How do you know this is the case? — Ciceronianus the White

because i can see no possible way they could be identical. Could you? All the variables of my particular keyboard, the methods or way I type, the temperature in the room, how I process the sensations from my fingers, etc etc. My level of certainty is very very high these were not identical events.

If you're correct, in what sense is it significant — Ciceronianus the White

That is the million dollar question. Did you feel positive quality while you typed? Where you in the moment ? What did you get out of the experience? Are you better for the experience, am I ?

Do you think that if you told me you were typing or had typed something, I wouldn't understand what you said in any respect? — Ciceronianus the White

I think any explanation I gave you of the experience is different than the experience. It is not the experience, it is an abstraction. That is kind of the point. True experience only lives in the knife edge of time between past and future. Everything else is an abstraction, including my attempt of a description of it.

I address the question within this existentiell identity. The aloneness is in the existential identity.

Sorry, but I zoned out when you started rambling in that large block of text written in that awful, barely comprehensible, continental style.

My personal belief is that we ascribe far too much significance to the supposed uniqueness of our experience. We're all human beings, with the same (for the most part) physical and mental characteristics, sharing the same world. We encounter and interact with the world as human beings have to do, being the kinds of creatures we are. Whether the fact that we are individuals will make any difference will depend on the circumstances, and in many cases if not most it will make no difference. We don't have to be the same person to understand one another.

If we stick our hands into a fire, there is every reason to believe that we will feel pain when we do so. There is no good reason to believe that Mr. X will not feel pain in that case, nor is there any good reason to believe that in most cases he will feel a pain that is significantly different from the pain felt by Ms. Y. That's because human beings are usually burned by fire, and it hurts when that happens.

If we say that nevertheless, X's and Y's experiences are unique, it strikes me we say very little of any importance, except in very limited circumstances where, e.g. X is incapable of feeling pain for unusual reasons. I think it's unreasonable to extrapolate general propositions from unusual circumstances. I think we're better advised to treat exceptional circumstances as exceptional.

So we can reasonably infer that in almost all cases a human being will experience pain if he/she is burned. And I think we can reasonably infer that if person X tells person Y that person X's hand got into fire somehow and was burned, it will be quite clear to person Y what that means, regardless of the fact that person Y isn't person X.

I don't think it is possible to communicate in words in anyway the experience or sticking your hand in a fire. And while no issue that relative words like pain or hot would apply to all. IMO they would be woefully short of expressing the real experience. And while in some very general way two people sticking their hands in a fire would have similar experiences, I hold to proposition each experience would be unique to the individual.

This is not an insignificant difference. This awareness of the experience as removed from the abstraction of descriptions of experience.

Unfortunately that is not my problem.

Is there something you did not understand?

Clearly you have not read Heidegger if you think that is awful and incomprehensible, much less Lacan.

I could criticize myself according to Nietzsche's Truth and Lie in a Nonmoral Sense as well... But abstraction is the atmosphere.

You criticize it in terms of it being continental?

I also said at the end that I had to seriously simplify it...

But thanks anyway?

You posit that we know only ourselves,
— Hanover

I didn't posit this though. — Benkei

I posit my self-knowings at least twice a day into an old t-shirt.

Unfortunately that is not my problem. — Blue Lux

Whether or not it's your problem would depend on how you want your writing to be received.

Is there something you did not understand? — Blue Lux

Yes, the block of text I referred to.

Clearly you have not read Heidegger if you think that is awful and incomprehensible, much less Lacan. — Blue Lux

Yes, that's right, I haven't read either Heidegger or Lacan, and I don't care to do so.

You criticize it in terms of it being continental? — Blue Lux

Only in terms of it being of that awful writing style associated with continental philosophy.

I also said at the end that I had to seriously simplify it... — Blue Lux

Oh god, really? Well, keep at it, I say.

But thanks anyway? — Blue Lux

You're welcome?

I don't think it is possible to communicate in words in anyway the experience or sticking your hand in a fire. And while no issue that relative words like pain or hot would apply to all. IMO they would be woefully short of expressing the real experience. And while in some very general way two people sticking their hands in a fire would have similar experiences, I hold to proposition each experience would be unique to the individual. — Rank Amateur

Well, I was referring to the experience. I merely said it would be quite clear what someone means when they say their hand got stuck in a fire.

But if you're correct and people sticking their hands in a fire would have similar experiences only in some very general way, it would seem of little use to discuss, or describe, our experiences.

So you pick and choose before hand what you want to even try to understand?
And perhaps 'simplify' was not the best word to describe 'that block of text.' I had to cram it and squash it down like a block of garbage in the animated movie Monster's Inc.
What I originally wrote, which was my reference, was much neater... I guess you are wanting some Proust on a philosophy forum?
And I was being facetious. No thank you. Your brusque burlishness is Brummagem

So you pick and choose before hand what you want to even try to understand? — Blue Lux

Yes. In the wise words of Old Gregg, I "make an assessment".

I guess you are wanting some Proust on a philosophy forum? — Blue Lux

I've never read Proust.

And I was being facetious. — Blue Lux

Oh really?

No thank you. — Blue Lux

You're welcome.

Your brusque burlishness is Brummagem. — Blue Lux

Your obscure oration is offal.

And you also drink Bailey's from a shoe?

Have you heard of the Buddhist monk who set himself on fire protesting in Vietnam?

Have you heard of the Buddhist monk who set himself on fire protesting in Vietnam? — Blue Lux

I haven't heard that the monk felt no pain. Nor have a heard that those who deprive themselves of food as a form of protest feel no hunger or pain.

He made no sign of pain... There is a video of it.

I know. It's claimed that certain people are able to so master their pain and their bodies as to give no sign of pain, even in such circumstances. But, who knows? Since his experience is unique, he may have found pleasure in burning or perhaps was merely bored.

I am not you. I have my experiences, and you have yours. But rather than saying I am alone I think I'd prefer to say that I am unique. To fee alone is to feel the need for others. But an other is always other -- I need another to be with me to satisfy my need, rather than to be me. If we had the same experiences, thought the same things, had the same body in the same space and time then I would still need another, someone who is other than myself to satisfy my need for others.

In saying I am unique I am acknowledging my individuality, as well as the individuality of others. I am not so unique that others do not know what I am going through, or what it might feel like to be in certain circumstances. Sometimes others are able to confirm they've been there, done that, and know what it's like. We retain our uniqueness, in the sense that it was I or them at a certain time doing something, but we are not alone.

And I'd say we share our uniqueness through relating to one another -- an other who is always exterior to our interior, but is encountered through the face-to-face relation.

Not incomprehensible by the one who experiences it — Blue Lux

But others can still relate. Ciceronianus said we have a fairly good idea of what you're talking about.
How do you think humanity survived? Animals can know when their family members are in danger. Dogs can certainly know if you're fearful.

I think it depends on how one understands 'meaning'.

Yes, you're alone, but not incurably. Language is public forms, that we use to express our experiences, and are universal while the experiences that they express are unique and individual, but our memory, and ego are themselves constructed and recursive representations of those unique experiences. So that, you represent your own experiences to yourself like you do anyone else's, and can be mistaken. So that, the loneliness one feels is just as much an alienation from one's self as it is others. It is the product of a drive to be different and unique, extra special, or valuable.

Want to not be alone? Stop listening to that voice in your head for a bit. Tell it to stfu, lose faith in it completely, and become entirely confused. Everything it says is meaningless, and worthless. Start listening to other people, but don't listen to immediate reactions. In one ear, and out the other. Then some time will pass, and the voice in your head will come to some amazing realizations, insights, and they'll be super amazing, and it will be so fucking awesome for having come up with those things... but then you're going to realize that this isn't true, that it has been letting you down, and you got those things by not listening to it, and absorbing, rather than rejecting others for awhile. You're going to realize how wise, strong, beautiful, insightful, and amazing those people are, and you're going to fall in love with them all, and then you won't be alone anymore.

This is perhaps the most meaningful reply I have heard on this subject.
And I agree with you

Have you figured out whether or not you're alone yet? Or do you need to discuss it further with others? (Isn't this more of a psychological issue than a philosophical one?)

o my own experiences after all?
Is language a game of mere abstraction? — Blue Lux

You are not alone. There are so-called mirror neurons that allow us to feel what others feel. :smile:

Hearty, :cool:

The only thing I know for sure is that I love whom I am with. Brandon.
I am in the process of trying to found knowledge on love.

It is a game of philosophy.. can't I have a philosophical sense of humor?

I know I am not alone. But the only one who makes this real and not baseless is the love of my life.

I am in the process of trying to found knowledge on love. — Blue Lux

The love is growing old together. :)

Hearty, :cool:

Thus.
I am alone. — Blue Lux

Does believing that make you happy, or in some other way bring you fulfilment? If so, by all means follow that path, and you need no help from anybody here.

If, on the other hand, believing that worries you, makes you anxious, sad, or vaguely feeling that you're missing something, throw it away ('consign it to the flames', as Saint David would say). You can see from the responses that plenty of philosophical people get along just fine without believing such things, and are all the better off for it.