[ 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: 6 KB, 306x164, 1612234215206.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17460025 No.17460025 [Reply] [Original]

>be you
>be a contemporary skeptic
>have never once (1ce) thought about individual ontology, begin at "...I am."
>presume that the metaphysical is more nonsensical than the physical
Many such cases. Sad.

>> No.17460052

>wake up
>think about what is the first thing I gained knowledge of when I woke up
>I heard an alarm, I felt my bed, etc
>realize that "I" had to be aware of my own self before either object
>self-consciousness is a prerequisite for all knowledge, and relates to an object at all times
>even sleep, which is the closest thing to nothingness we experience, is in a sense an object for a subject, because i am always confident and sure that "I" was the one who was asleep
woah...

>> No.17460066

Fucking dweebs

>> No.17460080

>>17460052
Is that really your summation of cogito ergo sum???lmfao

>> No.17460099

>>17460052
Isn't it mentioned that 'I' could be interpreted as a designation for where all thoughts/perception stand in relation to? In this case wouldn't 'I' also be an object for a subject (Objectification of an transcendental ideal)?

>> No.17460120

>>17460099
yes, but that would be purely analytic approach. also, speaking about one's self/consciousness is indeed already missing the essence of what it truly is, even the contents of your mind are objects, and thus, "not I"

>> No.17460150

>>17460052
You run afoul of OP's sole requirement right here, in your second line:
>think about what is the first thing I gained knowledge of when I woke up
You posit the existence of a unitary and existing I as an axiom at the very start, then act as if you have arrived at that position through reasoning. Did you really hear the sound of an alarm and feel your bed, or was there just sound which was heard and registered by a body, which then also registered the existence of a bed because of the nerves on its skin? How come there is an I? What is the I, is it a subject or an object? Does the I think and register things, or do those things simply impart themselves in the I? Is the I a thing? A process?

>> No.17460233

>>17460150
Bruh

>> No.17460319

>>17460233
Read Neetzsche.

>> No.17460344
File: 51 KB, 1080x578, 8D3629C7-8B52-42CE-9FDE-750F9BCCD5E8.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17460344

>>17460025
Better

>> No.17460432

>>17460150
Would it be possible to sound was being heard without positing that I perceive that sound was being heard? Seems like this may be possible through first hand experience of ego dissolution but then the tenability of subjective experience also comes into question - how could this translate to rigid reasoning?

>> No.17460448

>>17460319
I already did anon
Zarathustra, genealogy and bg&e

>> No.17460465

>>17460099
zero summing ego dissolver

HELP HIM NOW!

>> No.17460479
File: 300 KB, 884x1024, The_Mumified_Munk.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17460479

>>17460025
>>17460052
Spooks

>> No.17460702

>>17460432
>Would it be possible to sound was being heard without positing that I perceive that sound was being heard?
The definition of what "I" means here is precisely the point of contention. It is undeniable that perception occurs, everything else however is up for debate.
>>17460448
Good.

>> No.17460788

>>17460702
I see, so a main point of exploration is to see what perception necessitates. What would be some counter arguments for the proposition that perception presumes the existence of something? Or is it permitted of us to say that if something is perceived, something must have existed in order to have perceived it?

>> No.17460815

>>17460788
This is getting extremely autistic because the verb "perception", especially in the context of human beings, presupposes a unitary, active, autonomous subject, or in other words an "I".

>> No.17460936

>>17460815
Lol so it appears to be a sort of circular reasoning? The premise that an I exists to conclude that perception is possible seems to already assume that perception is possible? Fuck I can't focus on studying for my midterm

>> No.17460940

>>17460052
>realize that "I" had to be aware of my own self before either object
no you didn't

>> No.17460965

>>17460936
Bro you're tripping me up.

>> No.17461022

>>17460965
My bad lol just send me to horny jail

>> No.17461030

>>17460150
>or was there just sound which was heard and registered by a body, which then also registered the existence of a bed because of the nerves on its skin? How come there is an I?
based retard. the objects you just described only come about after an “I” can experience the senses and make a correlation of the sense impressions to different location on his perceived body

>> No.17461089

>>17461022
Go to horny jail homie.
>>17461030
What is an "I" retard? You do realise that by your criteria, a Mimosa pudica has an "I", right?

>> No.17461093

>>17461089
The subject to which all objects are related to. I thought that would be clear enough.

>> No.17461158

>>17461093
Do you think plants have an appreciation for the concept of relating things?