or non-life, it might be something in betwixt, or something else altogether, something we don't have words for or can imagine.
A trillion years from now who knows what, if anything, will remain of the cosmos, the universe, now itself being a kind of mutant reverberation of whatever existed before it if anything.
User avatar
Gloominary
Thinker
 
Posts: 573
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Canada

Re: Does reality exist?

Postby Magnus Anderson » Wed Feb 21, 2018 11:40 pm

Gloominary wrote:On the surface of things, reality appears to exist


I think that the concept of reality is defined to mean "all that exists". So it makes no sense to say that reality does not exist. If "reality" means "all that exists" then it follows that "reality does not exist" means "all that exists does not exist" which is a violation of Aristotle's law of non-contradiction. It is a contradiciton in terms. Consequently, there is no need to say that reality exists. It is redundant to do so.

But this is not how most people think. Most people think that it is fine to say that reality is something that either exists or does not exist, so most people think that it makes sense to ask questions such as "does reality exist?" Many of them consider such questions to be of great importance.

Mainline science tells us atoms are 99.99>% empty space, and star systems too are almost entirely empty.


Negative concepts, such as empty space, are defined in terms of our expectations. We say "there is nothing" to mean "there is something but this something is not something we are expecting".

Most importantly, if something is empty that does not mean it is non-existent. A box that is empty is not non-existent. Rather, what is non-existent is what we're expecting to be there.

Scientists once thought atoms were indestructible, but it turns out you can tear them asunder into smaller things still.
There might be no limit to how small things can be, just as there might be no limit to how big the universe is, it may be limitless.


It could be but these matters are of no interest to me.
I got a philosophy degree, I'm not upset that I can't find work as a philosopher. It was my decision, and I knew that it wasn't a money making degree, so I get money elsewhere.
-- Mr. Reasonable
User avatar
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3656
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Previous

Return to The Sandbox



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users