]]>
-Wolfwood
Statistics: Posted by Wolfwood — October 23rd, 2009, 7:27 pm
]]>
This forum is for roleplaying, creating / sharing created literature, and discussing already printed literature.
Philosophy on its own is not literature.
Your topic's title and the post's content might have implied that you might've been thinking of creating a story heavily laden with philosophy and futureistic themes, but it wasn't apparent in the post, so I asked.
Thanks for making an ass out of yourself, Andrew.
Statistics: Posted by Kikori — October 23rd, 2009, 6:56 pm
]]>
@kik: I posted this because it was better than the crap spam that is your reply to this thread.
-Wolfwood
Statistics: Posted by Wolfwood — October 23rd, 2009, 5:22 pm
]]>
]]>
I'd hate for you not to see his grand potential.
Statistics: Posted by Kanye West — October 21st, 2009, 5:35 pm
]]>
It's Andrew.
Are you honestly surprised?
He's only 15, but he's the next great thinker. Trust me.
No offense or anything but he hasn't actually thought of anything new, not to mention the fact that we studied stuff like this in year 9 (age 13/14). Once you go through philosophy it's actually not as complicated as it seems.
Statistics: Posted by Aragorn Ix — October 21st, 2009, 5:30 pm
]]>
Are you honestly surprised?
He's only 15, but he's the next great thinker. Trust me.
Statistics: Posted by Kanye West — October 21st, 2009, 5:21 pm
]]>
Statistics: Posted by Kikori — October 21st, 2009, 12:59 pm
]]>
]]>
Though, the concept of being able to PROVE whether the chair is real or not might be original, though I doubt that it is.
It's not.
Statistics: Posted by Thyker — October 21st, 2009, 8:34 am
]]>
]]>
Aragorn Ix wrote:
So I think therefore I am? That's not a new philosophy haha you're just regurgitating Descartes.
I know that it's not a new philosophy
but my theory on the defenition of reality is new... I think. xD-Wolfwood
We were talking about the perception of reality today in my Literature class. You're beaten by Freud, if not by some Greek thinker.
Though, the concept of being able to PROVE whether the chair is real or not might be original, though I doubt that it is.
Statistics: Posted by Landerpurex — October 21st, 2009, 1:13 am
]]>
So I think therefore I am? That's not a new philosophy haha you're just regurgitating Descartes.
I know that it's not a new philosophy
but my theory on the defenition of reality is new... I think. xD-Wolfwood
Statistics: Posted by Wolfwood — October 20th, 2009, 11:16 pm
]]>
Therefore, it cannot be proven.
Statistics: Posted by Sighence — October 20th, 2009, 7:56 pm
]]>
]]>
]]>
First off, to understand what I am talking about, you need to know the basics.
A mental image is the image of something in your mind that you have previously perceived with your mind or have used past experiences to create that mental image within your mind.
Let's say the mental image is a chair.
The chair now exists in my mind, yet does not exists outside of my mind unless I had perceived before, or unless I am currently perceiving it.
When I look away from the chair, my senses, the things that help me perceive that chair, are not sensing it anymore because I looked away and the chair isn't making any noise or setting off any other of my senses. However, the mental image of the chair still exists in my mind.
Try it. Look at a chair, and then look away, you can still see the *mental image* of the chair you were previously perceiving with your sense of sight.
So now the chair in your mind as well as outside of your mind.
Now here's where things get tricky.
I cannot prove that you, or anything around me exists. However, I CAN prove that I, myself, exist.
I think, therefore I exist.
I thought of the chair, therefore, it exists in my mind.
Let's define reality. I cannot prove that anything around me exists, therefore I cannot call that reality. I can, however, call whatever exists within my mind reality because I can prove to myself that my mind exists.
My reality is only what exists in my mind. That being said, the chair exists in my reality. My logic dictates that the chair does indeed exist.
If my logic stands, then I can create something in reality out of something that does not exist. We use past experiences to create those things. The experiences were created by God, so we still need God to even materialize something in reality.
If I am confusing you, then I am sorry. Let me explain a few things.
Sense perception = The chair is tangible to me and other people outside of my mind.
Mental image = The chair is visible to me and I can only prove that it exists because I used sense perception to make it exist in my mind.
Concept = The chair does not exist in my reality until I use sense percation or use past experiences to create a mental image in my mind so that the chair may exist in my reality.
Reality = It is not what exists outside of your mind, but is what exists within your mind.
My reality is mine alone. I cannot prove that you exist, but I CAN prove that I exist because I think.
I can only prove to MYSELF that I exist, I cannot prove to YOU that I exist.
Final note: This is all very, very confusing. I don't expect you to process all of this in one read, but I thought I would share this revelation to everyone.
I dearly hope that you have already have a background on traditional logic, because I understand I'm not the best at explaining sense perception, simple apprehension, ect.
Thanks for your time ^_^
-Wolfwood
Statistics: Posted by Wolfwood — October 20th, 2009, 2:30 am
]]>