Vibroverse

Moderator
 View profile  See their activity

  • Content count

    1,740

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Vibroverse

  2. Posted · Edited by Vibroverse

    14 hours ago, Breakingthewall said:

    It's okay to stop believing in the idea of God that is imposed on us from a young age. Now, if you are interested, you can research and read about spirituality until you know the subject in some depth. religions, non-duality, etc, and begin to get an idea of what god is supposed to be, and how some throughout history have come to realize god directly. and lastly, you might have the inclination to do that yourself. the inescapable need to see the truth, to understand what you are, to get to the bottom of reality. but that is not done to satisfy your family, it is done for oneself 

    If you are Muslim, you could start with ibn Arabi, a Sufi mistic, a man really deep and clever 

     

    Yep. And in addition to Ibn Arabi, you may also wanna study Rumi, Suhrawardi and Mulla Sadra, they are pretty, relatively, awakened beings. 

     

  10. Posted · Edited by Vibroverse

    2 hours ago, Ulax said:

    @Vibroverse I think I get you, and I agree from a certain point of view.

    However, I was talking about epistemology in a more intellectual sense.

    Well, I can say complicated intellectual things about that also, but won't it all come down to consciousness at the ultimate level? All the concepts will be known by your consciousness and justified, or not, at the ultimate level by your consciousness. Anyways though, yeah, there are many mind games to be played, I understand. 

     

  12. Posted

    2 minutes ago, Someone here said:

    This is a cycle version of the liar paradox. There is no easy way to answer it, something which has been known for over two thousand years. If the first statement is true, so is the second statement, so the first is false, which is a contradiction. If the first statement is false, so is the second statement, so the first is true, which is a contradiction.

    Its self contradiction . Therefore it's meaningless .

    "This statement is false", it is clear that there is actually no statement being said. The "This . . ." part of the text perhaps enables the text to reference itself, but assuming this self-reference, the ". . . statement . . . " part misascribed this text as being a statement. There is no description or claim about the world being made (even about this bit of text), and so the text does not qualify as being a statement. If, on the other hand, the text had read "This text is not a statement" (assuming once more successful self-reference), then the claim would be a linguistic one that is in fact true, and there is nothing paradoxical happening here. But "This statement is false" is not a statement, as has been shown.

    To be honest, you're just running away from the question, consciously or unconsciously, but maybe what you're doing is good, maybe I should do that also, haha. 

     

  13. Posted

    1 minute ago, Someone here said:

    This is a cycle version of the liar paradox. There is no easy way to answer it, something which has been known for over two thousand years. If the first statement is true, so is the second statement, so the first is false, which is a contradiction. If the first statement is false, so is the second statement, so the first is true, which is a contradiction.

    Its self contradiction . Therefore it's meaningless .

    "This statement is false", it is clear that there is actually no statement being said. The "This . . ." part of the text perhaps enables the text to reference itself, but assuming this self-reference, the ". . . statement . . . " part misascribed this text as being a statement. There is no description or claim about the world being made (even about this bit of text), and so the text does not qualify as being a statement. If, on the other hand, the text had read "This text is not a statement" (assuming once more successful self-reference), then the claim would be a linguistic one that is in fact true, and there is nothing paradoxical happening here. But "This statement is false" is not a statement, as has been shown.

    27 minutes ago, Someone here said:

    The statement is incoherent. That is, it uses language and syntax as if it meant something, but it does not mean anything, it does not refer to anything, it makes no truth claims.

  14. Posted · Edited by Vibroverse

    18 minutes ago, Someone here said:

    The statement is incoherent. That is, it uses language and syntax as if it meant something, but it does not mean anything, it does not refer to anything, it makes no truth claims.

    Why? It is a perfectly valid statement, it very well refers to something and makes a truth claim. Don't jump to the conclusions many other thinkers have come to to run away from this problem, creating patches to run away from this question. Because, then, it is like creating and using calculus and limits to run away the paradoxes of Zeno, while, in fact, it is the very idea of the infinitesimal that Zeno was criticizing. Likewise, the liar paradox itself is designed to criticize and question your very solutions to it.