ShopDreamUp AI ArtDreamUp
Deviation Actions
I took a Philosophy module for my Computer Science course because, well, I can. I attended the first lecture today and had a go at some philosophical logic to get me thinking:
I see a chair. I am relatively sure I'm in a sane frame of mind. Therefore I can conclude that the chair exists. However, that is purely a subjective view as the existence of the chair is dependant purely on my own experience. Therefore the chair is not proven to exist. I ask someone else whether they also see the chair. They do. Therefore I can conclude the chair exists. However, merely asking someone else or many people if they share my opinion of the chair's existence is a fallacious line of reasoning.
If we apply to the same logic to another scenario we can see why:
The Emperor is walking naked through the streets but believes he is wearing clothes of the finest thread. He asks everyone else and they agree that he is wearing magnificent clothes. Does this mean that he is wearing clothes? Not necessarily.
So if we ask many people whether the chair exists and they agree it doesn't necessarily mean the chair exists. The same argument can be applied to touching rather than seeing the chair or, in fact, any sense. It's all subjective. Therefore, how can we know anything exists, is real or is true?
We can't. Therefore we must simply accept certain things as true in order to make further arguments and reasoning. Since Philosophy is the asking of questions and the arguing of answers and everything is not necessarily true, is there a point to Philosophy? Not necessarily.
I see a chair. I am relatively sure I'm in a sane frame of mind. Therefore I can conclude that the chair exists. However, that is purely a subjective view as the existence of the chair is dependant purely on my own experience. Therefore the chair is not proven to exist. I ask someone else whether they also see the chair. They do. Therefore I can conclude the chair exists. However, merely asking someone else or many people if they share my opinion of the chair's existence is a fallacious line of reasoning.
If we apply to the same logic to another scenario we can see why:
The Emperor is walking naked through the streets but believes he is wearing clothes of the finest thread. He asks everyone else and they agree that he is wearing magnificent clothes. Does this mean that he is wearing clothes? Not necessarily.
So if we ask many people whether the chair exists and they agree it doesn't necessarily mean the chair exists. The same argument can be applied to touching rather than seeing the chair or, in fact, any sense. It's all subjective. Therefore, how can we know anything exists, is real or is true?
We can't. Therefore we must simply accept certain things as true in order to make further arguments and reasoning. Since Philosophy is the asking of questions and the arguing of answers and everything is not necessarily true, is there a point to Philosophy? Not necessarily.
Weekly Atheist Society Meeting
Me: "Hey guys, found God yet?"
Members: "Nah, still no God."
Me: "Alright, see you next week."
You know you're going to the right University when
... the club that won the 'Best New Society' award last year was the 'Warwick Atheist Society'.
What the fuck is this?
Here's a screenshot of the results of dA's latest poll.
Why in the nine hells is 'bass player' second to last!? There are officially only 2,154 sane people on dA.
They had fucking cannons...
This was going to be titled 'For those about to rock, we salute you!' but... they had fucking cannons!
And if you don't believe me, I filmed it.
© 2009 - 2024 Fyorl
Comments16
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In
Solipsism is where it's at. Unfortunately, it holds the stigma of being completely self-absorbed! It's trippy, though. Not sure if you touch on it on your course, but it sounds vaguely related.
The argument goes like this.
1) Every claim about a thing's existence depends on experience. For example I see you, and I experience the fact I see you. This also works indirectly; you tell me that you've seen a cat, and I believe the cat exists because I've experienced you telling me.
2) Experiences can't be wrong - only my interpretation of such experience e.g. I see two cats instead there is just really one. The only thing that was 'wrong' here was me interpreting the scene incorrectly.
3) All claims, therefore, can't be anything more than a claim about me and my experience, my interpretations. I can't ever know about any objective interpretation of existence.
It's pretty silly and there are about five hundred holes in that, but I thought - when I first read it - it was very interesting. Philosophy++, surely?
The argument goes like this.
1) Every claim about a thing's existence depends on experience. For example I see you, and I experience the fact I see you. This also works indirectly; you tell me that you've seen a cat, and I believe the cat exists because I've experienced you telling me.
2) Experiences can't be wrong - only my interpretation of such experience e.g. I see two cats instead there is just really one. The only thing that was 'wrong' here was me interpreting the scene incorrectly.
3) All claims, therefore, can't be anything more than a claim about me and my experience, my interpretations. I can't ever know about any objective interpretation of existence.
It's pretty silly and there are about five hundred holes in that, but I thought - when I first read it - it was very interesting. Philosophy++, surely?