Home› A Moving Train

existence/non-existence

catefrancescatefrances Posts: 29,003
edited May 2007 in A Moving Train
it is impossible to talk or think about what does not actually exist.

parmenides said this. what do you all think?
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Post edited by Unknown User on

Comments

  • normnorm Posts: 31,146
    you love to talk to ryan don't ya?.....:D:D


    my answer to the question.....if i don't know it exists...then.....ah shit cate i hate these kinda questions....:p
  • chaos345chaos345 Posts: 30
    catefrances wrote:
    it is impossible to talk or think about what does not actually exist.

    parmenides said this. what do you all think?

    I disagree on grounds of symantics -- The human imagination -- ideas specifically, are not necessarily a tangible entity -- they do not "exist" as we perceive them. However, through human ingenuity, these things are possible.

    It's almost a little bit of a paradox there ... Hard to tell what was meant when taken out of context.

    I guess it depends on what your definition of the word "exists" is. (Kudos to President Clinton for the inspiration.)
    ----
    I like Pearl Jam.
    www.myspace.com/emosadcry
  • sinksink Posts: 5
    Isn't that circular? If you think about it, it exists then? Am I missing something, is anybody listening to me?
    Liberals are very broadminded: they are always willing to give careful consideration to both sides of the same side. Anonymous.
  • chaos345chaos345 Posts: 30
    sink wrote:
    Isn't that circular? If you think about it, it exists then? Am I missing something, is anybody listening to me?

    Thats basically exactly what I was trying to say... Poor logic?
    ----
    I like Pearl Jam.
    www.myspace.com/emosadcry
  • catefrancescatefrances Posts: 29,003
    cutback wrote:
    you love to talk to ryan don't ya?.....:D:D


    my answer to the question.....if i don't know it exists...then.....ah shit cate i hate these kinda questions....:p


    hurts your brain does it? :D
    hear my name
    take a good look
    this could be the day
    hold my hand
    lie beside me
    i just need to say
  • normnorm Posts: 31,146
    catefrances wrote:
    hurts your brain does it? :D


    yes, damnit!! :p:D
  • JeanieJeanie Posts: 9,446
    cutback wrote:
    yes, damnit!! :p:D


    She's good at that! Our catie girl! :)

    So it exists if I think it does. I think therefore I am. :)
    NOPE!!!

    *~You're IT Bert!~*

    Hold on to the thread
    The currents will shift
  • normnorm Posts: 31,146
    Jeanie wrote:
    She's good at that! Our catie girl! :)

    i know....i love it...:D
    Jeanie wrote:
    So it exists if I think it does. I think therefore I am. :)


    i think that was what i was trying to say......that you jeanie for saving me.....:p
  • catefrancescatefrances Posts: 29,003
    cutback wrote:
    i know....i love it...:D


    to be honest, i was researching antonin artaud for a uni project and well for some reason, that led me, and not for the first time, to parmenides.
    the way the human brain functions and how the mind thinks fascinates me and although it makes my brain hurt as well it energises me. i've also noticed that it is when i am low that i need this engagement.
    hear my name
    take a good look
    this could be the day
    hold my hand
    lie beside me
    i just need to say
  • JeanieJeanie Posts: 9,446
    cutback wrote:
    i know....i love it...

    Yeah, me too! catiefractious is one of my favorite people on the planet! :D

    You should see how cool her brain works after a glass or two of cab sav!! :D
    It's really quite something to behold! :)



    cutback wrote:
    i think that was what i was trying to say......thank you jeanie for saving me.....

    Any time cb!! Think I might owe you a coupla "saves" anyway! ;) I'm just glad it made sense to some one!! :D

    btw I can hear Every Little Thing She Does on the radio, and Sting is just launching into e yo!!
    NOPE!!!

    *~You're IT Bert!~*

    Hold on to the thread
    The currents will shift
  • SongburstSongburst Posts: 1,195
    We have the capacity to create things. So, if we think about it, it can exist. However just because I think about it, it does not exist to everybody, therefore it does not exist. To exist, it must be tangible to everybody.
    1/12/1879, 4/8/1156, 2/6/1977, who gives a shit, ...
  • JeanieJeanie Posts: 9,446
    Songburst wrote:
    ...... To exist, it must be tangible to everybody.

    Why? :)
    NOPE!!!

    *~You're IT Bert!~*

    Hold on to the thread
    The currents will shift
  • catefrancescatefrances Posts: 29,003
    Jeanie wrote:
    Yeah, me too! catiefractious is one of my favorite people on the planet! :D

    You should see how cool her brain works after a glass or two of cab sav!! :D
    It's really quite something to behold! :)


    and that's when circular logic truly is a thing of beauty. :D

    but if you really want to see me in action a night at the annandale will reveal the truth as i know it. ;)
    hear my name
    take a good look
    this could be the day
    hold my hand
    lie beside me
    i just need to say
  • catefrancescatefrances Posts: 29,003
    Songburst wrote:
    We have the capacity to create things. So, if we think about it, it can exist. However just because I think about it, it does not exist to everybody, therefore it does not exist. To exist, it must be tangible to everybody.

    i call bullshit. :D
    hear my name
    take a good look
    this could be the day
    hold my hand
    lie beside me
    i just need to say
  • ByrnzieByrnzie Posts: 21,037
    catefrances wrote:
    it is impossible to talk or think about what does not actually exist.

    parmenides said this. what do you all think?

    I disagree. I can talk and think about a unicorn, for example.
  • catefrancescatefrances Posts: 29,003
    Byrnzie wrote:
    I disagree. I can talk and think about a unicorn, for example.

    so steve...you are under the impression that for something to exist it must be corporeal?
    hear my name
    take a good look
    this could be the day
    hold my hand
    lie beside me
    i just need to say
  • decides2dreamdecides2dream Posts: 14,977
    sink wrote:
    Isn't that circular? If you think about it, it exists then? Am I missing something, is anybody listening to me?



    hehehehe...exactly!


    just heard playing in my head....

    *you spin me round, round baby right round...
    like a record baby, right round, round round*

    :p


    the act of *thinking* takes this nothing/something into existance, so the mere act of thinking....makes it *be*...even if only in your mind........
    Stay with me...
    Let's just breathe...


    I am myself like you somehow


  • JeanieJeanie Posts: 9,446
    catefrances wrote:
    and that's when circular logic truly is a thing of beauty. :D

    but if you really want to see me in action a night at the annandale will reveal the truth as i know it. ;)

    hehe! :D Don't know that I'm quite up to that!! The truth as you know it in one hit might be a bit much for my tiny mind to cope with. :)

    But I do love circular logic! :D
    NOPE!!!

    *~You're IT Bert!~*

    Hold on to the thread
    The currents will shift
  • angelicaangelica Posts: 6,038
    When I experience my spiritual experiences, I experience stuff that there are no worldly words or explanations that can depict these concepts. And therefore I must use metaphors, and grapple with explaining what is otherworldly. It is the "unmanifest". And it cannot be fully described on the manifest level.


    And Songburst: a person's personal experience is one of the definitions of empirical. So when you say something is not real to you because you haven't experienced it--and therefore call that "not real", I accept that it's not real for you. And I accept you have not experienced it. I even accept your opinion that it's not real. However what is unreal, and what is unproven are two entirely different things.
    "The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr

    http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta

    Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
  • FinsburyParkCarrotsFinsburyParkCarrots Seattle, WA Posts: 12,223
    Language is arbitrary from reality. You can talk signifiers - sign systems flailing and failing at conveying extra-linguistic concepts in the world - all you want, but they'll only relate to other signifiers. They're not signifieds. So arguably, language can neither prove nor disprove reality or the existence of a world outside of words: it might try to represent the unspeakable, but what it is is an utterance that can never bring thought into matter.

    However, can matter bring thought into utterance? And how can you prove it, when you're bound by the limits of utterance, something apart from matter?
  • JeanieJeanie Posts: 9,446
    Yep!! There they are!! The posts that make my head explode! :eek:

    Thanks fins and angel, I'm just gonna go clean all my brain tissue off the computer now!! ;)

    I'll be back to read both those posts again, when my brain grows back! :)
    NOPE!!!

    *~You're IT Bert!~*

    Hold on to the thread
    The currents will shift
  • angelicaangelica Posts: 6,038
    FinsburyParkCarrots wrote:
    Language is arbitrary from reality. You can talk signifiers - sign systems flailing and failing at conveying extra-linguistic concepts in the world - all you want, but they'll only relate to other signifiers. They're not signifieds. So arguably, language can neither prove nor disprove reality or the existence of a world outside of words: it might try to represent the unspeakable, but what it is is an utterance that can never bring thought into matter.
    Cool. It took me a long time to grasp this. We've got ourselves confused and looking through illusions, by not recognizing that words represent something and are not the same as that something. I'm personally releasing myself from the limits that words convey, and opening myself to the unadulterated truths behind the limits.
    However, can matter bring thought into utterance? And how can you prove it, when you're bound by the limits of utterance, something apart from matter?
    What do you mean?
    "The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr

    http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta

    Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
  • FinsburyParkCarrotsFinsburyParkCarrots Seattle, WA Posts: 12,223
    angelica wrote:

    What do you mean?

    Well, I was thinking of the Marxist adage that social being (matter) determines consciousness, and then saying, well, how do we know, if that notion is just a formation in words, and ideas such as "matter" have no material substance or single signified but are just terms in language, referential to other linguistic concepts? I was just deconstructing Marxist-materialist philosophy there. ;)
  • angelicaangelica Posts: 6,038
    FinsburyParkCarrots wrote:
    Well, I was thinking of the Marxist adage that social being (matter) determines consciousness, and then saying, well, how do we know, if that notion is just a formation in words, and ideas such as "matter" have no material substance or single signified but are just terms in language, referential to other linguistic concepts? I was just deconstructing Marxist-materialist philosophy there. ;)
    Hey, cool. This is a concept that although I'm grasping more and more, it seems that you understand more of it than myself!

    This is mind-bending for me! I'd love to hear more elaboration of what you are saying here!
    "The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr

    http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta

    Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
  • KannKann Posts: 1,146
    While I didn't understand every thing that was posted (the utterance part for example!) I wanted to take the example of comsologists and astrophysicists (?) who, in order to explain some poorly understood events, have to imagine and create unexistent matters : ether (in the physical sense, even though has been disproven, was imagined to fill a void concerning light in the universe), antimatter which was imagined before it was proven and a mind created an unexistent matter. Or even the imaginary numbers in mathematics, an unexistent and even impossible concept which was created for (at first) no real purpose but which finally found applications much later.
  • know1know1 Posts: 6,794
    I think "existence" is a concept that humans created. Therefore, they can grant existence to anything as the owners of that concept.
    The only people we should try to get even with...
    ...are those who've helped us.

    Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
  • AhnimusAhnimus Posts: 10,560
    A square circle
    A red blue
    An oxymoron
    Military Intelligence
    I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Sign In or Register to comment.