The only true statement I can make: Philosophy Forums

Page: 1 2 3 4 5

The only true statement I can make

Gassendi1
banned

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Jul 10, 2003
Total Topics: 152
Total Posts: 11022

Posted 05/24/03 - 07:32 AM:	#41
Originally posted by olorin Oracle: The question I mean to ask is: what if there is a "deciet", but no "object to be decieved"? Or if the source of illusion is such that it can distort every act of consciousness, why could it not oust consciousness itself with a breed of illusion that thought it was something called 'consciousness'? ______________________________________ I guess the answer is that even the false (or deceptive) thought would have to be a species of consciousness.

olorin
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 13, 2003
Location: where now are the horse and rider?
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 109

Posted 05/24/03 - 04:59 PM:	#42
Aye Jon1667, but why does this illusory species of consciousness have more ontological support than the sensory illusions? That is to say: why is consciousness granted an order of existence that exempts it from the power that has made illusion of all of its objects? Or, if the trees and buildings I see out my window are an illusion, why can't my awareness of the process of looking at them be illusion as well? Further, my awareness that it is "I" who am performing that process...ultimately: any awareness at all or consciousness as such... A more general approach to this question deals directly with dualism. The question boils down: 'In dualism, why is consciousness granted a different order of existence than the objects it percieves?' If all that consciousness is aware of can be illusion, why not the awareness itself(consciousness)? It seems that dualism only posits that consciousness is exempt from the illusion because it percieves(i.e. because it is consciousness); insisting that all things perceived can be illusion while the perceiver itself cannot.

Unisonus
Registered Abuser

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 20, 2003
Location: New York, New York
Total Topics: 64
Total Posts: 1537

Posted 05/25/03 - 09:25 AM:	#43
Jon1667, The early Atomists theorized about the existence of Atoms simply from the observation that almost every whole is divisible- and as there is a limit to all things- there must be a substance which is not divisible, but which all things divisible consist of. This is a move from the observed to the unobserved. If you have seen light then you have seen electrons.
"...take care that your style and diction run musically, pleasantly, and plainly, with clear, proper, and well-placed words, setting forth your purpose to the best of your power, and putting your ideas intelligibly, without confusion or obscurity." - Miguel de Cervantes

Gassendi1
banned

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Jul 10, 2003
Total Topics: 152
Total Posts: 11022

Posted 05/26/03 - 09:31 AM:	#44
Originally posted by Unisonus Jon1667, The early Atomists theorized about the existence of Atoms simply from the observation that almost every whole is divisible- and as there is a limit to all things- there must be a substance which is not divisible, but which all things divisible consist of. This is a move from the observed to the unobserved. If you have seen light then you have seen electrons. _____________________________________ I agree that insofar as the early Atomists were trying explain what they did observe (a whole) in terms of what they did not observe, the parts, they were drawing an inference from the observed to the unobserved. And I agree that when you have seen light you have seen electrons. What you have not seen, however, is _that_ they are electrons; just as when you have seen water you have seen hydrogen and oxygen, but you have not seen (unless you are a chemist) _that_ there is hydrogen and oxygen.

firefairy
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 23, 2003
Location: London, U.K
Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 85

Posted 05/26/03 - 10:23 AM:	#45
There are two true statements. Love exists and Fear exists. Everything you do comes from either one or the other. Anything else (jealousy, anger, anxiety, joy, happiness) are offshoots of either Love or Fear: they are the biggies. Actually there is only one ultimate fact and that is Love is all there is because fear doesnt really exist anyway (its just False Evidence Appearing Real) and is something that was put in place for us to not be who we really are.

Gassendi1
banned

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Jul 10, 2003
Total Topics: 152
Total Posts: 11022

Posted 05/27/03 - 04:36 PM:	#46
Originally posted by firefairy There are two true statements. Love exists and Fear exists. Everything you do comes from either one or the other. Anything else (jealousy, anger, anxiety, joy, happiness) are offshoots of either Love or Fear: they are the biggies. Actually there is only one ultimate fact and that is Love is all there is because fear doesnt really exist anyway (its just False Evidence Appearing Real) and is something that was put in place for us to not be who we really are. ______________________________________ Not that I don't believe you, but I was wondering how you know all this.

truce_m3
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 04, 2003
Location: maryland
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 40

Posted 05/29/03 - 08:48 AM:	#47
where do love and fear exist? I'm going there.

hashpuppet
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 30, 2003
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 9

Posted 05/30/03 - 09:59 PM:	#48
If you mean only 1 reality then you are wrong because there is no such thing. Reality for each person is the sum of everything he knows and believes to exist.

Gassendi1
banned

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Jul 10, 2003
Total Topics: 152
Total Posts: 11022

Posted 05/31/03 - 06:56 AM:	#49
Originally posted by hashpuppet If you mean only 1 reality then you are wrong because there is no such thing. Reality for each person is the sum of everything he knows and believes to exist. ______________________________________ There is only 1 reality, but there are many different ways in which that can be viewed. Just as there may be only one table in the room, but many different perspectives from which to view that one table. But it is only confusing to identity the many perspectives with the table and conclude there are many tables.

steveb
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 24, 2003
Location: vancouver bc canada
Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 330

Posted 05/31/03 - 04:11 PM:	#50
It just is, the only thing not it is you, it's still more you, than you are you, so be wise and get small. That statement runs logic. The topic statement also runs logic. A true statement will run your thinking like a tunnel vision madman. That statement that says "this is true" has the answer to every question, yes even using a fork instead of a spoon.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5

You don't have permission to post.