Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Thu Apr 27, 2023 8:21 am
I think the whole "human conditions" phrase is not ideal. I think it's sneaking weird confusions into the sentence.
Whenever I mentioned 'mind-independent' which is the modern norm, it triggered PH severely. PH had done this so MANY times. Note this;
I have to repeat the following each time, but it never go sunk into his head;
Thus I had to resort to 'human conditions' which in human nature, human body, human brain within an environment.
The moon exists independent of human awareness. Awareness is I think more specific than "conditions" - I don't know what "conditions" have to do with it anyway.
'Human conditions' [whatever it takes to be a human being] is more effective to convey the point that 'the moon pre-existed humans' and 'will exists if the human species is extinct'.
Surely you can agree with this?
If we say awareness instead of conditions, then we might be able to also say "I exist independent of my awareness", which amounts to a model of the world where, if I suddenly became UNAWARE of my own existence, somehow, I would still exist.
When I'm unconscious fully and not even dreaming, does that count as a moment where I'm unaware of my existence? If so, then I think realists would generally agree that they exist even when they're unaware of themselves.
Human conditions is still valid to deal with 'awareness'.
In this case within the human conditions, there is
1. the Empirical "I" - capable of being aware
2. the "I" independent of one's awareness, the unconscious self which is the permanent self.
Maybe some realists would argue that the thing that "I" refers to is the conscious part of "me", and so when they're unconscious and not dreaming, "I" doesn't necessarily "exist", but idk. Defining what "I" refers to exactly is part of the problem.
In any case, it seems to me like you've only created a paradox by using imprecise language, and the paradox will clear up when you go into more precision. The logic you're using seems to rest of layers of equivocation.
Actually it is you who created a paradox by using too precise language.
The paradox will clear up when you are less dogmatic with the use of language but focus on your own human conditions.
From the above, there exist 2 selves within the human conditions, i.e.
1. the Empirical "I" - capable of being aware
2. the "I" independent of one's awareness, the unconscious self which is the permanent self.
As such, as a Philosophical Realist, you believe there are two selves, i.e.
1. one empirical "I" capable of being aware and
2. another "I" that exists independent of the 'awareness" I.
The second self is the independent soul that exists even if there are no human conditions, but exists as a permanent soul that survives physical death [human conditions].
Thus, as a Philosophical Realist, i.e. things and humans exist independent of reality, you are caught with a belief in an independent self or "I" that is independent of your conscious "I".
On the other hand, all things and humans do not exist independent of reality, thus if the human is unconscious or dead there are no human-based FSK things.
I believe the above explanation is still grey, but if we continue to grind at it, you will get to understand [not necessary agree with] my point.
