NationStates Jolt Archive


Psychology of philosophy question

Siap
13-03-2007, 06:14
Why are people infatuated with the notion of existence?

If it was proved I didn't exist, I don't think I'd be bothered one way or the next.
Vetalia
13-03-2007, 06:26
Because it's interesting?
Whatmark
13-03-2007, 06:35
Like Vetalia said, because it's interesting. Like most any other philosophical problem, it is little more than intellectual masturbation (almost as good as the real thing). As far as intellectual masturbation goes, the question of existence is pretty huge. I mean, it's the basis for all other philosophy. Before the trappings of existence (morality, say) can be discussed, it certainly helps to get your bearings on existence itself.

Plus, existence can be a bitch. Why shouldn't discussions of it be the same way?
The Brevious
13-03-2007, 06:36
Why are people infatuated with the notion of existence?

If it was proved I didn't exist, I don't think I'd be bothered one way or the next.

I found quite a bit of interest, myself, in the notion of nonexistence.
Granted, it takes a little bit more discipline of the imagination at first.
Nationalian
13-03-2007, 08:36
I really hope we figure out how we came to excist so we can erase religion from the surface of the earth once and forever. But those people will probably find something else to "believe" in.
Siap
13-03-2007, 16:21
I found quite a bit of interest, myself, in the notion of nonexistence.
Granted, it takes a little bit more discipline of the imagination at first.

It seems just so clichéd. Frankly, I think there are many more interesting philosophical questions that have much more application, like questions of identity. What are we? How do we identify and define ourselves?
Neesika
13-03-2007, 16:24
Why are people infatuated with the notion of existence?

If it was proved I didn't exist, I don't think I'd be bothered one way or the next.

It's only interesting when you're high.

Or when you want to feel high but don't have any interesting substances on or in your person.

But to spend years considering this issue? Seriously. That's just wrong.
Vetalia
13-03-2007, 16:31
But to spend years considering this issue? Seriously. That's just wrong.

I'd do it, for a shit ton of money.

I'm not big on the whole "live in a hut/barrel and eat grass" that Diogenes and Lao-Tzu were fond of, though.
Deus Malum
13-03-2007, 16:52
Philosophy is an interesting and often entertaining pursuit. Whether or not it produces tangible results doesn't matter, as people take this shit seriously. The issue of existence is an important one, and has been an important one, since Anselm of Canterbury in the 11th century. I'd recommend reading up on the Ontological Argument, which will probably lead quite naturally into reading on Descartes and Plantinga.
Neesika
13-03-2007, 16:56
The issue of existence is an important one, and has been an important one, since Anselm of Canterbury in the 11th century.

Good to know that the issue of existence was completely unimportant prior to the 11th century.
Ifreann
13-03-2007, 17:40
Because it's interesting?

[/thread]
Deus Malum
13-03-2007, 17:43
Good to know that the issue of existence was completely unimportant prior to the 11th century.

It's the earliest instance of it being openly considered in a philosophical paper or some such. Prior to that most people took their own existence, and the existence of god(s), for granted. Not to say people didn't think about it, but if you can find any paper published before the 11th century discussing existence, I'll be happy to correct myself.
Free Soviets
13-03-2007, 17:44
It's the earliest instance of it being openly considered in a philosophical paper or some such. Prior to that most people took their own existence, and the existence of god(s), for granted. Not to say people didn't think about it, but if you can find any paper published before the 11th century discussing existence, I'll be happy to correct myself.

plato?
thales?
Hydesland
13-03-2007, 17:45
The issue of existence is an important one, and has been an important one, since Anselm of Canterbury in the 11th century.

It has been since thousands of years before that.
Free Soviets
13-03-2007, 17:46
It's only interesting when you're high.

Or when you want to feel high but don't have any interesting substances on or in your person.

But to spend years considering this issue? Seriously. That's just wrong.

well, the nature of reality has consequences. important ones. and there isn't even a common sense default agreement on much if any of it.
Peepelonia
13-03-2007, 17:48
Why are people infatuated with the notion of existence?

If it was proved I didn't exist, I don't think I'd be bothered one way or the next.

Why are some people not interested in it?
Deus Malum
13-03-2007, 17:49
plato?
thales?

You can't honestly count the discourse on the Ideals as an examination of existence. They were an examination of the nature of existence. The two are slightly different, and unless I misread the OP, he's curious only about why we philosophize on whether or not we exist, not how or in what manner we exist.
Free Soviets
13-03-2007, 18:34
You can't honestly count the discourse on the Ideals as an examination of existence. They were an examination of the nature of existence. The two are slightly different, and unless I misread the OP, he's curious only about why we philosophize on whether or not we exist, not how or in what manner we exist.

the OP also apparently thinks it is conceptually possible to prove to yourself that you don't exist. i'm not sure they'll be the most helpful starting point.

what distinction are you drawing between an examination of the nature of existence and an examination of existence?
Deus Malum
13-03-2007, 18:41
the OP also apparently thinks it is conceptually possible to prove to yourself that you don't exist. i'm not sure they'll be the most helpful starting point.

what distinction are you drawing between an examination of the nature of existence and an examination of existence?

If one can examine the nature of something's existence (God, for instance) without having to presuppose that it exists. The two can be thought of an independent pursuits, then.
Free Soviets
13-03-2007, 19:13
If one can examine the nature of something's existence (God, for instance) without having to presuppose that it exists. The two can be thought of an independent pursuits, then.

yeah? and how did aristotle, for example, not make arguments about whether the unmoved mover existed or not?
Szanth
13-03-2007, 19:30
I think Socrates was fairly into the concept of not existing, or at the least, existing in different realities than we believe ourselves to be. Caves of Socrates, good story, good book.

"Here, I'll prove I exist!" He then kicked a small rock a distance in front of him.

It's funny, because he misses the point entirely.