When you're looking out the window and see a car, you don't know that there is a car there, all you know is that there is an image of a car in your mind.Thoughts are like this too. You may have a memory, or any other kind of thought or idea. Regardless of whether it's thinking for yourself or a discussion, the concepts and the things themselves are not the same thing.Just as you can switch the mind from thinking of the car as "something out there" to thinking of it as a mere image in your mind, you can switch the mind from thinking of thoughts as directly connected to "things themselves" to being pure ideas.And the thing is pure ideas are eternal, and disconnected from anything physical, and disconnected from any part of you, which means that you are above them. And you can never get to the truth of any subject as long as some part of you is in it. 2+2=4 regardless of your emotions and ego. And once you understand that 2+2=4 thinking of 2+2=4 does not result in emotions or ego. If there are emotions or ego involved you're not understanding.>But passions are the thing that drive us, why even care about any subject if it's not connected to me?The objective of thought and discussion can be the truth, or it can be personal gain, never both simultaneously.If we say thinking is like playing chess, then you can say there are two types of thinking. One is playing chess and betting your organs on the outcome. The other is playing chess without betting your organs on the outcome.
>>25043228what is rational is what benefits me
>>25043419Don't know what your point is, and I fail to see any relevance to the thread. Could you write more than one sentence or are you here just to lazypost and shitpost?
>>25043228>you don't know that there is a car there, all you know is that there is an image of a car in your mindThe image of the car in my mind is there because I'm looking at the car, dingus.
>>25043228>When you're looking out the window and see a car, you don't know that there is a car there, all you know is that there is an image of a car in your mind.in my experience it really is there 95% of the time though
>>25043501Conjecture. Study logic, that way you know how to make a proposition without needless slurs and insults. Firstly it's contested that you know there's a thing. Secondly it's not the topic. I didn't say there is no thing. I said you don't know, and the percept and the thing-itself are two different things, likewise a concept and the thing-itself are not one and the same.
>>25043512Maybe read past the first sentence and learn how to address the actual topic rather than just that one sentence.
fucking retards not going past the first fucking sentence, was the same when I posted this on pol, I thought the iq was a little higher here but no
There are just zero fucking interesting people to talk to on this shit site. 100% fucking coomers.
>>25043468>>25043513>>25043516>>25043517>>25043583uh oh melty
Interesting. Could you clarify this concept whereby we don't see the object but only a mental representation?
>>25043228This is basically just Kant, right? I need to find time to read him. >Thoughts are like this tooI've been going down a weird line of thought on this. Your past consciousness isn't something you actually experience, but the thought/memory of it. It is also imperfect (as exemplified by imperfect memory). Analogously to how you dont see a car, but the image of the car. Your past consciousness as a thing-in-itself is gone you only have an image of it. Its making me question how much of the self, how much of "you", is (to use stirner's term) a "spook". Like to what extant is the person from the past or future really me? Do any philosophers get into the nature of identity and what we consider "ourself"? Argument for what is and isnt truely a part of You? Like, I am sure today there is a lot of stuff on the nature of "identity", but I fear its all just going to be idpol shit. not the proper core underlying discussion of what "You" even means
>>25043228Interesting. Could you clarify this concept whereby we don't see the object but only a mental representation?
>>25043517>>25043583I mean its not like you posted something original or had a question leading up to a debate. What did you expect?I MEAN YAWNERS
>>25043419Whats this 'me' think want to sacrifice everything else for? Rather abstract, almost ghost-like thing, if you ask me.
>>25043516The rest of the post doesn't really contain any observations of substance though, it's pretty much an overly complicated version of "facts don't care about your feelings"
>>25043513I know there's a thing because I'm seeing it with my eyes, doofus.
>anime kiddie attempts phenomenology for the first timereddit
Fucking retards all getting stuck on the percept, when I only used that to lead up to the actual thing I was talking about in the OP. kysIs it fucking hard to understand what I'm saying?A percept and a concept are not the same thing.A percept is the image, sound etc in the present moment which supposedly is generated by something external and comes to our consciousness through physical senses.A concept is something abstract. The concept of "the elite", "immigration" etc.I'm saying that just as there is a division to be made between a percept and the thing-itself, there is also a division in the same way between any concept and the thing-itself. When you are thinking of immigration or you're discussing immigration, that's holding a concept in the mind, juggling words as representation of the concept in your own mind or between your mind and someone else's mind. This concept and the thing-itself, in this case immigration, are two different things.Now, most people can't hold a concept in their consciousness, think about it, discuss it, without consistently making a very rigid connection and association to what they believe to be something external to the mind, the thing being symbolized by the concept.I'm saying it is actually possible to take any concept you have in your mind and think for yourself about it or discuss it and mentally make a clear separation between the concept and the supposed thing-itself.This is what most people fail to do. They cannot entertain pure ideas. They cannot deal with the abstract, only the concrete. They cannot not put something physical into every idea, which inevitably leads to them putting some part of themselves into every idea. Aristotle said "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it". That's what most people can't do. They can't hold an idea to be a pure idea, they can only hold an idea to be a representation of something external to the idea. They cannot think or discuss any ideas with the objective of gaining truth, they can only think or discuss ideas with the objective of personal gain. As I said thinking is like playing chess and there are two ways you can do it, either you play without betting your kidneys and liver, or you play and bet your kidneys and liver. Most people are only capable of the latter.
>>25045214I genuinely don't understand your chess analogy.
>>25045218I use a chess game as an analogy for reasoning. What is reasoning? It is a certain thought process, not any thought process. It is picrel. A three-step process: conception-judgment-argumentation.step one, conception>Socrates>manholding two different concepts in the mindstep two, judgment, forming a proposition, taking two concepts and either joining or disjoining them, saying "A is B" or "A is not B">Socrates is a man>Socrates is not a manstep three, argumentation, taking two propositions and inferring a third from those two>All men are mortal.>Socrates is a man.>Therefore, Socrates is mortal.I'm saying you can hold a concept such as "immigration" in your mind, and perform this entire process, without constantly connecting this mental process to something external to the mind. Even if you bring into the thinking or the discussion something which is connected to you personally in some way, which might be affected by the truth and which makes the truth affect you personally, it's still a mental process that's going on, and you can make a separation between the mental process and anything external to the mind. A either is B or it's not B. You either have an argument to support that A is B, or you don't. It's all mental. It's all concepts, propositions and syllogisms. 2+2=4 does not care about your ego and your feelings, it either is 4 or it's not.That's why it's called "the liberal arts", it's an education which liberates you from the concrete, from the earthly, by making you able to entertain pure ideas, rather than constantly making a rigid connection between the abstract and the concrete. This is most likely also what Plato's cave analogy is about. And it's what Aristotle meant by "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it".
>>25043228>When you're looking out the window and see a car, you don't know that there is a car there, all you know is that there is an image of a car in your mind.Your mind on modernite representationalism.
>>25043513>>25043228Eyes see things outside your head, not in your head.>B-but muh hallucinationsAre rarely realistic and also that's an error, not the norm. Proclaiming that we only see inside our heads because sometimes people hallucinate is on a level with the people who say man and woman don't exist because every once in a while a child is born with deformed genitals. You might as well say that man has a number of chromosomes that exists on a spectrum because Downs Syndrome exists.
>>25043228>"aktshually the thing that you see and interact with may not be real, it's all in The Mind™"Rationalism is mental illness.
>>25045329No. Light is reflected off a table, the light rays travel through the ether to your eyes, the eye converts the stimulation of light rays into nerve signals which travel through nerves to your brain, and are there converted by the brain into an image of the table. At no point did the actual table travel along this chain. The table wasn't in the light ray. The table wasn't in the eye. The table wasn't flowing through the nerve like a boat in a canal. When you're looking at a star you're not actually seeing the star, you're seeing the light that left the star millions of years ago. You're not seeing the star millions of years ago, you're seeing the light that's at your eye at this moment.
>>25045299okay but what's the part about betting your kidneys and liver relate to?
>>25045368>When you're looking at a star you're not actually seeing the star, you're seeing the light that left the star millions of years agowhat would "actually seeing the star" mean?
>>25045362Hey fuckface, it's not about the external object not existing, it's about a) the fact you don't KNOW whether or not it exists, and more importantly and more relevantly to the thread b) the external object and the percept of it are two different things, and likewise the external object and the concept of it are two different things, and also relevant to the thread is the idea that c) a percept and a concept are not the same fucking thing, a percept is a percept, a concept is a concept, a percept is not a concept, a concept is not a percept.Can you retards read more than one sentence? I fucking laid it out in thorough detail here:>>25045214>>25045299Fucking coombrains this entire site.
>>25045371make a fucking guess
>>25045374read a fucking book for oncehttps://www.gutenberg.org/files/5827/5827-h/5827-h.htm
>>25045398I have no fucking idea dude. The purpose of an analogy is to clarify something, not to be a riddle.
>>25045401Just sayne, you're saying "when you're looking at a star you're not actually seeing a star" but I don't know what actually seeing a star would mean. Are you saying it's impossible to see things that aren't light rays? The verb "see" doesn't mean "have object enter your eye", it means "perceive a thing with your eyes"
This is what happens when a sub 100iq retard attempts philosophy.
>>25045368By this reasoning, it was impossible for you to write that post. You have never written anything, you have only ever typed keys and moved a pen across paper. Likewise, driving a car is impossible. We can only press pedals and move steering wheels.I, of course, could not read your post. I only saw the light of your post. So, I'd comment on how fucking stupid it is, but that's impossible. Indeed, even as I mutter to myself "boy, that's dumb," I recognize that I cannot hear myself, nor can anyone hear me, for all they could ever hear is the sound of the airwaves compressing from my voice.
>>25045404I said you can hold pure ideas in your mind and reason about them, or conversely you can make a rigid connection between ideas, which you're thinking of or discussing, and something external to the mind, that which the ideas are about. When you do the latter you inevitably end up putting some part of yourself as the subject of thought or subject of discussion, whether directly or indirectly. You talk about immigration, and you make a connection that someone will take my job, I'll become poor, I'll lose my house, I'll lose my wife, I'll end up on the street, I'll suffer and die early. Ego and emotion directly and rigidly associated with an idea, an idea held in the mind for consideration. A game of chess, like a reasoning process, has an outcome. In chess either black or white wins. In reasoning you arrive at a conclusion. If in chess you bet your kidneys then you play in order to keep your kidneys, you don't play in order to just stimulate the mind, you care if you win or the other person wins. In a reasoning process likewise you can connect ideas to external objects, and then you will put a part of yourself as the matter which is reasoned about, and then you will be reasoning for the objective of winning, for personal gain, not for attaining truth. Or you can perform a reasoning process in which the matter is pure ideas, where your mind is making a separation between ideas and that which is external to ideas or external to the mind. You can reason about ideas while being above the ideas, or you can reason about ideas while being in their midst.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectic
>>25045432You're one of these dumb fucks that don't know what a symbol is. Just fuck off, this is above your capacity to grasp.
Fucking hell, Aristotle figured this out ages ago. The form of things is carried through the media (air, ambient light, etc.) and interacts with the sense organs. You can describe this in terms of information, as it often done today, but it's basically the same idea (hence the etiology of "information"). The only difference is that a deflationary quantitative account of information doesn't explain how consciousness has a phenomenal element and how things have an intelligible whatness (quiddity). But this can be explained in terms of the triadic semiotic relationship identified by Saint Augustine. Likewise, information transmission through light, sound waves, chemical signaling, etc. is captured quite well by Saint Thomas's intentions in the media. The phenomenological whatness of things is virtual, in potency, is signs (e.g. light reflecting off a tree) until actualized by a mind via transmission and reception. Of course, "everything is received in the manner of the receiver" and a dog does not see as a man nor a man as a falcon.No Cartesian homunculi or internal theater required. That's just the result of early moderns being incredibly amateurish.
>>25045443You're calling others dumb while invoking literally the most ridiculous strawman I've seen in a long time, which is saying something. Who the fuck says that a table literally enters your head, like a boat in a canal, when you see it?This is a sophistic false dichotomy. >Either a table enters your head when you see it or actually perception is of mental images alone and never things.Ridiculous.
>>25045444So fucking what? Again, read past the first fucking sentence.
>>25045428lol
>>25045435Gotcha, that makes sense (the betting your kidneys on a chess game analogy that is). I think you're underestimating the number of people who are capable of abstract reasoning though.
>>25045214>intuition/precognition-- extrapolation from said pure ideas and how they impinge on the world and events
https://youtu.be/h73PsFKtIckhttps://youtu.be/0drT_L4G8w8
Solipsism is correct.
>>25045544fuck off
>>25045548>I have no argument and I must seethesad!
>>25045553nigger I've written a fuckton of posts, read past the first fucking sentence brainlet
>>25045601You seem awfully emotional, probably because you don't understand.
>>25043228When I’m looking out a window, and I see a car, I know that there is a car there, because otherwise I wouldn’t be seeing it, retard.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Here_is_one_hand
>>25045815Literally all you fucking retards got tripped up on the first fucking sentence. Forest for trees motherfucking mouth-breather. At first I thought maybe I should have phrased the OP differently, but nah you're all dumb as fuck, I have zero regrets about phrasing.
>>25045821Opening lines are important OP, if you start out by saying something fucking retarded people are gonna get hung up on it
>>25045823Learn to read past the first sentence fuckwit, kys. I've also addressed the misconception 30 fucking times in the thread. Literally shoot yourself in the face, lazy coombrained fucking cheetos-eating faggot. Fucking go back to /int/ and be a coombrain there.
>>25045826>addressed the misconceptionlmao nobody has a misconception we're just making fun of your retarded opening statement, which is the only interesting thing about your post anyway
>>25045842Yeah there are several misconceptions. There is a misconception about what the point was. Either read the entire OP and make arguments addressing the point of the entire OP, or fuck off and kys coombrain. You all have made zero arguments. I've addressed misconceptions and restated and rephrased and elaborated 30 fucking times. I'm out of here. Fucking low IQ coomers.
>>25045854It's impossible for me to read your post anon, all I can do is react to the neural signals that came from my eyeballs triggered by light waves emitted by my computer
>>25043228sperg
>>25045432Damn, OP got bodied into oblivion.
>>25045432>>25046269ok Hume
>>25045432Rektv
RIP OP, defeated by coomers relentlessly
>>25045428bodied that freak
