Here we go.

[The One and Only...]

With Kant, a radical change developed in philosophy - instead of experience shaping concepts, concepts began to shape experience. To counteract Humean skepticism, he claimed that ideas like causuality and the self are necessary for experience to even begin.

Kant was wrong.

First, it is obvious that such conceptions are not necessary for experience if the individual can deny them and yet experience none-the-less. I no more have to infer or assume causuality to experience than I have to infer the existence of God. The proof is simple: I do not infer causuality and yet I experience. The same is true with the self: I can avoid identifying the self but the bundle of perceptions yet remain.

It is true that, perhaps, we are born with certain preconceptions, such as I, causuality, or logic. It might also be true that these preconceptions could have been picked up in our unconscious developing stages. How these preconceptions developed is not of concern; what matters is that they are merely preconceptions. They are by no means justified simply in being assumed. In so far as these assumptions are unwarranted, they must be disestablished in order to find truth.

And so lies the crux of my philosophy.

I begin by removing all assumptions, though I retain knowledge of language in order to communicate any meaning. Note that all words ultimately base their meaning on a concept which cannot be further explained by reference to the language - in essense, an abstraction.

It is undeniable that there are phenomenon. Perceptions are by the very meaning of what constitutes existence. Perceptions are abundant; they are in constant flux; yet throughout perceptions, various degrees of consistency exist through their flow. This flow, if you will, is time - it is the abstract concept inferred into perception to explain their continuity; and from consistency evolves the conception of the self. The self are those groups of perception which appear to have a common element of control: I act, I think, I move, and so on and so forth. Here control, as it is taken, is direct and absolute instead of circumstantial. It is not that an outside agent is controlling, but rather that the control is inherent (note: if my meaning here needs further explaination, I can address it later).

In my observation, I note that the more an event occurs in the past, the more it is likely to occur again. This principle is formalized as induction. Induction requires no proof; it cannot be proven. Rather, it is simply a tool construed which corresponds well to reality.

But what is meant by reality?

The only reality I can know is that of my perception. Whether a substance outside or beyond my perception underlies it, be it mind or matter, is unknowable. The various ways of explaining an objective, underlying reality are endless, but there is no reason that perceptions could not simply exist on their own. Thus, I must adopt two positions - existental phenomenalism and metaphysical agnosticism. Existential phenomenalism is the doctrine that the only knowable reality is that of the perceived. Metaphysical agnosticism implies that the fundamental nature of reality cannot be determined.

Edit - Part 2:

As noted before, perceptions occur through time. There are antecedent and subsequent phenomenon through this flow. On some occasions, the correlation of a subsequent event to an antecedent occurance is vast - i kick the ball; the ball moves forward. Here can be inferred causuality, for if causuality is to have any meaning, it can only imply a vast, consistent correlation between given antecedent and subsequent phenomenon. No other meaning is warranted or justifiable.

Yet what of the concept of the ball? Is not the ball merely a collection of phenomenon itself? That of color, of shape, of sound? Cannot it be reduced further?

Yes. However, the ball displays consistent characteristics throughout time. Though it may change position, appearance, or even color in varying circumstances, the consistency is great enough to make inferring a whole useful; and the same is true with all other abstract collections of phenomenon capable of being reduced. The inferrance is a matter of practicality, much like the identification of the self.

And so I infer human beings.

Other humans display many characteristics similar to my own. The correlation of phenomenon amongst them, as well as between them and myself, is very high. Their actions appear indicative of thought and perception when put in reference to my own. Ergo, I infer that other human beings are capable of perceiving and thinking. I cannot know that they are such, but it is reasonable to make that assumption.

[CaptainBubba]

1. DEFINE YOUR FUCKING TERMS.

2. Nothing is undeniable. That is one of the most retarded things a true philosopher or generally inteligent person can say when making a serious argument.

3. Everything that follows your begining is just you ranting about old middle school/The matrix pseudo-philosophical ideas the pot heads talk about when they're feeling a little frisky.

I hate philosophy people.

[theapportioner]

Funny, I picked up an A.J. Ayer text just yesterday.

I agree with Bubba that you need to elaborate more fully on what you mean by terms like 'perception'. Do you mean to say that 'sense-data' are the only knowable reality?

Also, what is the nature of the association between perceptions and reality? It's unclear if you mean that reality is unknowable but still exists (kind of like believing in a god), or if you mean that we cannot know if reality exists. If you ascribe to the former, then aren't you accepting a form of realism?

And how do you distinguish between 'real' perceptions, and illusions, hallucinations and other 'unreal' perceptions?

[AChimp]

That's your big essay? I'm disappointed.

[GADZOOKS]

More To Come L8ER

[Chojin]

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a31/OAO3405/fullfront.jpg

With Kant, a radical change developed in philosophy - instead of experience shaping concepts, concepts began to shape experience. To counteract Humean skepticism, he claimed that ideas like causuality and the self are necessary for experience to even begin.

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a31/OAO3405/fullback.jpg

Kant was wrong.

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a31/OAO3405/upperfront.jpg

First, it is obvious that such conceptions are not necessary for experience if the individual can deny them and yet experience none-the-less. I no more have to infer or assume causuality to experience than I have to infer the existence of God. The proof is simple: I do not infer causuality and yet I experience. The same is true with the self: I can avoid identifying the self but the bundle of perceptions yet remain.

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a31/OAO3405/upperback1.jpg

It is true that, perhaps, we are born with certain preconceptions, such as I, causuality, or logic. It might also be true that these preconceptions could have been picked up in our unconscious developing stages. How these preconceptions developed is not of concern; what matters is that they are merely preconceptions. They are by no means justified simply in being assumed. In so far as these assumptions are unwarranted, they must be disestablished in order to find truth.

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a31/OAO3405/upperback2.jpg

And so lies the crux of my philosophy.

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a31/OAO3405/lowerfront.jpg

I begin by removing all assumptions, though I retain knowledge of language in order to communicate any meaning. Note that all words ultimately base their meaning on a concept which cannot be further explained by reference to the language - in essense, an abstraction.

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a31/OAO3405/lowerside.jpg

It is undeniable that there are phenomenon. Perceptions are by the very meaning of what constitutes existence. Perceptions are abundant; they are in constant flux; yet throughout perceptions, various degrees of consistency exist through their flow. This flow, if you will, is time - it is the abstract concept inferred into perception to explain their continuity; and from consistency evolves the conception of the self. The self are those groups of perception which appear to have a common element of control: I act, I think, I move, and so on and so forth. Here control, as it is taken, is direct and absolute instead of circumstantial. It is not that an outside agent is controlling, but rather that the control is inherent (note: if my meaning here needs further explaination, I can address it later).

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a31/OAO3405/fullback.jpg

In my observation, I note that the more an event occurs in the past, the more it is likely to occur again. This principle is formalized as induction. Induction requires no proof; it cannot be proven. Rather, it is simply a tool construed which corresponds well to reality.

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a31/OAO3405/upperfront.jpg

But what is meant by reality?

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a31/OAO3405/lowerfront.jpg

The only reality I can know is that of my perception. Whether a substance outside or beyond my perception underlies it, be it mind or matter, is unknowable. The various ways of explaining an objective, underlying reality are endless, but there is no reason that perceptions could not simply exist on their own. Thus, I must adopt two positions - existental phenomenalism and metaphysical agnosticism. Existential phenomenalism is the doctrine that the only knowable reality is that of the perceived. Metaphysical agnosticism implies that the fundamental nature of reality cannot be determined.

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a31/OAO3405/fullfront.jpg

More to come later.

[The One and Only...]

I agree with Bubba that you need to elaborate more fully on what you mean by terms like 'perception'. Do you mean to say that 'sense-data' are the only knowable reality?

Sort of. Perception is taken here in a strict sense - what I see, hear, smell, etc. But I also perceive thoughts as well. Perception, as used so far, is the collection of phenomenon known to myself.

I tend to frequently use words in ways like this as well:
Perception - The totality of my perceptions.
Perceptions - Phenomenon.
Phenomenal reality - The environment where all my perceptions interact (might need to make this one more rigorous as I continue, but we'll see)

Also, what is the nature of the association between perceptions and reality? It's unclear if you mean that reality is unknowable but still exists (kind of like believing in a god), or if you mean that we cannot know if reality exists. If you ascribe to the former, then aren't you accepting a form of realism?

I cannot know if reality exists beyond my perceptions. Perceptions exist and are real, even if they are only real as perceptions. Whether a greater, underlying reality exists as well cannot be known. Neither of your assertions are correct; the reality of the phenomenal is knowable, but any reality outside perception is unknowable.

My starting point for my philosophy is myself. I haven't gotten to addressing other human beings yet in this thread.

And how do you distinguish between 'real' perceptions, and illusions, hallucinations and other 'unreal' perceptions?

Illusions and hallucinations still exist as perceptions - they are merely inconsistent with the phenomenon that normally are experienced. Hence why we can distinguish them from other perceptions.

Chimpy - I'm not even close to being done yet.

[mburbank]

Can't you be? Would money help? Or some oil for you muscles so they gleam more attractively? Or a new head for the photos on account of the way your head spoils the whole effect?

Why can't you be more Zen? You know, eat when your hungry, sleep when your tired, if you've finished your rice clean the bowl, if your full of hot gas, belch once and be done with it?

Can anyone tell me why I like the Apportioner and OAO fills me with rage?

[glowbelly]

cause the apportioner is pretty

[The One and Only...]

Hey Chojin.

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a31/OAO3405/fuzzyflex.jpg

I fuckin rule you.

[Chojin]

Hey OAO.

http://www.popnko.com/imock/kissyoao.jpg

What are you doing on Saturday?

[mburbank]

"I fuckin rule you."

Not with that head you don't. It's the head of a greasy, annoying little prick and no amount of buffing up does anything but make you look like you're overcompensating. Have you seen recent pictures of Carrot Top? same deal. Your head cannot be impoved by inflating your body, and the head negates anything the body does.

Personality sculpts the face over time. Your only hope is deep, serious change and years. Your still young. You don't have to let those doofy, irritating features settle into your adult head. There's still time, but I implore you to either chnage who yu are as radically as possible or lay off the body building. The combo platter is nauseating.

[The One and Only...]

What are you doing on Saturday?

I'm hanging out with my emo girlfriend.

But derailing of the thread. I did post this with a serious intent, and I am coming back to it reasonably soon.

[King Hadas]

Yeah, but isn't your serious intent just a long winded version of the old proverb, "If a tree falls in the woods and no ones around to hear it, does it make a sound?"

[mburbank]

Seriously. This thread is about how your head and body don't match, and pumping up isn't doing any of the things you want it to do, it's just making you even more ridiculous. You NEED to do something about this problem before you become completely absurd. And what the hell is 'emo'?

[The One and Only...]

Yeah, but isn't your serious intent just a long winded version of the old proverb, "If a tree falls in the woods and no ones around to hear it, does it make a sound?"

No, because it answers the question. Also, there are other aspects I delve into, such as politics/societal structure, morality, etc, etc. It just depends on how far I really want to take this.

And what the hell is 'emo'?

What I would be if I lacked my astounding self-confidence and continued to smoke cloves.

[Perndog]

OAO, you need to do something about your legs. Your thighs are like marshmallows and your calves are like toothpicks sticking out of them.

Seriously, dude. This is way more important than Kant. Take some time off this evening and do some major revisions to your lifting routine.

Oh, and you don't know what real self-confidence is. I went through the phase you're in once. That's really insecurity which masks itself as arrogance. Start admitting that you're really not on top of everything, and then maybe one day you will be. :)

[King Hadas]

No, because it answers the question.
You can't answer the question sillypants, you can explain why it's unanswerable but you can't actually answer it.

Also, so I dont get of topic, has anyone ever told you that you look like a less extravagant version of Napolean Dynamite?

[The One and Only...]

You can't answer the question sillypants, you can explain why it's unanswerable but you can't actually answer it.

I don't entirely answer it. For all practical purposes, though, I do.

[theapportioner]

Well, I don't really see the point of perceptions if they are the only knowable reality.

Illusions and hallucinations still exist as perceptions - they are merely inconsistent with the phenomenon that normally are experienced.

You're going to have to clarify this. To distinguish between a hallucination and what we would consider a normal perception, you're comparing the two against some sort of outside standard, whether it be consistency (coherence) or correspondence or something else. You're denying the correspondence theory of truth. Are you proposing a coherence theory of truth?

[maggiekarp]

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a31/OAO3405/fuzzyflex.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v203/maggiekarp/oao2.jpg

Hmmm... :confused

[CaptainBubba]

You can answer any question. Its just a matter of DEFINING TERMS FOR THE LOVE OF GOD PEOPLE.

The solution to the tree falling question is easily answered. The only true question in this question is how we define sound. If sound can be defined as any vibration or frequency, in which case the falling of a tree is sufficient to generate noise, the answer is yes. If we define sound to mean the sensation stimulated in the organs of hearing by such vibrations in the air or other medium then the answer is no because no such organs are present. Fuck you people and your pseudo-philosophy. In fact fuck philosophy. Lazy lazy scientist wanabes. >:

[derrida]

two words: Calf. Raises.

Perceptions are by the very meaning of what constitutes existence.

Define the verb "to be" as used in this sentence.

I begin by removing all assumptions, though I retain knowledge of language in order to communicate any meaning. Note that all words ultimately base their meaning on a concept which cannot be further explained by reference to the language - in essense, an abstraction.

So why not come out and say that abstractions are necessary components of meaning?

[Perndog]

The solution to the tree problem is simpler than that. You need to go one level higher.

If reality is only a set of perceived phenomena (which is what Mr. Jack is saying, I think), and no one experiences the tree falling, then there is no tree and thus there cannot be any sound. Definitions are unnecessary.

[mburbank]

A.) "you need to do something about your legs. Your thighs are like marshmallows and your calves are like toothpicks sticking out of them. "

Calves, schmaves. IT'S THE HEAD. OAO has the head of a self important Doofus, and like the chains Jacob Marley wears, it's eaxactly what he's crafted. He needs to make fundemental chnages to who he is as a person if he wants his head to look like it belongs on anything other than a pale, gangly toothpick, or a soft, slug colored mass. Not that I'm saying body builders heads are anything to write home about, body building being the sport of narcissits and obsessive compulsives, but this combo platter (and again, I feel I must refer to Carrot Top version 2.0) is disturbing and nauseating.

B.) The tree problem is a Koan. Koan's are not meant to be 'solved'. They are meant to be contemplated. The poser of the question knew full well that sound can be thought of in two distinct , equally correct in in the case of the Koan, mutually exclussive ways. Hold the paradox in your mind. Try to see both possabilities simultaneously. Empty you mind of all else. It is the exact antithesis of all this noisy, futile, adolescent I-Can-Understand-More-difficult-philosiphers-than-you-can bullshit.

C.) 'Kant is wrong'. Gosh. What a shame you weren;t there to work with him, maybe he'd have made an even more significant contribution to Western society, or perhaps just gotten out of the way for the greatnes which is you. You really seriously think that you fully comprehend Kant and that you not only stand on the playing field but surpass it? You're like some bogus new age seeker/tourist spending a weeken at an ashram spending a half day pretending to contemplate trees falling when really all your thinking about is how uncomfortable it is too sit on a wooden floor for so long and then getting the idea it's a paradox and rushing off to tell the teacher you're enlightened. You are a chicken scratching the surface of things peope have dedicated their entire lives to. Stop crowing like a damn rooster. One of your teachers needs to smack you with a two by four so in that instant of surprise and pain you'll actually know where you are for a little while.

[Deadsy]

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b141/deadsy-/Untitled-1copy.jpg
Tired of the correspondence theory of truth?
Want to rant with astounding self-confidence?

Dial down the middle!

1-800-C-A-L-L-A-T-T for all your collect calls!
But watch out for my muscles!




:(

[The One and Only...]

Define the verb "to be" as used in this sentence.

To exist in actuality. You can deny anything underlying or beyond a given perception, but you cannot deny the perception itself.

I think we're getting close to that "cannot be further explained by language" element...

So why not come out and say that abstractions are necessary components of meaning?

That sounds plausible. In reference to any experience I recall having, abstractions have been necessary to give meaning.

[kahljorn]

OAO:

"he claimed that ideas like causuality and the self are necessary for experience to even begin.

Kant was wrong. "

'Causuality' means "Cause and effect". In this sense of the word it makes perfect sense, in order for you to experience anything something must happen first. Pretty fucking simple. Also, in order for your perception to record that experience, your self must exist first. Pretty damned simple.
Going further into causality it explains that in order for you to even exist, your parents had to fuck. Thus, a cause and effect to allow you to even exist. Go ahead and roll it back, there's plenty of causes and effects that, if they didn't happen, your self wouldn't exist(at least in this 'form') in order to be experiencing. Without burdening ourselves with the usual bullshit surrounding causality, I think that will be enough.

"it is obvious that such conceptions are not necessary for experience if the individual can deny them and yet experience none-the-less."

I can deny the existence of the world and yet, without putting a bullet in my head(some kind of causality), I'm still going to wake up in the morning existing in this world(probably). Although, that could be argued in some ways I guess.

"I do not infer causuality and yet I experience."

Again, who cares? People can pretend all kinds of things. It doesn't change anything nor make it true/false, just like your perception is just that-- a perception. I don't know who told you that philosophical ideas have to be held by you in order for them to work, but I think it's really holding you back. If anything, philosophy is something that exists regardless of if people believe in them(ideally, and depentant on the philosophy I guess). Just like gravity.

"we are born with certain preconceptions, such as I, causuality, or logic."

Again, the conception in itself doesn't matter, just what is. There's a reason why we are born with these preconceptions, and you must consider them in a sense of development-- or if you will 'causal'.
Also, according to most anybody your logical faculties don't really develop until a certain age, so we aren't so much BORN with it, but more it develops by means of causality.

"they must be disestablished in order to find truth. "

That's possibly quite true. However, you still have to pay homage to your basic human facets that allowed you to 'causal' to what you are today. It's possible that, by the combining of Causality, logic and the 'I' you could easily disestablish yourself. Just by Causality and logic, really, the I's only there because you're the one doing it sort of.

"And so lies the crux of my philosophy."

Okay.

"I begin by removing all assumptions, though I retain knowledge of language in order to communicate any meaning."

Why? This makes no sense, you just sound like a pretentious fuck. How is language an assumption? If you were removing all assumptions you'd remove the assumption that you were even correct in the first place, thus voiding the reason to communicate your opus.


" The self are those groups of perception which appear to have a common element of control: I act, I think, I move, and so on and so forth. Here control, as it is taken, is direct and absolute instead of circumstantial. It is not that an outside agent is controlling, but rather that the control is inherent"

I wouldn't really call actions a perception, but Okay. Do you know what absolute means, especially when you say it's "Not circumstantial"? Everything is circumstantial, all the way down to you being able to post your opus on this message board. Circumstance. The only way what you're saying would be absolute is if you removed all instances of causality, all instances of self and all instances of assumption while still retaining the ability to move, think or act. Impossible. First, you need a cause and effect to put you where you are now, second you need your sense of self to realize that you want to move and third you need your assumption that you need to move in the first place.
They aren't pure unless you're looking at it through some angle of obscured 'purity', and if that's the case what the fuck-- Shit is purely shit. Thanks for solving all the philosophical riddles of the world.

"In my observation, I note that the more an event occurs in the past, the more it is likely to occur again."

Not true, if you win the lottery once does that guarantee you a win in the future? No. If you are bringing this down to psychological and perceptual levels... maybe in some senses. A very loose sense. Through the power of the combination of self, logic and causality people can usually manage to learn through their mistakes or even fortunes. If you are talking about people continually doing things they know that work... congrats or something.

"it is simply a tool construed which corresponds well to reality."

You mean like how if you're posting asinine things you're likely to continue posting them in the future? Probably, but what does this have to do with "Reality" so much as the reality of your own self?
How is "Reality" responsible(/a reflection) for you?
I seriously don't understand what you're getting at, I'm assuming you have some stupid point to make but the basis of the point is fucking retarded. Occasionally, in some CIRCUMSTANCES things will continue to happen because they work. They don't necessarily occur more often. And in any sense, there's too many exceptions.

Now, granting you the permission to feel correct on that previous comment of yours, what does it mean? What does it solve, what does it represent..?

"The only reality I can know is that of my perception. Whether a substance outside or beyond my perception underlies it, be it mind or matter, is unknowable."

Great. I remember when I was interested in 'perceptions' too. It's probably the most natural thing in the world to look at in the begining. However, there are easily recognizable things outside and beyond your perception. Use your logic of 'Causality' to find them.

[CaptainBubba]

Yes, you would be right Perndog, if OAO's possiblity was correct, which it is for all intents and purposes in this plane of existence most certainly not by virtue of thousands of years of human dependency on the fact that when we percieve something it exists in a reality seperate from our conciousness. Whether my perceptions come from electical signals in a tank of fermaldihide(sp?) or from what I percieve them to come from doesnt matter. My perceptions, as are everyone elses, constant in that they recognize existance beyond themselves.



"Hold the paradox in your mind. Try to see both possabilities simultaneously."

NO. ITS A FUCKING LANGUAGE QUESTION. ITS NOT DEEP. THERE IS NOTHING TO CONTEMPLATE. KOAN FAILS. If I imagine both DEFINITIONS OF A WORD then it doesn't make me contemplative it makes me indecisive. The meanings we have for words are not amazing and mystical, theyre just words, and sometimes they mean two things. >:

Personally I think all philosophers no matter how great pretty much wasted their entire lives. The Greek philosophers were actually pretty lame alot of the time except for math and the emphasis on bettering yourself, and modern philosophers are just a giant waste of time. Do something productive assholes. >:

Seriously, lets say OAO had a better case for this and people bought it. What good would it do? What bad would it do? It helps noone and fuck all of you who act like its worthy of time. It doesnt make you smarter either it just makes you sound more pompous and annoying.

[mburbank]

Your rejection of the Koan is perfectly legitimate. You are a westerner, raised in a western culture with a western mindset. There is absoluetly nothing wrong with that and it's exactly why most western zen is absolute escapist bullshit, doomed from the go. I applaud your rejection. While Zen is of interest to me, I am unable to practice it. I merely meant that the tree thing (and most Koans) translate poorly into English.

But none of that gets us closer to OAO's new bodie's rejection of his head.

I have come to the conclusion that while he needs to also cut back on the body building. In his particular case it reaks of self obsession and self love. If he is somehow able to see those pictures as anything other than ridiculous and ironic, he's self dellusional. A diagnosis I think is assured by the fact he shares them via the internet, as if people were yearning to view him in the same way he years to view himself.

I am unprepared to view with respect the 'philosiphy' of a mind in such a state of dysfunction that it would post such pictures, let alone deliberately strive to look the way he looks in them.

[The One and Only...]

'Causuality' means "Cause and effect". In this sense of the word it makes perfect sense, in order for you to experience anything something must happen first. Pretty fucking simple. Also, in order for your perception to record that experience, your self must exist first. Pretty damned simple.

Just because occurance A happened and occurance B followed does not imply that A caused B. One could simply have happened and the other followed.

Going further into causality it explains that in order for you to even exist, your parents had to fuck. Thus, a cause and effect to allow you to even exist. Go ahead and roll it back, there's plenty of causes and effects that, if they didn't happen, your self wouldn't exist(at least in this 'form') in order to be experiencing. Without burdening ourselves with the usual bullshit surrounding causality, I think that will be enough.

If causuality were entirely consistent, the very universe could not exist.

I can deny the existence of the world and yet, without putting a bullet in my head(some kind of causality), I'm still going to wake up in the morning existing in this world(probably). Although, that could be argued in some ways I guess.

False analogy. You still see the world when you wake up. It is not the same in my case. I no longer interpret cause and effect when I remove assumptions. I have done just what Kant said is impossible.

Again, who cares? People can pretend all kinds of things. It doesn't change anything nor make it true/false, just like your perception is just that-- a perception. I don't know who told you that philosophical ideas have to be held by you in order for them to work, but I think it's really holding you back. If anything, philosophy is something that exists regardless of if people believe in them(ideally, and depentant on the philosophy I guess). Just like gravity.

The starting point for philosophy must be the individual. Any other starting point automatically loses its validity.

Again, the conception in itself doesn't matter, just what is. There's a reason why we are born with these preconceptions, and you must consider them in a sense of development-- or if you will 'causal'.

Here you missing a key point. I am not denying that causuality exists; that would be just as bad as affirming it. However, I feel that for causuality to bear any valid meaning it must have a slight change. I will address this soon.

Also, according to most anybody your logical faculties don't really develop until a certain age, so we aren't so much BORN with it, but more it develops by means of causality.

Irrelevant.

That's possibly quite true. However, you still have to pay homage to your basic human facets that allowed you to 'causal' to what you are today. It's possible that, by the combining of Causality, logic and the 'I' you could easily disestablish yourself. Just by Causality and logic, really, the I's only there because you're the one doing it sort of.

I'm not sure if I understand your point.

Why? This makes no sense, you just sound like a pretentious fuck. How is language an assumption? If you were removing all assumptions you'd remove the assumption that you were even correct in the first place, thus voiding the reason to communicate your opus.

Only in the beginning do I remove assumptions. At this point I am merely explicating my experience.

I wouldn't really call actions a perception, but Okay. Do you know what absolute means, especially when you say it's "Not circumstantial"? Everything is circumstantial, all the way down to you being able to post your opus on this message board. Circumstance. The only way what you're saying would be absolute is if you removed all instances of causality, all instances of self and all instances of assumption while still retaining the ability to move, think or act. Impossible. First, you need a cause and effect to put you where you are now, second you need your sense of self to realize that you want to move and third you need your assumption that you need to move in the first place.

By "not circumstancial," I mean capable of being exercised in all circumstances.

Not true, if you win the lottery once does that guarantee you a win in the future? No. If you are bringing this down to psychological and perceptual levels... maybe in some senses. A very loose sense. Through the power of the combination of self, logic and causality people can usually manage to learn through their mistakes or even fortunes. If you are talking about people continually doing things they know that work... congrats or something.

The observations are intertemporal.

You mean like how if you're posting asinine things you're likely to continue posting them in the future? Probably, but what does this have to do with "Reality" so much as the reality of your own self?
How is "Reality" responsible(/a reflection) for you?

I don't understand what you're getting at here.

I seriously don't understand what you're getting at, I'm assuming you have some stupid point to make but the basis of the point is fucking retarded. Occasionally, in some CIRCUMSTANCES things will continue to happen because they work. They don't necessarily occur more often. And in any sense, there's too many exceptions.

I don't disagree with you here. I'm not proclaiming induction to be universally valid.

Great. I remember when I was interested in 'perceptions' too. It's probably the most natural thing in the world to look at in the begining. However, there are easily recognizable things outside and beyond your perception. Use your logic of 'Causality' to find them.

No, there aren't. That's technically impossible. Read some Hume.

Bubba - What exactly is there that you want me to define?

[CaptainBubba]

I want you to define "Worthless Faggot".

Max have you seen "So I married an axe murderer"? I keep on remembering the part where the dad keeps talking about how amazingly large the boys head is. Its funny :(

[maggiekarp]

He'll cry himself to sleep on his huge pillow :(

[The One and Only...]

Update - Just added a part.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Noted!

[kahljorn]

"Just because occurance A happened and occurance B followed does not imply that A caused B. One could simply have happened and the other followed. "

Yea, it could have. If you pick two entirely different events on the different side of the world and then write down their times and say the one that happened first caused the second you'd probably be wrong. Thanks for proving me wrong, asshole.
However, if you want to take two relevant events to the discussion, like let's say gaining sexual experience just because.... first off, you'll have to have sex in order to gain experience. Yay. cause. effect. You had to be there to have the sex, the sex had to happen for you to gain experience. Self, causality-- all rolled into one sweet bundle.

"If causuality were entirely consistent, the very universe could not exist. "

Technically the universe shouldn't exist anyway, so let's just leave that out of the discussion.


"I no longer interpret cause and effect when I remove assumptions. I have done just what Kant said is impossible."

Cause: I no longer interpret cause and effect when I remove assumptions.
Effect: I have done just what Kant said is impossible.

"The starting point for philosophy must be the individual. Any other starting point automatically loses its validity."

The starting point is the universe, the only validity the individual has is in the observation of it; which is entirely unnecessary for the universe to function. See, now you're acting with assumptions and perceptions again. You act like stuff you believe will shake the core of the universe or something.

"However, I feel that for causuality to bear any valid meaning it must have a slight change. I will address this soon. "

Thanks I had a feeling you weren't, but just for the sake of completeness quit posting until you can post your ENTIRE essay. At this point it seems like you're shooting bullshit into the dark. I'm seriously having a hard time even debating with you because what you're saying is so empty and vapid.

"Irrelevant."

You said we were born with it, I corrected you. Rather it develops by means of cause and effect. It's more like we're born with the capability.

"I'm not sure if I understand your point. "

The logic of casuality can easily allow you to disestablish yourself from it.

"Only in the beginning do I remove assumptions. At this point I am merely explicating my experience. "

So first you remove your assumptions and then you explain the experience. Cause: Remove assumptions Effect: Explicate experience.
What do you even mean by removing assumptions? Could you clarify that, because you just sound like a ham. I'm assuming you mean disconnecting yourself from your perceptions or something.

"I mean capable of being exercised in all circumstances."

How could you say it's absolute and yet not being capable of being exercised in all circumstances? Sounds pretty unabsolute.

"The observations are intertemporal. "

If intertemporal were a word I might understand.

"I don't understand what you're getting at here."

What you think is irrelvant, that's the jist.

"No, there aren't. That's technically impossible."

Technically so is ridding yourself of all assumptions(read some kant &#^), yet here we are. Nothing's impossible, it's impassible.


Your experience has ALREADY began, so you can't really argue with what he's saying. The self already exists, and cause and effect has already lead you through the experiences to today. The end.

Oh, also, simply saying things are happening doesn't necessarily make them so. Otherwise I could say I just flew to the moon, and prove scientists wrong.
Anyway, your argument sucks. I find myself bored, post something more interesting than assuming that cause and effect has anything to do with assumptions.

[Big Papa Goat]

I just realized that this thread is completly outrageous.

[Dr. Boogie]

Along that same line, I just realized that "Kant is wrong" would make a great T-shirt.


Edit: Also, the only exposure I've had to Kant was his crummy Categorical Imperative, which basically says that a practice is good only if it were still good if everyone in the universe practiced it. I argued with my summer school teacher about how it was bunk, but he reminded me that he was only getting paid $300 to teach the class, and so the debate never really got off the ground.

So yes, Kant is a bum. Also, Jack, your head and thighs are screwing you over.

[The One and Only...]

Kahl, I'm not denying causuality anymore than I'm denying the self. I'm just not assuming it to begin with. This is my break with Kant. There is quite a large amount of evidence for causuality, given the meaning I grant it, in experience itself, but one does not need to infer it for perceptions to take place.

Simply because I began experiencing with assumptions of causuality and the self does not mean that they are necessary to perpetuate experience.

If we are not the tabula rasa, we must become the tabula rasa in seeking truth.

You say that the starting point for philosophy lies in the universe. However, "the universe," as I suspect you are using the term, is merely an assumption. Everything that exists could be an extension of my subjective will, for all that I know.

I am thoroughly aware that I cannot provide evidence as to my experience. However, my hope is that some of you will be able to see how this relates to yourselves. If you remove your assumptions as well, you might find yourself reaching similar conclusions.

[mburbank]

Head, body. Head, body. How the dell do ou call yourself a philosipher when you can't even stick to the topic?

[Perndog]

Max, if you'll reread my first post, you'll notice that I mentioned the head as well. Oh, and it's "body's", not "bodie's", Mr. I-Write-For-A-Living.

[davinxtk]

He's a WRITER not an EDITOR


JESUS THE MAN CAN'T BE EXPECTED TO DO EVERYTHING

[Womti]

isnt philosophy based entirely on questions? which never really get answered? if that IS the case, then I hereby conclude that this entire thread is fucking POINTLESS!!

[kahljorn]

"Simply because I began experiencing with assumptions of causuality and the self does not mean that they are necessary to perpetuate experience. "

Uh, actually they are. You see, if you somehow went back in time to change how you experienced your experiences, you would probably be a completely different person and possibly not exist! Remember back to the future? MARTY!
Besides, none of this has to do with what you assume or how you perceive. Sometimes things that seem that way are really meant to be applied to everything, as some sort of prerequisite to it. Which means you often have to use your brain to discover that! The idea that you can simply think the opposite of kant to prove what he says wrong is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.

Two quick things that may not be true, but just for the fuck of it:
BEFORE EXPERIENCE CAN EVEN BEGIN. Did your experience begin without it? No. We've already covered that.
Maybe that's all he meant? Maybe he meant later in life you 'could' remove yourself from the direct effects of casuality(i don't think any decent philosopher would say you couldn't, otherwise human society would likely be much different-- or maybe it would be exactly the same :O ). Regardless of if you remove your perception from the equation, or your "Assumptions" though, your basic mode of being is still going to be heavily dependant on them-- and so will the people around you. Not only because of your past actions and past occurances but also because that's how things work.
What Kant was saying was such a broad statement you can't really deny it's validity.

"but one does not need to infer it for perceptions to take place"

Right and you don't need eyes to see or anything right, or any kind of body parts to perceive? You don't think cause and effect even plays into your perception of the outside universe or your ability to experience it in the first place?
"we never needed the big bang. I mean look, I'm not using the big bang right now. We don't need it at all!"

"Everything that exists could be an extension of my subjective will, for all that I know. "

What a great philosophical debater, brought down to "if's" and "Coulds". You could seriously debate any topic in the world using ifs and coulds, cause you know, you could just go on forever and you could even be right you know that you could really be a woman and just not know it?
In your mode of existence, essentially existence is an extension of your subjective will. However, the universe likely existed/exists without your help.

"I am thoroughly aware that I cannot provide evidence as to my experience."

Okay? Here I thought you were pouring out your observations of the universe, not just pouring out bullshit you've pretund into existance-- Extensions of subjective will. You see, you're pretty much creating this little philosophical wonder you 'believe'. You don't really even know if it's true, you haven't removed assumptions at all. You're still heavily operating on them, including the assumption that kant even meant what you think he meant and that the universe functions the way you think it does... i don't know, that's a little obvious so maybe it's not good enough for this discussion...
If removing assumptions means you remove yourself from the ability to observe yourself, happy new years.

[The One and Only...]

Kahl, I'm not even reading that. I've lost interest in formalizing my thoughts right now... too busy.

[kahljorn]

That's fine, it will be here waiting for you. Take some time to think about it and what you're going to say.

[mburbank]

I hope you're busy either changing your body to match your head or your head to match your body, because anything else you might be up to is WASTED TIME, you circus freak! SEE THE AMAZING HEAD NOT MATCH BODY GUY! BE UNABLE TO PAY ATTENTION TO HIM AS HE WAXES PHILISOPHICAL ON ACCOUNT OF HOW POORLY MATCHED HIS HEAD AND BODY ARE! FEED HIM PEANUTS!!




FEED HIM PEANUTS!!!



PEANUTS!!!!