Does existence exist?

The human mind cannot fully grasp total nothingness.

The human mind cannot fully encompass the concept of infinity.

Our existence is somewhere between the two.

Maybe.

Surprising practical problem

we can't transcend our mode of cognation to get to "ding a sich"[sp!?]

but we do know "a priori" that the”State” will squander tax dollars

This is why von Mises is called an “extreme a priorist”

Samualson wrote about this and misunderstood the whole problem

Went on to win a Noble prix in spite of his confusion about the mythological foundations of economics

it was all a dream wrote:

My understanding is that modern philosophy is based on the concept that the universe does not exist externally, but rather as a construct of our consciousness. In other words, our consciousness contains the universe, and we can't confirm the independent existence of reality since we have no means of transcending our senses. These are the ideas of Immanuel Kant. But how could our consciousness exist unless we had brains that exist within the physical universe? How could we frame the question if we didn't exist? Is Kant, as Ayn Rand said, the most evil man who ever lived?

You misread Kant's critical project. He was interested in exposing the limits of reason, not in making metaphysical claims about the relation of consciousness to the universe. He would say that any claim about the total nature of the universe is purely speculative and could never be proven because it has no basis in experience. (Read, for example, the section on the antinomies.)

Kant's Critique of Pure Reason was interested in ending these sorts of fantastical, metaphysical questions, which had dominated philosophy during the scholastic period. He wanted to put reason onto what he believed was the task of enlightenment: scientific and experimental conceptual critique. His main goal was to show how the concepts of reason are never sufficient in themselves and always require testing against experience. By the same token, the sense intuitions of experience are meaningless without the application of rational conceptual analysis. This is the upshot of Kantian critique.

As for whether or not Kant was the most evil man who ever lived, I suggest you read a bit more closely and come to your own conclusions on that.

hmm, shallow and pedantic

yes...shallow AND pedantic

google: themove2016, see if you can figure this garbage out as well.

You're not here so your question doesn't exist

Philosophy is fun, and yet utterly fruitless. The notion of existence, or God for that matter, is both beyond and outside the constructs of the rational, myopic, human cranium. Something that transcends our physical ability to perceive it is, by definition, undefinable.

ExPhys wrote:

hmm, shallow and pedantic

yes...shallow AND pedantic

Shallow: yes. But this is part of the point. Kant wanted us to look for answers in shallower places--away from "deep" metaphysical questions and towards the "shallows" of ordinary experience. I'm not saying he was right, just claiming that this was his project.

Pedantic: yes. That's my bad. It's just that a claim about "the most evil person" backed only by a dropped name seemed a bit much to me.

Sagarin wrote:

Philosophy is fun, and yet utterly fruitless. The notion of existence, or God for that matter, is both beyond and outside the constructs of the rational, myopic, human cranium. Something that transcends our physical ability to perceive it is, by definition, undefinable.

If you can't know that existence exists and that God doesn't, then you can't know that 1 + 1 = 2 and are with John Smallbrains on an intellectual level.

deleuze wrote:

ExPhys wrote:

hmm, shallow and pedantic

yes...shallow AND pedantic

Shallow: yes. But this is part of the point. Kant wanted us to look for answers in shallower places--away from "deep" metaphysical questions and towards the "shallows" of ordinary experience. I'm not saying he was right, just claiming that this was his project.

Pedantic: yes. That's my bad. It's just that a claim about "the most evil person" backed only by a dropped name seemed a bit much to me.

I'm afraid you just responded to a Family Guy quote. Peter's pretending to be a rich guy and overhears someone saying that, then attempts to describe his food as "shallow and pedantic". Great points though so far, I enjoyed reading that. Much clearer than the usual "I took philosophy classes in college and will now attempt to use my vocabulary to disguise the fact that I have no idea what I'm talking about" response.

Does existence exist?

Yes. She was in my bed last night.

ghgfjfgfjfg wrote:

Sagarin wrote:

Philosophy is fun, and yet utterly fruitless. The notion of existence, or God for that matter, is both beyond and outside the constructs of the rational, myopic, human cranium. Something that transcends our physical ability to perceive it is, by definition, undefinable.

If you can't know that existence exists and that God doesn't, then you can't know that 1 + 1 = 2 and are with John Smallbrains on an intellectual level.

I suppose I was referencing the notion of a "begettor" more than anything. Existence exists within our mind's eye, yes. I can neither prove nor disprove the existence of a begettor, and neither can you. Physics and philosophy are constructs within the framework of the human mind. Whatever lies beyond (which I believe it does based on some very personal experiences and intuition) or doesn't is beyond that framework, and, thereby, not definable. But metaphors are. My public school indoctrination did teach me that 1 + 1 = 2, though, so I believe that it had SOME value, whatever the cost.

By the way, Smallberries is, if not one smart dude, at the very least well-read, even though we are almost polar opposites on most stuff. So, I'll take the comparison.

I'm just glad no asshat has come in here yet complaining about how pointless philosophy is and how people who think of this stuff need real jobs.

Philosophy is definitely not pointless, but it is fruitless. It's good preparation for learning how to think and problem solve for whatever facet of life you may find yourself in. It's especially good preparation for law from what I understand and it's enjoyable. But it's not going to solve the world's great questions. It can only answer questions with yet more questions that emanate from the aphid-brained human mind on a relative scale.

Philosophy is so freakin' pointless. It's for a bunch of bums who don't want to go get real jobs that actually contribute to society.

Philosophy doesn't get you laid unless you are Jean-Paul Sartre. Actions do. Since all evidence indicates that the primary goals of any species are survival and reproduction, we should all just shut up and get some instead of wasting time with philosophical debates.

[/thread]

it was all a dream wrote:

My understanding is that modern philosophy is based on the concept that the universe does not exist externally, but rather as a construct of our consciousness. In other words, our consciousness contains the universe, and we can't confirm the independent existence of reality since we have no means of transcending our senses. These are the ideas of Immanuel Kant. But how could our consciousness exist unless we had brains that exist within the physical universe? How could we frame the question if we didn't exist? Is Kant, as Ayn Rand said, the most evil man who ever lived?

this is stupid...

of course the universe exist outside our consciouness... i mean i'm sure has hell didn't discover calculus so it came from somewhere outside my brain...

Asshat wrote:

Philosophy is so freakin' pointless. It's for a bunch of bums who don't want to go get real jobs that actually contribute to society.

guys with small wee wee