Quote:
Originally Posted by Repugnant Abomination
Clearly to exist is to experience, but reduced and regressed as much as possible, we could theorize (for the sake of argument) that there is a being who is blind, mute and deaf, that doesn't need to eat or drink, and is suspended in mid-air. Like a disembodied consciousness I guess, with no frame of reference. Descartes came up with the line: "I think, therefore I am." Even filtered through human language I think this is compelling, because the above consciousness might not be able to articulate that thought without language, but it would still be self-aware. And that self-awareness is proof in and of itself that it exists, and it is purely within its own mind.
|
I've been contemplating this a lot, that is why I haven't replied yet. I actually started writing a short-science-fiction story about aforementioned hypothetical being last night (the example of which is very close to ancient Hindu scripture) at IHOP. I'll post it when I'm done -- or until I can't write any further.
As it stands right now, I suppose I would define myself as a Rationalist --- but with same as you, former hardcore Empiricist. I find that if one follows certain logical or intellectual rabbit-holes to their logical conclusions (or lack thereof), it seems we can arrive at knowledge of something "existing" that we have not personally experienced.