Do fictional characters have eternal life?

[Terrapin Station]

I've never even heard of that book or the author. So don't project your lies here, they're not welcome, this is a thread of truth.

If it's a waste of time, then no one is forcing you to lurk around my threads...just don't read them, simple isn't it.. goodbye weirdo.

You could possibly be more pompous ("this is a thread of truth") in addition to insane/inane.

I just don't know how.

[Terrapin Station]

Sorry, I have no idea what you are talking about.

Talk about redundancy.

[Dontaskme]

Still lurking I see.

Read my lips...if your not genuinely interested in my thread topic.


THEN GET LOST!

[Philosophy Explorer]

Dontaskme said:

"Existence does not question it's existence. why would it need to do that? ... why would existence have any doubt about existing if it is existing, who would the doubter be? it would have to be something existing outside of existence itself?"

Descartes, a great philosopher, did question his own existence (and concluded "I think, therefore I am").

PhilX

[Philosophy Explorer]

Dontaskme said:

"Because nothing could be described at all without an opposite for comparison. A word by itself is devoid of any meaning without the presence of it's opposite.Because nothing could be described at all without an opposite for comparison. A word by itself is devoid of any meaning without the presence of it's opposite. The opposite is a word as well, which gets it's meaning from the word it gives meaning to, which is nevertheless without a meaning by itself. This means that the quantum nature of meanings is a word with it's opposite in the same moment. This implies that the meaning which you do not want is also present in the meaning that you do want. This mysterious play of opposites are of the same one mind in the same moment. A mind that cannot be seen or known by what is seen and known. Every thing is known, except the knower. Every thing is seen except the seer. No knower or seer indicates every thing known and seen are fiction."

I strongly disagree with this. Before an opposite word can come about, there must be the original word which precedes the opposite word in time.

Again quoting:

"The opposite is a word as well, which gets it's meaning from the word it gives meaning to, which is nevertheless without a meaning by itself."

If anything it's the original word that gives meaning to the opposite word. More than that, it seems you're using circular reasoning plus contradicting yourself.

PhilX

[Dontaskme]

Descartes, a great philosopher, did question his own existence (and concluded "I think, therefore I am").

PhilX

Well Descartes was putting the cart in front of the horse when he said that. It's actually the other way around. I Am therefore I think.

The way Descartes puts it .. '' I think therefore I Am '' ... implies there is a thinker of thought, and that's who I Am .

There is no thinker of thought. Thoughts have no location or reality, they are phantom appearances...so no thinker. They arise here now in the I Am. The I Am has to be first, if a thought is to appear at all. The I Am is nowhere and everywhere all at once and doesn't need a thought to be here. But thoughts need the I Am to be here.

Thoughts arise and fall in the I Am and their presence gives the illusion there is a thinker present mistaken as the I Am.
So when there is identification with a thought, by another thought, it appears as if there is a thinker, but this is a mistaken identity which appears to take on it's own separate life form separate from the thought ie: here there is a thought so I must be thinking that thought, when in truth there's just thought arising and falling in you the I Am that is not a thought or a thing. When no thoughts are present, the I Am of pure existence is totally self shining so the question would not even arise...only when thought is present does the question arise. So all that's happening is thought asking thought what thought is.

It's like asking electricity what it's like to be electricity, one isn't going to get an answer any time soon, or the answers may come all at once to the one question it will ever need to ask.

I will find some links tomorrow to back up and clarify what I'm trying to say here.

[Philosophy Explorer]

Descartes, a great philosopher, did question his own existence (and concluded "I think, therefore I am").

PhilX

Well Descartes was putting the cart in front of the horse when he said that. It's actually the other way around. I Am therefore I think.

The way Descartes puts it .. '' I think therefore I Am '' ... implies there is a thinker of thought, and that's who I Am .

There is no thinker of thought. Thoughts have no location or reality, they are phantom appearances...so no thinker. They arise here now in the I Am. The I Am has to be first, if a thought is to appear at all. The I Am is nowhere and everywhere all at once and doesn't need a thought to be here. But thoughts need the I Am to be here.

Thoughts arise and fall in the I Am and their presence gives the illusion there is a thinker present mistaken as the I Am.
So when there is identification with a thought, by another thought, it appears as if there is a thinker, but this is a mistaken identity which appears to take on it's own separate life form separate from the thought ie: here there is a thought so I must be thinking that thought, when in truth there's just thought arising and falling in you the I Am that is not a thought or a thing. When no thoughts are present, the I Am of pure existence is totally self shining so the question would not even arise...only when thought is present does the question arise. So all that's happening is thought asking thought what thought is.

It's like asking electricity what it's like to be electricity, one isn't going to get an answer any time soon, or the answers may come all at once to the one question it will ever need to ask.

I will find some links tomorrow to back up and clarify what I'm trying to say here.

I go with Descartes.

PhilX

[Dontaskme]

If anything it's the original word that gives meaning to the opposite word. More than that, it seems you're using circular reasoning plus contradicting yourself.

PhilX

Yes, one appearing as the many is a contradiction. But to what self is it a contradiction when there is no self because there is no other than self which is an unavoidable contradiction ?

As for circular reasoning, can the circle of life get out of the circle it's in ?

Can a doughnut hole get out of the doughnut without taking the doughnut with it? the opposites are permanently stuck together, with each other, they are one.

[Dontaskme]

I go with Descartes.

PhilX

I go with the I Am aliveness here right now.


Let the dead bury the dead. Descartes is an idea. No Descartes ever lived. That which thinks doesn't live. That which lives doesn't think.


But he said, “Lord, let me first go and bury my father.” But he said to him, “Leave the dead to bury their own dead; but as for you, go and proclaim the kingdom of God.” ( Luke 9:59–60)

[Belinda]

At present I'm attracted to the fictional characters of Leda and Zeus according to the tale of the former's rape by the latter.

If any fictional characters more than others approach eternal life those are the characters whose stories portray large concepts regarding the human condition.

Sorry, I have no idea what you are talking about.

I will help you if you ask me to.

[Dontaskme]

Belinda wrote:



I will help you if you ask me to.

What are you talking about?

[Dontaskme]

Descartes, a great philosopher, did question his own existence (and concluded "I think, therefore I am").



I go with Descartes.

PhilX

Then please explain what Rene meant by the said statement...is he implying there is a thinker?

I've done my explaining, now do yours.

Please explain the two I's in the statement.. are they the same I ...or are they separately different, if different, explain the difference and why there is a difference ?

[Dontaskme]

And if you don't know or experience anything, then how do you learn or have any knowledge at all? Do you question your own existence?

People often ignore the hard questions in life, but I don't, so here goes...

You are the whole universe doing what it's doing right here an now. You have never been separated from the you that was the big bang. So everything must be you. Life seems to know what it is doing, and has always known, else it wouldn't be doing this human experience here as this body with every part working precisely in sync with every other part, amazingly! ..what made this body that is you, where did that ''you'' come from? did that you need an education to build a human?

Did the universe need an education, a prior knowledge to have become what it is doing right now? Can you see from this point of view that there is no one doing, experiencing, or knowing anything? And yet everything gets done, is experienced, and known. So the doer must be the same as the non-doer... concluding there is only one doer.

So who is this other you ...that you are talking about that needs to learn, have knowledge or experience anything? is that other you just a thought?

Do thoughts need to learn, have knowledge, and experience them selves, are thoughts a SELF? .... or is thought a fictional character imposed upon existence already living itself without any awareness or knowledge of it doing so?

[Belinda]

Belinda wrote:



I will help you if you ask me to.

What are you talking about?

This about your ability or otherwise to be inquisitive about ideas.

[Dontaskme]

Belinda wrote:



I will help you if you ask me to.

What are you talking about?

This about your ability or otherwise to be inquisitive about ideas.

Right brain thinking.