Superman Prime (emo) vs. Thanos w/ tech

Originally posted by Ouallada
That's just giving credit to the guy when it was his philosophies that are discussed.

The most common flaw there is that you have two steps in your argument:

1) You think.
2) You exist.

The bridge between 1) and 2) is syllogistic. Not to mention the act of thinking requires relativising, but the existence of anything besides the first person cannot be proven without a third person perspective, meaning for disbelievers, this particular philosophy uses the subjective content of one's mind to prove the absolute reality of everything else.

No, it doesn't. All this theory does is prove your own existence. I am currently thinking, so I know that I exist. Whether I exist in this form or another is undetermined. Whether the world around me exists as I perceive it? undetermined. Whether you exist? These other posters? Undetermined.

All I know for certain is that I exist in some shape or form, even if the 'life' I perceive is just a long 'dream' a higher consciousness is experiencing, I still exist as a part of that consciousness.

Originally posted by Soljer
No, it doesn't. All this theory does is prove your own existence. I am currently thinking, so I know that I exist.

Originally posted by Galan007
If thinking = existence -- does existence = thinking? umm

No.

Theoretically speaking, something can exist without cognition.

Something cannot perceive without existing, however.

Originally posted by Soljer
No.

Theoretically speaking, something can exist without cognition.

That is with the assumption that thinking leads to existence, something that Descartes has admitted to not always hold true. Even the instantiation principle does not apply perfectly. The principle is based on logic. Logic is based on? It is a chicken/egg argument, because of the argument that humanity is fundamentally imperfect. If logic can be illusionary (easy examples of this include a person mistaking a smell for pot roast when none exists in the vicinity), then the logic on which the instantiation principle is based on can be imperfect, and its acceptance requires faith, which is unacceptable for absolutes.

Moreover, if you have read about his theories, the logic is basically that we are all deceived, but that we need to exist to be deceived. As such, we have the cartesian circle. God exists. He guarantees that what I perceive is true. I perceive God's existence (cogito ergo sum is a base on which his more divinal theories are argued). God exists. Repeat.

I would tend to agree with the cogito, but the fact that it is not absolute means that "I think, therefore I am" is flawed. It is notable that the matrix etc were basically derived from an offshoot of Descartes' theories, which is why I started on him in the first place.

Originally posted by Galan007
So... Thinking does not equal existence then. 😛

Basically, the sum of it is that it cannot be absolutely proved that thinking MUST equal existence, which is the logical flaw in the cogito.

But if something can conceive of the idea of self and is aware that it exists, doesn't that prove it's existence?

It SHOULD, but not absolutely. A person better qualified than myself could put forward a much better case, but I captured the gist of what criticisms of the cogito focus on.

Love that lipstick.

Now that I look closer, it even looks like he's wearing eyeliner.

Originally posted by Galan007
How do you know my world hasn't been destroyed?
herbhappy

Well im pretty sure your universe hasnt been destroyed and you helped to save other universes and im pretty sure you havent had to spend a long time in a dimension that drives you nuts.....

If thats what you meant metaphorically....

Originally posted by Ouallada
That is with the assumption that thinking leads to existence, something that Descartes has admitted to not always hold true. Even the instantiation principle does not apply perfectly. The principle is based on logic. Logic is based on? It is a chicken/egg argument, because of the argument that humanity is fundamentally imperfect. If logic can be illusionary (easy examples of this include a person mistaking a smell for pot roast when none exists in the vicinity), then the logic on which the instantiation principle is based on can be imperfect, and its acceptance requires faith, which is unacceptable for absolutes.

Moreover, if you have read about his theories, the logic is basically that we are all deceived, but that we need to exist to be deceived. As such, we have the cartesian circle. God exists. He guarantees that what I perceive is true. I perceive God's existence (cogito ergo sum is a base on which his more divinal theories are argued). God exists. Repeat.

I would tend to agree with the cogito, but the fact that it is not absolute means that "I think, therefore I am" is flawed. It is notable that the matrix etc were basically derived from an offshoot of Descartes' theories, which is why I started on him in the first place.

I dont think you can prove anything absolutely.

Originally posted by Kutulu
Love that lipstick.

Now that I look closer, it even looks like he's wearing eyeliner.

Originally posted by Alfheim

I dont think you can prove anything absolutely.

🙄.

That is the point of the exercise. You throw out anything subjective, any and everything that you can doubt, and what are you left with?

The fact that you think.

Originally posted by Soljer
🙄.

That is the point of the exercise. You throw out anything subjective, any and everything that you can doubt, and what are you left with?

The fact that you think.

Yes I know but it doesnt matter how certain you are of anything there is always a grey area. For example it could argued that you may exist but what exactly is "you" and how do you define "real" and "not real".

The point I was trying to make is that there is no point in saying that you cant prove you exist absolutely because that could apply to everything. The fact that you think is a good indication that you exist anything else is speculation and eventhough it maybe true its really philosophical and not practical.

I was kinda agree with you. *groan*

Lets be fair here, how could he have put on lipstick and eyeliner when theres like 50+ people beating on him? And I refuse to believe his lipstick wouldnt have rubbed off when he was getting slugged in the mouth. So yeah maybe his lips were just dark. As for burning himself, how? Can you really aim laser vision at your chest in such a angle? AND finally would Cyborg really hang out with a emo? So yeah he cried, but he did it in the middle of a huge brawl, not in his room writing a poem.

Anyhow, normally I'd say Thanos, but he did get taken out by a sucker punch from Drax....

Originally posted by redhotrash
Lets be fair here, how could he have put on lipstick and eyeliner when theres like 50+ people beating on him? And I refuse to believe his lipstick wouldnt have rubbed off when he was getting slugged in the mouth. So yeah maybe his lips were just dark. As for burning himself, how? Can you really aim laser vision at your chest in such a angle? AND finally would Cyborg really hang out with a emo? So yeah he cried, but he did it in the middle of a huge brawl, not in his room writing a poem.

Anyhow, normally I'd say Thanos, but he did get taken out by a sucker punch from Drax....

The Drax thing was a one-time incident, and it was only because Drax was created by an abstract being to kill Thanos.

As far as the lipstick, that's artist interpretation - in the Superboy comic, he isn't drawn that way, that's from the GLC.

As far as burning himself, I forgot exactly, I'll have to go back and look again, he may have just scarred himself by digging his finger in his chest. He did it when he was imprisoned by the GLC.

Originally posted by Alfheim
Yes I know but it doesnt matter how certain you are of anything there is always a grey area. For example it could argued that you may exist but what exactly is "you" and how do you define "real" and "not real".

The point I was trying to make is that there is no point in saying that you cant prove you exist absolutely because that could apply to everything. The fact that you think is a good indication that you exist anything else is speculation and eventhough it maybe true its really philosophical and not practical.

I was kinda agree with you. *groan*

No, there is no gray area. You don't need the definition of reality or self for the implication to hold.

As I mentioned before; even if you only existed as a figment of a higher consciousness' imagination, you still exist. Even if I'm sitting in a chemically induced coma somewhere, and all of what I do is a dream, I still exist. Even if we're all in 'teh matricks' (fear), and reality as I know it is a lie, I still exist. 😐.

I dunno about the computer in front of me, the walls around me, the people I see, the earth, the moon, the stars, I dunno if any of that exists. But I can say with certainty that I do.

Originally posted by Soljer
No, there is no gray area. You don't need the definition of reality or self for the implication to hold.

As I mentioned before; even if you only existed as a figment of a higher consciousness' imagination, you still exist. Even if I'm sitting in a chemically induced coma somewhere, and all of what I do is a dream, I still exist. Even if we're all in 'teh matricks' (fear), and reality as I know it is a lie, I still exist. 😐.

I dunno about the computer in front of me, the walls around me, the people I see, the earth, the moon, the stars, I dunno if any of that exists. But I can say with certainty that I do.

It depends on how you look at it doesnt it? For example you could dream that your Abaraham Lincoln but people dont consider dreams to be real, do they?

Then gain some people do consider dreams to be a different reality.

Originally posted by Alfheim
It depends on how you look at it doesnt it? For example you could dream that your Abaraham Lincoln but people dont consider dreams to be real, do they?

Then gain some people do consider dreams to be a different reality.

As in the immortal words of Bill Hicks:
“Life is only a dream and we are the imagination of ourselves.”

Originally posted by Alfheim
It depends on how you look at it doesnt it? For example you could dream that your Abaraham Lincoln but people dont consider dreams to be real, do they?

Then gain some people do consider dreams to be a different reality.

Exactly! Your dream that you're Abe Lincoln is false - that is a subjective reality that is thrown out because it is doubtable.

What is not doubtable from one's own perspective is thought.

Originally posted by Kutulu
As in the immortal words of Bill Hicks:
“Life is only a dream and we are the imagination of ourselves.”