What does it mean when we say that something exists? How do we define existense? eg. how know the number "3" exists when we have never even seen it? or a circle if we have never seen a circle ? None in the world has ever seen the the number 3 or a circle. They just dont realise it. ps. i accidently put this thread here.. please move it to the Philosophy section.
3... There you go.. just saw it O... a circle... just because you don't perceive something is there, does not mean it really isn't... you could say my fist isn't visible, therefore it doesn't exist, when in reality its dipping down below your line of sight to hit you in the temple.
we never really do see "3" ..only instances of something. What we know as 3 is just a symbol. Thats why when we can never define it, only descripe parts of it. eg. 3 dollars, or 3 cows....we need to connet the number 3 to something that does exists in order to bring it to life. we can say a bird is flying across the sky, but we cant say a "3" is flying across the sky. We have to say 3 birds are flying across the sky. We never really see a circle because by definition a circle is a 2-dimensional object. 2D objects cannot exist since everything in our world is 3D, so do circles really exist? An even better example is we never see a square... because squares dont exist. Whenever we try to physically create a square, it automatically becomes a cube or a prism. I just had a lot of fun in my philosophy lecture today *************************************************** please move this thread to the philosophy section
I don't know. It doesn't seem to be in any dictionary. Actually a lot of people do realise that '3' or 'circle' are human concepts, and not things in themselves. People who are capable of independent thought, for example, and those who stayed in education past the age of 12.
Well when you ask a person to define a circle they cant give anything proper... The say something like "the round thing" or they just draw it out..... hmm wonder why this thread isint catching on
Hmmm... faith. That is all i have on this one. I can't prove to anyone that something isn't there if they don't want to believe in it.
In philosophy my prof was saying something about all that exists in concept is missing the perfection of existence..... Actually thats one of the arguements that supports the exstence of God as well
Reminds me of this true story... A maths teacher I knew bought a card game to teach his kids numbers... The cards featured various pieces of fruits in various numbers, and signs such as +,-,=... etc. His kids took a card with 3 bananas plus a card with 2 apples... equals 5. 5 what?asked the maths teacher... He wrote to the company that made the card game... Dear Sirs,... I was wondering 3 bananas plus 2 apples equals 5 what? The answer: Dear Sir... We are sorry our game did not give you full satisfaction and would like to offer you a refund... He wrote again. "Fine, i'll take the refund, but I am still wondering... 3 bananas plus 2 apples equals five what?". Surprisingly, I don't think he ever got an answer... Numbers are abstract human concepts, and it is a falsity to say they exist... Same with the circle. If we oppose "existence" to the "essence" of things, then abstract human concepts such as numbers, cards... etc are essences. They do not exist.
Interesting. I usually think about it the other way around. Perfection (to me) is in non-existence abstract concepts, the mere fact of physical existence exposes the imperfections. Then again, we'd have to define what we mean by 'perfect'. Oh by the way, 3 bananas + 2 apples = 5 fruits.
Truly a circle is simply definitive. It is a 2 dimensional object where all points are equidistant from the center. It is the only shape to hold this characteristic. Now, can you find an object that is the perfect example of a circle? The answer is , in fact, no. However, existence is implied. Existence is being. A circle is a concept. A concept is well lets say a unit of thought. Rene Descartes is famous for having said "I think therefore I am". His thoughts were proof of his existence. No, of course, his thoughts did not truly exist they were nothing but concepts since a concept is a unit of thought. But his thoughts DID prove his existence. Our thoughts prove our existence. Think. The ability to think proves that you exist. So, thoughts prove existence. Concepts are units of thought. A circle is a concept so in fact a circle is a way of proving the existence of exact radii and the number pi and various distances in relation with actual objects closely resembling a circle. Thoughts do exist. Just because you cant see your thoughts does it mean they arent there?? I think not..
The answer is 5 objects. 3 Bananas and two apples. Objects are things we discern or make distinct. We then label them. What's that? Oh ok let's call it a chair. A chair is something we sit on. We have now created an object in the material world. before we did this , there was no such thing as 'chair'. Before this there was nothing discernable as a chair from anything else. it was just another part of existence just happening without any observation/manipulation from us (consciousness). That is basically primacy of existence - objective reality. If we can observe without prejudice, with no though left or right - we can let objective reality begin to flow in or reveal itself to us. Regularly everything is filtered back through the same process and 'filters' we used to create so we tend to see back the subjective reality we've projected (created) out there in the first place.. Numbers are a good example of where subjective reality has primacy. Numbers exist because our consciousness bring them into existence externally to itself.. So many advancements are built on the back if the foundation of numbers.. We're so lucky subjective reality was never ever really abandoned huh ? We'd still be sitting on our asses! ..oh wait.
Philosophy makes me want to slice people with an 8 foot sword. "Three" is simply a marker of quantity. "Cricle" is a marker of shape. It's like saying no-one's ever seen "love". "Love" is a marker of emotion. Not every word has to refer to a physical object - abstract thought (or, for the benefit of the pedants, "the ability to cognitively manipulate symbols which have a consistent definition") is one of the cornerstones of human intelligence.
Spot on! Questions such as "what is a 3" serve no purpose other than to boost the self-congratulatory attitude of people who cannot grasp the fact that the only job they can get is flipping burgers. Here is another one: What is green and invisible?
An 'object' as you define it is a mental construct. It has no material form, or existence. It does not make logical sense to add bananas to apples, because they are not equal (what do you get when you add 10 pence to -say- a doorknob? Or a girafe to a pair of socks?). However, in most situations, it makes perfect practical sense in everyday life. We create categories as a means to cope with and organize our world. However, in the world of existences, the concept 'chair' has no materiality... there are only individual instances. Furthermore, while thinking in terms of categories has its undeniable practicalities, it is also very restritive. If I think of that mass of matter in front of me as a chair; I see it as a chair. I might miss a hundred of uses I could have made of that mass of matter... Being a martial artist might open your eyes to some other uses that 'chair' can have (as a weapon, or as a shield), but the fact remains that thinking in terms of categories somewhat limits -or rather orient- your imagination.
Yea for sure describing, also measuring and manipulating it to our ends. Wouldn't you say? That they exist through a need or function of our selves (consciousness) and its existence. The question of when, why and what to give primacy I think is one of context. What is it we are applying it to, what are we looking to acheive through such application and how much precision we want from it. Like i said in the other thread i think it is circular, the distinction itself is one of convenience to describe (make sense) of the human condition/ experience. I don't deny objective reality - I don't know however exactly what 'ultimate reality' is.. Even though I realise it is a useless statement. Objective reality cannot be proved. But i think it can be perceived. In an effort to categorize realities, somebody came up with the concepts of objective and subjective. Objective refers to a reality that is outside your mind, and subjective refers to the inner reality of your mind. For example, a chair in the middle of the room is outside your mind, right? So it is objective reality. You think the chair is beautiful. That thought, "beautiful chair" is inside your mind. It is a subjective reality. No problems yet. Objective and subjective seem to be quite logical categories until they begin crossing over. For example, imagine that everyone else also finds the chair in the middle of the room to be beautiful. The chair is placed in a museum and admired by thousands of art critics who come to see the beautiful chair. The subjective reality of "beautiful chair," by agreement, is starting to take on the characteristics of objective reality. The beautiful chair is outside your mind. Notice that the flow of creation, quite rightly, goes from subjective to objective. Let's go even more basic. There is "something" in the middle of the room. That's the objective reality outside of your mind. You decide to call the something in the middle of the room a chair. The thought "I'll label that as chair" is in your mind, and it is a subjective reality. Someone else might label it something different in their subjective reality. "Oh that thing, it's a sitter." As long as there is disagreement about what to label the thing in the middle of the room, its label remains subjective. You've got a group that calls the thing a "sitter," and you've got a group that calls the thing a "chair." And here's the most dangerous question that anyone ever asks, "Who's right?" Rightness is subjective, right? In the sitter camp "sitter" is right. In the chair camp "chair" is right. But let's suppose you aren't discussing a "something" in the middle of the room, but instead you are discussing your religious convictions. How would you like it if someone pointed out that your religious convictions are subjective? Superstitions. Oh-oh, what does that lead to? People tend to defend their subjective opinions. Okay, so in typical human fashion, the chair camp attacks the sitter camp and kills them all. It's a holy war. At the moment the last sitter draws his last breath, the label for that thing in the middle of the room becomes by unanimous agreement, objectively, a chair. Do you see this? Does this shed any light on the crusades? How about the urge to proselytize a religious belief? You bet it does. Faith, unfortunately, is more often a matter of removing doubts (or doubters) than it is of focusing attention on what you believe. Removing doubts is the first effort that you must take to objectify your subjective belief. Now, if you want to go even more basic than language and labels, you find yourself dealing with perceptions, impressions and sensations-feelings. Look around at whatever you see, and just take the word labels off. Take the word labels off every thing. (The room becomes very quiet.) This is the realm of pure forms. Some people consider this to be ultimate objectivity. But notice that I said "consider." Consider is a subjective process. So you still have a little bit of the subjective even in this realm of pure forms. It's you, of course. There is "I," and there are forms. But are you subjective? Is "I" subjective? Do you want to go a step further? Take all the word labels off of the thing that is looking around. Just drop every consideration or definition you have for your self-thing. Now you are passing beyond the envelope of realities that can be categorized by the usual concepts of subjective and objective. There is an awareness of forms. Can you go further? Cease to separate the forms from one another. Be aware of everything as connected by space as one contiguous whole-potential waiting to be defined. Freedom from impulse. Objective and subjective evolve into two functions of consciousness: experience and belief. The illusion that arises with subjective and objective is that awareness is inside the mind, and something else is outside the mind. That something outside the mind-objective reality-appears to be independent of you. But it was you that made it independent. The next step in this 'grand illusion' is to conclude that the structure of this awareness-your consciousness-is the result of this "independent objective reality." (The independent objective reality that you subjectively created.) So what is the result? You imagine consciousness as arising from this "independent objective reality" and evolving right alongside physical structure. Bye-bye aware 'spirit'. The day you believe this you are trapped. You have the flow of creation going the wrong way. It's flowing in on you. The trap tries to convince you that your beliefs (subjective) are a cause-and-effect result of your experience with (objective) reality. You begin to look for the cause of your belief (and the experiences it is attracting) in the world. In objective reality. You get psychotherapy looking into the past. You get religions looking for sins and suppressives. You get people looking for past lives, prenatal experiences, and parental abuse. And what do you sacrifice? The power of your own decision. Not the world, not the past and not parents are responsible for how we experience reality. Subjective consciousness is shaped by your agreements and your decisions.
