/lit/ - Literature

You don’t

What do you mean, OP? explain for a brainlet

Now you understand

>>16973343
high dose hallucinogens to achieve ego death.

if you can see it and touch it, it's real. do not listen to virgins who say otherwise.
>but dude what if its a simulation
it's not. have sex

>>16973374
Ahh fuck I can’t touch my own thoughts or see the love of my family what’s going on?

>>16973384
>what are neurons

Realize you can make a one-sentence metaphysics that says “whatever the scientific consensus is” and move on with your life.

>>16973386
I can’t see or touch either of those. Wait I can’t see or touch you. Fuck. What do? Wait who am I asking? My computer screen?

>>16973398
lots of "I" here. study more metaphysics

The human mind is not made for the higher mysteries.

>>16973358
I've read so much shit about what the mind, the self and the world are, or are not, or might be, that I can't possibly regard my family as real people, I just think of them as bundles of perceptions, drives, etc., with maybe cognition that are in no way the people I used to love, and the world as a fundamentally meaningless quagmire of senseless pain and permanent dissatisfaction. I guess I could just embrace Buddhism but I just can't buy it, it seems essentially correct in its ontology but its conclusions seem like copouts, specially if there's no rebirth, something I reaaaally can't get behind.

>>16973407
Lol you have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about.
>if you can see it and touch it it’s real
>what are neurons
>lots of “l” here, study more metaphysics
Topkek

>>16973343
you dont, take a blackpill bro

>>16973424
You're being pwned by multiple different people.

>>16973374
Horrible fucking logic. The only reason you can “touch” things is because you are capable of being aware of anything in the first place. Being aware comes before all other knowledge.

>>16973553
Rocks touch each other and they dont know shit.

>>16973553
im aware right now.
aware of your homosexuality

>>16973553
Yeah, touching requires a double articulation, a reversibility. That guys retarded.

>>16973374
based brainlet

>>16973597
its reversible by when you stop touching the thing

>>16973608
Nah reversibility here is how in order to be able to touch you must be able to be touched.
>t. Merleau Ponty, the Visible and Invisible

>>16973643
yeah when you touch something it also touches you, whats the issue

>>16973688

>>16973715
if you cant explain something or handle basic objections then do u really understand it? are we doing philosophy here or are we just supposed to agree with each other and say yes it is so. i rather know nothing than speak of thing what i do not know.

>>16973343
By studying computability in logic. You can find out how to make your metaphysics account for truth and false and how to interpret that which it finds.

none of this thread is even metaphysics, it's epistemology--a hurdle to metaphysics. Probably what you should do is read Kant or alternatively hang out with a friend/talk to family.

>rock touch grug
truly ground breaking philosophy

>>16973575
The knowledge of rocks touching each other requires some sort of sentient observer.

>>16973374
You can never touch or see the thing-in-itself

>>16973729
It’s not a basic objection, the question you’re asking shows you have a fundamental non-understanding of the ontology that’s presented here.
>>16973742
Can’t have touch without having being

>>16973742
yes, but the touching doesnt

>>16973739
>rightfully calls epistemology a hurdle to metaphysics
>says Idealism is a good start for metaphysics

>>16973752
Maybe he meant Kant is a good start to epistemology as it seems to be the hurdle they're trying to overcome?

>>16973747
this is all empty wind, you've given up trying to make points and are now making ad hominems, it's all over for you
>>16973746
how do you know that? there is a thing in itself called your body that seems to be blundering into things all the time.

>>16973749
“Touching” is an abstraction that is made up after the fact that one can experience and be aware of touch.

>>16973765
The thing-in-itself isn’t just about sight. If I am feeling my body then I am phenomenally observing it the same way I would if I was looking down at it

>>16973773
no, touching is quite concrete. youre using the word "touching" to mean "knowledge of touching," but obviously the touch in itself is not the knowledge of it. a tree falling in the forest w/ no one to hear it, that's the classic koan for you.

>>16973765
Holy fuck you’re dumb.
>muh ad hominems
If you can’t understand an ontological basis for perception and how saying
>what’s the issue
Is a non question I don’t know what to tell you
>how do you know that
Gee I dunno, maybe cause he and I have read books?
>thinking you have access to anything other than representation
ISHYGDDT
>>16973773
Yes! The necessity of reflection is inherent to it.

>>16973795
man, socrates asks you a couple questions and you're having a meltdown. this is all about ego for you, anyone can see it.
>>16973783
you feel like you're a separate thing than your body dontcha. what gave you this notion

>>16973790
Anon, the entire concept of touching is an abstraction that requires a subject to feel touch. Sure, rocks can “touch” each other but that’s just us projecting our own subjective qualities onto objects that cannot experience anything subjectively at all.

All concepts of the world require some subjective feeling from which they arise from. If I am not looking at a tree, or even thinking about a tree, it doesn’t exist, it is void. If I want to prove it’s existence, I have to at least think about it, which in that instance it is under observation again.

>>16973806
>and you're having a meltdown
Yeah man me calling you dumb is a meltdown. Great non-point about your inability to engage.
>>16973823
Based

>>16973806
The body isn’t separate from me because it, along with the rest of the world, is in my mind.

I look at a rock. I am aware of the rock, am I the rock? No. I look at my hand, am I my hand? No. I observe the thoughts and feelings in my mind, am I the mind? Following the logic from the previous examples, no, I am the observer of the mind, then the body, then the rock.

>>16973643
Based Ponty-Chad. Him and Camus are the only worthwhile writers to come out of the existentialist movement.