Give me an argument. — Bartricks
Suppose I were to say that all that can be known, and all that can be talked about is experience. That seems like a nice tidy materialist anti-mystical approach. I won't even talk about noumena, or things in themselves, and especially, for the purposes of this thread, I will forbid all talk of 'an experiencer' as something other than an experience of experiencer. — unenlightened
Imagine that I read a book about Caesar. I have not, and will never meet Caesar in person. All I can do is read about him. Does that licence me to conclude that Caesar is a book? — Bartricks
to say 'the observer is the observed' is to imply that the status of focus on 'an object' is inextricable from the perceptual set/needs of the culturally conditioned observer who contextually defines the nature of its 'objectivity'.
And that much is NOT mystical ! — fresco
Julian Baggini, Susan Blackmore, Sam Harris, Thomas Metzinger, obviously haven't read Descartes, or didn't understand him, or are trying to sell some horrible mystical bullshit. PhDs and professorships mean nothing these days — unenlightened
"I observer my self" not "The observer is the observed". — Bartricks
I am observing a cat. Am I the cat I am observing? no. — Bartricks
That's a great comfort, but what is your evidence? I think you should answer your own questions too.I am my self just as you are your self. — Bartricks
tell me more about this self that you say you can observe. Does it have a colour? — Bartricks
But it would be a bit silly to suppose that anyone suggested that everything one ever observed was oneself — unenlightened
Where the self is, love is not
The observer is the observed — J. Krishnamurti
Don't know if you will agree with me on this one? — Daniel C
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.