Your entire argument rests on a pretty crazy definition of football player. It goes something like this. Noun1.football player - an athlete who is playing American football In reality, a football player is someone who plays football. Brett Farr is a football player. He is a football player when he's spanking his monkey, and he's a football player when playing golf. Notice for a moment how incompatible this view is with sane, every day life. Take a court case for instance. Judge: I find that Billy Joebob was negligent in the operation of his vehicle on September 6, 2010, and that his negligence was a proximate cause of the injuries, including spinal chord injury and to the Plaintiff, Mike Smith and the deaths of his 2 daughters. However, because Billy Joebob is not currently negligent in the operation of his vehicle, I find him not guilty. This is not how language works for sane human beings. I'm not arguing that you're wrong because it's insane(even though it should obviously be silly), but because you're playing a game with words. One last thing to note, is this wouldn't be an argument for someone not existing. Even if your convoluted example were somehow sound, one is still someone at any moment of time. It doesn't even come close to demonstrating there is no you. Now, I'd love to imagine our conversation could end so neatly, but I have a feeling you're just going to reply to this with more tricks of diction. So uh.. could I ask you to please not do this? Read your post over and ask yourself why your post probably wouldn't convince a professor of Philosophy at some esteemed university. Is it because you know something they don't, or understand something they've missed in a lifetime of trying to make sense of reality? Or is it more likely that you've made a mistake, somewhere?
Reading into something similar and i agree.There is no intrinsic Existence and everything arises out of a cause and conditions.But i cant help than wonder what is the first cause?..it leads mean to nothing,Therefore does nothing not have an Intrisic Existemce??
So what is realisation to you? To me, it is finding something new with the possibility of being meaningful. Apparently, our definitions are different though. I cannot answer that for you. What do YOU think it is?
Realization to me is realizing the same thing every human does at some point in their life is nothing new nor meaningful. It is just a basic truth. Then please do not ever refer to it in reference to me if you cannot define it for me. I don't like being talked to in imaginary terms.
So if I realised my dog was pregnant, you would have to experience that, as everyone else, would? I apologise if you think I'm attacking you, I simply wanted you to see where I'm coming from. If you refuse to accept everyone else as important, I will let it be though. Again, I apologise if it appeared that way to you. I was merely trying to get you to think "outside the box". But hey, sheep run wild, right?
First, I was never a big fan of philosophy professors... they think themselves in circles all day without really reaching any conclusions, at least when it comes to metaethical/philosophical inquiries. Billy Joebob's guilt or lack of guilt exists regardless of the present moment. Just as the hypothetical man's football playing past exists in its own moment. However, I am not sure you can apply guilt to the argument of egoic identity. Because, in this moment, Billy Joebob is not guilty of criminal negligence, yet we want revenge for the consequences of his actions, so we deem him as still being guilty of negligent of the operation of a motor vehicle, even though at this moment his identity does not include negligence of the operation of a motor vehicle. This is simply a matter of efficiency in the courtroom, because as humans we feel that we need to get "revenge" on people who commit crimes in the past, because we usually feel they deserve punishment and they have a chance of again commiting crimes in the future. It has nothing to do with their identity in the present moment... it has everything to do with our attachment to past events. But then, it's probably best you don't read or respond to this, because it will just make you upset...
That's quite a massive generalization of Philosophy. Perhaps you don't realize this, but many distinguished philosophers tend to be professors of philosophy. You don't just become a distinguished, respectable philosopher on a pothead forum. You teach at a university. More importantly... You didn't deal with my argument, by the way. After I was done with it, I just felt like pointing out how the type of wordgame you used could be seen as batshit crazy in a real life scenario, so I'm not really interested in touching what you wrote in response to my example. This conversation wouldn't make me upset, it's just a bit tedious intellectually, because this is essentially high school shit. Before I would get mad, I would just get bored, and say something along the lines of: Hurrrrrrr this guy isn't playing football right now so he's not a football player so identities are an illusion so he doesn't exist, DURRRRRRR..... I WANT STICKER. It's not merely my opinion that playing a game with words like this is philosophically amateurish. After all, you didn't think you had just discovered some deep insight, did you?
what makes you such a great philosopher oh smart one, what kind of impossible-for-us-simpletons-to-comprehend kind of topics do you and your university geniuses cover
Obviously you do not understand the concepts I am trying to relate... Your posts, yet again, come off as incredibly stand-offish. I have not insulted you or spoken down to you. This once again tells me you are a pretty unhappy person, if your angst seethes through every one of your posts that strongly.
That's fine, but you still haven't dealt with my original answer. You said I said this is simply not how we use the words 'football player' in a proper descriptive sense. What you said only makes sense if you use the words 'football player' in a rather bizarre way, 'person who is playing American football'
the "egoic identity" IS descriptive, and it inherently misses the mark. We can use "proper descriptions," but when you break it all down there are flaws and assumptions...I was gonna go into a bit more detail about what I WASN'T saying, but...I realize that if you don't understand what I mean by now me adding another sentence or two to this post proly won't change that lol
You're comparing a perceivable truth to an intangible one. Dismissing this analogy. I'm sure you understand why. Ad hominem attacks back up your case quite well. Keep 'em comin.
May I ask you, are ALL truths not what you make them to be? And I wasn't intending to offend. I apologise and bow down gracefully. Farewell, all knowing one.
Mmm, and now people using the term 'Karma' without actually knowing what it means. This keeps getting better.