Does anything exist? First, clarify the concept, then look for the thing, the object

  • Thread starter Thread starter KingCoil
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back2Church said:
This is satire, right? Please tell me this is satire…
Click to expand...
Partly, but only partly…

Only God exists ‘by definition’.
Therefore, ‘by definition’, only God exists.
Other thing do not exist ‘by definition’.
Therefore, ‘by definition’, they do not exist.

Think about it…
 
Qoeleth said:
Or it could be the other way around.

There are many stories told by the sages of people who have had hard lives, and one day, something inside them snaps, and they ‘wake up’, and realise that nothing exists (neither themselves nor the world). Or they realise that it is all a dream, or at least could be. Thereafter, they live in bliss.

The sages tell of a person who believed he was a peasant dwelling in poverty, but dreaming to be an emperor swathed in purple. One day, he realised that he was in fact the emperor swathed in purple, and merely dreaming to be a peasant dwelling in wretchedness. And so, he became happy.

Or another ancient sage tells the story of the ‘rich man’ feasting each day, and the beggar laying at his gate. One day, they both woke up from this dream, and the one who had been dreaming to be a rich man, found himself burning in Gehenna. Then the one who had been dreaming he was a beggar, woke up and found himself veritably in the bosom of Abraham.

Hence, the rich are merely dreaming they are rich, for they, in reality thay are going hungry, and the poor are merely dreaming to be poor, for in reality theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven. So, the conditions of this world do not partake of reality. Hence, nothing in this world truly exists.

This is the lesson of life…
Click to expand...
Quoeleth, allow me to introduce myself by means a philosopher would understand. I know someone very dear to me that has had a life at times very comfortable, and at other times exceedingly, indeed unfairly, difficult. I consulted this person and he said that Jesus asked with what would the taste be restored if the salt lost its taste? I’ve heard it said that salt can lose its taste. Nevertheless, if it truly does there is the guarantee that nothing will replace that taste except more salt. But will it still be salt thereafter? How can it be, if it has lost its taste? The question of asking if anything exists is really asking for a subtlety and complexity of intellect that can discern a single grain of salt, when that grain is all that exists in the whole world.
Mt 23:24
24 Blind guides, who strain out the gnat and swallow the camel!
 
Michael19682 said:
Quoeleth, allow me to introduce myself by means a philosopher would understand. I know someone very dear to me that has had a life at times very comfortable, and at other times exceedingly, indeed unfairly, difficult. I consulted this person and he said that Jesus asked with what would the taste be restored if the salt lost its taste? I’ve heard it said that salt can lose its taste. Nevertheless, if it truly does there is the guarantee that nothing will replace that taste except more salt. But will it still be salt thereafter? How can it be, if it has lost its taste? The question of asking if anything exists is really asking for a subtlety and complexity of intellect that can discern a single grain of salt, when that grain is all that exists in the whole world.
Mt 23:24
24 Blind guides, who strain out the gnat and swallow the camel!
Click to expand...
Ah… I think you ‘get’ it…

This world loses its flavor, it ‘saltiness’, its reality. Once it is questioned/dismissed, what can restore it? More of the same ‘salt’? I think not, since, have lost its saltiness, it is no longer salt.

The reality of the things of this world is like the value of monopoly money. You can have a lot or a little, but it still comes to nothing- once you step outside the game.

Like in a dream. Nothing that happens within the dream can possibly prove the reality of the dream, since they are all equally dream events…
 
Qoeleth said:
Ah… I think you ‘get’ it…

…
The reality of the things of this world is like the value of monopoly money. You can have a lot or a little, but it still comes to nothing- once you step outside the game…
Click to expand...
👍👍
 
Aloysium said:
Originally Posted by KingCoil
  • bolding by KingCoil ]*
Click to expand...
Forgive me, but please rewrite your post as to take into account that in the present thread the exchange of thoughts among folks is exactly on the issue whether a thing exists or not in the objective reality of existence.

Right away in your first words you betray yourself to be off-topic.

Aloysium said:
-]
People enter into discourse for a variety of reasons.
In exchanging ideas, the resolution of whether something exists or not is not necessarily the most important goal for both parties/-].
Click to expand...

Allow me to revise your first words to bring you to the thrust of the topic.

When people enter into discourse for the resolution of whether something exists or not it is necessarily the most important task: that they first both work to clarify the concept and thus concur on the concept of the object they are exchanging thoughts on to determine its existence in objective reality.

And forgive me also everyone who have participated so far, please rewrite your posts to take into account that the exchange of thoughts in the thread is exactly on how to resolve the issue whether a thing exists or not: so keep to the issue.

Of course the presumption is that posters taking the care to react in a thread have the skill and habit of always getting to the exact precise correct whole thrust of the issue being presented for your contributions to the common expatiation of the topic.

KingCoil
Click to expand...
 
If we were to look at a computer and say it exists because it is made of matter it would be hard to dispute that it does exist. We could measure the matter, the carbon, the atomic nature of it’s parts, its physical presence which we recognize when we “kick it”, etc.

What about those things which “exist” within the computer? The programs, the bits, the data? Does that exist? For instance, the game “The Sims;” if the people in the game were programmed to have artificial intelligence. The computer’s processing power and it’s programming were sufficient to sustain such a game and the game could play out over time, would those inside the computer be able to ask if they existed? Would they be able to point to things within their reality and say they existed? Would they in fact, exist? They may conceive of a creator as we do and say that the creator exists outside of their space and time which would be true.

If we look at our physical body we can observe it is made of matter, we can measure our atomic makeup, we can see cells and DNA through observation. What about the ability to think and have free will? Can we measure that? Can we measure our soul? Our thoughts? We can neither see the Spirit during our confirmation, we cannot see God’s presence in the Eucharist, yet we can conceive of things which exist outside our reality. The reality of our existence are only but icons into Truth. Everything we are, everything we can see, everyone we know, every star, every galaxy will eventually die all finite time is swallowed up by eternity; therefore, we no more exist than the people of Sims in our very real computer.

I would say and I hope I am on topic that the OP was looking for one thing to point to but everything in our world may be non-existent so we cannot point to something non-existent and say it exists. That one thing which we would like to point to for proof of existence is God and our only means of knowing Him is through Jesus. Jesus is our only icon of God.

Therefore, Jesus who made us all real by penetrating our reality and through His power He can make us who are not real, real and by real I mean to actually have existence. Outside of His Presence there is nothing which is real in our reality therefore I cannot point to anything except His Presence. All else would be like another poster saying someone in a dream pointing to something else in the dream and saying it existed.

God has giving us all sorts of symbol of His reality by giving us things which we can use to observe such as the similarity between dreaming and our existence or between Nature and the His Beauty, our the folly of our children and the folly of their cares are as our cares when compared to a higher reality. Through observation we can know Him in so much as is sufficient for us to be born again into a new reality a true reality apart from everything we see here which is only a representation of reality.
 
Dear kingston1, thanks for your post.

Please choose one thing that we can you and I examine as a concept, and then we will proceed to look for the object in actual reality that corresponds to the concept we have concurred on.

KingCoil
 
Apologies, I missed the concept of the original post.

How about time as a concept?
 
KingCoil said:
Dear kingston1, thanks for your post.

Please choose one thing that we can you and I examine as a concept, and then we will proceed to look for the object in actual reality that corresponds to the concept we have concurred on.

KingCoil
Click to expand...
How about relationships?
That is what my post was about essentially.
The ultimate reality in a discussion is centred around that discussion, the very people who are relating to one another.
What is more real than the fact that we are communicating?
As a start:
Why would you cross out what I wrote?
How did you do that? Is there a font? I can’t find it.
I want to quote you and strike it out.
No, actually I don’t, but it addresses a nuance of human interaction.
 
This is a pointless question because it is impossible to prove to someone that anything exists if they doubt it exists. A person can always doubt, because once you start doubting, all rules go out the window. Everything could be just a product of the mind. It reminds me of the movie Inception. Leo’s wife had an idea (that nothing was real) planted in her mind, and no matter what Leo couldn’t convince her it was false.

Someone who has experienced pain, and has experienced difficulty in life realizes that the world is real. The same with someone who has experienced love. It takes a certain detachment from reality to doubt the existence of that reality.

As far as I am concerned, the fact that I exist and experience the world is proof enough for me that both I and the world exist (and also that God exists but that is another conversation). There is no reason to doubt it.
 
kingston1 said:
Apologies, I missed the concept of the original post.

How about time as a concept?
Click to expand...
Thanks a lot, dear kingston1 for your cooperation.

Yes, time is a concept in our mind, now we have to work together to concur on what is our concept of time – this is just an exercise for we know what is time and that time exists in objective reality.

Right away from stock knowledge I will say that time is in concept a dimension of everything in the material universe, that universe studied by scientists, I am speaking from stock knowledge, though.

From stock knowledge again, time is a dimension of duration of existence of everything in the material universe measured from the beginning of the material universe.

If you concur with my concept of time as described above, then we can – and this is just an exercise because we both I assume do already know that time exists in objective reality outside our mind – we can now set forth in objective reality to locate in a way the object of time corresponding to our concept of time.

KingCoil
 
Aloysium said:
Originally Posted by KingCoil
Dear kingston1, thanks for your post.
Click to expand...
Okay, relationship is a concept in our mind; a concept in our mind is a thing in our mind that we can talk about so that we both know what we are talking about, unless in the course of our conversation we notice that we are not talking about the same thing in our respective mind; in which situation we both determine what thing in our mind we are talking about, otherwise we would be talking past each other’s head, and to continue in that manner is to behave irrationally and even insanely.

Now, my concern in the thread is to get people to concur with me that when we want to determine a thing to exist in objective reality or not, first we have to concur on the concept of the thing in our mind, then when we have already concurred on the concept, then we can go forth in objective reality to look for the object that corresponds to the concept in our mind.

Of course we can talk about things which do not have corresponding objects in objective reality, and there are objects in objective reality of which we have no concepts of in our mind.

This first rule in the exchange of thoughts among us humans in finding out whether a thing at all exists in objective reality is to my thinking the foremost crucial step to be adopted, and observed by all parties engaged in the determination of a thing to exist in objective reality or not, for example, God.

I don’t intend any irreverence to God in referring to Him as a thing, because a thing is the broadest category beyond which there is no further categories of things in existence – even concepts in our mind are things for existing in our mind, which mind is also a thing that exists as concept and also as object in objective reality.

KingCoil
Click to expand...
 
jimmy said:
This is a pointless question because it is impossible to prove to someone that anything exists if they doubt it exists. A person can always doubt, because once you start doubting, all rules go out the window. Everything could be just a product of the mind. It reminds me of the movie Inception. Leo’s wife had an idea (that nothing was real) planted in her mind, and no matter what Leo couldn’t convince her it was false.

Someone who has experienced pain, and has experienced difficulty in life realizes that the world is real. The same with someone who has experienced love. It takes a certain detachment from reality to doubt the existence of that reality.

As far as I am concerned, the fact that I exist and experience the world is proof enough for me that both I and the world exist (and also that God exists but that is another conversation). There is no reason to doubt it.
Click to expand...
👍 The OP has forgotten to look for himself!
 
tdgesq said:
Originally Posted by kingston1
Apologies, I missed the concept of the original post.
Click to expand...
Laws of logic are a concept in our mind.

Now, if you want to exchange thoughts among ourselves as to come to concur on what are laws of logic insofar as they are a concept in our minds, then we will take up the task to work together to come to concurrence on what we mean by the concept of laws of logic, but only because we want to ascertain that they do exist in objective reality.

If we already concur that laws of logic exist in objective reality, then we need not go into the communal work of getting to clarify the concept of laws of logic in order that we could go forth in objective reality to look for them: as to ascertain to ourselves that laws of logic exist in objective reality, which object (laws of logic) corresponds to our concept of laws of logic in our mind.

KingCoil
Click to expand...
 
tonyrey said:
Originally Posted by jimmy
This is a pointless question because it is impossible to prove to someone that anything exists if they doubt it exists. A person can always doubt, because once you start doubting, all rules go out the window. Everything could be just a product of the mind. It reminds me of the movie Inception. Leo’s wife had an idea (that nothing was real) planted in her mind, and no matter what Leo couldn’t convince her it was false.
Click to expand...
I did read the post of jimmy and did not respond to it because I thought that I might as well exert my effort to orient folks here to the thrust of the thread by taking up one post that to my observation was going off-topic right from the first words of the post.

Jimmy says, “This is a pointless question because it is impossible to prove to someone that anything exists if they doubt it exists.”

That is precisely why everyone into the issue whether something exists in objective reality must first work together to come to concurrence on the concept of the something, the concept in our mind, then proceed to look for it in objective reality to find it.

And that is the topic or the issue of the thread, to get people to accept what I take to be the first rule in the exchange of thoughts among humans in the resolution of any question that has to do with the existence of a thing in objective reality.

At this point I am taking up the examples of concepts in our mind proposed by posters here, which we should go into to concur on, if we want to resolve the issue whether they exist in objective reality.

God is one of these concepts the existence of which in objective reality is controverted.

For Lawrence Krauss nothing is also another concept and he keeps on and on and on insisting that there is nothing in objective reality that corresponds to his concept of nothing in his mind – do you notice that Krauss wants us all to concur with him on the concept in his mind that nothing is not nothing but something?

In regard to the concept of Krauss on nothing etc., now I just realize that perhaps we should ask Krauss to give us examples i.e. objects in physical reality that correspond to his concept of nothing in his mind.

KingCoil
Click to expand...
 
I applaud you for trying to wrestle with the many theories that are floating around out there.

I only read the first few posts but trying to defeat skepticism with saying it is silly or giving single line answers lack the strength needed to help someone get over this mountain. I will start by saying that every theory has it’s strengths and weaknesses. Second and most important is that as far as I am concerned there are no global skeptical challenges out there. What I mean is that something exists and logic is certain and mathematics is certain. Beyond that it gets pretty hard to prove anything. Solipsism is not stupid either or that if something can be proven it can really only be proven for yourself. “Cogito ergo sum” fails and eventually becomes something thinks therefore something exists.

There is not enough space in a post to explain all this and more because people literally make whole books on the subject. I have taken lots of philosophy classes being as it is my second major and even I do not fully grasp epistemology. I hope that a quote from Hume can help. This is not direct quote because I do not feel like looking it up he says something to the affect of skepticism only matters when you are thinking really hard about it, but when you are around friends and doing things it’s useless. Why I bring this up is to show that even great minds like Hume could only take skeptical reasoning seriously when he was isolated and deep in study. Skeptics lack the courage to live out their lives according to the principles which it should lay out. Even if there is only a bodiless brain in a vat or a computer program being played out on a universal stage. Even then you still have to live your life exactly the way you are.
Like I said this is not a simple issue that can be resolved by quipping about the unlikeliness of a scenario. I hope this helps you will be in my prayers
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top