Absolute certainty

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

TickTockMan
 
Reply Thu 23 Oct, 2008 09:43 am
@paulhanke,
paulhanke;28954 wrote:
so it must be a metaphysical omniscience ... we can give this metaphysical omniscience a name: the Insane God of the Sea of Quarks.


Or it could be simplified and called I.

Maybe not. I guess we're all as real as anything else.
 
BrightNoon
 
Reply Thu 23 Oct, 2008 06:37 pm
@Stormalv,
the Insane God of the Sea of Quarks

That's great! However, while I understand your idea about pespective, which is rather simple, I don't see what it has to do with doubt about one's own existance, which Descartes tried to remove with his formula. I feel that there is some sort of relation, but I can't put my finger on it. Do you mean that an individual, because he cannot get above his own perspective, cannot see that he himself exists? This is analagous to a movie-camera, from whose perspetive it is impossible to determine whether or not the movie-camera itself exists. If that is your point, I agree.
 
paulhanke
 
Reply Thu 23 Oct, 2008 07:16 pm
@BrightNoon,
BrightNoon wrote:
Do you mean that an individual, because he cannot get above his own perspective, cannot see that he himself exists?


... that's taking my thought in the direction of supra-human experience, which is a very enticing direction I must say Smile ... but in this case I was using that thought in response to the Nietzsche quote in the sense that during moments when you viscerally experience your own reality and wish to consider that sense of yourself, it is remarkably easy (but awfully misleading) to drop down to a level of description where *poof!* - you're gone! ...
 
Stormalv
 
Reply Fri 24 Oct, 2008 04:40 am
@paulhanke,
Even though if it's true that you are something other who merely focuses on the mind telling itself that it exists, the conclusion isn't wrong in my opinion, you (the consciousness) still exists, even though it's an observer. It's just that "I" means something greater than the person necessarily understand. Smile
 
BrightNoon
 
Reply Fri 24 Oct, 2008 10:36 am
@Stormalv,
That's the whole point Stormalv. Everyone believes practically in the ego; it has apparent reality. The question is whether or not it has absolute, a priori reality. That is what Descartes tried to prove, and failed.
 
TickTockMan
 
Reply Fri 24 Oct, 2008 11:18 am
@BrightNoon,
BrightNoon;29190 wrote:
That's the whole point Stormalv. Everyone believes practically in the ego; it has apparent reality. The question is whether or not it has absolute, a priori reality. That is what Descartes tried to prove, and failed.


. . . and, once again, back to Taoist Buddhist/Zen Buddhist philosophy, there is no such thing as "absolute."

Or, as Parmenides noted, "You can't step in the same river twice."
 
paulhanke
 
Reply Fri 24 Oct, 2008 08:33 pm
@TickTockMan,
... without a doubt Wink
 
Anthrobus
 
Reply Sat 25 Oct, 2008 12:54 pm
@nameless,
Then you are certain about doubting. Will you then doubt that you're doubting ? Solipsism is strange...this of course was SCHOPHENHAUERS demolition job on DESCARTE...DESCARTE doubted that he existed and confirmed the doubter as the existent...SCHOPHENHAUER asked : ' did he doubt that he doubted? '. At that stage the doubter is undermined and forever. There can never be the whole of his doubt and there can never be the part of his doubt...just an infinite succession of doubts...
 
Anthrobus
 
Reply Sun 26 Oct, 2008 03:39 pm
@Stormalv,
It was HERACLITUS who spoke of the river, and he said ' YOU CAN AND CANNOT STEP IN THE SAME RIVER TWICE '...
 
TickTockMan
 
Reply Sun 26 Oct, 2008 04:29 pm
@Anthrobus,
Anthrobus;29546 wrote:
It was HERACLITUS who spoke of the river, and he said ' YOU CAN AND CANNOT STEP IN THE SAME RIVER TWICE '...


You are correct. The two had opposing viewpoints, and I managed to cross them over. My apologies.
 
Anthrobus
 
Reply Sun 26 Oct, 2008 05:45 pm
@Stormalv,
No need to apologise as mistakes are easily made...no I just wondered exactly what HERACLITUS meant...can and cannot...
 
BrightNoon
 
Reply Sun 26 Oct, 2008 11:59 pm
@TickTockMan,
TickTockMan wrote:
. . . and, once again, back to Taoist Buddhist/Zen Buddhist philosophy, there is no such thing as "absolute."

Or, as Parmenides noted, "You can't step in the same river twice."


Exactly my point. (are you agreeming with or refuting me?) There is no absolute truth, no absolute perspective, as Descartes wanted to find.
 
Khethil
 
Reply Mon 27 Oct, 2008 06:36 am
@BrightNoon,
One question and a clarification if I may...

BrightNoon wrote:
Exactly my point. (are you agreeming with or refuting me?) There is no absolute truth, no absolute perspective, as Descartes wanted to find.


Question: Because we can't know absolute truth is not to say "there is no" absolute truth. Indeed, by the very statement "there is no absolute truth" one also directly infers that there is no absolute truth about the nature or existence of absolute truth. It may or may not exist. This may sound like a petty differentiation, but I think it important for one to keep, what you've well stated, in perspective. Yay? Nay?

Clarification(?): And yea, I'd agree that he didn't find this, but I somehow took his works on the issue somewhat differently; akin to the "is there anything I can know for sure"? And in this light, the "I am this thinking thing", I took it to be quite successful, albeit not much to go on.

Thanks
 
TickTockMan
 
Reply Mon 27 Oct, 2008 09:57 am
@BrightNoon,
BrightNoon;29618 wrote:
Exactly my point. (are you agreeming with or refuting me?) There is no absolute truth, no absolute perspective, as Descartes wanted to find.


I'm agreeing. Everything is in a constant state of flux. It is preposterous to say "this is who I am, I will never change."
 
TickTockMan
 
Reply Mon 27 Oct, 2008 10:06 am
@Anthrobus,
Anthrobus;29556 wrote:
No need to apologise as mistakes are easily made...no I just wondered exactly what HERACLITUS meant...can and cannot...


You must be looking at a different translation than I am. I've looked about and can't seem to find any reference of this quote where it includes "can and cannot" in what he said. Every version I've found is simply "cannot."

Although even if he did, the intrinsic meaning of what he was analogizing remains the same. The inclusion of "can" would at best just add a layer of semantic obscurity to the quote. Or "muddy the waters," as it were.
 
Anthrobus
 
Reply Mon 27 Oct, 2008 10:57 am
@Stormalv,
Heraclitus was known as the RIDDLER : in [HOMERIC QUESTIONS 24.3-5] he explicitly states ' We step and do not step into the same rivers, we are and we are not '. Plutarch seems to think in [On the E at DELPHI 392b] that he means that things scatter and re-assemble at once, and without our peceiving...
 
MJA
 
Reply Mon 27 Oct, 2008 11:09 am
@Anthrobus,
Anthrobus wrote:
It was HERACLITUS who spoke of the river, and he said ' YOU CAN AND CANNOT STEP IN THE SAME RIVER TWICE '...


I can and I have stepped into the same river many more times than twice.
Sometimes twice in One day.
And that is absolutely and most certainly the truth!
The river is a great place to see the truth, I found it there myself.
I suggest if you don't know the truth, or are searching for the truth,
to go to the river and see for yourself.
The answers to everything can be found there too.
I should warn you though that It will take an open mind, One that is truly free.

=
MJA
 
TickTockMan
 
Reply Mon 27 Oct, 2008 11:36 am
@MJA,
MJA;29670 wrote:
I can and I have stepped into the same river many more times than twice.
Sometimes twice in One day.
And that is absolutely and most certainly the truth!
The river is a great place to see the truth, I found it there myself.
I suggest if you don't know the truth, or are searching for the truth,
to go to the river and see for yourself.
The answers to everything can be found there too.
I should warn you though that It will take an open mind, One that is truly free.

=
MJA


Is this your quote?
 
TickTockMan
 
Reply Mon 27 Oct, 2008 11:39 am
@Anthrobus,
Anthrobus;29668 wrote:
Heraclitus was known as the RIDDLER : in [HOMERIC QUESTIONS 24.3-5] he explicitly states ' We step and do not step into the same rivers, we are and we are not '. Plutarch seems to think in [On the E at DELPHI 392b] that he means that things scatter and re-assemble at once, and without our peceiving...


I'll go along with Plutarch, I think. You are more well-read than I am. I only have little bits and pieces of what others have said and I assemble them into an incomplete whole.
 
paulhanke
 
Reply Mon 27 Oct, 2008 11:52 am
@Anthrobus,
Anthrobus wrote:
Heraclitus was known as the RIDDLER : in [HOMERIC QUESTIONS 24.3-5] he explicitly states ' We step and do not step into the same rivers, we are and we are not '. Plutarch seems to think in [On the E at DELPHI 392b] that he means that things scatter and re-assemble at once, and without our peceiving...


... looked at as process, the same river tirelessly etches a canyon into the bedrock; looked at as substance, the material that we perceive as the river now is not the same material that we perceived as the river a minute ago ... looked at as process, there is the continuity of a self-aware "I" from birth to death; looked at as substance, no molecule remains from when I was born ... an atom is process - spinning electrons whirling chaotically around a decaying nuclear core; an atom is substance - the ultra-stable building block of chemistry ... everything is at once the same (process) and not the same (substance) ...
 
 

 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 08/03/2020 at 11:25:26