RE: Is the self all that can be known to exist?
November 18, 2016 at 4:25 pm
(This post was last modified: November 18, 2016 at 4:27 pm by Excited Penguin.)
It seems to me like you are attacking ontology on all fronts.
It seems to me like you're saying questions of existence are meaningless.
But then everything is meaningless, don't you see? We have to accept existence for its own sake, or there can be no further discussion of anything, whether properties, objects, or what have you. Existence has to be accepted in order to function intellectually. It's the equivalent of causality - for our minds. We have to accept it in order to be able to conceive of and refer to anything else.
You do accept it, simply by typing up a response, whether you formerly aknowledge it or not.
I would call it the one assumption that constitutes the whole foundation of knowledge itself. That there -is-.
It seems to me like you're saying questions of existence are meaningless.
But then everything is meaningless, don't you see? We have to accept existence for its own sake, or there can be no further discussion of anything, whether properties, objects, or what have you. Existence has to be accepted in order to function intellectually. It's the equivalent of causality - for our minds. We have to accept it in order to be able to conceive of and refer to anything else.
You do accept it, simply by typing up a response, whether you formerly aknowledge it or not.
I would call it the one assumption that constitutes the whole foundation of knowledge itself. That there -is-.
