• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Question for Lifegazer

uruk said:
There ya go lifgazer. was that so hard to say? Say it again. "There exists the appearance of an external universe"
Wether that external universe actually exists or not is not important because we have no choice but to experiance and live our life as thus. We cannot deal with it otherwise. It is a nice subject to debate about, but it is ultimately academic.
Click to expand...
And assuming that an external reality does not exist does not advance our understanding of existence or tell us anything that assuming that it does exist tell us.
 
RandFan said:
If virtual food (can I call it virtual food?) is for the facilitation of energy what is defecating for?
Click to expand...

Well, I'd humbly suggest that lifegazer's posts have to come from somewhere...
 
Lifegazer,

Thankyou for you fumbling attempt to answer the questions. You have missed the point, of course, but thanks anyway.

Some things Schopenhauer accepts are true :

1) Everything is mental (idealism is true).
2) The ultimate cause of everything is "will".
3) All minds are united.

Some other things Schopenhauer accepts are true :

4) There is no "God".
5) Human nature is to be selfish and "sinful".
6) Life is full of suffering, and there is no hope of changing this.

--------------------------------------------------

4 & 6 contradict 1, 2 & 3, since 1, 2 & 3, basically state that there is one Mind (1 & 3) and everything which is perceived within it is created by the will of that Mind.
A Mind whose will is responsible for everything in creation, who is omnipotent and omnipresent, fulfils the criteria of a 'God'.
Click to expand...

It is hard to know where to start with these. You have just restated again that your own ideas "follow automatically/obviously" from 1, 2 and 3, even though nobody else agrees with you. Your own definition of God requires that God to have its own thoughts, emotions and desires. These do not follow from 1,2 and 3. All you have done is provide a slippery definition of God. If you are now happy to admit that God hasn't got an ego, then you can say that "God" follows from 1,2 and 3. Don't worry about answering this though. Nobody is interested in your answer, including me.

As for...

5 is not true either, because if it was the world would be over-run with evil and destruction.
Click to expand...

That's friggin' hilarious, Lifegazer. It is you who continually tells everybody that we are headed towards armageddon and that the world is totally screwed up unless "everybody embraces idealism". Basically the world is overrun with evil and destruction, and you know it.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This thread is built on the premises that even though idealism is true (1,2 and 3), the world remains the same and behaves as if materialism is true i.e. there is no "God" and human nature is driven by material-derived instincts.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The world appears to be external to us. But appearances are deceiving.
Every "thing" we are aware of emanates directly from the sensations. Since the sensations are most definitely not external to us, then neither are the "things" we see in them.
The world we perceive/sense is not external to us even if it appears to be so.
Click to expand...

You have completely failed to understand the question. All you have done here is go back to defending the claim that "the external world isn't really real", even though this thread was clearly specified to have nothing to do with that question. I asked you what difference it makes to say it is an "illusion" if we remain totally trapped in "the illusion" and this illusion behaves like a material world at all times. You responded by saying "Ah, but it's only an illusion." You think you are a great thinker. You aren't even an average thinker.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is clear that the observed world really does behave as if materialism is true. Do you accept this?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's clear that the things we sense appear to be external to us (we are duped). But it's also clear that this cannot be true: "things" are perceived directly from the senses and the senses are not external to us... therefore, neither are the "things" we sense.
Click to expand...

Yawn. Yep - you did it again. You are like a broken record.

Geoff : What if idealism is true, but the world behaves as if materialism is true at all times?

Lifegasher : Ah, but materialism is an illusion.

Geoff : What if the illusion is total and inescapable and the world behaves as if materialism is true at all times?

Lifegasher : Ah, but materialism is an illusion.

You think this is profound? You think this is a contribution to human knowledge? You are an idiot. Your knowledge of philosophy is at the level of "Janet and John got on the big red bus" yet you swan around like you have solved the answer to life, the universe and everything. When you are told you are an idiot, you take it as a compliment - after all Jesus was also persecuted. You make me want to vomit.
 
lifegazer said:
The sensations are real. They really are giving the appearance of an "out there". But it's all an illusion, as explained in my previous post.
Click to expand...
The difference between an illusion and a reality is that there is a difference.

When a stage magician performs the saw-a-lady-in-half illusion, there are differences between what he does and what a person really sawing a lady in half would do. There are differences between the equipment he uses and the equipment a real lady-sawer would use.

When a stage magician levitates something, there is a difference between what he is doing and an object really levitating. The difference is usually a string of some sort.

And so on.

If you admit that there's no difference between the in-here "illusion" of an out-there and a real out-there, then you are also admitting that there is no illusion. Your philosophy simply has no legs to stand on.
 
Beleth said:
If you admit that there's no difference between the in-here "illusion" of an out-there and a real out-there, then you are also admitting that there is no illusion. Your philosophy simply has no legs to stand on.
Click to expand...
I've seen you and uruk (as well as upchurch and rand, I think), make this mistaken comment.
The difference between an illusion and reality, is that the things in the illusion only have importance until you wake up, so to speak.
My philosophy is that you are God.
Wake up.
 
lifegazer said:

The difference between an illusion and reality, is that the things in the illusion only have importance until you wake up, so to speak.
My philosophy is that you are God.
Wake up.
Click to expand...
So, have you woken up? And, if so, why does lifegazer eat?
 
lifegazer said:

I present myself as a philosopher. Treat me like one.
Click to expand...

Lifegazer, I've done that. I've done what one does of Philosophers: they ask them questions, and hope to benefit from their throughts.

Every question I've asked you that I could benefit from has been ignored. Here's three good ones off the top of my head:

1) When will we be out of time?
2) How should science act?
3) How do I wake up?

Stop being a "poor me" type. We are treating you like a philosopher. Try to ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ act like one.
 
lifegazer said:
My philosophy is that you are God.
Wake up.
Click to expand...
Has your acceptance (or realization) that you are god made any difference in your illusion? Are you now able to forgo all of the mundane aspects of our virtual world? Are you awake?

Paul is!
 
lifegazer said:
I present myself as a philosopher. Treat me like one.
Click to expand...
gazer,

I think you have a very real missconception of philosophy.

phi·los·o·phy

n. pl. phi·los·o·phies
  1. Love and pursuit of wisdom by intellectual means and moral self-discipline.
  2. Investigation of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods.
  3. system of thought based on or involving such inquiry: the philosophy of Hume.
  4. The critical analysis of fundamental assumptions or beliefs.
  5. The disciplines presented in university curriculums of science and the liberal arts, except medicine, law, and theology.
  6. The discipline comprising logic, ethics, aesthetics, metaphysics, and epistemology.
  7. A set of ideas or beliefs relating to a particular field or activity; an underlying theory: an original philosophy of advertising.
  8. A system of values by which one lives: has an unusual philosophy of life.
    [/list=1]
 
lifegazer said:

I've seen you and uruk (as well as upchurch and rand, I think), make this mistaken comment.
The difference between an illusion and reality, is that the things in the illusion only have importance until you wake up, so to speak.
My philosophy is that you are God.
Wake up.
Click to expand...

There is nothing mistaken about Beleths comment. Beleth is spot on. "My philosophy is that you are God." is just a string of words. This thread has been an attempt to ask you what this string of words actually means, and in your case it means nothing. Well, in your case it means that you delude yourself into believing you are a philosophical genius and go from bulletin board to bulletin board getting banned and abused for being a complete and utter w*nker.

You have no idea what "waking up" means. It has clearly not helped YOU to have"woken" up. You are both miserable and despised. A world full of people like you would be hell on earth, even for you. It is YOU, lifegazer, who needs to wake up.

I will ask you again :

What is the difference between living in a world where materialism is true, and living in a world where idealism is true but the observable world behaves exactly as if materialism is true?
 
lifegazer said:
The difference between an illusion and reality, is that the things in the illusion only have importance until you wake up, so to speak.
Click to expand...
No, that's the difference between a dream and reality, not an illusion and reality. Neither dreams nor illusions are real, of course, but that doesn't make them equivalent. And in fact, they are not equivalent.

My philosophy is that you are God.
Click to expand...
My perception is that I am not. My experiences and limitations on my actions have shown me that I am not. My philosophy may be that you are a turkey-and-cheese sandwich on multigrain bread*, but since your perceptions and experiences tell you that you are not, it would be unreasonable for me to think that you would accept my philosophy over your perception. And likewise with your philosophy and my perception.

Wake up.
Click to expand...
Stop being condescending.




* I had a turkey-and-cheese sandwich on multigrain bread for lunch today.
I am what I eat.
Therefore I am a turkey-and-cheese sandwich on multigrain bread.

We are all one.
Therefore you are also what I eat.

Therefore you are a turkey-and-cheese sandwich on multigrain bread.

Git in mah bellie.
 
Upchurch said:
So, have you woken up? And, if so, why does lifegazer eat?
Click to expand...

Good question. If I remember rightly (and I could harldy forget since it took twenty attempts to get the answer) there will be no eating after the revolution.

:D
 
lifegazer said:
I present myself as a philosopher. Treat me like one.
Click to expand...
Oh, I assure you... I am.

Don't you think it's time you started acting like one, taking criticism like a true philosopher must, and either incorporating the ideas of others into your philosophy or defending it against such criticism without resorting to insults?

No, you just come here with your laundry bag full of idealistic dogcrap, dump it out on the table, and expect us all to worship it for its perfect shape and aroma, and to worship you because you came up with it. That's not how philosophers work, sir. At least not remarkable ones.
 
Beleth said:
No, you just come here with your laundry bag full of idealistic dogcrap, dump it out on the table, and expect us all to worship it for its perfect shape and aroma, and to worship you because you came up with it.
Click to expand...

I agree. Lifegazer produces idealistic dogcrap. Most of the people at this site are either materialists or materialist sympathisers. I am neither. I am a neutral monist who sympathises with idealism - and that includes the atheistic idealism of Hegel or Schopenhaeur, the theistic idealism of Berkeley or Heidegger, and most of all the pagan idealism of Hinduism. If I thought you meant that all idealism was dogcrap I would probably challenge you. But I am guessing you are refering to lifegazers idealism, which I agree is complete and utter dogcrap. In fact that is an insult to dogcrap.
 
JustGeoff said:
If I thought you meant that all idealism was dogcrap I would probably challenge you. But I am guessing you are refering to lifegazers idealism, which I agree is complete and utter dogcrap.
Click to expand...
Actually, most people treat their own personal philosophies like it was a bag full of gold to be dumped on the table and worshiped. Problem is, what each of us sees as our personal bag of gold, everyone else sees as someone else's dogcrap.

Lifegazer is just more vocal about how much more golden his dogcrap is than the average person's laundry bag.
 
Beleth said:
Actually, most people treat their own personal philosophies like it was a bag full of gold to be dumped on the table and worshiped.
Click to expand...

Not people who know anything about philosophy. Believing your own personal philosophy to be a bag of gold is a sure sign that you do not understand the history of philosophy. Most philosophers of the past 100 years ended up stating that there was nothing significant left to be said. The reason Lifegazer thinks his philosophy is golden is that he does not know anything about philosophy, particularly its current state. The truth is that there is nothing left to be said which can meaningfully be said. It has all been said already, but lifegazer does not believe there is any point in finding out what has already been said. He is so mind-blowingly brilliant that he has revolutionised philosophy without having any need to understand what any previous philosophers actually said.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom