Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
Why don't they doubt it?
Someone doubts. Someone honestly gives up before determining what the ” I ” is, what it consists of and where its boundaries are, so that later it can be judged whether it exists or does not exist. Consciousness? The brain? The body? Connections with other people? What I consider my own? My footprint in the world? Is my name an erased hieroglyph?
Then comes practical expediency. If I don't exist, then what? If I exist, then I must do this and that. Thus, for everyday tasks, it is convenient to assume that I exist.
Buddhist atheists, beginning with the Buddha, who think critically and uncritically, believe that the Self is an illusion of the mind. There is no Self, there is a stream of dharmas (santara). Every moment of time, the flow changes and anyone, including me, is a slightly different person. But the human mind is designed in such a way that it supports the illusion of continuity, for example, this illusion is convenient for performing everyday tasks of a person, so it has become fixed in evolution. But it is enough to close your eyes, calm down and look into the essence of things, and the illusion will be dispelled.
And yet our own existence is given to us in direct perception, even if it is an illusion, the illusion is very dense, it is difficult to seriously doubt it, and perhaps many atheists do not do this. But most people go through a stage of solipsism-doubt about the existence of everything else but themselves. At first glance, these are opposite doubts, but in a sense they are the same thing. And the practical conclusions are the same.
To define something, we must separate it from the rest of the world, define the not-something. For light we need darkness, for sound-silence, for good-evil, for a chair-everything that is not a chair, etc. If there is no contrast/boundary, then there is no object, there is the whole world as it is, sometimes opposed to non-existence (which, as we know, does not exist). If the whole world is in my mind and nothing else exists, then there is no way to define this very Self. It turns out that I and the whole world are one and the same. And solipsism is the same denial of the existence of oneself as a separate object only from the other end.
Thus, doubting one's own existence is a common human entertainment. Not necessarily atheists, I think.
Critical atheists know that even Parmenides derived the formula “being is, non-being is not”, and Descartes finally proved the impossibility of logically consistently doubting one's existence.
And if there is me, then there is something that is beyond my control – and this is the world around me.
You might know this, too, if you spent your time educating yourself instead of trolling.
ATHEISTS are 100% right here for the main reason –
something that is very firmly proven and obvious PRACTICALLY no longer needs a weak logical justification –
for this reason, the question is poorly scientific and inadequate.
And why doubt what is not only an obvious fact, but on the basis of which all fundamental science is based?�
Atheism and moronism are NOT synonymous))�
Atheism is exactly the same faith. Only limited by itself and the possibilities of its own perception.�
Just for a moment. That's where atheists come from? Or believers?�
Both of them were born as people, and both of them studied in the same schools, universities, “cooked” and continue to “cook” in the same society.�
The information base is open one for everyone! �
But everyone draws information selectively, what is closer to him and is clear.�
Some people like to believe in God, (it's a pity that she is often blind and fanatical.))
Others, looking at believers and sometimes seeing the “illogicality and” inadequacy of their actions,”
They tend to believe in themselves, their intelligence, and their NORMALITY.�
that's the difference between atheists and believers.�
Both of them tend to make mistakes, argue to the point of funny hoarseness about the same thing, proving the same thing, only seen from different angles.�
And to top it all off, the highlight is a human trait to prove your case)) �it is your point of view (even if it is based on the general educational program, all sorts of quotes from never-seen thinkers and the media)�
This zest divides people into atheists, believers and just do not think about anything.
Why can't you prove it logically? It depends on the logic. If the logic is dialectical, based on a materialistic worldview, then it can be proved. In this case, the criterion of truth is practice. And practice constantly confirms the real existence of the real world, including all people.
At least one reasonable question about atheism.
Of course they doubt it. Atheism and solepsism do not contradict each other in any way.Here the question is not about “knowledge”, but about what to do with this “knowledge”?
Let's imagine that we are in a dream. In a very authentic dream, a vivid nightmare. And let's say that we find ourselves in a dangerous situation. Someone attacked or something. How will we behave? I don't know about you, but I will try to save myself and generally behave rationally, even in my sleep. What if it wasn't a dream?
Similarly, the situation is with the idea that everything around is unreal and it is an illusion. What if it doesn't? What then?
For the critical atheist, logic does not override common sense. And this is the main difference from a religious fanatic.
It is obvious to every thinking person in consciousness that he exists, otherwise who is thinking and aware? “Elementary logic, don't you think?” But the existence or non-existence of a god (gods, elves, fairies, etc.) is really impossible to prove logically.
Someone who doesn't exist can't think, feel, move, and so on.They can't even seem to exist (or whatever you imagine it to be), because there would be no one to appear to.
* wrote a few lines of the phrase “I think, therefore I exist”*
Because emptiness is impossible, which means something exists.
We are being run by a program that is not the most intelligent. The spiritual world does not exist, because emptiness is impossible, and therefore everything is matter.
I am an atheist, and I have worked out this question for myself.
Next, we will analyze two points.
1) I have come to the conclusion that I am not.
Namely, it can be reliably stated that there is a certain complex of sensations, objects, as they exist in perception, emotions, thoughts.
Paradoxical as it may seem, I am sure that in order to “think a thought”, “experience an experience”, one does not need “someone who experiences”. Here, for example, a message is sent to the air: it turns out that the radio wave carries information, and it does not matter at all whether there is a receiver that picked up this message or not
It's the same here. There is a set of brain states that add up to “virtual reality”. My “I” is just a “user illusion”
https://ru.qaz.wiki/wiki/User_illusion
Or the” phenomenal ego model, ” as Metzinger calls it. Or” the center of narrative gravity, ” as Dennett calls it.
The “I” is generated by:
subjective nature of “virtual reality” – perception is arranged “from the first person”, temporary perception-from the current moment;
illusions of free will, arbitrariness, separation in consciousness of “arbitrary” movements, speech and mental acts from forced, reflex, and from what is happening in the external world;
phenomenal body model: one's own body as a “thing among things”, another noema, but given not only in perception, but also interoceptively, proprioceptively.
There are special mechanisms in the brain that implement the “I”: https://ru.qaz.wiki/wiki/Neural_basis_of_self
I can't even say it's an illusion: there is no one who goes astray. There is also no one to whom perceptions, ideas are revealed, given, or from whom they originate…
2) However, I am convinced that the outside world exists:
1) my “virtual reality” is fragmented, but, nevertheless, I find patterns in it that I did not invent, which do not depend on my will and on whether I am correctly aware of them or not. From this we can conclude that what controls my “virtual reality” is hidden from my consciousness
2) it is impossible to simulate the external world: the problem of three or more bodies, for example, is fundamentally uncomputable. This means that no computer will be able to simulate our world with all its huge set of relationships, without failures.