I said no such thing. My statement was that it is not logically necessary that there is life in Mars, which it isn't, all you need to do is acquaint yourself with the meaning of logical necessity. — Lionino

You haven't shown any logical argument for your point. When it is logical arguments, you would have evidential or hypothetical premises before your conclusion. You haven't shown any of that. Hence your saying your point has much backings, was inferred as the popular media backings.

It doesn't matter, it can be anything, that is the point. I walk therefore I move. "Well but you didn't say where you are walking so the statement is illogical". It is a nonsensical argument. — Lionino

You walk therefore you move? "Move" and "Walk" are the same class of the terms, which are both motions. There relation is semantic, rather than logical or epistemic or ontological. "Think" and "Exist" are totally different type of entities. Think is psychological and Exist is ontological. There is no logical or any type of correlations between the two. It is so obvious, but you seem to be not able to see the point here.

And there is nothing necessary about the Earth being flat or otherwise. — Lionino

When I said "backing", I was meaning the logical arguments or scientific evidence, rather than the media backings. You said that your claim had a lot of media backings, and I was saying media and popular opinion backings don't offer the necessary ground for your claims.

That it is illogical does not follow from it having no content, that is nonsensical especially when logic deals with syntax, not semantics, content is irrelevant. Even then, neither of those two are true, it is both logical and think has content because it means something. You are denying something that is self-evident. — Lionino

Thinking must have contents. You cannot just say "I think, therefore I am". What were you thinking of? Were you thinking of a beer? Or a burger? or chips? We don't know what you were thinking of. You should have made clear the content of the thinking for your conclusion "I am". (You = Descartes)

And "Cogito" is not sufficient or necessary logical ground for existence. It is epistemic perception of existence, which is the ground for the existence. Existence cannot be deduced logically.

No, he does not speak directly in terms of freedom. However, authentic Being-one's-Self is a choice. Please see Being and Time at 312-313. — Arne

:cool: :up:

All non-living things are conscious as well as living things. — bert1

In that case , aren't non-living things' consciousness different nature to the living things consciousness? They can't possibly be the same type, class or nature of consciousness. If so, how would they be different? If not so, why wouldn't they be different?

My claim that there is no life in Mars has plenty of backing. — Lionino

"The earth is flat." had more plenty of backings for far longer time.

Good thing that was not Descartes' argument. — Lionino

I was just pointing out "I think therefore I am." is illogical.
The "think" has no content.

Logic does not use evidence. — Lionino

Evidence or arguments or whatever. Your claims don't have any backings.

If cogito content was "I think I don't exist."
— Corvus

What? — Lionino

"You think you don't exist, therefore you exist.", is a contradiction.
For your cogito's empty content, "you don't exist" could be posited in there.

It's not just Hinduism that could be true. All religions and the worldviews they offer could be true. I am an agnostic atheist because the evidence does not support any religion. Most religions believe in immortal souls that either reincarnate or resurrect despite the lack of evidence for the existence of the soul. It is impossible to prove the nonexistence of anything such as souls and gods and imaginary creatures such as fairies. Just because it is impossible to prove a negative, it does not make them true. — Truth Seeker

Isn't your acceptance of all religions and the worldviews they offer as possibility contradiction to your true belief, which is an agnostic theist's view? Why do you accept them as possibility for being true?

If you are an agnostic atheist, then shouldn't you reject all the religious claims as false and impossibility? Are you being an unauthentic agnostic atheist? Or your acceptance of the religious claims as possible truths were dishonest? Which is the case?

You use the phrase "objective knowledge", but it should be explicitly noted, 100% certainty in science is not attainable. — flannel jesus

"Objective Knowledge" does not have explicitly and necessarily 100% certainty. All scientific knowledge is bound to be disproved at any time.

Because... it is not logically necessary that there is life in Mars, and we know there is none there. — Lionino

What are the evidences for the claims?

You say the cogito lacks content, which doesn't make sense, then you say "what if the content was...", implying it has a content different from what you were about to say, meaning it has content. — Lionino

Cogito was empty, so I put some contents to demonstrate anything can be put in as the content, even the contents which doubts or denies the existence of Descartes. If cogito content was "I think I don't exist.", then the conclusion "therefore I exist.", would be a contradiction.

well, how can a subjective experience be compared to another without being in accordance to a standard of some kind? I think every subjective experience has something to do with objective knowledge...does the knowledge itself become or is/can be subjective when used from/obtained from a single subjective experiences alone? — Kizzy

I was asking the relations between subjective and objective knowledge. How are they linked? Or are they linked at all? Is one pre-condition of the other?

Problem of scientific knowledge is that the foundation of the knowledge is based on observational activities which are subjective perceptual processes. How do they elevate one's perceptual observations with possibility of fallibilities and subjective in nature into objective apodictic knowledge?

And finally, I personally think there's an alternative term for what the paper calls 'lived experience', which helps to orientate the discussion more clearly in the context of the philosophical tradition. I wonder if there are any guesses as to what this word might be? — Wayfarer

"Lived experience" sounds like a historical topic due to the word "Lived". What about "Having been lived"? And the "experience" is always someone's experience. There is no such thing as objective experience. Can one's own subjective experience have anything to do with the objective knowledge?

It is possible that Hinduism is true. No, I am not a Hindu but there are Hindus on Earth. It is impossible to test the hypothesis that living things are souls who reincarnate according to karma in an illusory universe called Maya. — Truth Seeker

Why do you think it is possible Hinduism is true? What about Buddhism, Christianity? Hinduism has Karma and Maya. Christianity has Garden of Eden, the Heaven and Hell. Buddhism says you will be reincarnated to this world into some other species according to your Karma.

What attracts to you to Hinduism, but not to Buddhism or Christianity?

An excellent point to make. Both. Being-in IS our existence. Questions like that beg for a reading of Being and Time. — Astrophel

Great question. Existence is a "mode" of being (other modes of being are "present to hand" and/or "ready to hand."). And existence is the mode of being of that being that IS "being-in-the-world." And the being that is being-in-the-world" is "Dasein." Ergo, existence is Dasein's mode of being.

Astrophel is correct, your question begs a reading of Being and Time. — Arne

:nerd: :pray: Being is closely linked with temporality i.e. past present and future. Men is not just Being but Dasein viz "Being There in the world". I did read Being and Time a few year ago. It was a tough read. Will need to read it again to refresh the points. Recall there had been reading groups for Heidegger in here too.

Contrast to Sartre (please correct me, if this point is wrong), Heidegger doesn't seem to say a lot about freedom and Being. Rather Beings are limited by temporality which are destined for deaths. Death is the final events for all Beings which happens to the Being in most personal intimate way i.e. strictly alone to the Being itself.

It is just a supporting observational fact, which saves further analysis, investigations and observations on the point for the conclusion. Inductive conclusions are subject to be proven to be incorrect of course if new counter factuals (objective evidences or findings) emerged just like the scientific theories.

Nobody's an existentialist because these 4 people denied they are" — flannel jesus

The claim was based on the inductive principle,
1. that the most famous would-be existentialists were denying that they were the existentialists.
2. Definition of existentialist is obscure.
3. It is impossible to go and ask the whole population on the earth if they are existentialist in practicality.

Therefore it is safe to conclude, that there is no such people who are existentialist.

Because other people than that short list of people could be existentialists. "These people denied they are, therefore nobody is" isn't much of an argument. My gramma denies she's a Muslim, therefore nobody's a Muslim. — flannel jesus

It is not just that fact, but definition of existentialism has been obscure. What is your definition of existentialism and existentialist?

Spinoza thinks least of death in the context of contemplating life. Thus: memento mori, memento vivere. Nothing in the quote cited recommends that a free man (or free woman) neglects or denies 'facts of life' such as death which we can neither change nor ultimately avoid. — 180 Proof

Because life is intimately and inevitably linked to death, contemplating on death and life together would give insights on the meaning of life and how to live life to the thinkers. No other subjects deal with the topic apart from Philosophy and the clinical Psychology.

Because a few people widely considered to be existentialists denied the label, that means there are no existentialists? I don't think the logic is working out on that. — flannel jesus

Please prove why the logic wouldn't work out.

Do you have sources on Heidegger denying the label? I see that Camus and Sartre have. — flannel jesus

Heidegger doesn't seem to have had been interested in Existentialism. I haven't seen his comment on it. He is more interested in Metaphysics i.e. problems with existence and being. Hence his denial of himself being an existentialist has been presumed.

Because there is nothing necessary about life in Mars, physically, metaphysically, logically. The point of the cogito is that it always confirms itself circularly, you can't deny it, because by denying it you prove it. — Lionino

Physically no, but metaphysically and logically? May be or why not?
Cogito to "I exist" is a deductive leap, tautology or just monologue. Problem with Cartesian cogito is, it lacks the content. Lack of content in cogito allows even denial of Ergo sum. What if, the content of cogito was "I doubt" or "I deny"? Does "Ergo sum" still stand?

A free man thinks of death least of all things, and his wisdom is a meditation not of death but of life. — Spinoza

Spinoza seems to have had been short-sighted in the saying about death. Death is a part of life. Death and life are not separate. Hence death must be contemplated, because it affords us to come to the idea how life should be lived.

Has any existentialist ever existed? All the would-be and known existentialists in the history of philosophy have denied that they are the existentialists e.g. Sartre, Heidegger, Camus ... etc.

Hence, if one is an existentialist, then he/she is not an existentialist. If one is not an existentialist, then he/she could be an existentialist. (Because they don't deny that they are the existentialist.)

It's possible that I am a soul and my body is either a simulation or hallucination or dream or illusion. According to Hinduism we are souls who reincarnate according to karma in an illusion called the Maya. — Truth Seeker

Why would it be possible? Do you believe in Hinduism? Are you a Hindu follower?

I don't know whether souls exist or not. I am an agnostic atheist. — Truth Seeker

If you are an agnostic atheist, then you could be a realist and possibly a materialist. Being a brute material realist would make things simpler. All there exists is matter and motion.

But no, we don't choose our existence. — Astrophel

Sounds correct. Existence is not free. Existence is random, contingent, limited and fated to become nothing.

We choose IN our existence. — Astrophel

Not sure if we are IN our existence. Aren't we existence?

Knowing is a delusion. Belief is all that we have. — Chet Hawkins

"Trust yourself, you know more than you think you do."- Benjamin Spock

Playing word games with a word that has never really meant what people thought it means is not useful. — Chet Hawkins

Analysing the vague and obscure use of words and expressions, and clarifying them is a part of philosophy.

https://rauterberg.employee.id.tue.nl/lecturenotes/DDM110%20CAS/Descartes-1637%20Discourse%20on%20Method.pdf page 28 — Lionino

"I am thinking therefore I exist,* was so secure and certain* that it could not be shaken by any of the most extravagant suppositions of the sceptics, I judged that I could accept it without scruple, as the first principle of the philosophy I was seeking.*" - Descartes

Is there a logical necessity from someone feeling "so secure and certain" about something, and something to exist? It sounds like a psychological statement than a logical necessity.
"I am still so secure and certain that I think there exists life in Mars. Therefore life exists in Mars." Does it sound like a logically necessary statement to you? It sounds like a meaningless joke to me.

Thinking has its contents. Descartes doesn't reveal what the content of his thinking was. From mere his content-dubious thinking, deducing a spatial-temporal existence doesn't quite sound right, does it?

You know that you know nothing. Therefore you know something.
— Corvus
Therefore "I know that I know nothing" is incorrect, therefore I know nothing. — Lionino

If you know something, then you know nothing is a contradiction.

That is Descartes' point. He knows he is because he thought. — Lionino

How did he know he thinks?

What are you certain of?
— Truth Seeker

That I know nothing. — Lionino

You know that you know nothing. Therefore you know something.

It is OUR existence. Freedom, that is. — Astrophel

Isn't OUR existence devoid of freedom? Everyone on earth came with no choice of theirs. According to Heidegger, we are all thrown into the world by chance. Having biological bodies mean you are not free either. You must eat, drink, sleep, breathe ... in order to keep the life get going, while getting older. Then the body you have been carrying all your life suddenly will give up on you one day for certain, whether you wanted or not. That is no freedom is it?

Freedom is a relative concept. One is free only in certain conditions, movements and actions and thoughts. It is a limited concept too. But existence is definitely not free.

It does not mean that at all. I can imagine an alien in my room but it is not real. The computer I am typing this message on is real. — Truth Seeker

How do you prove an alien in your room in your imagination is not real? How do you prove the message you have been typing was not a part of your life dream? Is life real? Could it be a long dream in a dream in another dream ...?

As I said, in all three possibilities, I am real. My sentience is known to me. My sentience is real to me. My sentience is not in question. — Truth Seeker

OK.  It is good that you accept that at least your sentience is real.  But looking at your 3 possibilities on the existence of yourself.  

1.  If you are a soul without a body, then how did you even type the above posts?  I am pretty certain (I could be wrong, because anything is possible in this world) that you must have a body with 2 hands and 2 feet, and 1 head with 2 eyes and all the rest of it.  For you to have typed up the posts and sent them out to the forum, you must have a body for you to sit down on your chair, or stand with your 2 feet with either a phone, pad or computer to read and type the message.  I cannot imagine anyone can carry out even the simplest task with a soul alone without a body.   Therefore it proves you have a body.

2. You are a soul in a body?  This is possible, if and only if you believed you have a soul residing in your body.  Some people don't believe souls exist, and some do.  You can ask yourself, if you believe in the existence of the soul.  Only you can answer that question for yourself.  If you do, then yes your soul might be living in your body.  If you don't believe it, then it doesn't exist. Soul is a matter of your belief and faith.

3. You are a body without a soul?  This is also a possibility.  A living body doesn't have to have a soul in it, if souls never exist in the first place.  It would be wrong to believe that you are a body with a soul in it. You are likely just to have consciousness and mind, but not soul.

The existence of the soul is not a problem of epistemology or philosophy of mind.  It is rather a topic in philosophy of religion.   There is no way anyone can prove the existence of the soul in scientific, physical, biological or material ways.  It is a matter of faith and belief.  Therefore it depends on your belief on its existence or nonexistence.

For the problem of the universe, you listed 5 possibilities. But I think it can be reduced to 2 possibilities.

1. The universe is real.
2. The universe is not real. (It is simulation, hallucination, dream or illusion.)

From my reasoning, the universe is real from all the evidences based on the coherence of its operations rooted in the cause and effect principles.    The sun is rising every morning without fail, and nights come after days, spring comes after winters, I hear the news of people getting born and people dying every day, I can see that everyone on the earth is getting older everyday, and heading for their own deaths one day. 

 But there are also mysteries and unknowable antinomies in the universe viz. How did the universe start? Does God exist?  Who was the first person on the earth?  Is there life on another planet or star?  Is there after life? What is the next lottery jackpot number?

The fact that there are some mysteries and unknowable things in the universe doesn't mean that the universe is not real. It just means that we don't have enough information or evidence for our questions due to the limitation of our reasonings or lack of data.

Would Sartre contend that freedom is a product of our biology ontologically speaking? It would seem that he would not because he believed in radical freedom. I do not know what is your opinion? — Justin5679

Isn't ontological freedom a misnomer? Ontology doesn't have anything to do with freedom. Ontology deals with the issues on existence i.e. what is to be existent or non-existent? viz. Does God exist? Does soul exist? Can nonexistent object exist? ... etc etc.

Freedom is a property of actions, motions and thoughts.
X is free to move, do, go, carry out, decide ...etc.
Y is free from contamination, illness, breaking, mistake, death ...etc.

Isn't ontological freedom an inappropriate combination of the words? Maybe Sartre had some argument for making up the combinatory concept. If he had, could you further elaborate on it?

Discussion on stoicism and their thoughts on death? — pursuitofknowlege

Could you please summarise the key points of Stoicism's concept of death and their thoughts on it? Thanks.

Whatever exists is whatever is not imaginary. I experience my sentience. This is how I know it exists. — Truth Seeker

Again this is a solipsistic statement, which is not saying much meaningful. Does it mean that if you imagined something, then it cannot exist? If you stopped imagine something, it must exist? Things exist regardless of your imagination.

That has not changed. What is 100% certainly real to me is the experience of me being conscious. I could be a solipsistic soul without a body. I could be a soul in a body. I could be a body without a soul. In all three possibilities, I am real. By "I", I mean my sentience - the actual experience of what it is like to be me - nanosecond by nanosecond. Not all truths can be proven but that does not make them any less true. For example, I can’t prove to you that I am conscious but that does not mean that I am not conscious. You may think that I am a philosophical zombie but I assure you that I am conscious even though I can't prove it to you. Just as you are conscious even though you can't prove it to me. — Truth Seeker

Your post seem to be filled with contradictions. You state that your certainty is 100% due to your experience of you being conscious. But then you say that you could a solipsistic soul without a body, or you could be a body without a soul. You don't even know what you are, but how could you claim that you are 100% certain of your consciousness? If one is true then the other is false. Which one is truth for you? They cannot be both truth.

Everyone knows that you cannot prove the content of your consciousness directly to other minds. But we can all infer the other mind and the contents of the other minds' consciousness by the linguistic and behavioural expressions and actions they take.

I still have no way of knowing whether I am a solipsistic soul without a body or a soul in a body or a body without a soul. — Truth Seeker

What has happened to your confidence of 100% certainty of your sentience?

Real is whatever exists. For example, my sentience is real because it exists. — Truth Seeker

What do you mean by whatever exists? How do you know your sentience exists?

What are you certain of? — Truth Seeker

I am certain of the fact that I typed this sentence.

I am not completely certain about whether I am a solipsistic soul without a body or a soul in a body or a body without a soul. — Truth Seeker

Confidence is one's feelings and emotions on something. If your ground for certainty is based on your own feeling and emotion of confidence on your knowledge, then all your knowledge seem prone to be fallible.

Truth is whatever is real. From my point of view, my sentience is real. — Truth Seeker

What is real?

Certainty is the confidence I have about my knowledge about what is real. — Truth Seeker

What is your confidence on your knowledge? For instance, does God exist? How did the universe begin? Are you confident on all the answers on these questions?
If your confidence was just your feeling, then can you be confident on the certainty?

Could you define what "truth" and "certainty" is? That would help clarifying what you have been asking in the OP.

I notice that this is an old OP, so maybe you might have already done so. But just to refresh memories, defining the key concepts and confirming would make sense.

I am not, but I know many Greeks. I think they would stand by that there is nothing different between Greek's and English's 'true', etymology nonwithstanding. — Lionino

If truth is something that is unconcealed, that sounds like an implication for the existence of truth in the empirical world. Truths are hidden in the world, and you have to look for the truths, and disclose them from the hidden into your mind.

That view certainly contrasts the belief that truth is a product of perceptions and reasoning in human mind.

These seem like concepts of truth to me. Maybe they hadn't developed certain vocabularies about truth that modern philosophy has, but... if they agree with one statement about the world and disagree with another one, does that not imply at least a most basic concept of truth? — flannel jesus

The question had been raised due to the comment in Szaif's article. But I also believe that ancient Greek had concept of Truth. It was just Szaif's point that the ancient Greek's concept of truth was much different from modern concept of truth mainly due to the peculiarity of the Etymological origin of truth. I was wondering if that comment could be further elaborated and proved with some evidence by a native Greek folk.