Truth, Answers, and Existence

[Individual]

Here are a few ramblings that I put some members through in "Live Chat":

Prophecies: Are they true, or has thought adapted to these prophecies therefore making them real? Are prophecies taken from history as an attempt at fortelling the future, or is the future fortold by confessing a prophecy assuming that only recognition would be made if mankind made the prophecy true? Do we adapt events into fulfilling the prophecy, or is the prophecy a truth of the future? Another answer that lacks an answer, as time cannot be repeated. However this leads to the existance of time, and whether or not time is progressing. Could time be in reverse? Does our existence regress? Does time go backwards in that we are going to hit the peak of human technology and existence, and begin to regress backwords repeating history, or in opposite, repeating the future. Let's assume time is regressing/going in reverse and compare this to a prophecy. The prophecy that will become true because it is made to come true. The prophecy that all living existence is on a turn table and will eventually go back in time. Who has the answer that time is not on a reverse scale of what is widely thought? How can it be proven that infact we are moving back in time? What if the future is known, but history/the past is forgeotten? These are again "maybes" in which people cannot know. These maybes constitute the ever progressing theories of man's existence, and whether or not we in fact truly exist.

What is truth? First we must analyze truth as the opposite of itself. Why does the mind long for the truth, and not the opposite? Why don't we search for ignorance, proclaimed false reasoning? What has driven the mind to a search of knowledge? In this search, is knowledge and the ability to comprehend this knowledge infinite? Or is the human mind finite in that there are dimensions and an end brought on by death? Does the persistence of thought grow in that thought is infinite? Does thought carry on from the individual?

Can we accept truth as is? Is truth a fallacy that is lead to believe it is just that? What is the mind, and can we prove the mind exists? Or the opposite, can we prove that the mind is only thoguth, in which thought never dies. Looking at religions, and the billions of people since the beginning of man have had these thoughts. Only thoughts were not processed, thoughts have progressed rolling over through paper, murals, and now technology. Is this progression of comprehending thought also not in sync with the progression of overall thought? Do new ways of composing thought come along as thought progresses? Or is thought composed of merely thought in itself, which is to remain due to other reasoning. With this, does thought exist? Does thought reside in mankind? Or is thought above and beyond mankind in that it cannot interpret it's own self within the human mind? Can we prove existence without proving thought? In trying to disprove the mind, you are trying to disprove thought, therefore are you trying to disprove existence? Or in trying to disprove the mind, yet understanding that thought exists, you should be able to accept that there are instinces above mankind, which in turn should be able to interpret God. Or is God merely part of the mind, which in turn is composed of thought, which could lead the the curiousity of existence in itself. Do we exist?

What are answers? What is comparing these "answers" to the subjected "falseness" of an un-answer? What makes answers correct, leaving the opposite without an answer? How can we claim things are answers, when we aren't even sure whether our minds are finite. Is the mind an everlasting thought? Does thought carry itself over, and always progress. If it does, then thought is assumed to be infinite. How is mankind struggling against nature, when nature is mankind? How can man proclaim itself as the answer? Are we the balance that makes nature possible? With that, we cannot prove that there is a balance. How do all things have an opposite without being able to prove any truth? How is truth taken to be the final answer, when you cannot comprehend any answers. Our individual thought is assumed finite, as we cannot comprehend the infinite. Or can we? Can our feable minds interpret something that is infinite without our acknowledging to ourselves that it is infinite? The answers are out there, or are they? An answer cannot be logically understood, because answers are interpreted by man, who in turn cannot fully understnad himself as with his motives.

[Guest1]

Acid is a very enjoyable drug, but don't think you can apply the knowledge from your trips to anything but yourself. It helps you understand the workings of your mind, not the world.

So either keep the wandering philosophy to your trips, or lay off the acid, Mr. Leary :P

Just kidding :)

[The Feral Underclass]

So you finally indulged yourself Che y Marijuana.......you rock!

Embrace the failure!!!

[Guest1]

TAT, it was a joke, I haven't tried it yet.

However, reality is quickly becoming so unpalatable, I may very well reach for that journey and escape soon.

And please, come back to the CC. We lost enough people to that stupid thread, no need to lose you too.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Che y [email protected] 5 2004, 09:41 AM
However, reality is quickly becoming so unpalatable, I may very well reach for that journey and escape soon.
Stop what you're doing right now and go out into the streets and buy yourself some acid....go!!!


And please, come back to the CC. We lost enough people to that stupid thread, no need to lose you too.

Consitution :lol:

I have no intention of being apart of that forum at the moment. I have been an adolescence and now I want to move onto the next part of my life. :ph34r:

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Well truth is never static, it changes with perception and culture. Thoughts, well your post is more questions than anything I can counteract which is where my thoughts really come out.

Nietzsche on truth:


What then is truth? A mobile army of metaphors, metonymies, anthromorphisms, a sum, in shor, of human relationships which, rhetorically and poetically intensified, ornamented, and transformed, come to be thought of, after a long usage by people, as fixed, binding, canonical. Truths are illusions which we have forgotten are illusions, worn out metaphors now impotent to stir the senses, coins which have lost their faces and are considered now as metal rather than as curreny

In my view truth is relative to perspectivism. Truth is error.

[Individual]

In my view truth is relative to perspectivism. Truth is error.

It is just that Geist, a proclaimed truth is all based on perspective.

What is said to be a truth is in fact one man's comparison against another man's perception. What makes mankind's proclaimed truths, or "common sense truths" true? How can anything thought of by an uncertain and unknowing mind be compared true. Even assuming that human thought is infinite, in that thoughts either constantly progress or even regress, what is compared for something to be true?

Man has interpreted his own morals and judgments therefore labelling certain thoughts and theories as truths. We must then analyze man's motives for acquiring intellect. Men proclaim things as truths, but to accomplish what? A benefit of society will not come from one man's proclaimed truth, as this truth is from a single perspective.

Geist, I have gone considerably down the loop. My introspective has driven me into a constant thought-intwirled euphoria, only without the euphoria of it. I don't expect anyone to really answer my questions, as that is merely what they are, un-answerable. Answers are not something that can be constructed, nor passed off as a truth.

So many maybes...

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Well thats what philosophy is all about, just remember there are people who have been thinking like this for a long time. It may not be a euphoria to have your beliefs destroyed under scrutiny but its healthy. Over time and the more philosophy you absorb the freer you will be from dogma and lies. Trust it is a great feeling to be able and willing to analyse anything that coms before you.

The positives will outweigh the negatives but that takes time.

[monkeydust]

Good stuff AQ, I found that interesting.

I have little to add here. All I can say is that Alwaysquestion certainly lives up to his name. :)

[Individual]

More jargon..

Time? Does time infact progress? The interpretation that time progresses as we have
absolutely no recognition of the future, therefore meaning time is progressive, is a false
argument. This is from the biased interpretation that man is indeed always correct. What
if the future is our past, and that our memory is in fact lacking that of the past (future), and
that we can see into the future (past). Time could very well be regressive, in that we are
going backward (or in fact forward). There isn't a positive way to prove that time
progresses, as there isn't a positive way to assure unbias and faulty thought. If time
regressed, we all start with knowledge and in fact regress forward (backward) acquiring
less knowledge, and in fact losing knowledge. This would be reasoning to why infants
have little recollection of their past (future). If time regressed, then technology will reach
it's peak, destroying life (should be a given), and in fact leads back to where human life
started in the begininning (sticks and stones). What is to say that life in the past (future)
did not start as life in the future (past)?

What is fate? How can fate be proven to exist when in fact time cannot be proven to be progressive. If time is progressive, we cannot go back in time in order to prove that something may have been proven to happen for a reason. If in fact time regreseed, we therefore have no memory of the past and in fact cannot prove something with absoultely no interpretation of knowledge. Fate could infact be true, as nobody can prove otherwise. If fate was true, why do certain things happen for a particular reason, and what does this reason accomplish? Assuming fate isn't true, why do things happen at all? The known theory that everything has an equal and opposite reaction cannot be proven true as it is all
in a man's interpretation. Men interpret things, certainly while not being able to prove that
their thoughts are infact unbias and with merit

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

On time I made a thread on Augustine but I am way to lazy to search, any way I take a fairly Kantian line:

we cannot be said to have understood the concept of time from our experience’s of events that occur both simultaneously and in succession for the two presuppose time. Also in relation to space, time is not a general concept as there is one time; different times belong to this one idea of time itself. The difference between the two is that despite both being a priori intuitions space is a form of our intuition of objects outside us whereas time is a form of intuition of our own inner state. Furthermore time is a necessary condition for all appearance:

all objects outside us appear to us as extended in space, but all representations whatsoever, whether of inner states or of outer objects appear to us in succession or simultaneously with one another in time.

Essentially we map time onto the world, measured as such from our memory. Have a look into Augustine for some good stuff on time and definately Kant, also since space and time are interlinked check out the Analogies of Experience.

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

As for fate, I look to Spinoza in that whatever your philosophical system you will always have an element of free will. Even if your world is determined it is impossible to know.

I like all your posts lately AQ, very good, I am finished on Tuesday with bloody exams so I'll have more time to really answer you.

[Individual]

I'll be sure to buy Analogies of Experience Geist!

1 used & new from $261.57
:P I'll have to wait for the brand new library to open in order to avoid spending that sort of money. The old library has just closed, and a brand new, much larger ( :D ) library is opening right across the street from my complex any day now.

As for my posts, there will surely be more to come. I will be adding more thoughts as I have the time to type them out.

Lately I have been reading up on Nietzsche, however I've harbored most of these thoughts for a while until reading sparked more complexity. I am still waiting for Existentialism: From Dostoevsky to Sartre to arrive in the mail.

Anyway, I will be updating this thread with more "maybes", time is pending.

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

No its in The Critique of Pure Reason, its a subsection.

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Get Kaufmanns Portable Nietzsche, kinda philosopher that you need to read a lot of to gain an overall non biased view.

[Wenty]

As you might guess from my sig I agree with Kierkegaard when it comes to Truth.