philosophy and insanity

Jack · Post by **Jack** » Wed May 05, 2004 1:18 pm

So...

I'm reading this book about the history of Western philosophy and I'm in love.

I'm 3/4 of the way through it, but I'm honestly unsure if I exist. I'd always assumed that I existed.

Nothing really seems real, and I'm unsure of how I feel, that's perfectly ok.

Anyway, I've been "sh*t crazy" (jim stone's term) before, and it's the exact feeling I have now. I figured this was a good place to ask - what's the difference between the two feelings?

I don't think there really is a difference. It's all in the people you tell. (Doesn't that sound mental?)

burnsbyrne · Post by **burnsbyrne** » Wed May 05, 2004 1:22 pm

Cran,
Is the question the difference between being in love and being sh*t crazy? If yes, then...the difference is that being in love doesn't last as long and cannot be treated with drugs.
Mike

Jack · Post by **Jack** » Wed May 05, 2004 1:26 pm

No. It's...like, I'm honestly not sure if I exist.

How is that different from being crazy?

sturob · Post by **sturob** » Wed May 05, 2004 1:28 pm

Everyone's crazy.

Isn't it actually like Mental Health Awareness Week?

Or something?

Stuart

Kuranes · Post by **Kuranes** » Wed May 05, 2004 1:31 pm

I'm 3/4 of the way through it, but I'm honestly unsure if I exist. I'd always assumed that I existed.

You haven't gotten to Descartes, yet, have you? If you read, i think it was, Meditations, he proves to his own satisfaction that he exists.

I'm sure it's online somewhere, I'll dig it up.

http://www.wright.edu/cola/descartes/

In Meditations II, he (at least, to himself) proves that he exists.

[ Note that there's a great deal of talk in his meditations about the existence or lack of existence of God -- keep in mind that Descartes was writing at the height of the witch craze, when publishing anything heretical was Not A Good Idea. To the point where he had to move to Holland to do his writing, as he would have probably been executed in France for his publications. So while there is a great deal of energy spent asserting the existence of God, it's not clear to me how much of that was honest and how much of it was CYA writing. ]

BillChin · Post by **BillChin** » Wed May 05, 2004 1:36 pm

This thread reminds me of a joke:

Descartes is at a restaurant and the waiter comes by and asks him if he would like some dessert. Descartes says, "I think not," and promptly vanishes.
+ Bill
Cogito Ergo Sum

Wombat · Post by **Wombat** » Wed May 05, 2004 1:38 pm

Cran, the sceptical arguments you're reading are meant to be taken seriously, but not that seriously. It's a bit hard to explain if it doesn't just come naturally to you but I'll try.

It's not quite that you are supposed to take them in a detached rather than an engaged way. It's more like acting. While you're doing it, throw yourself into it wholeheartedly, but not so wholeheartedly that you carry on acting if the theatre is on fire. When the curtain falls, go back to whatever you were doing as though nothing had happened.

Almost nobody thinks that, if you don't have conclusive proof of your own existence, then it's irrational to believe that you exist. Most people simply use those arguments to soften you up for what they regard as a new and better explanation of how we know the ordinary things we take ourselves to know.

Jack · Post by **Jack** » Wed May 05, 2004 1:48 pm

I completely understand that, Wombat. I can and am still carrying on normal life, lol.

But I'm left sort of...hmm...feeling rather insane. I'm pondering everything really deeply and I was just wondering how this feeling differs from psychosis, because in my experience the feelings similar, if not the same. For me at least. I wonder how they differ.

Almost nobody thinks that, if you don't have conclusive proof of your own existence, then it's irrational to believe that you exist.

I think that.* Does that make me crazy?

*For the time being, at least.

Zubivka · Post by **Zubivka** » Wed May 05, 2004 1:53 pm

Cranberry wrote:I think that.* Does that make me crazy?

The fact that you ask yourself the question is a conclusive proof that you do exist.

Now, the fact that we seem to answer doesn't help you with any conclusions on this world of illusions...

Jack · Post by **Jack** » Wed May 05, 2004 1:57 pm

The fact that you ask yourself the question is a conclusive proof that you do exist.

I'm not sure I really agree with that. Mabey I need to work through some things.

I'm not commenting further or I may start to look insane.

Jerry Freeman · Post by **Jerry Freeman** » Wed May 05, 2004 2:05 pm

I think it's safe to conclude that, if you can ask yourself whether you exist, then you exist.

The interesting thing, to me, is to wonder what it is that exists (called "me" or "Cranberry") and is asking such questions.

In other words, "WHAT am I?" as opposed to "Am I?" is the more interesting question as far as I'm concerned.

Best wishes,
Jerry

antstastegood · Post by **antstastegood** » Wed May 05, 2004 2:16 pm

Get a physics book!

Post by **Nanohedron** » Wed May 05, 2004 2:17 pm

Cranberry wrote:I'm not commenting further or I may start to look insane.

Too late for that, Cran, old bean!

I agree with Jerry. Questions about the nature of reality will get you further than wrestling with a starkly absolutist "is/is not" view.

If you want to get into that, check out some Zen commentary. That'll make your head spin!

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Wed May 05, 2004 2:17 pm

Cranberry wrote:
The fact that you ask yourself the question is a conclusive proof that you do exist.
I'm not sure I really agree with that. Mabey I need to work through some things.

I'm not commenting further or I may start to look insane.

And you are absolutely right there as well.

The fact that a question is cannot prove anything. However if you said 'I do not exist' it is self contradictory since nothing can both assert and not be.

De Cartes final, and to him most cogent, arguement states ' if there is an evil demon which would decieve me ... that I am not' etc. He reiterates the proof many differnet ways and it is all the same in the end. You cannot truely assert that you are not, an evil demon cannot decieve you into not being for there MUST BE something that is decieved.... etc.

De Cartes was educated by Catholic Jesuit Priests and is the inventor of Co-ordinate Geometry - Sin Cos Tan and all that good stuff.

Bloomfield · Post by **Bloomfield** » Wed May 05, 2004 2:24 pm

Also, you should realize that in philosophy there are a number of recognized fallacies (erroneos arguments if you will), that no one can refute yet no one believes in. The reason is that these fallacies are water-tight: you cannot prove them wrong. But that doesn't mean they are right, or should be taken seriously.

One of these fallacies is solipcism, which states that everything is just a figment of your mind. Nothing exists. You can't disprove solipcism because even its refutation is imaginary. (The reason this particular bit of madness is called solipcism is that the result of it is that each person is completely isolated, interacting with nothing but his/her own imagination, from solo=alone).

Another fallacy is assuming that one doesn't exist. It is also cute, because difficult or impossible to refute. But it's a bit of bummer if you think about it, because if I don't exist who was that getting so amazingly drunk at the Philological Society's annual reception last Thursday that I spilled my drink down Prof. Sibylle Cotwold's decolte and called old Prof. Werckenheimer's new book "a failed attempt at onanism" in his presence? Certain moments I just wouldn't want to miss, therefore it can't be true.