It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A Meaningless Existence

page: 1
4

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 10 2012 @ 07:45 PM
link   

A Meaningless Existence.



PREFACE

I present a wall of text for those who wish to climb. Any philosophical inquiry into existence ends up being a logical perversion or a complete fabrication—usually both; I have to be honest and admit that this one is no different. Of course, to resist falling into some poetical interpretation of existence, I will be very pedantic and logical in approach. I understand that in a world with such limited attention, this may not be the best idea, but if you can make it through this without losing your mind, you are probably fit enough for philosophy.

WHAT IS EXISTENCE?

‘Being,’ on the surface, is a word to which we apply on the fact of existing in the apparent world. If it exists here as we do, if it is, if they are, if it can do, it is also being by default. “To be, or not to be, that is the question”—and consequently, the answer.

What can we know that truly ‘exists’ according to logic? There is only one entity, one subject, and one ‘thing’ we can label and use as a variable in the proposition “x exists” while leaving us with zero doubt. Only Existence can exist. Only Everything (all that exists) can be everything, and thus composes what we call existence. Only its polar opposite Nothing can not exist. Only existence itself exists; and everything within it as its constituent parts, also exist within existence. To simplify it, Existence = existence. Existence, being composed of everything, is also Everything. Existence = Everything.

What is this ‘Everything?’ Obviously, Everything is a noun we use to connote all things. But everything is also no thing. If Everything was itself a thing, and also that which is composed of all things, Everything must also contain itself. This, of course, defies logic, as nothing can contain itself lest it continued on infinitely .

Everything:

  • All things
  • Everything?

    • All things
    • Everything?

      • All things
      • Everything?

This is the Russell’s Paradox. This logic shows either Everything is not a thing, Everything is infinite, or language is insufficient in these matters. Logically, all of these are correct, but I would wager most that language, and also the strong inclination we have to put such profundity on these ideas, is at blame here. In other words, there is not a place, nor a realm, nor a thing which can bear the name Existence unless we are illogical enough to step into these paradoxes.

WHAT EXISTS?

By presupposing only Everything can exist on its own, we can only logically conclude that anything within in it, its constituent parts, or Atomic facts (to quote Wittgenstein) must also be a something; and Everything, as the culmination of all somethings and anythings, is existence. Therefore, everything exists. Sure, everything exists, therefore all things exist. That is logical. Is it?

But this leads to more confusion. Only one ‘thing’ can exist on its own. Although paradoxically Everything is not a thing, the things that compose this Everything must also exist, but at all times must exist as ‘something,’ as a part of that everything in the context of that everything. Makes sense...

For example, in language and logic, “dogs exist” and “unicorns exist” are both true and untrue as the propositions are void of context. But both dogs and unicorns are subjects to which we can lend our focus and contemplation, therefore they are constituent parts of existence. If I keep up my faith in gramar, I would have to conclude that within the context of existence, both dogs and unicorns exist as something. But what?

If dogs and unicorns were nothing, and didn’t exist, they would need no label. One cannot label a void, it can only label something. But why can I pet a dog and not a unicorn? Because when we assert “unicorns exist,” we are putting forth an incomplete sentence or proposition. Only existence can exist. Unicorns, at least within language, exist within the context of existence, and therefore must be a constituent part of this everything, existence. It must first exist before we can label it. Unicorn is a label, therefore unicorns exist. Luckily, all hope for sanity is not lost at this point.

To correct this mess and to perhaps be a little more honest, “Unicorns exist as x” should have been our proposition, and we can answer more truthfully to what they are within the context of existence (ie. Unicorns exist as mythological horses with a single horn on their head). If I were to argue “God exists,” it would become ridiculous as soon as someone asked “exists as what?” Instead of answering truthfully that “God is a word and idea to which some pray,” it would be my duty to invent what God existed as, which, within the context of existence, is an impossibility and always untrue, and thus, as Philo honestly admitted, God is ineffable. It could also be argued that God is everything, which would also be logically valid, but then again, as we’ve seen, everything is no ‘thing’ and can no longer be described nor thought of as a thing, unless perhaps it was an idea—nonetheless God would have to be composed of all things, including the evils and misery we pray for God to destroy—more paradoxes we allow ourselves.

In these situations where there is no unicorn to pet, we refer to imagination in order to ‘discover’ what these ideas are, and not fact. These ideas, like the unicorn, are endowed with words which immediately implies its existence, and this implication will drive people into a paradoxical belief system because of it, but what really is happening here is the refusal to see the context, and incomplete propositions result. The unicorn is an idea. Ideas exist, but only as ideas. Therefore, unicorns, in that context, exist.

WHAT EXISTS AS WHAT?

If only Everything can exist, what do its constituent things exist as? When we say, for example, “Socrates is a man,” we are not saying Socrates exists as a man, as language would have us believe, we are only really admitting we can use either the term ‘Socrates’ or ‘man’ or ‘philosopher’ or ‘Greek’ to describe the entity we are talking about. It is merely different words describing the same thing. This, in logical jargon, is a ‘tautology,’ or “a phrase or expression in which the same thing is said twice or more in different words,” yet also, “a statement that is true by necessity or by virtue of its logical form.”

In other words, when we look at our friend Socrates, the very act of experiencing him is answering all our questions in regards to what he is, yet paradoxically, we consider Socrates as not only that one thing, but many things—a man and a philosopher and a Greek etc. Nonetheless, we are still talking about and looking to the same thing without our gaze having not once moved to anything else. So which is he? the thing we look at? Or all of those ideas we have about that thing? What does Socrates exist as? What does God exist as? What is ‘to be’? What is ‘is’? Although these questions are completely absurd, none of them can be honestly answered without the subject immediately present and in focus already giving us the answer within the context of what we call existence. Without a God to provide us his answers by existing, without a Socrates present, we must imagine the rest, or be forced to adhere to the imaginations of someone else.

(continued)




posted on Dec, 10 2012 @ 07:45 PM
link   
Despite the absurdity involved in thinking about matters such as these, what this leads us to admit is the faults of language—or at least the failure to correct those faults—and the ideas we derive from them.

HOW DO WE EXIST?

Luckily, as a verb, ‘being’ is less troublesome. But language displays her clumsiness here by showing us some of her many errors: in order for something to be, it must first be; in order for something to exist it must first exist. How is that even possible? How can something 'be' if it isn’t already being? There must first be an already existing subject to do any verb, even the verb ‘to be,’ but there can be no existing subject if it is not already being. WTF?

As a verb, ‘being’ ‘is’ ‘are’ etc, when used improperly, often leads to paradox. In logic, something cannot be something else, something is only what it is, its present state of affairs. My hand is not a hand; it is my hand. Ted is a not a teacher; Ted is Ted. This logic, though entirely unnecessary, renders the word ‘being’ immediately redundant. These paradoxes can be fixed when we are able to correctly explain more of the context and if the verbs of ‘to be’ are used properly and honestly. What does Ted do? Besides whatever else he is, Ted is also a teacher. My hand appears to be like all hands, but also different. These are both true, but who the hell talks like this? Not us. We stick to the paradoxes.

For instance, the verb to be, to exist, are, do etc.—all which already imply existence—must be like any verb and perhaps symbolizes the quantification of a noun or thing (already existing) moving, or doing movements, whether intentional or chaotic, to inevitably cause more movement, an action, until it comes to rest. Therefore, we must conclude that existence is movement, existence is action, existence is doing. But this logical perversion I’ve committed on myself causes me to squirm at the very thought—for in order for something to move, it must first exist. Existence isn’t a thing unless it is infinite in which case it would occupy all everything and as a result, not move. And right back to the beginning we are.

WHY DO WE CARE?

Existence has no meaning. It merely is what it is. Existence is existence. A tautology. Truth. It cannot be endowed with meaning as only it can give birth to meaning. Where we get meaning is in the very context of existence. Placement, action, perspective, tangibility, experience—all lend real meaning and value too all constituent parts of everything, even the ones we call beloved and pray to, our ideas. Anything without context or cannot be explained in the context of existence is illusory, an idea, a fleeting thought. But we don’t care do we, for we find faith only in paradox and contradiction. We are the illogical animal.

We must remember, all language is metaphor. All science, religion, mathematics etc. are metaphorical interpretations of that one fact—Existence—expressed differently, and from different perspectives, with different language and from different axioms. And like this one, not a single one is correct.

If you’ve made it this far and trudged through this mess I commend you. I had a difficult time myself.


edit on 10-12-2012 by TheSubversiveOne because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 10 2012 @ 08:30 PM
link   
I just want to say that I've read it and still got my sanity... I guess.

very interesting text, by the way.



posted on Dec, 10 2012 @ 08:47 PM
link   
The only thing that is real is something that can never be destroyed hence everything is an illusion the only thing that is real is the soul or life force.



posted on Dec, 10 2012 @ 10:51 PM
link   
I can't believe I read the whole mess of meaningless navel gazing babble.



posted on Dec, 11 2012 @ 12:19 AM
link   
Everything you know is a creation. It is a fabrication. These words aren't even real. They are made up. The one behind the creation is what is real. Everything I know myself to be is a creation. Whatever is creating it is what is real.



posted on Dec, 11 2012 @ 12:45 AM
link   
reply to post by smithjustinb
 


Only the one watching is real. You are not a human. The human is a creation. It is made up. The one watching is not the human. The one watching is aware of the "thoughts" that the human has and is situated behind all thoughts. The human brain creation thinks that it is real and that it is the one watching, but this is not so. So the thoughts and interpretations of the brain are what is seen by The Watcher. Unfortunately for the watcher, the creation is of it, like a hologram. This means that the creation possesses creator qualities. Therein lies all confusion.

However, there is only one watcher. The watcher knows all that is known. The creation needs to realize that it's only a creation. Then the creation can become aware of the watcher and allow for a cooperative relationship with it.



new topics

top topics



 
4

log in

join