what's on your mind? (off-topic thread)

stirner wrote:If objects of consciousness constitute their own criterion of existence, as Pyrrhonist’s propose, they are entirely trustworthy. There can be no mistakes in objects of consciousness, only mistakes about them. To quote Sextus again: “what we investigate is not what is apparent but what is said about what is apparent.”16 In the case of illusions, hallucinations, and other anomalous objects of experience, there is no mistake about them as such. I might see a mirage in the desert. There is no mistaking the mirage itself, that is, the visual experience of a shimmering blur off at a distance. The mistake is to take that blur for a body of water. I might eat a mushroom and watch the trees in the forest dance the tango. There is no mistaking the dancing trees I see. The mistake is to take them for the trees in the forest I saw earlier, that is, for linking them together in terms of some continuous, eternal, substance underlying both. Whenever an anomaly arises among objects of consciousness, it is a clue that we are making mistaken assumptions about the objects in question. If the Pyrrhonists are correct and perceptual illusions are in fact illusions of interpretation and not of perception (appearance), then we have no reason to doubt the phenomena we encounter. And no longer need to assume that the phenomena are somehow subjective. Nor is there any good reason, in their view, to doubt that the appearances I entertain can be entertained by you as well.

Pyrrhonism by Adrian Kuzminski

http://www.cracked.com/video_18941_mind ... think.html

Now you made me laught at myself.

I havent finished the book, I was just thinking "the example of the mirrage Ok, the example of the mushroom, well maybe the author should found another example."

The example of the beetle on the video, was the example of letter A in this book and the sound of letter A.

And the prison well, if you adopt pyrrhonism you will get rid of your anxiety and attain the state of ataraxia or tranquility. The metaphor of prison is used in buddhism to refer to samsara and nirvana.Now the author proposes that pyrrhonist ataraxia is buddhist nirvana.

But truly how can you scape the prison with metaphysics?

IMO, his view on pyrrhonism is compatible with buddhism, but buddhism goes beyound that. But well, probably some degree of freedom can be anchieved by skepticism. It can free you from some anxieties created by dogmas and views.

stirner wrote:Now you made me laught at myself.

I havent finished the book, I was just thinking "the example of the mirrage Ok, the example of the mushroom, well maybe the author should found another example."

The example of the beetle on the video, was the example of letter A in this book and the sound of letter A.

And the prison well, if you adopt pyrrhonism you will get rid of your anxiety and attain the state of ataraxia or tranquility. The metaphor of prison is used in buddhism to refer to samsara and nirvana.Now the author proposes that pyrrhonist ataraxia is buddhist nirvana.

But truly how can you scape the prison with metaphysics?

IMO, his view on pyrrhonism is compatible with buddhism, but buddhism goes beyound that. But well, probably some degree of freedom can be anchieved by skepticism. It can free you from some anxieties created by dogmas and views.

i find it fascinating how people can make anything more (insanely) complex than it needs to be.

i see something, i process it, it either seems real to me or not, i decide what to make of it. other people don't even factor into this, because we have no way of knowing what they see. everything is subjective, and you only have your own viewpoint to judge the world by.
there's only two things in the world you can be sure of: that your are, and that someday, you won't be anymore.

Feleanoctis wrote:i find it fascinating how people can make anything more (insanely) complex than it needs to be.

So you are a pyrrhonist

Sextus Empiricus wrote:The Sceptic being a lover of his kind, desires to cure by speech, as best he can, the self-conceit and rashness of the Dogmatists. So, just as the physicians who cure bodity ailments have remedies which differ in strength, and apply the severe ones to those whose ailments are severe and the milder to those mildly affected--so too the Sceptic propounds arguments which differ in strength, and employs those which are weighty and capable by their stringency of disposing of the Dogmatists' ailment, self-conceit, in cases where the mischief is due to a severe attack of rashness, which he employs the milder arguments in the case of those whose ailment is superficial and easy to cure, and whom it is possible to restore to health by milder methods of persuasion

Feleanoctis wrote:i see something, i process it, it either seems real to me or not, i decide what to make of it. other people don't even factor into this, because we have no way of knowing what they see. everything is subjective, and you only have your own viewpoint to judge the world by.
there's only two things in the world you can be sure of: that your are, and that someday, you won't be anymore.

If there is a subjective there is an objective.

subjective: existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought (opposed to objective ).
This is what the author tries do deny. Just to keep the thread going.

objectivity doesn't exist. if you and me were standing side by side looking at a park bench, we're not seeing the same thing in the first place, because we're viewing it from different angles, even if we stand shoulder to shoulder. second, it might get me to think about how i used to sit there with my grandma, telling stories, while you might just think how it needs to be painted because it looks #######5. we view everything in the world based on our past experiences, and it is our nature that we can't look at anything completely free from prejudice.
aside from the fact that we can't even objectively agree on what it looks like, because i don't know how you see things.
and if you wanna get really deep, i can't even say if you're not just a figment of my imagination, or if anything in this world is even materially real. and we can discuss this for the next thousand years and never come to a conclusion. it's impossible.

Feleanoctis wrote:objectivity doesn't exist. if you and me were standing side by side looking at a park bench, we're not seeing the same thing in the first place, because we're viewing it from different angles, even if we stand shoulder to shoulder. second, it might get me to think about how i used to sit there with my grandma, telling stories, while you might just think how it needs to be painted because it looks #######5. we view everything in the world based on our past experiences, and it is our nature that we can't look at anything completely free from prejudice.
aside from the fact that we can't even objectively agree on what it looks like, because i don't know how you see things.
and if you wanna get really deep, i can't even say if you're not just a figment of my imagination, or if anything in this world is even materially real. and we can discuss this for the next thousand years and never come to a conclusion. it's impossible.

Objectivity neither exist or dont exist. It doesnt both exists and dont exist, also it neither exists and dont exists. This is an example of Indian tetralemma, that the author states that is found on greek pyrrhonism.

Now if you ascertain that subjectivity exists you are being nihilist not skeptical. That is the author and mine position.

Unfortunetly it is hard to know what Pyrrho or the Buddha thoughts. We can know at most what Nagarjuna thoughts, but to be honest and precise at most what Tsongkhapa(XIV century) thoughts.

same: There lies another problem

Feleanoctis wrote:everything is subjective, and you only have your own viewpoint to judge the world by.
there's only two things in the world you can be sure of: that your are, and that someday, you won't be anymore.

Feleanoctis wrote:and if you wanna get really deep, i can't even say if you're not just a figment of my imagination, or if anything in this world is even materially real. and we can discuss this for the next thousand years and never come to a conclusion. it's impossible.

I definitely agree with you about subjectivity, and I hardly have anything to add.
Just that technically you can't even now that "someday, you won't be anymore" I would maybe formulate it something like "the only things you can be sure of is that you are, and... well, that's about it, but there sure seems to be something else too" .

my mind has always been on food, sleeping forever, hot showers, and when this so called "life" is going to end...

I

lindi wrote:I definitely agree with you about subjectivity, and I hardly have anything to add.
Just that technically you can't even now that "someday, you won't be anymore" I would maybe formulate it something like "the only things you can be sure of is that you are, and... well, that's about it, but there sure seems to be something else too" .

that's right, how could i have missed that. that seems rather positive then

i guess i forgot to add that objectivity does exist - as a construct of communication, not of the individual mind.


@stirner: unfortunately i don't know anything about that book or any of the people you mentioned, so i can't add much.

-- Wed Jun 11, 2014 8:00 pm --

domino88 wrote:my mind has always been on food, sleeping forever, hot showers, and when this so called "life" is going to end...

it's going to end eventually, but as we just discussed, you can't be sure you won't just keep existing afterwards . no real use worrying about it in the meantime, just try to get the most out of it, even if it seems pointless.

Feleanoctis wrote:@stirner: unfortunately i don't know anything about that book or any of the people you mentioned, so i can't add much.

Nevermind, but if you do know a interesting philosopher nevermind posting.

I think everyone heard of Buddha, what I am saying is that we cant know what he thought, because it was 2.6k years ago. Pyrrho pretty much the same, a little latter but less famous, so the author tentative of linking the two will always remain a possibility.

Now on to something that I actually have on my mind. I'm close with my family and care about them a lot, but after seeing them (especially if we all three are together) I often feel some unexplained anxiousness or being upset, even if everything is harmonious between us.
It's like some weird withdrawal symptom, and still I know that spending more time with them at once would just make it worse and get tiring and annoying. The times when I have spent several days with them (like on Christmas) I start to feel like a nervous wreck and desperate for solitude, so there's no logical reason to feel upset when I'm left alone after seeing them.
I guess I'm just ranting here and probably no-one relates, 'cause from what I've seen, most people on this forum are not that close with their birth families?