Now, just think about this. You are not actually reading this, you are not actually who you think you are. In reality you are completley insane, and all of this is one massive delusion. It is often said that crazy people don't know they are crazy.
My question to you, how can you be so sure you are sane if you don't even know for sure if what you are looking at is real?
Inb4 pretentious.
Honestly, one of my biggest fears is that I'll lose my mind. A really bad LSD trip or whatever would be horrifying, but going insane without knowing it is much more so.
Sane is defined as following norms. No norms are truthfully the norm. Therefor everyone is actually sane.
sounds like existentialism to me
sounds like existentialism to me
Pfft, existentialism? Don't even get me Sartred.
Pfft, existentialism? Don't even get me Sartred.
Life is Nietzsche with existentialism.
Honestly, one of my biggest fears is that I'll lose my mind. A really bad LSD trip or whatever would be horrifying, but going insane without knowing it is much more so.
Yeah it's f**ked up, sometimes I wonder if I'm insane or slipping down that path. Normal people can't stand the lack of social life I cope with so I have to wonder if I'm even normal at all.
Pfft, existentialism? Don't even get me Sartred.
You sir, are a classy individual.
Pfft, existentialism? Don't even get me Sartred.
:D
OP, read Descartes' Meditations on First Philosophy. You have to start slow before you jump into stuff like that.
"There is no "other" without a "me." There is no "me" without something to grab hold of. That seems easy enough to understand, but if it's not understood there's no reason to do anything else. It might seem like there's some perfect truth, but what's special can't really be observed clearly. It's possible to have personal beliefs, but not to allow them take an actual form - to have feelings about things but not to create dogma around them."
-zhuangzi
Honestly, one of my biggest fears is that I'll lose my mind. A really bad LSD trip or whatever would be horrifying, but going insane without knowing it is much more so.
Ah yeah I've been thinking about that lately.
What if I have actually gone retarded or something and haven't realised it because it just seems normal to me, and everyone's actions I see as normal.
It becomes especially worrying if I start thinking like this while high because at those times it feels as if the fog has cleared and I can actually see myself for who I am.
I'm sure someone would have told me I was retarded right? That I'm not actually typing here on this laptop but sitting in a room somewhere staring at a wall and moving my fingers.
Right?
So I've been reading some Philip K. Dick lately. A recurring theme in all of his books is how reality is entirely dependent on our perception of it, and how it can appear different to each person. Basically, reality could be extremely different then what we think it is, and we will never know because we can only view it through the lens of our own minds.
Now, just think about this. You are not actually reading this, you are not actually who you think you are. In reality you are completley insane, and all of this is one massive delusion. It is often said that crazy people don't know they are crazy.
My question to you, how can you be so sure you are sane if you don't even know for sure if what you are looking at is real?
Inb4 pretentious.
>My question to you, how can you be so sure you are sane if you don't even know for sure if what you are looking at is real?
I know I'm sane because I know that what I'm look at it real.
>you don't even know for sure if what you are looking at is real
Sorry bub, but we gotta take some things as axioms. The fact that the external world exists and that my perceptions are fairly reliable at perceiving certain things is one of those axioms. Other you never get anywhere.
My philosophy prof once responded like this to a student like you: He ran into the door, and it hit him. He turned around and shouted, "There, you're FREE! The door exists!".
Solipsism and sophistry.
>My question to you, how can you be so sure you are sane if you don't even know for sure if what you are looking at is real?
How do I know what 'real' is if I have no standard of comparison? How do I even have a notion of it?
A complete delusion is impossible because we'd have no notion of what a delusion was.
Its a pointless question OP since, as you stated, our reality is entirely dependent on our perception of it. If you are un-knowingly insane and this is one massive delusion, that doesn't change your reality. Your reality is the delusion. Buddhists believe that the entire concept of you, or your self-concept, is a delusion too.
What if your entire existence is a delusion? Does it change your reality even though your reality is constructed based on your perception?
:D
OP, read Descartes' Meditations on First Philosophy. You have to start slow before you jump into stuff like that.
This. Also the essay "Cogito and the History of Madness" by Derrida (in Writing and Difference).
This. Also the essay "Cogito and the History of Madness" by Derrida (in Writing and Difference).
>He thinks that Derrida was a philosopher!
OFF TOPIC
I for some reason cannot read Philip K. Dick or Ann Rand. Its too low of a reading level. It just feels like talking to a guy at a bus stop. there is no higher level thinking.
>He thinks that Derrida was a philosopher!
No, actually he was a religious thinker and a poet, but he had some valuable insights regarding philosophical issues.
>My question to you, how can you be so sure you are sane if you don't even know for sure if what you are looking at is real?
How do I know what 'real' is if I have no standard of comparison? How do I even have a notion of it?
A complete delusion is impossible because we'd have no notion of what a delusion was.
"real" is ultimately what you think it is. But how do you know what is real for you might be real for somebody else? The person you are talking to might experience reality in an entirely different way.
>My question to you, how can you be so sure you are sane if you don't even know for sure if what you are looking at is real?
I know I'm sane because I know that what I'm look at it real.
>you don't even know for sure if what you are looking at is real
Sorry bub, but we gotta take some things as axioms. The fact that the external world exists and that my perceptions are fairly reliable at perceiving certain things is one of those axioms. Other you never get anywhere.
My philosophy prof once responded like this to a student like you: He ran into the door, and it hit him. He turned around and shouted, "There, you're FREE! The door exists!".
How do you know the door existed and he actually ran into it? You don't.
It's interesting nonetheless.
ITT: First year philosophy majors.
"real" is ultimately what you think it is. But how do you know what is real for you might be real for somebody else? The person you are talking to might experience reality in an entirely different way.
How do you know the door existed and he actually ran into it? You don't.
It's interesting nonetheless.
>How do you know the door existed and he actually ran into it? You don't.
You assume it and you move the f**k on with life.
I've had a psychotic episode and I have a good feeling of the line between sane and insane. I can pretty comfortably say I'm A OK. On the more interesting part of this thread though, PKD is a God, his influence can be found throughout the entire modern day culture, through movies, books, and philosophy.
ITT: First year philosophy majors.
Third year, thank you very much.
>My question to you, how can you be so sure you are sane if you don't even know for sure if what you are looking at is real?
I know I'm sane because I know that what I'm look at it real.
>you don't even know for sure if what you are looking at is real
Sorry bub, but we gotta take some things as axioms. The fact that the external world exists and that my perceptions are fairly reliable at perceiving certain things is one of those axioms. Other you never get anywhere.
My philosophy prof once responded like this to a student like you: He ran into the door, and it hit him. He turned around and shouted, "There, you're FREE! The door exists!".
hey bro, hey. you don't have to hide behind empiricism. it's okay if non-existence scares you.
OFF TOPIC
I for some reason cannot read Philip K. Dick or Ann Rand. Its too low of a reading level. It just feels like talking to a guy at a bus stop. there is no higher level thinking.
Philip K Dick can be a really good writer when he wants to be. Some of his books make almost no sense though(Ubik is a good example). There is plenty of interesting ideas. He just dresses them up as genre stuff.
"real" is ultimately what you think it is. But how do you know what is real for you might be real for somebody else? The person you are talking to might experience reality in an entirely different way.
How do you know the door existed and he actually ran into it? You don't.
It's interesting nonetheless.
>The person you are talking to might experience reality in an entirely different way.
How would I be talking to them? Language without shared reality is impossible.
>How do you know the door existed and he actually ran into it? You don't.
You assume it and you move the f**k on with life.
Well yeah, obviously. That's not fun to talk about though.
Yeah but this perception I have now is the best I have got, so it is my reality, so that collapses the proposition
OFF TOPIC
I for some reason cannot read Philip K. Dick or Ann Rand. Its too low of a reading level. It just feels like talking to a guy at a bus stop. there is no higher level thinking.
The philosophical and moral quandaries are obviously way over your head.
Well yeah, obviously. That's not fun to talk about though.
Trust me, there's a lot of fun philosophy to talk about once you get over this nonsense :).
Third year, thank you very much.
Enjoy wasting your money for something you can do on your free time. Dead end profession is dead ended.
>The person you are talking to might experience reality in an entirely different way.
How would I be talking to them? Language without shared reality is impossible.
Realities can be similar. But completley the same? No. A good example would be whether or not god exists. Some look at the world and think he does, others think the opposite. These are two people looking at the world through their own eyes and coming to conclusions that could be vastly different then another's.
And how do you know you are even talking to a person and they are not a figment of your imagination?
Enjoy wasting your money for something you can do on your free time. Dead end profession is dead ended.
>baww I got into a bad grad program/no grad program
So I've been reading some Philip K. Dick lately. A recurring theme in all of his books is how reality is entirely dependent on our perception of it, and how it can appear different to each person. Basically, reality could be extremely different then what we think it is, and we will never know because we can only view it through the lens of our own minds.
Now, just think about this. You are not actually reading this, you are not actually who you think you are. In reality you are completley insane, and all of this is one massive delusion. It is often said that crazy people don't know they are crazy.
My question to you, how can you be so sure you are sane if you don't even know for sure if what you are looking at is real?
Inb4 pretentious.
"reality is that which does not go away when you stop believing in it"
-- some smart guy I don't remember his name whatever brah.
Realities can be similar. But completley the same? No. A good example would be whether or not god exists. Some look at the world and think he does, others think the opposite. These are two people looking at the world through their own eyes and coming to conclusions that could be vastly different then another's.
And how do you know you are even talking to a person and they are not a figment of your imagination?
>Realities can be similar. But completley the same?
Reality is the overlap. That's what science reveals by eliminated the particular perspective. What differs is operating on a different level than reality, one which is capable of illusion and delusion.
>And how do you know you are even talking to a person and they are not a figment of your imagination?
I don't, except in those cases where they are responsible for allowing a novel shift in my perspective, one which would be impossible in a stagnant and solipsistic world.
F**king hell just do some psychedelics already...
If your talking about being crazy, there are many levels of it, if you want the average "i can read peoples minds" and "i can fly" and the average serious schizophrenic thoughts, do a tab or 2 of acid...
if you want to talk to completely realistic people, see spiders walking up the walls, and hear people call your name over and over, aka completely, completely batsh*t crazy, do DPH
You can very easily find out what its like to be insane...
>baww I got into a bad grad program/no grad program
Truth hurts doesn't it. Even someone so unfortunate as to not even go to grad school could make more money in the long run than a Phil. major.
"...but then I think rain is wet, so who am I to judge?" ~~ Wonko the Sane.
Truth hurts doesn't it. Even someone so unfortunate as to not even go to grad school could make more money in the long run than a Phil. major.
I'm not even going into the field. It's just to get an undergrad degree and learn a few things in the process. I really don't see the point of HURDURMYMAJORBETTERTHANYOURS. Everybody chose what to study, hopefully aware of the consequences, so what's the big deal?
I'm not even going into the field. It's just to get an undergrad degree and learn a few things in the process. I really don't see the point of HURDURMYMAJORBETTERTHANYOURS. Everybody chose what to study, hopefully aware of the consequences, so what's the big deal?
Math is infinitely more logical and full proof than philosophy.
Who cares? Like you just said,
>we will never know
So there's no point in thinking about it. I'll assume this is real and get on with it.
If you are all figments of my imagination, then I have no reason not to play along
Math is infinitely more logical and full proof than philosophy.
>math
>full proof
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
It's "foolproof" by the way. And math is hardly that.
Math is infinitely more logical and full proof than philosophy.
I see that your idea of mathematics is nearly a century out of date.
I see that your idea of mathematics is nearly a century out of date.
Philosophy majors apparently don't understand the Incompleteness Theorem...
Eraserhead
Mrs. X: There's a baby. It's at the hospital.
Mary X: Mom!
Mrs. X: And you're the father.
Henry: Well that's impossible! It's only been...
Mary X: Mother, they're still not sure it is a baby!
Philosophy majors apparently don't understand the Incompleteness Theorem...
Math majors are apparently unaware of its consequences for significant theorems in mathematics like the Continuum Hypothesis.
>math
>full proof
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
It's "foolproof" by the way. And math is hardly that.
I see that your idea of mathematics is nearly a century out of date.
What is this? someone who never did math past linear algebra/differential equations (and probably never past calc I tbh) who doesn't understand mathematical rigor, and some sophomore year philosophy/math double major chucklef**k who thinks that rigor and proof are pointless because of incompleteness (you'll change your opinion by senior year, btw).
It's consensual reality. We agree on perceive things more or less the same way. Like making an appointment for 4 PM. Somewhere in the world it's 4 PM, right now. So we have to agree in what kind of 4 PM we're talking about so we will never meet.
sometimes i think im autistic or something. but that cant be..
Stuff exists. Not necessarily in the way we imagine it to, since we all have a set of concepts and ideas and categorizations of reality which we've been fabricating since we were born through which we filter our bare sensory information. So the way we interact with the world is, to use a term, based on delusion, but it isn't the delusions of a crazy person, simply assumptions and generalizations and ideas that help us get along. If you were unable to extrapolate beyond the bareness of your sensory input you'd be as helpless as a baby and quickly die.
What is this? someone who never did math past linear algebra/differential equations (and probably never past calc I tbh) who doesn't understand mathematical rigor, and some sophomore year philosophy/math double major chucklef**k who thinks that rigor and proof are pointless because of incompleteness (you'll change your opinion by senior year, btw).
> and some sophomore year philosophy/math double major chucklef**k who thinks that rigor and proof are pointless because of incompleteness
Nice strawman. Try graduate philosophy student who doesn't at all think rigor and proof are pointless because of incompleteness, only that the idea that mathematics is somehow any more "foolproof" than philosophy is ridiculous considering its same reliance on having to accept a set of untethered axioms and independent theorems.
Oh and try being good friends with a pair of tenured math professors who agree.
Now are we done doing unverifiable dick-swinging of credentials?
Math majors are apparently unaware of its consequences for significant theorems in mathematics like the Continuum Hypothesis.
I am well aware.
See
What is this? someone who never did math past linear algebra/differential equations (and probably never past calc I tbh) who doesn't understand mathematical rigor, and some sophomore year philosophy/math double major chucklef**k who thinks that rigor and proof are pointless because of incompleteness (you'll change your opinion by senior year, btw).
Like the meaning of the words. What the word do has to do with the real thing? Yet, if I say it, you will think of something barking with four legs. You will think of a chiuaua, when in my mind I had a german shepherd, but more or less, you will figure out what I was trying to represent with the word.
Phillip K. Dick was a gnostic. Read about Gnosticism and you will understand his stuff better.
What is this? someone who never did math past linear algebra/differential equations (and probably never past calc I tbh) who doesn't understand mathematical rigor, and some sophomore year philosophy/math double major chucklef**k who thinks that rigor and proof are pointless because of incompleteness (you'll change your opinion by senior year, btw).
Sorry for not seeing mathematics as an unassailable fortress of perfect completion and self-consistency.
Which it isn't.
Perception is reality.
Sorry for not seeing mathematics as an unassailable fortress of perfect completion and self-consistency.
Which it isn't.
1+1=2
how is that wrong?
Perception is reality.
Ding ding ding.
Sanity is a social construct and is only tangentially related to dilemma of the nature of reality (or, really, the reality of nature) you describe, OP.
Ding ding ding.
Sanity is a social construct and is only tangentially related to dilemma of the nature of reality (or, really, the reality of nature) you describe, OP.
Perception is reality.
yo dog i heard you agreed with berkeley so i thought i'd link you his page
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Berkeley
(Seriously though, he was a pretty cool guy.)
yo dog i heard you agreed with berkeley so i thought i'd link you his page
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Berkeley
(Seriously though, he was a pretty cool guy.)
Thanks for the brotip, ima check this bitch out.
>Influenced: Kant
yeah nigga I bet you did
jack nance om nom nom nom nom too bad erasurehead sux and every other lynch thing he did was like 500 times better,
jack nance om nom nom nom nom too bad erasurehead sux and every other lynch thing he did was like 500 times better,
Shut up, you dumb bitch.
jack nance om nom nom nom nom too bad erasurehead sux and every other lynch thing he did was like 500 times better,
Different poster here. You're a bitch. F**k you, seriously. Maybe I could tolerate you if you were even slightly attractive, but no.
Solipsism ain't true man.
I'm not sure, OP. However, I recommend that you read Radio Free Albemuth next - the last book.
Anyways... Since I can only ever see the world through my own mind's eye, the reasonable thing to do is accept oneself as the creator and observer of said world. Maybe we create by observing? Who knows. It's pretty damn believable that we ALTER by observing at least... and in a sense we make stuff real by believing they are so. But everyone does, every mind contains that same power and therefore reality is subjective.
Middle school philosophy, f**k yeah! "Is my perception of the colour blue different from yours?"
Also, COGITO-ERGO-F**KING-SUM. That's a good logical start, yet a very complex one in itself. Just roll with it.
Maybe you should read Sophie's World, too. Piece of sh*t story imoho, but it IS an educating and easy crash course in basic philosophy. That, and it brings peace to upset teenage minds struggling with light existence crisis.
Peace, OP. All the best.
Solipsism ain't true man.
This is my way of tricking myself into thinking that I didn't create the universe. If I were to ever gain this knowledge and gain control the consequences could be serious.
So I've been reading some Philip K. Dick lately. A recurring theme in all of his books is how reality is entirely dependent on our perception of it, and how it can appear different to each person. Basically, reality could be extremely different then what we think it is, and we will never know because we can only view it through the lens of our own minds.
Now, just think about this. You are not actually reading this, you are not actually who you think you are. In reality you are completley insane, and all of this is one massive delusion. It is often said that crazy people don't know they are crazy.
My question to you, how can you be so sure you are sane if you don't even know for sure if what you are looking at is real?
Inb4 pretentious.
I no longer care whether or not I am sane or insane. I measure my mental fitness by how well I am able to contribute in a positive manner to the world around me. I check myself against the world constantly, and am still truckin'. So the question is moot, to me.
No comments:
Post a Comment