Self-evidence (main q)

on fundamental matters such as existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind and ethics.

Moderators: Calilasseia, ADParker

Self-evidence (main q)

#1  Postby asdfjkl » Mar 26, 2012 9:24 pm

ok awhile ago i was asking whether existence=self-evidence.
the main reason why i might think it is is this:
the only thing that is self evident is the self (and its perceptions of course)
these things we can perceive directly, ie there is no doubt that they exist.
now it seems to me that existence=direct perception (=self evidence)
it seems that just like you're certain these things exist you should be certain nothing else does.
anyone else think this way or are you non solipsist?
asdfjkl
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 349

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Self-evidence (main q)

#2  Postby amkerman » Mar 26, 2012 9:29 pm

asdfjkl wrote:ok awhile ago i was asking whether existence=self-evidence.
the main reason why i might think it is is this:
the only thing that is self evident is the self (and its perceptions of course)
these things we can perceive directly, ie there is no doubt that they exist.
now it seems to me that existence=direct perception (=self evidence)
it seems that just like you're certain these things exist you should be certain nothing else does.
anyone else think this way or are you non solipsist?


I think you're problem is in red.

Nothing... doesn't exist. Everything that is not "nothing" exists.

I am not a solipsist.

I agree that existence is self-evident.
Bring me gold and bring me wisdom- give me scars to bring me grace.

A wicked wit and when I use it I dash the hopes of those who hate me.

Give me love- big as a mountain.

Dave Matthews
amkerman
 
Posts: 1820
Age: 36
Male

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Self-evidence (main q)

#3  Postby LucidFlight » Mar 26, 2012 10:36 pm

amkerman wrote:Nothing... doesn't exist. Everything that is not "nothing" exists.

Profound.
OFFICIAL MEMBER: QUANTUM CONSTRUCTOR CONSCIOUSNESS QUALIA KOALA COLLECTIVE.
User avatar
LucidFlight
RS Donator
 
Name: Kento
Posts: 10801
Male

Country: UK/US/AU/SG
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Self-evidence (main q)

#4  Postby chairman bill » Mar 26, 2012 10:40 pm

Profoundly fucking pedantic
“There is a rumour going around that I have found God. I think this is unlikely because I have enough difficulty finding my keys, and there is empirical evidence that they exist.” Terry Pratchett
User avatar
chairman bill
RS Donator
 
Posts: 28231
Male

Country: UK: fucked since 2010
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Self-evidence (main q)

#5  Postby asdfjkl » Mar 27, 2012 12:04 am

so is solipsism justified this way?
since it seems that you can't directly "perceive" non-self-evident things, just think about themm
asdfjkl
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 349

Print view this post

Re: Self-evidence (main q)

#6  Postby LucidFlight » Mar 27, 2012 12:33 am

Maybe one thinks one is thinking about non-self-evident things when in actual fact they are thinking about an abstract representation of the non-self-evident thing — which in itself may be non-self-evident other than the fact that you're thinking about them and, as such, they are self-evident at the time, but only as an abstract and self-evident representation of the non-self-evident thing you thought you were thinking about, in which case, it's not entirely self-evident that one is thinking self-evidentially about something possibly completely removed, evidentially-speaking, from the non-self-evident thing in itself about which one initially though they were evidently thinking about.
OFFICIAL MEMBER: QUANTUM CONSTRUCTOR CONSCIOUSNESS QUALIA KOALA COLLECTIVE.
User avatar
LucidFlight
RS Donator
 
Name: Kento
Posts: 10801
Male

Country: UK/US/AU/SG
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Self-evidence (main q)

#7  Postby asdfjkl » Mar 27, 2012 12:51 am

yes you can think about non self evident things
but do they exist?
you can think about nonexistent things too
asdfjkl
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 349

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Self-evidence (main q)

#8  Postby asdfjkl » Mar 27, 2012 12:52 am

my q is is existence the same as self evidence/
asdfjkl
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 349

Print view this post

Re: Self-evidence (main q)

#9  Postby Ihavenofingerprints » Mar 27, 2012 12:53 am

asdfjkl wrote:so is solipsism justified this way?
since it seems that you can't directly "perceive" non-self-evident things, just think about themm


If it helps you you sleep at night, then yes.

There is no point to these threads. You don't listen to anyone, instead just repeat the same question 500 times.

If you want to find more information about the topic at hand,

read a book

/thread
User avatar
Ihavenofingerprints
 
Posts: 6903
Age: 27
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Self-evidence (main q)

#10  Postby LucidFlight » Mar 27, 2012 1:03 am

asdfjkl wrote:my q is is existence the same as self evidence/

Existence is the basic state. Self evidence is in the perception of the beholder.
OFFICIAL MEMBER: QUANTUM CONSTRUCTOR CONSCIOUSNESS QUALIA KOALA COLLECTIVE.
User avatar
LucidFlight
RS Donator
 
Name: Kento
Posts: 10801
Male

Country: UK/US/AU/SG
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Self-evidence (main q)

#11  Postby LucidFlight » Mar 27, 2012 1:23 am

Also, I would agree with Ihavenofingerprints's suggestion to read a book (or several) about these topics. I'm sure someone more knowledgeable than me in such matters can offer some, uh... suggestions in terms of appropriate reading material.
OFFICIAL MEMBER: QUANTUM CONSTRUCTOR CONSCIOUSNESS QUALIA KOALA COLLECTIVE.
User avatar
LucidFlight
RS Donator
 
Name: Kento
Posts: 10801
Male

Country: UK/US/AU/SG
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Self-evidence (main q)

#12  Postby asdfjkl » Mar 27, 2012 2:23 pm

so are you guys solipsists or wut?
asdfjkl
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 349

Print view this post

Re: Self-evidence (main q)

#13  Postby Ihavenofingerprints » Mar 27, 2012 2:30 pm

asdfjkl wrote:so are you guys solipsists or wut?


Yes. You exist 100% inside my own brain. So I command you to download spellcheck.
User avatar
Ihavenofingerprints
 
Posts: 6903
Age: 27
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Self-evidence (main q)

#14  Postby asdfjkl » Mar 27, 2012 8:12 pm

no really do things exist if you're not directly perceiving them?
or does "i'm not perceiving it directly or 100% aware of its existence"="it doesn't exist"
??
asdfjkl
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 349

Print view this post

Re: Self-evidence (main q)

#15  Postby asdfjkl » Mar 28, 2012 12:49 am

bump guys?
asdfjkl
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 349

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Self-evidence (main q)

#16  Postby Ihavenofingerprints » Mar 28, 2012 1:11 am

asdfjkl wrote:no really do things exist if you're not directly perceiving them?


Yes.

Now find a new hobby.
User avatar
Ihavenofingerprints
 
Posts: 6903
Age: 27
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Self-evidence (main q)

#17  Postby Onyx8 » Mar 28, 2012 4:19 am

Why don't you read some books about this stuff and then come to a conclusion? Why would you take someone else's opinion on the internet as evidence one way or the other?

I vote 'yes' in case you are keeping score, btw.
The problem with fantasies is you can't really insist that everyone else believes in yours, the other problem with fantasies is that most believers of fantasies eventually get around to doing exactly that.
User avatar
Onyx8
Moderator
 
Posts: 17520
Age: 64
Male

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Self-evidence (main q)

#18  Postby asdfjkl » Mar 28, 2012 2:58 pm

but having thoughs about objects aint the same thing as actlly perceivving them.
also am i the only one who gets such conclusions or were there other hpilosophers?
asdfjkl
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 349

Print view this post

Re: Self-evidence (main q)

#19  Postby blindfaith » Mar 28, 2012 3:15 pm

asdfjkl wrote:but having thoughs about objects aint the same thing as actlly perceivving them.
also am i the only one who gets such conclusions or were there other hpilosophers?


im thinking about my house being where i left it, i dont need to perceive it to know it (or most of it barring a horrible accident) is there, and it is there despite me not seeing it at this moment as i will be returning to it after work, whats the confusion?
The best explanation for the absence of convincing reasons for god's existence is god's nonexistence

john shook
User avatar
blindfaith
 
Name: darren
Posts: 466
Age: 50
Male

Country: uk
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Self-evidence (main q)

#20  Postby asdfjkl » Mar 28, 2012 8:36 pm

and a different q.
if there is no house or if the house isn't within your perception the effect is the same only thoughts are different.
so house not in perception=no house?
also is this idea novel/unique?
asdfjkl
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 349

Print view this post

Next

Return to Philosophy

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest