The obviousness of existence? | Page 2 | INFJ Forum

The obviousness of existence?

also, we need clear definitions in order to avoid misinterpretations & confusion (which is bound to happen anyway when discussing topics like this, but at least it will happen less)

i have a hard time with this bit, it would seem to me it could lead to more misinterretations.

I in a sense someone calles themself a Christian

would you define that as some one who believes the Bible

but that wrong in the sense that ther are Chrstians who don't believe the Bible

Well the what about someone whom believes in the Believe Jesus

well thats not true as their are plenty of people believe Jesus.

Well then how about someone whom worships Jesus as God

But not all Christians worship Jesus as God.

trying to narrow down such a statement just leads to further misinterpretation of a persons beliefs.
 
So you question what is existence not whether or not you exist.
No, I don't question existence. I question the self, which is always falsely taught, one way or another.
 
Christianity relies on the axiom that there is a universal.

Many of us do not believe in universals. Or we question the axioms themselves.
 
Last edited:
'Porn' is just a concatenation of a nominal symbol (a word: pornography) which has a generally shared definition of media showing people having sex.

Show porn to someone that doesn't know anything about sex and ask them what it is. Doesn't seem very self-evident to me. We LEARN what sex is.

Then is a movie witha sex scene Pornagraphy?

also, would slightly disagree with the idea that Sex is learned. Because that means it has to be taught, so I would ask who taught the first people?
 
Then is a movie witha sex scene Pornagraphy?

also, would slightly disagree with the idea that Sex is learned. Because that means it has to be taught, so I would ask who taught the first people?

Well you get pleasures in the right places and you play around with it enough and eventually you will figure it out. :D

Haven't you ever heard of the birds and the bees?

You break it down far enough it gets to the paradox of the chicken or the egg.
 
Last edited:
no actualy, and what is pleasure?
 
no actualy, and what is pleasure?

Pleasure is an emotional/chemical reaction that is seemingly desirable to the human with different stimuli. Pleasure can typically be evoked from the stimulus of touch on certain parts of the body, especially the reproductive organs.
 
how come?

I wonder if you are posing the question to just Coon, or to both of us...So I will answer too...

It has been well known that I did not have a good childhood. I was never nurtured or made to feel worth anything. So questioning the worth of my existence is ingrained in me.
 
Pleasure is an emotional/chemical reaction that is seemingly desirable to the human with different stimuli. Pleasure can typically be evoked from the stimulus of touch on certain parts of the body, especially the reproductive organs.

What is a emotional/chemical reaction?

what is desirable?

what is different?

what are stimuli?

do you see where this is going?
 
I wonder if you are posing the question to just Coon, or to both of us...So I will answer too...

It has been well known that I did not have a good childhood. I was never nurtured or made to feel worth anything. So questioning the worth of my existence is ingrained in me.

This.

Forgive my short responses, but I feel as Entyqua is expressing my exact thoughts.

Also in a depressive mood so I did not want to write a rant.
 
When I took a philosphy course a year and a half ago, this question naturally was discussed a lot. To be honest, after a short while it became very boring and useless to me. Why? Because it seems like they are often asking questions that will never have an answer under any circumstances.

I know I exsist. I think, I feel, I touch, I see, the list goes on. Others will say "you can't use those as defining factors.", well, what else am I to use then? They take the argument and break it down so far to the point where from my point of view it doesn't exist anymore and the point is from then on just moot.

I do actually wonder though the idea of "is this all an illusion" from time to time. It is interesting to question, and it has some validity to me as I experience things from time to time that have no explination to what is definined in the physical word, or are so coincidental that it there has to be deeper meaning to it all. I have wondered before if this is all an illusion and that everyone I see is a creation of mine from some other esoteric space that I do not have current access to. This explains the whole "I create my reality" idea that I do believe in. The problem is many contradiction come of it. I can't hold the idea that other people are meerly just an illusion because I believe that everyone is actually real. I can form meaningful interactions with them. But then how can I create my own reality, and witness the changes around me that I create, if others have their own free will and lives? I have "fixes" for these contradictions but they would take a long to explain and here is not the place for that. As at this point I am just talking to myself.

I like these kinds of arguments and discussions, but not the fundementals of it. In general, many popular philosphers just suceed in pissing me off or annoying me.
 
There is the idea that everything in reality can be simulated. Even a mind. Simulation takes the form of computation... so the basic idea is that everything (even people) can be reduced to computation.

Now what if somebody was doing those computations in their head, and they were simulating you? Then presumably, you would only exist as a figment of somebody elses imagination... which is an amusing thought experiment.

When people propose the idea of themselves not existing, it is commonly something like this they are referring to. It's also believed true by some schizophrenic people, who have a disjointed sense of self.
 
i have a hard time with this bit, it would seem to me it could lead to more misinterretations.

I in a sense someone calles themself a Christian

would you define that as some one who believes the Bible

but that wrong in the sense that ther are Chrstians who don't believe the Bible

Well the what about someone whom believes in the Believe Jesus

well thats not true as their are plenty of people believe Jesus.

Well then how about someone whom worships Jesus as God

But not all Christians worship Jesus as God.

trying to narrow down such a statement just leads to further misinterpretation of a persons beliefs.

that's true but if you don't try to define it you're going on assumptions, and that can also lead to confusion, except you'll probably only recognize it when it escalates into an argument.
 
When I took a philosphy course a year and a half ago, this question naturally was discussed a lot. To be honest, after a short while it became very boring and useless to me. Why? Because it seems like they are often asking questions that will never have an answer under any circumstances.


Exactly, I put aside metaphysics/ontology quite a while back. Still fun to ponder every once in a while though.
 
Exactly, I put aside metaphysics/ontology quite a while back. Still fun to ponder every once in a while though.

its kinda depressing...
 
I wonder if you are posing the question to just Coon, or to both of us...So I will answer too...

It has been well known that I did not have a good childhood. I was never nurtured or made to feel worth anything. So questioning the worth of my existence is ingrained in me.

yes I was addressing you too enty, thanks for explaining it to me. i'm sorry you had a rough childhood :( it's interesting it has colored how you view existence now though. wonder if everyone who has gone through similar difficulties also judges existence not in terms of what it is but what it's worth?
 
yes I was addressing you too enty, thanks for explaining it to me. i'm sorry you had a rough childhood :( it's interesting it has colored how you view existence now though. wonder if everyone who has gone through similar difficulties also judges existence not in terms of what it is but what it's worth?

I dont know of others, but I have always tried to be WORTH something to those around me...a helping hand, a good wife...all the things one is supposed to be...instead of what I am...
 
I dont know of others, but I have always tried to be WORTH something to those around me...a helping hand, a good wife...all the things one is supposed to be...instead of what I am...

Inferiority complex. I have one too, although it is fading since I started working on my social anxiety.

It is definitely nice not having the bias of an ego, but the bias of the inferiority complex sucks too. Trying to find that middle ground.
 
Inferiority complex. I have one too, although it is fading since I started working on my social anxiety.

It is definitely nice not having the bias of an ego, but the bias of the inferiority complex sucks too. Trying to find that middle ground.


hmmmm I suppose that is it...I have never felt as deserving as others...as if I was born wrong...and just didnt deserve it...It is definitely something I am working on...But it all comes back to a matter of worth...I hold those around me higher in worth than myself.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ecton
that's true but if you don't try to define it you're going on assumptions, and that can also lead to confusion, except you'll probably only recognize it when it escalates into an argument.

Exactly, thats why I like broad simple definitions. They are the most practical and easiest to adapt. If I call you a say your a Christian who doesn't believe in the this or that I would simply say that a Chirstian is this still but as possiblility of being that also.

I would even add that the narrow definition presents more chance for confusion due to the lack of wiggle room, because when your confronted with a new piece of info on what something is defined as it may be entirley counter intuitive to what you have known it to be.

but then again even this is impractical on several levels

philosophy is turtles