"THERE’S A DOUBT IN MY MIND (BUT ONLY ONE, AND IT’S SMALL) AS TO THE VALIDITY AND ABSOLUTE (AS WELL AS ABSTRACT) TRUTHFULNESS OF MY ARGUMENTS AND BELIEFS REGARDING ALL THINGS EXISTENT AND NOT" by CATAL (655 hits)
Category: NoneRating: 1.26 on 21 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by CATAL (View user info) at 2007-05-10 23:11:55 EDT
Everyone is wrong. Not a single entity has got it. Any being that could possibly comprehend it is quite literally beyond the comprehension of anyone to ever exist or whoever will exist, and what the hell, just go ahead and throw in everyone who will never and has never existed.
I am one of these entities. As are you. And him. And her. Yep, them too. And their parents. We are. They are. All of us. Even more than all of us. It is beyond us. Beyond everything.
Now, at this point, if not already, I'm sure you're contemplating the inherent paradox within my argument. Or at least the apparent paradox. Because while I do state that I am in fact wrong, as is everyone else, being wrong does not necessarily prove that I am right. Consider the following statement:
If I am wrong, then I must be right.
I claim to be wrong, therefore by that logic I am right, but if I am right, then I prove myself wrong. I could indeed to follow this circular logic for quite some time. Personally I feel it would add a certain emphasis missing from the argument, but I feel there would be many who lack that patience for such frivolity and would merely discontinue reading. And a grand shame that would be.
Bye-bye to those of you leaving us at this time.
* * *
Now that they have left, those of you who possess whatever qualities have driven you this far might still be holding on to the futile hope of being enlightened to what I am discussing.
The Paradox. One could argue that it does not exist. My statement about universal falsehood was not a blanket statement, though it was deceptive. Even the word universal as just used seems to imply that all things are false. That concept defies comprehension. Yet that seems to support the claim of the false understanding. But if that supports the claim then it seems to imply that it is not beyond comprehension, because if one has followed a logical argument (though it would certainly be under dispute if this could be considered a logical argument by any stretch of the imagination, again leading to another circular paradox much like the one currently under investigation) to that point of understanding, the entire premise collapses underneath itself which in fact proves its validity.
Those of you in the back can put your hands down. I'll ask you to save your questions for the end.
Now I believe is the time to address the matter of doubt, which is twofold. As previously stated there is a doubt in my mind as to the validity of my argument. Therefore, in the first sense if I doubt my argument that I am in fact false then the claim transcends both truth and falsehood, lying in the realm of neither and thus not applying to the statement as to being wrong or not. Secondly, suppose I doubt the validity of my claim based upon its phrasing or structure but not upon its inherent qualities. A qualifying statement could be added. Something similar to the phrase (though again, somewhat of a paradox) "The only absolute is that there are not absolutes." Any number of qualifying phrases could be added to the initial argument as to rectify the paradoxes within.
* * *
Now the entire matter of paradoxes must be addressed due to the overwhelming presence of them within this argument. The very nature of paradoxes defies explanation; they must merely be accepted for what they are. For example, could an omnipotent being (like the Christian God) create something he could not destroy? Could that same being destroy itself? These are questions without answers. My explanation: there are no answers.
Too much attention is paid to explanations and answers so we fail to see the truth. Suppose there is no truth, what then? There could be no falsehoods then. How can one exist without the other?
I think too much.
User Reviews
Submitted by eric_the_bread (user info) at 2007-05-12 02:35:53 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
FUCK YOU!!!! now im so fucking lost i cant find the way out of this room. fucker...
Submitted by maiorano84 (user info) at 2007-05-11 16:37:30 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
The answer is threeve.
Submitted by creep_firebombing (user info) at 2007-05-11 09:28:44 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by vyktoriah (user info) at 2007-05-10 23:50:57 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
I failed philosophy. Okay, I got a B, but it was enough to get me nearly kicked out of Honors College. I now remember why i had such trouble. No one should have to read these mindfucks. But still, it was pretty good.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SHUT. THE. FUCK. UP! GOD, I hate this bitch so hard! If she didn't have tits, she would have been slaughtered for spare parts already.
Also, the nonsensical psycho-babble bullshit doesn't really cut it with me. Strut all you want. You're still just jerkin' your gerkin.
*This has been a production of Honesty Review Friday.
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2007-05-11 08:54:33 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
you're a strange kid CATAL
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-05-11 08:09:04 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-05-11 00:00:18 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Finding inner peace does not necessarily mean commiting philosophical suicide. One can still be a thinker while at the same time experiencing the almighty power of God as a permeating energetic force. But that's another matter that comes later on. First you gotta make peace with the circles.
----------------------------
Tell me bradley, did you make peace with the circles before or after you took enough drugs to get in touch with the oversoul?
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2007-05-11 07:33:20 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Poo! Smells a bit Cartesian in here!
Submitted by Can_Always_Trust_A_Liar (user info) at 2007-05-11 06:57:57 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
seriously? what I said wasn't clear?
oh course it wasn't clear! it wasn't meant to be! it's a confusing rant of both philosophical and comedic nature.
you're not supposed to understand it really, i don't. that's the whole point I'm trying to get accross. nobody understands anything. we're all fucked. me especially. and now we fall into that circle of logic and the paradoxes again.
i'm not gonna get into this shit anymore, it's fucking late and i still haven't done any fucking homework.
but let me try to brak it down for you:
the whole not understanding isn't a goal or some kind of inherent failure on my or anyone's part. it isn't even a nature of being. it just is how it is and nobody gets it. deal with it. rock n' roll. the confusing nature of whatever you wanna call this illustrates what i'm trying to say.
it's all completely fucking absurd. everything is fucking absurd. and i fucking love it. i wouldn't have it any other way. you show me someone who says they want a world that makes complete sense and follows strict unbreakable rules/laws and i'll show you either a liar or an idiot. probably an idiot.
hopefully that didn't clear anything up.
exaybachay! he who talks loudly, saying nothing.
Submitted by EmoJean (user info) at 2007-05-11 06:42:52 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Man is the only animal that laughs and weeps, for he is the only animal that is struck with the difference between what things are and what they ought to be.
-William Hazlitt
Submitted by kaos-king (user info) at 2007-05-11 03:57:08 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Catal... you been doing teh crack again, huh???
Submitted by BranDo (user info) at 2007-05-11 03:08:31 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
My brain hurts - Professor Gumby
Submitted by laika (user info) at 2007-05-11 02:50:38 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
I think your first paragraph is just a complicated way of saying that "we know we cant be certain of anything" It is true that there arent really any useful nondefinitional deductive truths. But more interesting is an assessment of what we have good evidence to believe inductively.
I think your second paragraph isnt that paradoxical, but I would have to look at it longer to be sure. I think it is more likely to just be stating a logical contradiction. 2 + 2 = 5 is also a contradiction, but this statement is not in any way interesting.
I ignored your third paragraph because I am not sure what you are trying to say, although it didnt seem to be that relevant.
"The only absolute is that there are not absolutes."- I would agree with this. I am not sure if there is a simpler or more airtight proof out there, but I think of it this way- Think of any conceivable nondefinitional statement about the universe. It is always possible to doubt this statement in at least some way. Therefore, by process of elimination we can be certain that we cant be certain about any truths(besides this one and a couple others).
My explanation for your questions without answers is that all questions will have a theoretical answer as long as the question doesnt inherently contradict itself. I consider "could an omnipotent God create something he couldnt destroy?" to be a contradictory question. The answer is that there is no such thing as omnipotence because at some point the concept of omnipotence contradicts itself.
A lot of what you were saying wasnt that clear, at least to me. So it's possible Im not answering exactly what you were trying to ask. If you want me to explain something let me know.
Submitted by AsshOly (user info) at 2007-05-11 02:33:14 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by TheUniter (user info) at 2007-05-11 01:47:24 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think the Uniter got laid last night.
Submitted by rob_berg (user info) at 2007-05-11 02:08:21 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
"wrong" is subjective.
Submitted by Franger (user info) at 2007-05-11 02:01:29 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
annoying illogical bullshit
Submitted by TheUniter (user info) at 2007-05-11 01:47:24 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-05-11 00:00:18 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
"Beware when the great God lets loose a thinker on the planet, then all things are at risk."
-Ralph Waldo Emerson in his essay "Circles"
Human logic is only as sound as the premises upon which our thoughts and arguments are built. The danger of the human mind, beyond it's fatal tendency to be incomplete in its considerations, is its nagging need to see an 'end' to things. In other words, the human mind is built to solve practical problems, but in doing so, it creates ideological and philosophical connundrums that are logically unsolvable - the "paradox", as you called it. They represent the human equivalent of a computer "fatal error" where a wrong character is inserted into an otherwise mathematically solvable formula.
This "paradox" of human logic is one of the fundamental pillars of philosophical thought, and any serious philosophical system of thought is incomlete without addressing it. As far back as Socrates and beyond, we see philosophers addressing the same issue of this "circle of logic", and Socrates himsef said that to say to oneself anything but "I know nothing" is vanity. In the Bible's "Ecclesiastes", we find wise King Soloman lamenting "All is vanity and vexation of the spirit," and "there is nothing new under the sun."
The problem never changes any more than the solutions do. Newer philosophical systems, when properly examined, aren't any more coherent or all encompassing in their approach than the older systems they sought to replace. Sure, they might be the hip and happening 'flavor of the month' that all the cool people are talking about, but substantively, they still must address the same seemingly irreconcilable paradox of human existence, of consciousness itself.
Here's my hat in the philosophical ring: http://www.ubersite.com/m/34195
And here's another essay on the nature of the "circles" you're talking about: http://www.ubersite.com/m/38297
Finding inner peace does not necessarily mean commiting philosophical suicide. One can still be a thinker while at the same time experiencing the almighty power of God as a permeating energetic force. But that's another matter that comes later on. First you gotta make peace with the circles.
Submitted by i_can_get_you_a_toe (user info) at 2007-05-10 23:57:24 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
cucmber
Submitted by vyktoriah (user info) at 2007-05-10 23:50:57 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
I failed philosophy. Okay, I got a B, but it was enough to get me nearly kicked out of Honors College. I now remember why i had such trouble. No one should have to read these mindfucks. But still, it was pretty good.
Submitted by darko (user info) at 2007-05-10 23:36:59 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
+2 for Catal on uber
Submitted by Paddles (user info) at 2007-05-10 23:30:15 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
wtf im not reading all that
Submitted by Sacrilicious (user info) at 2007-05-10 23:27:08 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
"Belief is nearly the whole of the Universe, whether based on truth or not." -Kurt Vonnegut