/lit/ - Literature

>>19195273
>Your best answer is to be skeptical of skepticism. That ought to terrify you.
I have no reason to be skeptical about the self-evident existence of my own consciousness.

>>19195343
>no, because awarness need a subject to be aware of objects, awarness can only with ausbject, and any subject capable of awarness has a finite life
Awareness is intrinsically free in itself from the distinction of subject and object, and these distinctions are superimposed upon the undifferentiated reflexive unity of awareness by the mind, and awareness remains free of subject and object at the exact same moment the mind is superimposing this distinction on top of this undifferentiated foundational awareness, cloaking its nature from the undiscriminating. Awareness remains what its nature is (aware) independent of the mind assigning the role of subject to it, awareness doesn’t rely upon subject-object distinctions for awareness to always be present as awareness. In any case that claim which you made does not give an example of awareness being not present, so that didn’t actually refute the claim that awareness is present in all moments, in order to refute this you would have to cite a demonstrable instance where it’s not present but you failed to do so (and its impossible to do so)
>no, because awarness does not reveals itself
That’s wrong, awareness does reveal itself, and we know this because if awareness wasn’t revealed to itself, then in order for us to be aware of an instance of having awareness we would have to have this fact be revealed to or known by another awareness-instance; but since that awareness-instant is also not self-aware/self-revealing, it would not lead to the experience of being aware until revealed to another 3rd awareness instance, and this leads to an infinite regress that makes it impossible to have knowledge of anything; because there is never a final limit that allows the experience of being aware to take place.
>awareness needs objects to be aware of,
No, because awareness isn’t the subject and so it doesn’t depend upon the object (that which is opposed to the subject)
>awareness can't be self aware
It can be, your claim is refuted by the infinite regress that your position leads to
>you canonly make a compound of singular moemnts of awarness
They can’t be shown to be singular moments when the transition between them is seamless, you are looking at an unbroken continuum and mistakingly thinking that gaps in the things overlaid over it amount to gaps in the continuum itself; like thinking that space has gaps because physical objects do when space is actually seamless
>awarness by definition is an action upon an object not an object itself
Wrong, you need more ESL classes, Merriam-Webster states that awareness is a quality or state of being, and it also lists the root word of “aware” as an adjective and not a verb (action). In any case language is an approximation of reality, reality isn’t based on language.