Dec 30th, 2005, 12:15 PM
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.
|
Linear Mode
