[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 29 KB, 640x360, E71F2EC5-A762-42C4-9AF1-CA6B95FE9C3E.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15040397 No.15040397[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

>*hits bong*
>*doubts everything*
>shit bro I’m freaking out what if I’m controlled by demons?
>*pops a xan*
>*hits blunt*
>DUUUDE
>cogito...ergo...sum

>> No.15040412

What was the thought process that lead you to make this post?

>> No.15040418

>>15040397
Should have been burnt at the stake.

>> No.15040430

>>15040397
kek

>> No.15040451

>>15040397
And it's still the truest thing ever said in this world.
After holy scripture of course

>> No.15040486

>>15040451
It’s not even true. There are so many things wrong with it I don’t even know which one to use.

How about the fact that being aware of thoughts doesn’t prove the existence of an “I”. The most you can say is “there are thoughts”; you can’t suppose the existence of a self.

>> No.15040813

>>15040486
ok, im really high rn, but i thnk youre wrong. the point with the statement is that "there is thought"/"there is sensation" is a proof for the existence of an i to think/sense. if i didn't exist to sense something, there would be no way for me to know of sensation, or thought, or so on. if you understand what im saying? sorry if unclear

>> No.15040838

>>15040486
what is this some shit tier buddhism?

>> No.15040859

>>15040486
Sound's like you just read Language, Truth and Logic

>> No.15040883

>>15040486
NPCs don't think, therefore they don't have a self. He was right.

>> No.15041115

>>15040813
You are just following grammar rules there since those words in our language need a subject in the phrase to make sense of it, while there are other ancient languages where things arent that simple.

To make it more clear for you lets put it in english: "I think therefore i am"
What are you trying to prove: That you exist
What is the frist thing you assert at the start: I think
So you already start this argument proving that you exist by already presupposing that you exist and that these thoughts come from you. There are many philosophers who are idealists that give to the idea that all there is are chained thoughts stringed together. But i really havent bothered to look into what they say.

>> No.15041181

>>15040397
Hey Jamie, pull up the cartesian plane.

>> No.15041431

>>15040486
What is this, inverse antiSocratics? The thought itself is the substantiation of the self. You could even boil it down to a one-liner like Descartes did. It's what the controversy comes from when the social debate is pressed as to whether a paraplegic should be unplugged or not, you can't just write that off like a Stirnerian spook because you are engaging in overt solipsism and I, I have pointed that out explicitly!

>> No.15041454

I tried employing his doubt technique and the conclusion to whichst I came was that the only thing that exists is god and I am his imaginary friend

>> No.15041455

>>15040397
>doubts everything
>doesn't doubt language
he wasn't even close

>> No.15041497

>>15040486
I had the same realization when I tried out LSD lmao

Why read when you can just use drugs

>> No.15041498

>>15041115
>come from you
Thoughts aren't goods you receive or give, they're a process experienced by an entity.

>> No.15041524
File: 16 KB, 578x433, 3C9FC6A2-A249-45D3-8647-33C1F2712E5B.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15041524

>>15041455
>phonetics aren’t Transcendent

>> No.15041554

>>15040486
>there are thoughts
>there are
What is Being? What exactly does it mean for there to be thoughts? Can they just be? Don’t they have to be somewhere? How do you know they actually are? What gives you this conviction? If there are multiple thoughts fo they occur all at once or in a subsequent order? How does this order work? How can you recognize it? Is this order something separate from the thoughts or does it belong to them?

Once you actually think it through. The “I” becomes a necessity for Thought.

>> No.15041580

>>15041554
“I” is featureless and undefinable. Where people get it wrong is they think all Buddhists were saying there is no self. This is actually an obfuscation based on poor translations and poor understanding of their thought. What they were really saying is something closer to “self is void.” It’s there (we can immediately perceive this without having to argue about it), but it’s featureless. It’s not just your physical body, emotions, or rational mind. It permeates them but is also like an emptiness which allows them to exist.

>> No.15041582

>>15040412
The lack of a thought process would be my guess. More shitposting.

>> No.15041588

>>15041580
Meant to reply to >>15040486 **

>> No.15041611

>>15041580
>I” is featureless and undefinable.
Not if I call it the Synthetic Unity of Apperception. Just because it’s abstract doesn’t make it undefinable. The I is a relation. Relations exist. A co-evolution between a insect and a flower is not something that exist like an object, but is something that can be concretely discerned from the morphology of both.

>> No.15041614

Do solipsists have a system for transitive logic where a false dychotomy is implied where one doesn't exist through the erroneous use of a negative detractor article which grammatically carries over into a converse implicit double-use of the negative detractor article, which would in actuality require even more elaboration than a posit to be substantiated? What could the application of this be, other than to muddle and disinform - could it provide an implied analytic advantage beyond that of confusing, the way that the opposite posit of convalescent vindication would work, i.e. sodomists are sinners until they're homosexuals but then everyone's alright, or That deer could have seriously injured that shooter if it'd wanted to, what a selfless guy, that double-or-nothing absolvement clause the solipsists have gambled on?

>> No.15041632

>>15041611
OK. Then who is defining the “self” as if it were some objective observer of the “self” and standing outside the “self”? You see the problem now? You can define relations, processes, objects, etc., but you can’t define yourself, because you yourself are the source behind all definitions. A hand can’t grasp itself and a flashlight can’t turn a light on itself. Anything you define is, by definition, merely a concept, itself a definition. It’s not the actual “self.”

>> No.15041735

>>15041632

Not that guy, but the only one who can have this experience with the text of also being the self is one's-self, so in a way this was a groundbreaking use of the novel-bound text format for the application of stream-of-conscious, really the perfect medium for stream, something less present in earlier novels which are more or less an invention from that period.

When weighed on its merit of innovation and not necessarily its philosophic density it still holds up, OP just needs to project into something

>> No.15041785

>>15041632
>but you can’t define yourself, because you yourself are the source behind all definitions.
This doesn’t follow. Why can’t I define myself if im behind all the definitions? If I observe that in order for X to happen, Y must happen, I have the capacity for logic, a logic I didn’t invent, but that I possess. I can see that Thought is, and then I have to ask where thought is and how it can be. “I” am the logical result of this thought process. I didn’t invent the logic, why would I? How could I? I can’t make ‘what is’ into something else. If somebody hits me, I didn’t choose to be hurt. The same way I can’t make myself conceived a triangle without three sides. My capacity for thought is limited which means it’s not up to me. There are limits to what I can think, I follow a logic and an order. The same way other things do. Right now, we’re trying to covince each other of different positions. How could this be if we defined everything arbitrarily? Conviction would be impossible. “I” exist not because I made it exist, but because through tbe study of Thought, the “I” appears, by logic. There can be no thinking with the thinker. Even if you believe in some collective or spritual thinker (like God), that is just another “I”.

>> No.15041864

>>15040486
this, but without the equally gigantic assumption of the existance of thoughts.

the most you can say, using logic (wich in itself creates problems once you realize there is no external reasons that suggest logic leads to TRUE REAL reality) and without using any axioms or assumptions... is nothing. not even this statement really.

so if any system of thought is to be developed, we have to put back in the things we aren't sure of. and at that point, you might as well be going with your gut.

>> No.15041990

>>15041864
>once you realize there is no external reasons that suggest logic leads to TRUE REAL reality
What is TRUE REAL reality?