The Nature of Existence

[TygerTyger]

I recently revisited Spinoza's Ethics as this was my starting point for becoming a Pantheist. A quick perusal of this interesting work revealed a fundamental error in Spinoza's logic, however, and this realisation has led me to ask some new questions.

The first one that I am keen to look at is The Nature of Existence?

Any contributions to advance our understanding would be gratefully received, in the meantime I intend to examine the argument presented here:

http://www.ebtx.com/index.htm

I'm off for a walk down my path!

[cheddarsox]

I didn't read the link, sorry, I'm like that.

Existence, doesn't matter to me if I really exist for others or not, I exist for me, and that's real enough for me.

I sort of consider philosophy mental masturbation, I enjoy it, but it doesn't accomplish much in the "real" world (ha ha). In the end, what a person believes or figures out on a philosophical level doesn't matter as much as what they actually do.

I don't care if I really exist or not, as long as I seem to, and have to act the part, that's enough for me. I've stopped "doing" for long enough to know that I don't get away with it for very long...so this is how I judge my level of reality...if there are consequences for doing or not doing, then I'm real.

In my dreams my action or lack thereof really doesn't have any consequences, that is how I know I am dreaming.

[RavenStars]

I'm one of the poor unfortunates that cannot wrap my mind around philosophy. I audited a Existentialist class once and only walked away with the concept of a leap of faith, and the essays at the back of a copy of The Myth of Sisyphus (which I dearly love). In my little world I take a leap of faith every time I start a new piece of art. It may sounds totally hokey but that, and certain zen philosophy, is pretty much all I can contribute.

[Shaman7]

I sort of consider philosophy mental masturbation, I enjoy it, but it doesn't accomplish much in the "real" world (ha ha). In the end, what a person believes or figures out on a philosophical level doesn't matter as much as what they actually do.

The site mentions logic, mathematics and the universe as an "integer count". Sounds like the author brought out all the toys for this one. I don't have the heart to watch the 2.5 hour video. Taken cheddarsox's analogy, it seems like full length existential pornography. :weirdsmil I'm all about logic in argument and debate, but this is reminiscent of one of those Carl Sagan specials on string theory. That depth of physics I just can't grasp for long periods of time. I give this guy a ton of credit for putting forth so much dedicated time and effort though.

I don't mean to be offensive at all, but can you summarize the climax of this video?

[TygerTyger]

Thanks for all the responses so far everyone.

What attracted me to this site is, most probably, the similarity between Ebtx’s theory and Spinoza’s, which is probably more cosmetic than anything else. Also, having arrived at a point down my path where I was once again questioning the Nature of Existence, it seemed an appropriate site to study.

I don’t think that I’ve ever heard of Philosophy described in quite the colourful way that Cheddarsox used, but it made me smile. Concepts of reality are obviously linked to the question of existence and as we experience both subjectively I would argue that what we think is as equally relevant as what we do, that is, both thought and action are of equal importance.

Consequence only works as a validation of existence if you define it first!

As much as I enjoyed the Myth of Sisyphus I think that, for the moment, I will leave it on one side. I am sure that somewhere along this path that I am following I will be required to take a leap of faith of my own, certainly that is the conclusion I came to with Spinoza, but I don’t think that I’ve reached my launch pad yet!

My intention at the moment is to examine Ebtx’s theory and see if it makes sense to me or if it changes some of my own ideas on the Nature of Existence, I’m not interested in promoting this theory unquestioned. When I have completed my study I will post my results here for anyone with a passing interest to peruse and contemplate or ignore, whichever pleases them most!

Anyway, it is probably time to put some of my own cards on the table. My understanding of the Nature of Existence is currently based on these propositions that I believe to be true:


The experience of Existence is immediate and totally subjective.
The experience of Existence occurs through the conscious awareness of the individual and the necessary relationship of that consciousness with the body.
That a person’s experience of Existence can be altered by changes to the means by which they encounter the physical world or by how they interpret the information given to them through their body.
That Existence may be greater in total than the ability of an individual to experience it.
That there is a lot more questions to ask yet…!
As ever, any contributions would be gratefully received, I’m hungry for it again!

[cheddarsox]

I don’t think that I’ve ever heard of Philosophy described in quite the colourful way that Cheddarsox used, but it made me smile. Concepts of reality are obviously linked to the question of existence and as we experience both subjectively I would argue that what we think is as equally relevant as what we do, that is, both thought and action are of equal importance.

this is one of the reasons I am not a big believer in magic, because I can think whatever and however much I like about a thing. I can wish it to be different than it is. My intention can be for it to alter, but nothing changes until I act. So I give more weight to what I do than to what I think. Not that my thoughts don't effect me and how I act, they do, but they are not as "real"...since the discussion is existence. My thoughts exist only to me...until I act and make them "real"..even if the only action I take is sharing the thought.

Philosophically, I'd like to think my thoughts are equal to my actions, but my reality has proven otherwise, being a practical pantheist...I bow to reality.

Anyway, it is probably time to put some of my own cards on the table. My understanding of the Nature of Existence is currently based on these propositions that I believe to be true:


The experience of Existence is immediate and totally subjective.
The experience of Existence occurs through the conscious awareness of the individual and the necessary relationship of that consciousness with the body.
That a person’s experience of Existence can be altered by changes to the means by which they encounter the physical world or by how they interpret the information given to them through their body.
That Existence may be greater in total than the ability of an individual to experience it.

I agree with the above statements.


That there is a lot more questions to ask yet…!
As ever, any contributions would be gratefully received, I’m hungry for it again!

thanks for bringing all this up. It's fun!

[RavenStars]

I think I'm with you on your propositions. Funky language. The last one is one of the ways I make sense of Divinity.