![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Nov. 12th, 2003 03:24 amI can't sleep.
Well, damn.
So right now, I'm thinking about arguments for and against existentialism. I'm going to leave realism/antirealism out of it, as well as subjectivity/objectivity - for the most part, those arguments boil down to "well, it may SEEM one way, but I believe that there IS a way to find a true reality that we can know. Maybe not in my lifetime, but it can be done."
I think my problem with arguing philosophy with Patrick and Simon is that it boils down to this:
I care whether things are proven one way or another.
Simon and Patrick both say (on the matter of determinism) that finding out that determinism exists wouldn't affect them. Their entire life, they have lived as though they had free will, and if that turned out to be an illusion? Well, they'd lived with that illusion for this long - they could continue to live with it after finding out that it was an illusion.
Me? Never. I couldn't do that.
Alternately, if God was irrefutably proven to exist, I'd be forced to either choose to accept him as my God, or I'd have to say "I will not follow you". I could not continue to not believe in the existence of God, because there would be proof of his existence.
I find it interesting - and somewhat disturbing - that while Patrick is the one that wrote "what's so great about illusions and complacency?!" that he is content to live with the (philosophical) ideas he holds, and would continue to hold them even if proven wrong.
Meanwhile, I'm trying to struggle to some greater concept of truth that may or may not exist. But I'm still striving for that. Belief cannot be accepted as knowledge. If that is so, then the majority defines what reality is. If 51% of people think that women are inferior, does that inherently make them so? Does a majority of the world population believing in God make God exist?
I don't think so. There has to be an objective reality out there, and maybe all we're doing is perceiving it incorrectly, but it has to exist. Otherwise, what are we perceiving? We can't perceive other people's subjective perceptions. If a schizophrenic imagines a space cow is crushing you, that does not mean that it is happening.
I feel like I'm arguing myself in awkward circles. If someone can help me out (or can argue me into a different state of thinking), I'd be appreciative.
Well, damn.
So right now, I'm thinking about arguments for and against existentialism. I'm going to leave realism/antirealism out of it, as well as subjectivity/objectivity - for the most part, those arguments boil down to "well, it may SEEM one way, but I believe that there IS a way to find a true reality that we can know. Maybe not in my lifetime, but it can be done."
I think my problem with arguing philosophy with Patrick and Simon is that it boils down to this:
I care whether things are proven one way or another.
Simon and Patrick both say (on the matter of determinism) that finding out that determinism exists wouldn't affect them. Their entire life, they have lived as though they had free will, and if that turned out to be an illusion? Well, they'd lived with that illusion for this long - they could continue to live with it after finding out that it was an illusion.
Me? Never. I couldn't do that.
Alternately, if God was irrefutably proven to exist, I'd be forced to either choose to accept him as my God, or I'd have to say "I will not follow you". I could not continue to not believe in the existence of God, because there would be proof of his existence.
I find it interesting - and somewhat disturbing - that while Patrick is the one that wrote "what's so great about illusions and complacency?!" that he is content to live with the (philosophical) ideas he holds, and would continue to hold them even if proven wrong.
Meanwhile, I'm trying to struggle to some greater concept of truth that may or may not exist. But I'm still striving for that. Belief cannot be accepted as knowledge. If that is so, then the majority defines what reality is. If 51% of people think that women are inferior, does that inherently make them so? Does a majority of the world population believing in God make God exist?
I don't think so. There has to be an objective reality out there, and maybe all we're doing is perceiving it incorrectly, but it has to exist. Otherwise, what are we perceiving? We can't perceive other people's subjective perceptions. If a schizophrenic imagines a space cow is crushing you, that does not mean that it is happening.
I feel like I'm arguing myself in awkward circles. If someone can help me out (or can argue me into a different state of thinking), I'd be appreciative.
