What does it mean to be in the world?
-
- Posts: 1347
- Joined: April 19th, 2016, 2:53 pm
What does it mean to be in the world?
******
Some people think that first there was nature without consciousness, and then at some point consciousness appeared as a property of nature. However, this is a misleading picture of the relation between nature and consciousness, because it suggests that consciousness could also not have appeared, and that we can imagine nature without consciousness. But because I exist and cannot ”non-exist”, consciousness exists necessarily and needs nature and its evolution to realize my existence.
Consciousness cannot be explained by objects of consciousness.
I am in the world as a body. I see my body. If I could see my functioning brain, I would see what happens in my brain when I look at its functioning. I would see my seeing process as it appears to me in the world. But what I would see would not explain my seeing it.
Consciousness does not reside in any place or structure of the material world, not even in the brain.
My body is a material object that I meet in the world. My head is part of my body. My brain is an organ inside my head, and its physiology is connected to the way I experience the world.
There are no thoughts in my head. My brain does not think.
Because all being is related to consciousness, consciousness cannot be a property of matter or any other being.
We live in a material world, we explore it, and at some point we may think that it is all there is, and that by exploring the structure of matter we shall in the end also explain why we exist. However, the world is part of the structure of existence, and our existence explains the being of the world, not vice versa.
When I want to understand my existence. I start to explore what is already in front of me: the world I am living in. But I cannot understand existence or the world if I do not see the totality: my temporal being in the world that is the material condition of my existence.
Even if all the objects of our experience were material, matter itself would not be essential, but experiencing the material reality.
The structure of my existence is such that the objects I meet in the world are the natural objects of my sight. If I want to see the structure itself, I must look closer and near. But I do not see myself, and my existence is not an object that I can look at.
Existence must realize itself, and it can realize itself only in the form of its inner logic. Nature is one of the necessary forms of realizing existence. Nature in turn has its own inner logic, the expression of which are the necessary structures that we call laws of nature.
Laws of nature do not explain anything. Scientists find laws of nature and find that nature behaves according to these laws.
Even if we found all laws of nature, and everything happened according to these laws, it would still be a total mystery that things happen in the way they happen.
Science cannot explain why reality is such as it is. It only illuminates the landscape so that we can see the inner structure of phenomena, their connections to laws of nature.
When we see the structure of a phenomenon, we understand and master it better, and it does not bother us as much as before. We call this sometimes explaining, but it is not, of course, an explanation of the being of the phenomenon.
The explanation of a phenomenon is not in its structure or in other phenomena, but in our existence, to the realization of which it takes part.
The explanation of the phenomenon that the Sun rises every morning could be a figure of the solar system and the description of all laws of nature. When we see the totality to which a phenomenon belongs, we feel that we have explained it and that it now belongs to the phenomena that we understand. But if we want to know why the solar system exists, we must describe a larger totality and, in the end, the whole universe. And the explanation of the being of the universe is not in the universe but in us who try to explain the world and understand our existence.
The universe is a material organism that realizes all forms of consciousness as an endless flow of time. My body is an organic part of the universe, and it realizes the form of consciousness which expresses itself at present.
The universe realizes my eternal existence. That is why the Sun rises.
The world is one of the basic structures of my existence. It is because I exist.
It is an absurd idea that there would be a world, but I would not exist.
The world is more than I can perceive or understand, but it is nevertheless only for me.
There are events that are outside of all experience. But although they are outside of experience, they presuppose an experience outside of which they are.
Although probably nobody was in place to witness the birth of the Sun, it was still born in a way that can be described in principle. But this does not mean that the world does not presuppose consciousness, because even if the Sun was born outside consciousness, it was born to the world in which I exist, and it is not meaningful to say that it could have been born even if I did not exist.
An object can be even if it does not appear to me, but not independent of my existence.
I could think that if a hundred years ago something else had happened than what really happened, I would not be born and consequently I would not exist now. But even if I could imagine a world that is different from the one we live in, I cannot imagine a world in which I would not be some individual at present.
I could think that I exist only because there happened to evolve life on Earth. But it is of course vice versa: there ”happened” to evolve life on Earth because I exist.
I do not exist because my heart beats, but my heart beats because I exist.
If Earth would blow up tomorrow, this incident would define some details of my existence but would not destroy my existence and its endlessness.
The subject is not a being that can be or not be, but the condition of the being of all objects and phenomena. All that there is, is in relation to me.
If I did not exist, there would be nothing. Perhaps no one has yet understood this simple sentence and all its consequences.
- Lark_Truth
- Posts: 212
- Joined: December 24th, 2016, 11:51 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Brandon Sanderson
Re: What does it mean to be in the world?
-
- Posts: 1347
- Joined: April 19th, 2016, 2:53 pm
Re: What does it mean to be in the world?
I am asking about the ontological status of subjectivity vs. the ontological status of the material world. Is consciousness a necessary or accidental "property" of nature? This question has been discussed in many topics, but no clarity has been achieved so far, so I thought a new and perhaps somewhat provocative introduction to the theme would trigger a more fruitful debate.Lark_Truth wrote:What exactly is it you are asking? I am confused.
-
- Posts: 3601
- Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm
Re: What does it mean to be in the world?
Consciousness must exist in order for me to imagine nature without consciousness, but I do not think that the way things are is the only possible way for things to have been. Without consciousness we would not be considering existence, including the existence of consciousness, but this only shows that consciousness is necessary in order to think about existence, not that consciousness must necessarily exist.However, this is a misleading picture of the relation between nature and consciousness, because it suggests that consciousness could also not have appeared, and that we can imagine nature without consciousness.
Here I take it to mean that ‘I’ is the transcendental subject. We might accept the existence of the transcendental subject, but this does not mean that a transcendental subject must exist, only that a transcendental subject does exist and is a necessary condition for any discussion of consciousness and existence.But because I exist and cannot ”non-exist” …
It does not follow from the fact that the transcendental subject does exist that the transcendental subject must exist.… consciousness exists necessarily and needs nature and its evolution to realize my existence.
The transcendental I is not an object of consciousness. An object of consciousness is something that the I has consciousness of. Can the conscious subject explain consciousness? We have not been able to do so, but someday we may. It remains an open question.Consciousness cannot be explained by objects of consciousness.
The notion of consciousness “residing” somewhere is suspect. I am conscious does not mean that consciousness resides in me. It also does not mean that consciousness exists independent of subjects who are conscious.Consciousness does not reside in any place or structure of the material world, not even in the brain.
This disjunction is contrary to conscious experience. You are not some conscious entity apart from your body. If your body is anesthetized you will have no consciousness of anything. If someone hurts you, it is you who hurts, not your body, as if it were an object external to you.My body is a material object that I meet in the world.
Thoughts are not physical objects and so you will not find them in your head, but it does not follow that your brain does not think.There are no thoughts in my head. My brain does not think.
You have not shown that all being is related to consciousness. You have not shown that consciousness exists anywhere except as a property of conscious physical beings.Because all being is related to consciousness, consciousness cannot be a property of matter or any other being.
The “structure of existence” is the structure of existing things. Existence is not something that exists separate and apart from things that exist.However, the world is part of the structure of existence …
The transcendental ego of I am “in” the universe.And the explanation of the being of the universe is not in the universe but in us who try to explain the world and understand our existence.
How is it that you know that your existence is eternal?The universe realizes my eternal existence.
It is, rather, because you exist that there is the idea of the absurd. A world without conscious subjects would not be absurd, for there would be no conscious subjects for which it would be absurd.It is an absurd idea that there would be a world, but I would not exist.
If I did not exist my world would not exist, but my world is not the world. The world is not the object of a transcendental I that transcends the world. Kant's transcendental ego transcends experience in so far as it is the condition for experience. It does not mean that it transcends the world.The world is more than I can perceive or understand, but it is nevertheless only for me.
This says nothing more than that experience requires an I who experiences. It says nothing about existence being contingent on an experiencer.There are events that are outside of all experience. But although they are outside of experience, they presuppose an experience outside of which they are.
Again, this means nothing more than that I must exist in order to imagine.But even if I could imagine a world that is different from the one we live in, I cannot imagine a world in which I would not be some individual at present.
“Of course”? I might say that I eat because food exists, but this does not mean that food exists because I eat. It may happen that there is no food to eat and so I do not eat.I could think that I exist only because there happened to evolve life on Earth. But it is of course vice versa: there ”happened” to evolve life on Earth because I exist.
If you did not exist your heart would not exist and so would not beat, but if your heart stopped beating and could not be started again, you would cease to exist.I do not exist because my heart beats, but my heart beats because I exist.
That is a professional of belief. It has no logical or evidential basis.If Earth would blow up tomorrow, this incident would define some details of my existence but would not destroy my existence and its endlessness.
If there were no ‘I’ there would be nothing for which there could be something, but that marks the absence of an awareness of existence, the absence of a conscious agent not an absence of existence.If I did not exist, there would be nothing. Perhaps no one has yet understood this simple sentence and all its consequences.
-
- Posts: 1347
- Joined: April 19th, 2016, 2:53 pm
Re: What does it mean to be in the world?
We have had a dispute on this with Consul, and I still say that the necessity of the subject-object relation applies also to the transcendent objects, not only objects of consciousness. Much of your criticism concerns this difference between our basic outlooks on the deep structure of reality.Fooloso4 wrote:Consciousness must exist in order for me to imagine nature without consciousness, but I do not think that the way things are is the only possible way for things to have been. Without consciousness we would not be considering existence, including the existence of consciousness, but this only shows that consciousness is necessary in order to think about existence, not that consciousness must necessarily exist.
By objects of consciousness I here mean objects of the material world, which is, of course, a misleading expression, but this is an old text and it was left there by accident.Fooloso4 wrote:The transcendental I is not an object of consciousness. An object of consciousness is something that the I has consciousness of. Can the conscious subject explain consciousness? We have not been able to do so, but someday we may. It remains an open question.
It is true that the body and consciousness are connected, but the body is still a transcendent object for consciousness. I would say there is a one to one correlation between those two levels of being. I can see my body in the same way as I can see other material objectsFooloso4 wrote:This disjunction is contrary to conscious experience. You are not some conscious entity apart from your body. If your body is anesthetized you will have no consciousness of anything. If someone hurts you, it is you who hurts, not your body, as if it were an object external to you.
I think, not my brain.Fooloso4 wrote:Thoughts are not physical objects and so you will not find them in your head, but it does not follow that your brain does not think.
Many great philosophers, e.g. Heidegger, Sartre and others, have analysed the basic structures of existence, the basic subject-object relation, temporality, the roles of consciousness and the world etc. That is also what I am trying to do here, in my small and humble fashion.Fooloso4 wrote:The “structure of existence” is the structure of existing things. Existence is not something that exists separate and apart from things that exist.
I am in the universe as my body, which is a mirror of my consciousness. This may require clarification, but I postpone it for now.Fooloso4 wrote:The transcendental ego of I am “in” the universe.
It is a hypothesis, but it has logical grounds. See my other texts on this forum.Fooloso4 wrote:How is it that you know that your existence is eternal?
The idea is absurd for us who try to think about it. It need not be absurd for the nonexistent inhabitants of the subjectless world, which has lost its logic anyway.Fooloso4 wrote:It is, rather, because you exist that there is the idea of the absurd. A world without conscious subjects would not be absurd, for there would be no conscious subjects for which it would be absurd.
You can erase the "of course", it is probably true only for me. The rest is OK. As I said in the introduction, my views are somewhat provocative.Fooloso4 wrote:“Of course”? I might say that I eat because food exists, but this does not mean that food exists because I eat. It may happen that there is no food to eat and so I do not eat.
I hesitated to keep that sentence in the text, but then I thought that because I wrote it, it must contain a bit of truth in it. And maybe there is a point of view from which it is true, considering my other views of reality.Fooloso4 wrote:That is a professional of belief. It has no logical or evidential basis.
The last sentence is the core of my philosophical thinking. If it is not true, everything else collapses with it. For me it is as self-evident as the 'I am', which for Descartes was the only thing beyond doubt. But perhaps Descartes was not dubious enough
- Felix
- Posts: 3117
- Joined: February 9th, 2009, 5:45 am
Re: What does it mean to be in the world?
Tamminen: My body is a material object that I meet in the world.
That "disjunction" is not contrary to everyone's experience: some have reported being conscious while their body was unconscious, and the ability to voluntarily control the body's sensory reactions is well documented.Fooloso4: This disjunction is contrary to conscious experience. You are not some conscious entity apart from your body. If your body is anesthetized you will have no consciousness of anything. If someone hurts you, it is you who hurts, not your body, as if it were an object external to you.
Yes, some minor details of your existence would change, e.g., no more ice cream for you.Tamminen: If Earth would blow up tomorrow, this incident would define some details of my existence but would not destroy my existence and its endlessness.
-
- Posts: 1347
- Joined: April 19th, 2016, 2:53 pm
Re: What does it mean to be in the world?
No more ice cream for me, but a lot for the other who is born, whoever or whatever that may be. My view is a kind of sophisticated combination of solipsism and transmigration theory, both regarded as mortal sins among philosophers, but in this combination they become more plausible. If you want to get acquainted with my views, I suggest you read some of my longer texts on this forum, for example these on Epistemology and Metaphysics:Felix wrote:Yes, some minor details of your existence would change, e.g., no more ice cream for you.
Post #2 on "Could separateness and death be illusions?"
Post #96 on "Is conscoiusness fundamental?"
Post #654 on "What happens to us when we die?"
Topic "Who are the Others?"
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 14992
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: What does it mean to be in the world?
It seems to me that physical reality chugs along just fine without consciousness, or it did once, but how physical things are perceived is defined individually by consciousness.
-
- Posts: 1347
- Joined: April 19th, 2016, 2:53 pm
Re: What does it mean to be in the world?
Of course there was no consciousness before life, but what I am arguing is that there cannot be a universe with no subjects at all, any time, any place, from the point of view of which the world is experienced, wondered about and given meaning to, and that subjectivity is the precondition of any universe whatsoever, the primus motor for the very existence of a universe. Reality is not blind. We are there already.Greta wrote:Tamminem, what are your thoughts about the universe before biological life?
It seems to me that physical reality chugs along just fine without consciousness, or it did once, but how physical things are perceived is defined individually by consciousness.
- Felix
- Posts: 3117
- Joined: February 9th, 2009, 5:45 am
Re: What does it mean to be in the world?
The Universe may be eternal and have always had biological life - it just comes and goes.Greta: Tamminem, what are your thoughts about the universe before biological life?
- Lark_Truth
- Posts: 212
- Joined: December 24th, 2016, 11:51 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Brandon Sanderson
Re: What does it mean to be in the world?
Boring.
-
- Posts: 1347
- Joined: April 19th, 2016, 2:53 pm
Re: What does it mean to be in the world?
Although there was no consciousness in the universe early in its development, it may all the time have been in the process of creating it, which seems to be a big process and makes us almost crazy as we are looking at it. It must be noticed that there may also be so called formal causes for things, to remember the classifications of Aristotle, though they are not very popular among modern philosophers and especially scientists. It may be the case that causal relations are only subordinate to the formal causes when we think of the universe as a whole. What I think would be the "form" or idea, in the platonic sense, could be, for example, self-consciousness in the Hegelian sense, reality which would be transparent to itself. But for example Sartre wrote that Hegel was too optimistic in his scenarios.Felix wrote:The Universe may be eternal and have always had biological life - it just comes and goes.
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023