on Nietzsche and more

[wicked insanity]

Yes it may be seen as absurd to believe in something so irrational it certainly is metaphysical. Why bubbles? I don't know that's just a suggestion. Hence why in my OP i described the experience as almost transendental in the act of a leap of faith. Although, it may more likely be more ordered and a world controlled by (A) and evil demon (B)machines (C) some other highly intelligent being (D) God. I dont know and never will know, the bubbles thing was just an illustration of an idea.

Perhaps, something from the real world influenced me to believe in it, or just a random thought process, I get quite a few of those. But that is a separate argument of where do our thoughts come from. But tbh, most likely my ideas are influenced by the media, hence all the references to The Matrix trilogy. Now I don't expect to be dodging bullets any time soon, you must play by the rules still, even if it is not Real.
Of cause Nietzsche despised Descartes Cogito as a grammatical expolit and considering my theory is heavily based on this, i doubt he would be all too impressed.

[Gareth Southwell]

Indeed - well put. This isn't to say that we shouldn't give time to such irrational thoughts - Nietzsche himself wasn't hyper rational - but just that we need to examine them as much as we can.

Good chatting with you on this - let me know if you get any developments!

[wicked insanity]

Yh thanks for discussing this, i really appreciate it. It's not often that you get to talk to like minded people on stuff like this.

[LostInAShaftOfSunlight]

this is quite a pitifully brief addition to this thread, but i think the O.P. would really enjoy Russell's Problems of Philosophy (in case they haven't read it yet)

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/5827/5827-h/5827-h.htm#2HCH0003

[Gareth Southwell]

Yes, good suggestion - a classic text. But... O.P? Odd philosophers? Old People? Orange Poltergeists?

[wicked insanity]

Yes, good suggestion - a classic text. But... O.P? Odd philosophers? Old People? Orange Poltergeists?

Original poster.

No i haven't already seen them but i will certainly look into it.

[Gareth Southwell]

Ah - I still prefer Orange Poltergeists!

[pachomius]

In regard to whether the world and us are really existing independently, or it's all in our mind or by our mental representation...

Well, for my own part, I think we are all into what I might call conventionalism.


Take our nose for example, we are all into the convention that it exists in my face and in your face, and we do get hurt if someone punches us in our nose, then we can get a bloodied nose.

Even though it is all conventions -- including the bloodied nose.


That is how the United Nations get their work done, no discussions about reality being objective or subjective whatever, they just agree to conventions.


So, for the UN human rights are all conventions among the nations of the world members of the United Nations, and they also by convention agree to observe human rights, each and every nation.

Of course the UN has a hard time in many instances with any country superior with war capabilities to just transgress the conventions it has agreed on in signing up with the United Nations.



Pachomius

[Gareth Southwell]

However, if we see our concepts of reality as established by convention, then this leads us to an "infinite regress". For example, if we agree to call a nose a nose, then we establish a convention. But, to have a concept of a nose, I must first have other concepts (MY nose, FACE, MINE and YOURS, etc.). Therefore, we would have to agree what we mean by THOSE concepts - to a point where we face a paradox: in order to communicate, we need to establish what we mean by certain concepts, but to do that, we need to have concepts that we agree on the meaning of!

So, conventionism works up to a point (after basic concepts are established), but it cannot act as account of fundamental concepts. The interesting question is therefore how these fundamental concepts originate in the first place...