None of you are real, you're all just part of my imagination.

Discussion in 'Philosophy' started by Agalloch, May 20, 2009.

  1. #41 Agalloch, May 20, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: May 20, 2009
    Not so much as an illusion as it is meaningless existences. I am experiencing everything from my perception. There is no way to prove that you or your thoughts actually exist.

    I roll this joint, I set this joint down and I stare at it. This joint is in front of me, but how do I know it exists? I could be dreaming, or hallucinating. I cannot say with certainty that this joint exists. My mental states are the only thing I have access too, I cannot conclude the existence of anything outside of my mind, therefore only my reality exists.

  2. I bow down to The Great Agalloch for he has provided me with everything i need to sustain my imaginary life here.
  3. my life is meaningless now thanks to agalloch, i know now that i am just a figment of one's imagination, now imagine me some more weed to get over it:smoking:
  4. Meaningless... perhaps, as long as you empower your reality to be meaningless.

    There is no way to prove you or your thoughts exist either. If you exist only within yourself, how can you definitively say you "exist" ?

    You know the joint exists because your senses can interpret it. I'm not trying to imply that there is no reality beyond our sense of perception, but just for your example, you can be sure that your joint exists. ;)

  5. Can I be certain? How is it possible to differentiate between real, dream, hallucination?

    Just because I can see and touch something, that certainly does not mean it's there.

    The fact that I can acknowledge this proves that I exist. The fact that I cannot prove you exist means that I am in my own reality.

  6. I ran into the same apparently 'impossible' obstacle. I don't know how much formal philosophy you've studied, but really you're catching onto what is popularized as Cartesian Skepticism made famous by the great mathematician/philosopher Renee' Descartes.

    But to a certain extent, I think you're mischaracterizing your own skepticism and judging it too harshly without abstractly weighing the consequences of what you suspect you've 'uncovered.' But really, like I've said, this has been a problem in Western Epistemology since the Sophists of Ancient Greece.

    Now, lets try to find the problem that has convinced you that life is 'meaningless.' Some would want to classify this as existentialism, well fuck them, because this same idea has been a major component in Western Philosophy, well before the days of Sarte, Camus, and their contemps/teachers ;). But, really is it that you can't say with certainty that the joint exists, or that you can't prove it to me that it exists? Is there a distinction between those two questions? I think so, because it seems like you're embracing a very interesting form of subjectivism, yet refusing to let it be self-substantiating. In so far as, you're saying that life is meaningless because there's no way to substantiate things with pure 'evidence.' But pure and undeniable evidence doesn't exist in the context of the normative, so why do you place so much importance on it?

    But YOU don't need evidence to tell YOU the joint is real. Its real so long as you believe it to be. The complications only arise when you try to prove it to someone else that its real, or in your case, another 'figment' of your imaginaiton. The problem occurs insofar as they have to just take your word for it, or trust inductive reasoning, and Western Philosophy finds this unfulfilling as justification.

    So is the problem really you not knowing the joint is really there or not? Or is the problem that Western Philosophy has painted itself into a corner when discussing notions of 'truth?'

    For instance, why is it important to know for certainty? Isn't a good guess, good enough?(Reference: Pragmatics)

    The whole thing really comes back to this inherent disaster that manifests itself in two forms.
    The first are people too ignorant to realize that there is literally no philosophical 'truth' to be found in the world.
    The second are those, that once they realize there is no philosophical 'truth' they think that everything is now meaningless, and there's no reason to have belief in anything.

    When really, the whole thing was fucked from the get-go. In a philosophical or normative context the way in which we classify 'truth', or 'knowledge' or what it is 'to know,' we set ourselves up for disaster by associating it with having to be 'justifiable' and 'true' and 'true under all circumstances.' Literally, we have defined these words to be above our capacity to understand, as a result of our finite nature.

    I hold my hands infront of my face. There are those who would lead me to believe that they aren't real, that they are the interpretation of my imagination. Yet, when I bend my finger, it hurts. Why? If I close my eyes and my hands disappear, yet I still feign the motion, that some deceiver has tricked me into believing is the bending of my finger, I still feel pain. Why?
    Well someone led me to believe that when I was ten, I really didn't fall out of a tree and break my finger. But everytime I go to curl my hand around a pen to accentuate the skepticism that my cold reason tries to get me to entertain as truth, I still feel the pain, and in an instant remember that I fell out of a tree, that I hit the ground just as Newton predicted, and that it hurt, just like it would for everyone else.

    The burdon of proving things real is a task left to Pragmatics manifestation in Empiricism. We as philosophers, don't need to get caught on whether we're real or not. We don't need to semantically debate reasons for why or why not we might be real. But further, we don't need to allow our skepticism to become dibilitating. Dibilitating to the point that we think we have no stake in our own existence.

    Humans are one of the most fascinating species that we know of in the universe. But sometimes we get too caught up in our own mediocrity to appreciate ourselves.

    All things pass in time, and like a kidney stone, once the jagged rocks have sufficently cut you, bruised you, caused you many sleepless nights, they'll eventually pass.

    Remember, even Descartes noted that the difference between dreaming and being awake, is the ability to feel pain.

  7. Quite a selfish thought, but if we we're all created by your imagination, we would all share some quality with yourself.
  8. So you're the fucker that's responsible for prohibition? I should beat your ass
  9. seeing as how i have seen tons of people talk about this theory, why would you be the one that is real?

    Wouldn't you be the only one that would think about this if everyone else existed through you? Seeing as how people that lived before you were even born probably thought about this, wouldn't that make your conclusion irrelevant? you would have to be the first person ever to develop this theory to be the "real" one then wouldn't you?
  10. #51 Czarchastic, May 21, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: May 21, 2009
    Not at all. First, ask yourself, Am I real? If you say yes, then you must ask yourself, How do I prove him as real?

    There is no true way of knowing if he is real. So then, there is no true way for you to know I am real. So for you, both I and him may well not exist.

    But then, I have to ask....are you real?

    None of you are real, you're all just part of my imagination.

    OP: I agree entirely, regardless of your non-existence.

    Perhaps you should look harder.
  11. Selfish? Pah...

    You don't exist (to me, or him, or that guy, or that girl, or that cat, or that dog, or that jellyfish). How can a person be selfish when he is alone?

    The illusion of relative perception knows no others, and yet everyone knows it.

    this thread is fucking retarded and lost all purpose of continuing, as it lost all of its usefulness in any spiritual/philosophic context, because its basically retarded.

    "I fucked all of your moms. Prove me wrong."
    oh god how fucking productive is that.
    Holy shit.
    The complex thoughts that are arising out of that amazing statement's foundation are just overwhelming.

    Like so what if we're just your imagination?
    Oh interesting.
    Gosh the thoguht of that is mentally stimulating to such a high degree...

    Its pointless, and not worthy of a thread.
  13. When you smoke that damn joint you'll know if your real or not.

    Haha but nah really Agalloch is a kick ass band.

  14. And this is not pointless?
    Mentally stimulating?

    Relative, it seems.

    I'll try something different: Prove that I am real.

  15. No. Speaking as Agalloch, I am real, and you are not. You cannot consider yourself not real, as you are not "existent."

    "You" are naught but words on my screen, or perhaps, the dude who ran me over in a car one time. I experienced being run over, but you did not, because you didn't run me over. I was run over by you.

    Fortunately, I am not Agalloch. I am Czarchastic, and none of you are real.

    Only I am real.

    The same can be said for anyone, entirely truthfully.
  16. Folks I'm just bringing this thought to the table, some of you definitely didn't take a philosophic approach to this thread and instead blew it off.

    Metaphysical solipsism is a logically sound argument. You cannot refute it solely on logical grounds.

    The only things we have direct access to are the thoughts and contents of our minds, or our 'mental states'. What I know for sure are my mental states, my thoughts, emotions, experiences, ect. Experiences are private and personal to any given person, the contents of one's mind are the ONLY thing they have direct access to. You cannot escape your mind to have access to encounter other people or things. Especially other minds.

    So to summarize (again), my mental states are the only thing I have access to. I cannot confirm the existence of any objects or persons outside of my mental states. I am left with the conclusion that my mental states are the only that exist.
  17. #58 Vitamin 420, May 21, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: May 21, 2009
    Prove that your mental state isn't a hallucination.

    Do you see where this goes man? I'm not trying to be one of the people who's been hammering you for this thread, I understand what you're trying to get at, but when you bring a demand like that to the table you better have fireproof pants! :p

  18. How could my mental states be a hallucination?

    You don't get the topic if you think you've refuted it just now.
  19. Your mental state can be a hallucination because, just like you said, the "reality" that our senses provide us with can be a hallucination (logically) ... so I don't see why the "reality" you don't in fact "see" is limited in any way? How can you make such logical inferences about a reality you don't know for certain exists?

Share This Page