Imagination exists, Saully. Imagination is a result of your existence. Your mind houses it. Your mind exists.
A case of bad interpunction. “Nothing is a word in a sentence” means there is no such thing as a word in a sentence; ““Nothing” is a word in a sentence” means the word “nothing” is a word in a sentence.
But how do you know?
Couldn’t it just be your imagination?
If you understand the concept because of the statement, you would need the statement to make the assertion. If this were the case, it would be nonsensical to say that the truth of the statement existed without there being the statement.
The alternative is to claim that the truth is not meant in language, but then you’d hit another one; this statement itself might not be meant and indeed the truth is meant in language.
So you are left with an assertion in a written statement that should be a contradiction, …unless you are a dualist or french deconstructuralist, who not only has proven that talking is nonsesne…but insists on talking the most.
This hasn’t to do with my use of punctuation, does it? My grammar hasn’t to do with the idea I am expressing, does it? You are avoiding these ideas, aren’t you?
That’s what you keep saying. I, however, argue that imagination (or “experience”) is a result of an existence - not necessarily mine. The idea of an “I” may be part of that hallucination. By the way, “mind” is simply a word for the total hallucination, the sum of all impressions. It is not that “I” exist, that “I” “have” a mind, and that “my” mind “houses” “my” imagination; conversely, there is imagination (or experience, or however you wish to call it) and this presupposes, not a mind, not one who “has” a mind, but only an existence, a “being”…
But “[e]ven when I speak completely generally of imagination, like here, do I make a persisting thing out of it.” [Nietzsche, Nachlass.]
Yes, we’ve been over this in another thread.
You have to first exist to house these thoughts which are representing your words into being. These words are not first existent to house you and represent you into being. You did not have these thoughts untill you existed. You created these thoughts, they did not create you.
The world exists, Saully. Whether you want to admit it or not, the world exists. You exist. You create your thoughts. They then exist. Not the other way around.
Language can never contain the truth, or the facts, or (rather) phenomena; it can only describe it/them. Phenomena do not need to be described in order to exist, i.e., to be percieved (or even more generally: there is no need for description for impressions to exist).
Exactly. So, in the same context, why are you saying that words are necessary for existence?
It is paramount to be clear in discussing things like these.
“Nothing” is a word. This word designates an absence of something (relative nothing) or of everything (absolute nothing). The former exists, the latter does not exist.
“I said nothing” means I expressed myself as follows (single line):
Sauwelios:
“I said “nothing”” means I expressed myself as follows (single line):
Sauwelios: “Nothing.”
If you will tell me where I said that, I might be able to answer you.
Imagination=word=creator=So, in the same context, why are you saying that words are necessary for existence?
Imagination comes from your brain; your brain doesn’t come from your imagination.
That’s not one of his better moments. If you refuse to believe that the process of “imagination” does not at least start at executive function of/in the nervous system, even if in consciousness we “experience ourselves in words and thoughts,” then you are denying the foundation for your ability to experience anything at all.
This is really an “ego” argument which was examined nicely by the phenomenologists. This is a question of viewpoint and not what is seen.
You cannot deny both what is seen and the seer, which Nietzsche does. I think he was just toying with us, anyway. The deed of the act is what is the event and the subjects are the problem, viewpoint, what is seen, and most of all “seeing that one is seeing.” Transcending transcendence, the pre-reflective cogito. Descartes establish one truth; that experience is happening. But he failed to describe appropriately the dichtomous subjects which compose that reality which is experienced.
The Sartrean point is that there is no ego. He proposes that the only signification of experience is the awareness of being conscious and not just spontaneous consciousness, which is the nature of Descartes cogito. The object of his formula is developed in the contemplation of it and his doubt is no longer spontaneous, it is methodological. This development of viewpoint is not an ontological object, is not a “being,” but a negation of something which already exists in order to proceed through contemplation. A directly real object, the postualte of “ego” is in this case Descartes developed object. Similiar to your case, Sal. The possible “imagined object” you propose cannot be imagined reductio ad absurdum, however the subject of consciousness changes context and is always real.
And that’s not even the problem. The bigger problem is the age old question asked to Brentano- do you lose a part of your “intentional consciousness” when a limb is removed? If not, at which point would I get to the crucial organ that would end the self, if indeed the body is the substantial “ego.”?
A question about the “place” where consciousness becomes greater than the synaptic whole, the quantifiable combinations of binary functions. Firing neurons.
For failure to get to the “ghost in the machine,” I think the Sartrean Being-for-itself is about the best I’ve heard so far in attempts at a proper dichotomy.
Pardon? Has something gone wrong? That is the same question you just asked me, only this time preceded by several words with “=”-signs between them…
I have not ever even seen my brain. But if I could consciously experience an operation on my own brain, and see the latter by mirrors, for instance, how would I know if it weren’t a part of my imagination?
You said imagination. Imagination is a figment of thought. Words are thoughts. “=” signs mean equal if you were unaware.
“If” you could, but you couldn’t because you’re not imagined. You literally have a brain that sparks your imagination. Without a brain you could not imagine.
Why am I being ignored?
Why in the nervous system? I agree that it must start somewhere; but the nervous system may be a content of the imagination.
Why not? Why can’t they both be purely imaginary?
This is not really a clear section, détrop - must not be one of your better moments.
Ok, interesting.
You’re not by me. I completely agree with you so I have nothing to say. Lol.
Yes well mine aren’t on purpose, whereas Nietzsche is a suspect.
On Little Professors with Large Moustaches– One’s size is the origins of one’s manner of winning. Smaller men develop intellectually better, have more cunning and rhetorical authority. Exchanging work for talk. That makes Fritz a better writer than detrop; detrop doesn’t make sense naturally, Fritz has the ability to decide to write badly.
You are an imaginer, not the imagined. Why won’t you accept that?
Imagination is thought - it is another word for “thought”, “ich stelle vor” (“I imagine/put forward”) being Nietzsche’s translation of cogito (and a good one at that).
Words may be thoughts, but thoughts are not Thought. Thoughts are the contents of thought, not the thinking process itself.
Methinks that is a belief on your part and not knowledge.