The Philosophy Forum

  • Forum
  • Members
  • HELP

  • Existence is relative, not absolute.
    @Merkwurdichliebe You could've just said actual existence is conceived existence, and just add a 'not' before each term for the opposite.

    So and so.
  • What is the difference between God and Canada?
    ↪Metaphysician Undercover
    Alright. But how would you constitute a country without its countrymen, its countrymen being foremost - inhabitants of the country?
  • What is the difference between God and Canada?
    I wouldn't say "Canada comprises" real estate, because real estate is owned. — Metaphysician Undercover
    Isn't Canada owned by its inhabitants? :chin:
  • Existence is relative, not absolute.
    I don't understand, please explain. — Merkwurdichliebe
    It doesn't include the term "actually". — Merkwurdichliebe
    :sparkle:
  • Happy videos
  • Existence is relative, not absolute.
    ↪Merkwurdichliebe
    Why? He's not wrong.
  • Existence is relative, not absolute.
    ↪Merkwurdichliebe
    You're referencing it. So it does, somewhere; maybe not here.
  • What is the Best Refutation of Solipsism? (If Any)
    It is impossible to refute that I’m the product of a God made entirely of strawberry blancmange and chocolate drops. — I like sushi
    You're not entirely made of strawberry blancmange and chocolate drops, so you're not their product. :clap:
  • Do you ever think that there is no real way to escape the cage we have created for ourselves?
    ↪Fooloso4
    Rorschach was a great villain. :smile:
  • What is the Best Refutation of Solipsism? (If Any)
    the world and self are the same for the solipsist. — Wallows
    Then how does he dream?
  • What is the Best Refutation of Solipsism? (If Any)
    That immediate part that you mention is all that matters to the solipsist, partly because he does not know how to move beyond that part with any confidence. — Merkwurdichliebe
    It's as easy as looking in to a mirror. — Shamshir
  • What is the Best Refutation of Solipsism? (If Any)
    But don't discount the importance of your own immediacy just because the solipsist takes it overboard. — Merkwurdichliebe
    I would never discount the immediate part of my own partly-immediate cohesion; partly because I don't know how.
  • What is the Best Refutation of Solipsism? (If Any)
    ↪Merkwurdichliebe
    The issue I'm proposing is that the solipsist should be incapable of immediacy and following from that - experience. As a whole, the solipsist is incapable.

    Which would entertain the idea, as to the personifications of the Godhead - which are necessary for the Godhead to experience and be immediate and do anything.
  • What is the Best Refutation of Solipsism? (If Any)
    ↪Merkwurdichliebe
    Humor this.

    If
    The certainty of immediacy is independent of the configuration of the cards, and even of the recognition of cards. — Merkwurdichliebe
    And
    the configuration and recognition of cards is independent of its immediate certainty — Shamshir

    Then the solipsist, exists independently of immediacy, and is not necessarily immediate.
    By that, here's a wild notion - the moment you are immediate, you are not solipsistic.
    Limiting the solipsist to immediacy, expels him from, for lack of a better word, the yet.
  • What is the Best Refutation of Solipsism? (If Any)
    The certainty of immediacy is independent of the configuration of the cards, and even of the recognition of cards. — Merkwurdichliebe
    But that would mean the configuration and recognition of cards is independent of its immediate certainty; is it?

    As soon as the solipsist projects beyond his immediacy, he is no longer solipsist. — Merkwurdichliebe
    I'd actually stop at 'As soon as the solipsist projects'.
    What is he projecting?
  • What is the Best Refutation of Solipsism? (If Any)
    The first mode of doubting is a nuanced certainty -
    dependent on the epistemic status of my doubting. The second mode is a certain certainty - it is existentially bound to my immediacy, and independent of epistemic concerns.
    — Merkwurdichliebe
    Aren't they both certain and nuanced?
    Both are immediate and both are dependent.

    Whichever you remove, you would be removing the whole thing; no?
    Leaning-Cards-Valentines-2019-Blog-Photo-300x225.jpg
  • What is the Best Refutation of Solipsism? (If Any)
    ↪Merkwurdichliebe
    Well, regardless if you're a solipsist or not, when doubting - you are certain of your doubt. So at all times of doubt, you implore and explore certainty and its possibilities.

    As you said...
    But then he is only doubting, which again he cannot doubt. — Merkwurdichliebe
    If that follows - it follows that regardless if you're a solipsist or not, your doubt is just nuanced certainty.
  • What is the difference between God and Canada?
    ↪I like sushi
    UquK8QP.png

    Here you go Chungus. Pictures!
  • What is the Best Refutation of Solipsism? (If Any)
    ↪Merkwurdichliebe
    Fair enough. But going with that, doubt is impossible, regardless if you're a solipsist or not.
  • What is the difference between God and Canada?
    God is the circle of the outer perimeter, Canada is the circle of the inner perimeter and the wedge between both perimeters is the observer.

    Clearly there is something, something like a circle, and that something, like a circle, has many angles - and one just happens to be called Canada.
  • What is the Best Refutation of Solipsism? (If Any)
    But can he doubt his doubting? — Merkwurdichliebe
    If he can doubt, he can doubt his doubt.
    And if he can doubt his doubt, he is intrinsically doing so.
  • How does one answer Schopenhauer’s critique of the cosmological argument ? 

    Don't people actually know things outside finite existence ?

    Like the concept of infinity, infinite numbers that cannot be even or odd ?
    — Jonathan McCormack
    Are those things outside?
    What if they're inside, would that change anything?

    Divide an orange infinitely, and tell me your conclusion.

    So couldn't the question of the correspondence between the perception and the perceived be answered by ascribing that correspondence to a supereminent unity in which the poles of experience, the phenomena and perception, participate in ?

    The unity itself cannot be grasped according to the discrete properties of finite existence, and so is transcendent perception....
    — Jonathan McCormack
    What is transcendent about it?
    Maybe it's grasping exactly what you say cannot be grasped?
  • What is the Best Refutation of Solipsism? (If Any)
    ↪Wallows
    That's not true. A solipsist can always doubt his free will. :gasp:
  • What is the Best Refutation of Solipsism? (If Any)
    ↪rickyk95
    It's as easy as looking in to a mirror.
  • Confusion on religions
    ↪Frank Apisa
    Aren't you the curious one? You know what they say about curiosity, though, don't you? It killed the intrepid adventurer who really should just be doing exactly what I say at all times.
  • Confusion on religions
    ↪Frank Apisa
    The details aren't important. At least not right now. Eternity is on a rather tight deadline. We'll get back to that later.
  • On being "strong"
    To the point. I basically get easily offended. If someone critizices my way of doing simple things I just explode inside. — Alan
    Try using that explosive energy on coconuts, you'll be benefiting in no time.

    I started to believe strength was what people who have been through shit develop because they know what hard situations actually are and so they no longer care about trivialities such as being criticized or insulted; someone close to them died, maybe in a horrible way; they suffered a hard infancy, could be accompanied with lack of attention or even violence; some of them even witnessed closely a natural disaster etc. — Alan
    Anyone can lift the boulder up, throwing it away is the hard part; mainly because you think you have to throw it far away, but you can just drop it besides you and walk on by.

    A friend pushed me under an incoming jeep once and then the driver instead of going back, went forward. My friend is still my friend, and I wish that driver all the best. It's all good.
    Fresh water keeps going, swamp water keeps still.

    This whole no pain no gain mindset for non body building situations has to be put to rest, in my opinion. What do you guys think? — Alan
    If you focus on pain, pain you will gain - just keep going, come snow or rain.
    Growing is going, going is flowing, and flowing is knowing.
  • Confusion on religions
    ↪Frank Apisa
    Well, well! What a turn of events this is! It's new, and I like new, even if it's bad. And this is bad, isn't it? My, my.
  • My "nihilism"
    ↪yupamiralda
    No, I'm just sneakily hinting that the social is inevitable
    Personally, if you're interested in knowing, I find math biological, inadvertently so.
  • My "nihilism"
    I'm trying to transcend social cues. The social is clearly derivative from the biological. — yupamiralda
    Out of curiosity, would you call mathematics biological - as they're clearly social?
  • Art highlights the elitism of opinion
    And transport highlights the elitism of space. — Henri
    With space highlighting the elitism of speed.
  • Confusion on religions
    ↪Frank Apisa
    I run the Fo'c's'le, a boarding house for sailors. Sorry, I reserve my beds for seamen.
  • Confusion on religions
    ↪Frank Apisa
    Optimism! How adorable! I love it! Even at the end, you make me laugh. I'm lying. That wasn't funny at all.
  • Is birth fair or is life criminal?
    ↪iolo
    Technically speaking, all things are in a way mental constructs.

    So there's no issue on that end.

    The issue would have to lie with the difference between the perspective of the two versus the absolutes they represent.

    ↪Schzophr
    Why is it much more powerful? I'd contend it's mirrored.
  • Art highlights the elitism of opinion
    I think this conversation has finally gone off the rails — Brett
    Rails highlight the elitism of transport.
  • Is birth fair or is life criminal?
    ↪Schzophr
    It obviously does. But how does that double the max?
  • Happy videos
    nRRvE21.png
  • Is birth fair or is life criminal?
    When you're born it's either good or bad. — Schzophr
    It's neither good nor bad.
    Would you consider a few drawn lines good or bad?

    The energy of our universe is very powerful and intricate, even with eyesight there is a type of waste energy. — Schzophr
    There's no waste - all the puzzle pieces fit.
    You eat, you produce compost, you fertilise the land and grow crops - to repeat.
    The same chain of events applies to eyesight.

    Knowing an angle of your face is/may be known by energy twice over/max because energy has that encircling, fulfilling potential. — Schzophr
    Elaborate.
  • How does one answer Schopenhauer’s critique of the cosmological argument ? 

    1) Causality is irrelevant for determining God.

    2) Whether you know God within or without, is irrelevant - because they're all God's manifestations. That's the idea behind the Hindu Avatar.

    3) If you can determine the phenomenon, you can determine the noumenon in contrast. Like how drawing a square on paper, consequently draws the frame outside of the square.

    These answers aren't necessarily theistic.
  • Confusion on religions
    ↪Frank Apisa
    Better to live in a desert sandbox
    than with a quarrelsome and nagging wife Frank.
    Proverbs 21:19 :cool:
Home » Shamshir
More Comments

Shamshir

Start FollowingSend a Message
  • About
  • Comments
  • Discussions
  • Uploads
  • Other sites we like
  • Social media
  • Terms of Service
  • Sign In
  • Created with PlushForums
  • © 2025 The Philosophy Forum