Should Anything Exist????Says Who???Should Nothing Exist?? Says Who? (page 5)

frankiespeakin

Preston,

LOL!

Ya hear that Minimus,,4 questions in 1.

On.

off to work (which I can hate)

It"s all good even that which we hate.(Or is it???)

myauntfanny

Preston, LMAO, somehow that really hit my funny bone.

Narkissos

"les non-dupes errent" ("the non-dupe err", perhaps the most famous Lacanian pun for "les noms du Père", "the names of the Father").

Implying that if god is the Word, god is also a delusion whose acceptance is inherhent in being homo sapiens sapiens? These modern French philosophers are too clever. Their signifiers signify too much; it gives me a headache and makes me feel like such a prole. I do love them, but in small chunks all smushed up and fed to me by someone clever.

I also think that if no defines yes, yes equally defines no, just as the rational and the irrational define each other. Isn't it an error then to privilege either one over the other?

Narkissos

Implying that if god is the Word, god is also a delusion whose acceptance is inherhent in being homo sapiens sapiens?

Lacan of course was a psychoanalyst, not a theologian (although some of his theoretical constructions might be somehow related to his Catholic family background). So his "Father" is not God, it is a symbolic character. According to him it is our connection, not to this "Father" actually but to "his" absence (the "name of the Father"), which determines our symbolical position as speaking subjects ("I").

The history of "God" (in the monotheistic sense) is just a little spot in the history of man. Mankind and language existed long before the invention of "God" and went on without "God"'s realm, just as within. We can survive it. Yet I think we could not exist as speaking beings without some kind of "hole" in reality, without connecting to "something" which is not part of the real world and which actually does not exist. Delusion, yes, but without it I believe we would choke.

I also think that if no defines yes, yes equally defines no, just as the rational and the irrational define each other. Isn't it an error then to privilege either one over the other?

Perhaps. If "equally" doesn't mean "symmetrically". Reminds me of Tao te King: there is no symmetry between the wheel and the hole in the middle of the wheel, but they are equally necessary.

The thirty spokes unite in the one nave; but it is on the empty space (for the axle), that the use of the wheel depends. Clay is fashioned into vessels; but it is on their empty hollowness, that their use depends. The door and windows are cut out (from the walls) to form an apartment; but it is on the empty space (within), that its use depends. Therefore, what has a (positive) existence serves for profitable adaptation, and what has not that for (actual) usefulness

kls

You guys are like so deep . In fact so deep that i have no idea what you are talking about.

Satanus

Okay, if there was nothing, then there could not be something to mess with the primordial filament.

The filament messed itself in that it was unable to maintain it's isotropic consistency. No action from 'outside' (god?) is necesary in this theory of the origin of the universe.

S

Blueblades

Hi Frankiespeakin! Wow! I just bought this book today, ( THE HOLOGRAPHIC UNIVERSE ) that my son recommened for me to read.Some quotes are: " A Remarkable New Theory of Reality That Explains, the Paranormal Abilities of the Mind. The latest Frontiers of Physics, and the Unsolved Riddles of Brain and Body.

"The concept of the universe as a giant hologram containing both matter and consciousness as a single field will, I am sure, excite anyone who has asked the question, "What is reality?" This book may answer the question once and for all." The author is Michael Talbot.

Frankiespeakin, I have not yet finished reading the book, just started reading with an open mind, I will reserve any further comments until I have finished it.

Blueblades

frankiespeakin

Kls,

I was thinking over what you said:

Frankie, you said,,,,, I know I don't know, How do you know you don't know ? Maybe you do Know but don't know you do.

I think the last part might be correct paradoxically,,because by agreeing that one does not know he knows correctly.

Abbadon,

We perceive we exist. Perception is what we have to inform us of the nature of subjective reality. Obviously people have differing perceptions and different subjective realities, but one can build an objective reality by using the consensus of individual's subjective realities

I don't think so because if if is all subjective and we use comparisions to find similarities in the subjective realities we have not found objective reality we have just found similarities. Sounds like the saying: "50 million Frenchmen can't all be wrong".

One can say within that context that obviously we exist so either things should exist as a matter of course (as they are here), or the 'dice of Universe formation' fell in a favourable way so that on this occasion things exist (but it might not always work out that way).

I don't think we ever can say with certainty "Obviously we exist" we can only say "it seems Obviously we exist" of course existence can have many shades of meaning. We technically can be nothing more than thoughts and still exist all be it as thoughts only without any real solid material nature,, then again what we see as solid in nothing but electromagnetic field. So no matter how sufisticated our preception may become or no matter how accurate our measuring devices become we can never have a purely objective view of reality. It will always be subjective no matter what.

And then we have to say there is no rule that autoratively states that nothing or something must exist. There is no law maker god that can make such a statement. The universe is the way it is not from following laws,,(humans make laws),, it just is,,maybe it is just pure consciousness taking different forms to explore the pure mystery of what it is from many different angles???,,experiencing what it's like to be a atom, a planet, a cat, a ocean, a human with contemplative powers and so on and so on,,that's a fanciful idea I know, and probably dead wrong,,but that is the nature of this existence thing.

I don't think there's any data to support alternate conclusions, not that that stops people. Many people see the self-falsifying nature of an argument that runs 'something can't come from nothing so god had to do it'. Others ignore it, or pretend they have explained it (when their explanation is basically 'because I say so'.)

I don't think there is any data to support any conclusion. At least not any concrete objective one.

shamus

Why should we smoke crack if nothing exist?

Why not? What have you to lose? You don't even believe that you exist, so get as high as you can, feel as good as you can, because nothing is reality.

While you're at it, why not kill anyone you don't like. Because you don't exist and nothing exists.

Come now. Isn't there more interesting things to debate? This sounds like a grade 7 topic or something. Sorry that sounds harsh.

frankiespeakin

Blueb,

Sounds like an interesting book,, those type of books I think open the mind to different possibilties,,I just don't like it if they get too dogmatic in explaning a theory. Other than that sounds like an interesting idea.

frankiespeakin

Shamus,

I think you misunderstand. I'm not saying dogmatically we do not exist. I'm saying our concepts that we have are not reliable to prove we exist or what really exists.

Should Anything Exist????Says Who???Should Nothing Exist?? Says Who?

Share this