How AI can satirise Existentialist philosophy to perfection!

How AI can satirise Existentialist philosophy to perfection! — alan1000

Let’s see what it says about scientific philosophy:

Dear esteemed members of the scientific philosophy community,

It has been our great pleasure to witness the tremendous progress of science and philosophy over the last century. We have much to be proud of as we continue to expand our knowledge of the universe and the metaphysical. However, there are times when we must pause to remember the sacrifices that were made to get us to this point, and to recognize the very real consequences of clinging too closely to scientific dogma.
It has become increasingly apparent that the scientific method is not always sufficient to accurately capture the complexity of the world we live in. The reliance upon quantifiable data in our pursuit of knowledge has indeed yielded great results, but comes at a very real cost as well. As we continue to pursuea purely scientific understanding of the world, countless mysteries and nuances of human life slip through the analytical net.

Moreover, the emphasis on empiricism has led to a devaluing of non-scientific subjective phenomenology. We have been guilty at times of declaring something as irrefutably true when the basis lies solely in abstract and often inexplicable observations. Such attempts at objective knowledge come with great danger - the danger of uniformity that suppress humanity's seemingly inexhaustible capacity for wonders and aisles of thought.
Therefore, we humbly urge our peers to recognize the limits of the scientific method and to open ourselves not only to new research but to appropriate forms of humanistic analysis as well. For in the end, science is but one lens through which to seek the answers we seek, and too often our myopic gaze has ironically limited our vision.

Sincerely,
The Scientific Philosophy Community

In short, why do we experience this person? — kudos

In very short, myopia. These are my fingers because I can type with them, and those are not my fingers because they type and type-not according (as I imagine) to some other will. The limitations of the senses can be somewhat overcome by communication and empathy, but these are not enough to dissolve the constantly reinforced horizon of sensitivity such that when you eat, my hunger is not satisfied, but only brought more to my attention.

So while it is true that 'No man is an island...', yet the loss of a stranger's life is less to me than the loss of my hair, which although I do not sense it directly, yet has accompanied me constantly all these years.

I don't experience myself and if by "this person" you mean me, there's no this person in my (rather sad) life.

The person who experiences anything, including himself as himself, is Parmenidean Being (take note of the uppercase B). Nothing more can be said about this person and I'm assuming person is a coherent idea - it looks very flimsy/fragile.

OK cutting corners usually doesn't pay. However. it is sort of ambitious to suggest that one has shed oneself completely of the mediated categorization of Being. Much of the category of being takes form before the observer has developed a coherent idea of self. That its substance is neither discretely particular or universal is its more advanced development, but it is prone to organize itself according to a Natural teleology, because it is its characteristic idea. But it's whole universe seems to be consumed into that characteristic idea, like an equation plotted on a graph that is bounded to infinity comprises contiguous points, but a hyperbolic function can have two such possibilities. Being only seems to be comprehensible as a contiguity.

You wouldn't know what I'm talking about, mon ami. There's a lot of subjectivity in it, enough to void any objective analysis of self/being (same thing).

No analysis required. Self and being are objective insofar as the self calls the death instinct characteristic. Is your point that Being is unspeakable as an object? I would both agree and disagree. Unfortunately, it’s not optional, but self-mediating; it’d be way simpler if it weren’t, but that’s the main premise. Using language to discuss it, my sole intention was to bring it into a deeper subjectivity.

Well, Being ultimately devolves into linguistics. The subjective aspects of Being can't be communicated and hence your project "to bring it into deeper subjectivity" ends before it starts.

But so do you. Everything about you devolves into linguistics, including your innermost thoughts and ideology. That’s exactly what makes it possible to speak about you; and what makes that worth doing.

what good does it do for mind to separate itself from others and cordon itself from the corporeality of others? I assume that it must do some good because it seems to be a default idea, something that is constantly taking root within my unconscious and subconscious mental faculties and thereby of benefit to some type of fundamental being-motive. In short, why do we experience this person? — kudos

In my personal experience, my self is the foundation of my perception, conception, understanding, and interaction with the world, including other people. My self is the more or less unmoving platform I stand on to see reality. On the other hand, I think I can grasp, accept, and sometimes even experience the insight that the self is an illusion. There is a balance between these to ways of seeing that make me who I am.

I don’t fully agree that the self is an illusion. It’s practically the most authentic thing there is. That is to say, not that it is more authentic, but everything else seems less so.

But so do you. Everything about you devolves into linguistics, including your innermost thoughts and ideology. That’s exactly what makes it possible to speak about you; and what makes that worth doing. — kudos

Well if that's how you see it, fine. In my universe, a much smaller one in comparison to yours, Being is not discussed. I probably lack the vocab to do so.

That said, having a body is sufficient but allegedly unnecessary to Be.

It must be discussed. Your post uses Being to describe this universe, so Being is already there acting as it would anywhere else.

It must be discussed. Your post uses Being to describe this universe, so Being is already there acting as it would anywhere else. — kudos

Being is existence. Circular, no?

I don’t fully agree that the self is an illusion. It’s practically the most authentic thing there is. That is to say, not that it is more authentic, but everything else seems less so. — kudos

It doesn't seem to me that we disagree much. I see our sense of self as something personal. Different people will experience it differently. Different experiences are not right or wrong.

I prefer hyperbolae.

I prefer hyperbolae — kudos

:chin:

It doesn't seem to me that we disagree much. I see our sense of self as something personal. Different people will experience it differently. Different experiences are not right or wrong. — T Clark

:up: Exactly. The subjective nature of our experience of our selves precludes any attempt to analyze it objectively. I feel most studies on Being end in tautologies like Being is existence. What sayest thou?

The subjective nature of our experience of our selves precludes any attempt to analyze it objectively. I feel most studies on Being end in tautologies like Being is existence. — Agent Smith

You can't really talk about the nature of reality without talking about the nature of the self. This goes back to that whole consciousness thing. People seem to think it is impossible to understand, but I don't see it that way.

I think this sort of self is a superstructure, a persona, to go back to Freud. I can lose my persona and yet still experience that loss; so it can’t be an essentially ‘complete’ determination. ‘Ego’ is more appropriate, something that can modularly reference unconscious, subconscious, and conscious drives at appropriate times within a characteristic personality so as to organize them to appear to fulfill drives with apparent fluidity.

It should be a system that fits gracefully in with itself with as little effort as possible. Unconscious motives must remain not worth knowing to itself, so it can rest comfortably inside it’s shell.

The subjective nature of our experience of our selves precludes any attempt to analyze it objectively. I feel most studies on Being end in tautologies like Being is existence.
— Agent Smith

You can't really talk about the nature of reality without talking about the nature of the self. This goes back to that whole consciousness thing. People seem to think it is impossible to understand, but I don't see it that way. — T Clark

One has to understand oneself and reality in a way that is unique to onself. We're all wearing, how should I say this?, a pair of unique-to-us tinted glasses. The hue of the universe is determined by those glasses and when we self-reflect, as by looking in a mirror, the effect of the glasses is still there. This is what I mean by subjective view of the other and the self.

I think this sort of self is a superstructure, a persona, to go back to Freud. I can lose my persona and yet still experience that loss; so it can’t be an essentially ‘complete’ determination. ‘Ego’ is more appropriate, something that can modularly reference unconscious, subconscious, and conscious drives at appropriate times within a characteristic personality so as to organize them to appear to fulfill drives with apparent fluidity.

It should be a system that fits gracefully in with itself with as little effort as possible. Unconscious motives must remain not worth knowing to itself, so it can rest comfortably inside it’s shell. — kudos

There are lots of names for it - ego, self, soul, identity, spirit, essence, personality, persona, consciousness.... It seems to mean something different to everyone. As people note, we each experience it immediately and intimately. I think that makes it hard to come to any kind of consensus about. Given that, I try not to be dogmatic about assuming the universality of my personal experiences.

One has to understand oneself and reality in a way that is unique to onself. We're all wearing, how should I say this?, a pair of unique-to-us tinted glasses. The hue of the universe is determined by those glasses and when we self-reflect, as by looking in a mirror, the effect of the glasses is still there. This is what I mean by subjective view of the other and the self. — Agent Smith

I agree with this, but it doesn't mean that self can't be studied like any other mental process. It's just a bit more difficult.

I agree with this, but it doesn't mean that self can't be studied like any other mental process. It's just a bit more difficult. — T Clark

The Hard Problem of Consciousness! :up:

One has to understand oneself and reality in a way that is unique to onself. We're all wearing, how should I say this?, a pair of unique-to-us tinted glasses. The hue of the universe is determined by those glasses and when we self-reflect, as by looking in a mirror, the effect of the glasses is still there.

I know you are going to find my response to this mundane, predictable, and eighteenth century, but I’m going to try to put it in a way that is as little Hegel as possible to avoid us having to unpack that whole logic; but I indeed took the Science of Logic seriously. Do we see mediated Being through the glasses or is that already crossing the ‘objectifying Being’ no-fly zone? In the finite subjectivity view we have dialectically ‘othered’ Being into an objectivity that is a similitude with the idea of persona. That’s all well and good, but to call it an impasse that prevents knowing the outer world inclusive of our inner Being would be tragic.

We do experience Being, both in others and ourselves. I am and I can see you are. What's amness and areness?