Did you ever wonder if you were the only one, and everthing else was just a figment of your imagination?

It would be much easier for whatever it was that created whatever it is we persieve as life to creat just one imagination that "imagined everything else" rather than the whole world being real.

Just think everything you have never seen or heard of would not need to actually be there. So much more simple...

That imagination is yours..

?

DOug

Reading up on some Descartes are we?

Yeah, basic Philosophy 101 type stuff . . . really just an easy introduction into philosophy really. It's one of those old arguments that new students of philosophy are introduced to because it seems so profound! Yet, it's just sort of been left behind with all of the other dualistic theories, but it pops up from time to time.

One of its key counter-arguments has its roots in metaphysics. First off, what does one mean by "real"? Obviously, what is real, is just a take on what is reality. So, what is reality?

The problem with this question, is that things that aren't QUOTE-UNQUOTE real, like unicorns, do very much exist . . . metaphysically speaking. A unicorn may not be a physical entity, but exists nonetheless in a metaphysical aspect. Therefore, if to say YOU are a figment of MY imagination, doesn't mean that YOU don't exist. For, if I can conceive of you, then surely you must exist in some manner . . . even if it is metaphysically. So, does that make you any less real?

Now, you can take my favorite philosophy, existentialism, and say that well, even if you are or aren't "real," you're nevertheless not as real as I am. For example, what proof do you have that Brad Pitt exists? Because you've seen him in movies? Well, I've seen aliens in movies. I've even seen talking toys in movies. Are they real? But obviously, one would say that Brad Pitt is more real than a talking toy. Even more so, one would say that their own mother is more real than Brad Pitt. EVEN MORE SO, one would say that they're more real than their mother. And even then, under the basic rule of philosophy (that is, NONE OF US know what TRUTH is, just what truths are), you have no proof that you're real.

Sixx,

Its a theory ive wondered about for as long as I can remember - probably about the age of 14 i suppose, I can remeber someone saying the old "if a tree falls in the woods and nobody was there would it make a noise" and just taking it a little further.

Never considered philosophy, alas I chose to do a degree in Computer Networking

I liked your comments about Brad Pit - nice comparision.

Where can one get some Descartes - sounds like a good read! Although im not sure it would be a good idea


Doug

Well, it's a philosophy that's been around for a few hundred years, with Descartes being the basic father . . . as he is considered the father of modern philosophy. His most popular work is his Meditations (easily found in any book store), which consists of his major contribution--dualism. Ever heard the phrase "cogito ergo sum" ("I think, therefore I am am/exist")? It was Descartes' logic that in order to prove one exists, one must have the ability to think. Pretty simple stuff really. He actually then turned this philosophy around to prove the existence of God (which he did mainly to avoid persecution), in which he stated "I think of God, I have an idea of God, hence God exists." Now, he turned that statement into more of God's doing (that is, God put his existence in our minds) . . . later, that statement got turned around in the past two centuries or so, in that: if I think of this, or if I think of that, then it must exist in some manner (metaphysically speaking . . . like a unicorn). Which, is sort of where existentialism (Nietzsche, Kierkengaard, Heidegger, Sartre) and absurdism (Camus) took Descartes idea and twisted it a bit further.

Anyway, Descartes is an easy enough read, but I always suggest jumping right into the harder, more profound stuff. Try Heidegger, he's easy enough with his language, as the writing style of philosophy can be quite confusing if one isn't familiar with it. Heidegger's main obsession was proving when a "thing" is indeed a "thing." Something I'm completely obsessed with. But Nietzsche is without a doubt the greatest philosopher ever, the most crucial thinker to ever exist, and quite possibly the only human to have ever gotten close to the meaning of life (philosophically speaking of course); he's also the hardest philosopher to understand. But if you're willing, try picking up a collection of his works with certain excerpts of his works, as his works as a whole are rather lengthy and wordy.

Anywho, welcome to Dark Forum, and welcome to the philosophy section. Hope you stick around.

I like to think I have a better imagination than this

There's also the communications theory that kind of goes along with the unicorn/brad pitt thing in that nothing exists unless its talked about (which is very similar to a physics theory, anyways)....but this is on faith from the communication's major who also likes to research demon possession just for that reason.

The theory that you (you referring to any individual) are the only real being and everyone and everything else is just a figment is, although necessary, a bit egocentric. A bit more macabre is the possibility that you are just a figment, and at any time could cease to exist when the dreamer awakens.

Do you really not see the irony in your asking that?

No matter what you perceive, you are the only one who can perceive it.

You can verify that there are others around you and that they too are capable of perceiving, but even there still, it is you who is perceiving the idea that they are able to perceive.

No matter how many people there are in the world and no matter how many people interact with you, you are the only one who is perceiving your experience. No one else can do it for you and you can't do it for someone else.

And if someone walks up to you and tells you that they can perceive your thoughts and they prove it, that still means that you are the one perceiving what they have told you about you.

So do these others exist? Yes. Are they truly perceiving their own reality? Maybe. You cannot know that with absolute certainty unless you are that person.

Wether you really are the only one or not is not the point. The point is wether or not you can cope with what you can perceive.

Logically acceptable . . . but for what reason?

Sixxx, I assume that your question is directed at my final statement which is.....

Wether you really are the only one or not is not the point. The point is wether or not you can cope with what you can perceive.

If this is so, my answer to you is.....for the simple matter of existing. Of being alive.

However, the reason for existing can be different for many people.

For some it is for the purpose of procreating. For others it is to enjoy life while they have it with no intention of participating in the creation of a new generation. There could be other reasons as well.

Yet what does this all mean in the grand scheme of things?

The answer to that is purely subjective.

And yet the subjective is how we discover the objective . . . which is the ultimate (and attainable) goal . . .

I assure you that you aren't.

I may be, but definitely not you.

I am more inclined to say that discovering the objective and holding it in balance with the subjective is a stepping stone to reaching any goal.

If a person is lop-sided and is too subjective (a solipsist) he is likely to be quite annoying and possibly deserving of getting his ass kicked. He doesn't stop to think that there are people who have ideas that may be more inciteful than his own.

If a person is on the other extreme end and is too objective, he tends to speak with only textbook knowledge and no personal experience. In other words, he's smart, but he has no substance and therefore boring.

Yet, as you say . . .

If somewhere there is a middle, if keeping a balance between "bigheaded" and "nerdy" is a stepping stone (and is attainable) . . . then what is the objective of "something being purely subjective" (perceiving)?

Perception is flawed, and yet a philosophical truth that has been tossed around for centuries. In what way does it add to the overall Truth and objective of existence?

It doesn't. As Pontius Pilate told Jesus, "What is truth?"

In my opinion, there is no truth save for the one that we create for ourselves. The same goes for "the meaning of life". There really isn't one. Nature doesn't care about what we think, feel, or do and that is easy enough to prove without a doubt. And perhaps that is the only "solid" truth we can ever experience. All else is subject to change.

Humanity may very well simply just be an epiphenomenon of nature. Nothing more. We think that our intelligence counts for something, but in the end, in the overall evolution of life, our intelligence is but a fleeting speck of dust.

That may sound morbid or uncomfortable for some, but I find it absolutely fascinating. It is that indifferent attitude of nature that causes uncompromising change, which in turn motivates the human psyche to do something. Through that "chaos" the individual has his/her chance to create their own meaning. And that is all that humanity will ever be able to do.

Or did you ever wonder if you would someday wake up and you would be back in your childhood again and your teenage and adult years were all just a long, elaborate dream? Or that the government created you and put you in this made up world, with made up people that are robots, and when you're not around they get together and talk about you and how you react in certain situations?

Assume the worst and work your way up I say.

Yes, I've wondered that. But that doesn't change anything other than to learn from the mistakes I made in the previous dream and do better in my waking world which could still be another dream.

Well, honestly, humans are not different from robots. Like it or not, we are programmed by nature just as a robot would be programmed by a human. It just so happens that nature has allowed our program to access more options than any other animal on this planet. Hence, the government is also robotic.

Assume the worst? How about assume nothing, but pay attention to past experiences, and simply do what you have to do the moment you have to do it?

When you lean to one side too often such as when you always assume the worst you will cause unnecessary mental filters to blur up what is really there. You may not be quick to see the wonderful opportunities life has to offer when you are always pessimistic.

The same goes for always assuming the best. By being too optimistic you may not spot the dangers that are awaiting you, if any.