Sheepness

E

exsto_human

Transitional
Registered Senior Member
Why follow someone else when all you realy have are your own perceptions?

Why listen to someone else who is telling you HOW to live your life when you are the only person in the world living your life?
 
exsto_human said:
Why listen to someone else who is telling you HOW to live your life when you are the only person in the world living your life?
Click to expand...

Maybe because there is wisdom in what he said. It saves time. Why reinvent the wheel over and over? Why not learn from one another? You should brush your teeth even if your parents first oblige you to?
 
Bruce Wayne said:
Maybe because there is wisdom in what he said. It saves time. Why reinvent the wheel over and over? Why not learn from one another? You should brush your teeth even if your parents first oblige you to?
Click to expand...

Ditto to that.

Exsto, we place trust in people that we....well, trust. For example, I use my judgement to evaluate the claims of anthropologists. Because there is no way I could do all of that stuff myself, I incorporate their work as knowledge.

To pretend that you have no intellectual dependencies is absurd.
 
exsto_human said:
Why follow someone else when all you realy have are your own perceptions?

Why listen to someone else who is telling you HOW to live your life when you are the only person in the world living your life?
Click to expand...
I don't know, but my understanding of it is that Jesus is experiancing your life as well as God and you. So what's the most reliable source? Are you the perfect you?
 
Right now I'm sitting here infront of a computer, I percieve it to exist. I percieve these thoughts that I am transfereing from abstract forms into structured meanings in the form of language, which I am now communicating to what I believe to be other autonomous conciousnesses.

I don't need anyone to tell me that this is the case. Granted that the words I use and the logic I utilize are things I have learnt through contact with others. But the essence of 'me' is and has always been unadulterated meness, conciousness of the self, which is conciousness of perceptions.

cogito ergo sum

The very simple and elegant answere to the question of existance, but I don't need Descrates to tell me that.

All we can do is gather our influences and find the truth, of our own perception. Call it a refutation of belief if you will, but pursuing something which you don't percieve is a bigger waste of time than trying to figure things out for yourself ever could be.
 
Very good post exsto_human.

All we can do is gather our influences and find the truth, of our own perception. Call it a refutation of belief if you will, but pursuing something which you don't percieve is a bigger waste of time than trying to figure things out for yourself ever could be.
Click to expand...

I like those sentences.
 
exsto_human said:
Right now I'm sitting here infront of a computer, I percieve it to exist. I percieve these thoughts that I am transfereing from abstract forms into structured meanings in the form of language, which I am now communicating to what I believe to be other autonomous conciousnesses.

...

cogito ergo sum

The very simple and elegant answere to the question of existance, but I don't need Descrates to tell me that.
Click to expand...

If you think Descartes claimed that 'cogito ergo sum' was an 'answer to the question of existence', I have the feeling you're throwing out philosophical buzzwords. I suggest you go read some articles on what the axiomatic statement actually means.
 
I percieve myself to exist therefore I exist, it is a very profound thing simply to exist. To me it has this meaning but I know that to some others it has the meaning 'I think, therefore I am a mechanism', but this is in my personal opinion such an abstract concept that it rules its self out, even if it was true it has no effect on actual life or the reality we percieve.

I am, this is the only thing I know for sure. And everything arround me is neccesarily me aswell, when I look I see myself. Because I am the perception, I am the looking.

I know it has become a buzzword over time, and has lost some of what meaning Descrates originaly purposed for it, but with that loss comes a sense of redefineability. Although taking such liberties with axioms is not a good idea, it can still be used to prove a point, I guess I should distinguish between the two more clearly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top