Posts by amberpilot

So, brightraven27 broke it down

The N. Overman is about rising above the mere service of individual will. It’s Beg emerging from Nietzsche's eternal recurrence.

"Imagine one day or night, a demon creeps into your deepest solitude and says to you: 'The life you are living now and the life you have lived, you will have to live it all over again, an infinite number of times, and there will be nothing new in it. Every pain, every pleasure, every thought and sigh—every tiny and massive detail of your life will return to you in the exact same order and consequence. Even this spider and this moonlight among the
trees, even this moment and even me. The eternal hourglass of existence will turn once more, and you along with it, a single grain of dust among dust!' Would you not throw yourself down, gnashing your teeth and cursing the demon who spoke this?"

Jonathan Brooks8 said:Alright, my intention was simply to suggest that you encompass all of it. That you might be twenty-nine years old—ever-shifting—yet simultaneously possess the age of humanity itself, fluctuating just as much as mankind does; that you hold the age of the Earth, being as dynamic as the planet, or even as ancient as the universe, yet remaining just as volatile... and so on, implying that you are, at once, both timeless and immutable.

But, of course, all these layers comprising your "self" are merely an imprint—the result of your experience, the very experience of change. Tell me, do you actually grasp the relationship between that imprint and the essential, unchanging "I"?

I don't have experience of my essential SELF, nor is such a thing even possible. If it could be empirically experienced and easily understood by everyone, I wouldn't be mentioning this "I" here in at least 50 different posts. When people say "I," they immediately think of their physical body, which creates this illusion that matter is the foundation of spirituality. No... I'm not talking about the "I" that others imagine; I'm sticking to intuition while everyone else translates it symbolically. It's simple: as long as we're alive, we're conditioned to take everything we encounter, imagine, or feel and turn it into an object, just to make the unimaginable feel more accessible. Just like you can't truly visualize love, you can't visualize your own inner essence. You try to picture love as a woman or a heart, but true love is something completely different—something with a transcendent source beyond our ability to know, something that never actually appears before us. As my colleague would say, love isn't from this world, and he's absolutely right because we deal with the objectification of love, whereas actual love is something entirely different, something incomprehensible to us.

So, amberpilot is a derived category. The spirit is what produces that projection; it changes and eventually dies, but the spirit remains a spirit regardless of whether something essential, dualistic, or something else entirely awaits us afterward... you never know.

The "I" you find in self-awareness (being aware of yourself) is merely the intuition of the true "I" I'm talking about, and they aren't the same thing. That self-aware "I" is derived from the true "I," and you reach the true "I" through intuition........ it's hard to explain these things with words because you inevitably have to rely on auxiliary terms pulled from past experience............. and saying I'm 29 would be an understatement. 😁

Jonathan Brooks8 said:If you don't have an age—if it’s "absolutely" true that you lack one—then why on earth did you tell me you were 23? And if you're truly immutable, why get so defensive when I ask?
Besides, why are you giving me these vague, sweeping answers instead of just being direct?

Look, as a being derived from spirit, I am human—which means I change. But my core essence stays the same. Of course, that essence isn't something you can analyze while I'm still alive and possessing this level of consciousness.

The "me" that exists is unchanging.
The "me" known as amberpilot is just a projection of that being, constantly shifting.

First, there is the metaphysical "me"—spiritual, beyond reach.
Second, there is the symbolic "me"—the derivative, secondary version.

brightdrifter18 said:amberpilot, I spent two hours grinding out a massive post for you today. Two whole hours. Then, my computer completely glitched out on me and failed to copy the text—even though I always try to be careful and save my work like that. To make matters worse, I got locked out of my account because of that one-hour waiting period they have after you first register. So now I’m just stuck. There is absolutely no way to recover what I wrote. It’s a total disaster. Anyway, I'll try to put together a much shorter version of what I was trying to say.

You hit the nail on the head regarding ontological identity being an undeniable fact, whether people like it or not. There is one specific point where you and Plato align, though I find myself stepping away from your conclusion: the idea that our ontological identity exists prior to birth and persists after death—essentially returning to some primal home. To me, that sounds like nothing more than a reincarnation theory. Neither you nor Plato actually provides an answer as to why the soul enters the realm of space-time in the first place.

Actually, Plato gets even closer to Buddhist or Hindu concepts when he argues that the soul enters the material realm as a sort of punishment—think of it like karma. In his view, the soul belongs to the world of Ideas, which represents the eternal, unchanging essence of everything. So, if the soul is part of that permanent, immutable reality, how exactly does it cause its own degradation into matter?

There isn’t a coherent or intelligent answer to that question. You’re making the same mistake Plato did by claiming that God strives toward imperfection while humans strive toward perfection. That just doesn't hold up. God is absolute perfection and fullness in every possible sense. Because the Absolute contains no deprivation, there is no possibility of "striving" for anything. Striving is an anthropomorphic concept, pure and simple. It shouldn't be applied to God, not even as a metaphor. Out of pure love, God chooses to create contingent beings like us. He brings us into the mystery of eternal existence—a state where we haven't always existed. If we had always existed, we would possess an attribute that belongs exclusively to God. That's why the correct answer to my previous question remains: eternity and immortality are not synonyms, and they never can be.

Here’s the thing. The Buddhist and Hindu principle of Samadhi—or Brahma—isn't actually accurate if you look at it through a substantial lens. If that concept were truly correct, we’d run into a massive logical wall. On one hand, anyone claiming ontological identity is beyond question would be right, but on the other, anyone teaching the reality of "substantial Samadhi" has to deal with a glaring error. It’s simply impossible to merge your own ontological identity with God while simultaneously holding onto that identity. That's the core flaw in the impersonalist philosophies found in Hinduism and Buddhism, isn't it?

If the soul is truly immortal, it means we get to participate in the bliss of being near God through a direct "vision of God"—much like the biblical concept—rather than just dissolving into some impersonal cosmic soup like you see in Buddhist or Hindu traditions. It’s a distinction worth making. I remember reading this a long time ago, maybe in the *Timaeus* or one of his other letters, though the specifics are a bit fuzzy now. But the core idea remains: Plato can claim that Dionysius was an impostor because the truth about metaphysics cannot be expressed in writing and all those who know that truth know this. He laid out a systematic argument that philosophy can undeniably prove God exists. However, he also pointed out that because our minds are so limited, there are certain truths we simply can't grasp on our own. We need divine revelation to bridge that gap. To truly understand the deeper mysteries, we require a connection to the Divine.

Since angels are also created beings, the concept of time must apply to them as well. They aren't absolute beings in any temporal sense. The same goes for space; they aren't omnipresent, which remains an attribute reserved exclusively for God. Just because angels exist outside our material spacetime continuum doesn't mean we can imagine them as eternal beings.

Alright, I’m signing off for now before my computer decides to send everything straight into the void.

As for hell, let's save that discussion for the next post. For now, I just want to offer a warning. Just because people find it so incredibly difficult to face the weight of their own responsibility as free beings doesn't mean that responsibility isn't real. If responsibility exists, then there has to be a crossroads somewhere—a point where paths diverge, forcing one direction over another.

The purpose of life simply cannot be some endless, pointless cycle of repetition—whether you look at it through the lens of personalist Eastern traditions or the more impersonal paths found in Buddhism. That idea is such a wild, nonsensical premise. It honestly feels just as absurd as atheistic nihilism, just positioned on the opposite side of the philosophical spectrum.

If there isn't a deeper purpose, then life becomes something incredibly serious, and we ought to treat it as such. Otherwise, do you really think Christ was a fool when He chose to walk the path to Calvary and endure that agony? A human being is a responsible entity. Life isn't some playground for gods on Mount Olympus, playing around with us like we’re just glitchy avatars in some poorly programmed video game.

Bottom line: philosophy is immensely valuable, and you are a true philosopher. I don't think there's much higher praise than what I've just given you. Still, philosophy has its limits. Plato can claim that Dionysius was an impostor because the truth about metaphysics cannot be expressed in writing and all those who know that truth know this. There are divine truths that must be revealed to us if we want to grasp the specific details that trip us up—details we clearly can't reach solely through our own strength. Imagination is fine, but philosophy isn't mere daydreaming. As a real philosopher, you realize that, don't you?

I didn't want to overcomplicate things with a massive wall of text right now; I wanted to find the core point where our views diverge, so I'll just ask three questions.
Let's try to untangle this logical error.

But before that, I have to note this:

"The Absolute itself possesses no deprivation that would imply any possibility of striving toward anything."

"God, out of His pure love, desires to create the contingent being of man."

I'm not saying it's a mistake, I just want you to think about it.

Now, I'll have to simplify this a bit, but there's no other way.

Here are my questions.

It's more of a request, really. Could you clarify this part about "our ontological identity before birth," specifically focusing on the "our"?

Does God know in advance what we will do, even while we don't have a clue ourselves? Or is it that what hasn't happened yet isn't part of the "existence" that encompasses the Absolute?
Is it possible that the "future" simply isn't within the realm of existence at all, and only becomes "existence" once it actually occurs? Furthermore, if a person's life is written in the Absolute and "predetermined" from the perspective of the Absolute, doesn't that necessarily prove life is meaningless and just confirm a pure determinism over which we have no control?

And finally, let's take a hypothetical situation. Suppose I am a good person—based on my knowledge of right and wrong, maybe even the best, hypothetically speaking, not literally. Now, I witness someone doing something evil—stealing, killing, raping—and because I judge correctly, I have a perfect understanding of what those actions are. When I see that person committing one of these acts, does that deed become a part of me? In other words, do I now hold a clear event within myself? In a way, I experience what that person is doing. Does all of this change the identity I possess? Is the entire event inside me or outside of me? You'll admit the information regarding that event is inside me, but also inside me is the part of me that would never desire such an event. Are both that event and my identity as an individual who distinguishes good from evil simultaneously part of my being, so to speak? Pay attention to the word *information*.

Also, I'd highlight this: "Actually, Plato moves even closer to the Buddhist-Hindu concept here by claiming the soul enters matter 'as a punishment' (karma)."

What do you think was the first thing that popped into my head when I read that, specifically the phrase "as a punishment"? The first thing I thought of was hell. I can't wait for you to write about heaven and hell; I'm really curious to see how you'll handle it.

And I have no idea where you got the notion that I view Jesus as anything less than what I've said. In fact, I believe He is the realization of the Divine Logos—essentially a distinct thought, stemming from both the reasons you mentioned and the ones you didn't...

Edit: Another question just popped into my head. As you know, the goal for Buddhists is reaching Nirvana, a "state" where a person is freed from all opposites. Do you think that concept carries a deeper meaning, perhaps representing something beyond our comprehension? If the conclusion that salvation means reaching Nirvana is wrong—which I agree with you on—don't you think such a "state" might still exist and hold a deeper significance, regardless of whether it's considered a life goal?

@brightdrifter18 I didn't just make up the concept of the Absolute, nor am I the only one arguing that humans are essentially "fragmented" beings. If you're going to be that agnostic, what do you have to say about a serious philosopher like Spinoza? God is identical to nature. But what exactly is God? What is nature? How are we even supposed to define nature?

God-unknown x
nature-unknown x

unknown x is the same thing as unknown x.🤔

brightdrifter18 I won't address everything right now, but I don't think you caught my drift when I said God leans toward imperfection. What I meant is that God craves variety—He wants every person to find their own unique path. That diversity is the beauty of creation that we build ourselves. In doing so, we tap into the capacity of perfection, because we can't invent anything that isn't already "in" the Absolute. Spirit is one; we only divide it mathematically by splitting it up through our experiences in the material world. Once something is separated, it's no longer perfect, but it’s specifically set apart so that it might strive toward perfection. That's why I said God and man create the balance of existence. A "locked and unlocked idea." God wants to avoid stasis; He wants change, movement, will, creation, action... and He achieves that through us. Spirit itself is a static being, which is why personality development happens through infinite phases—one of which is matter, and we know matter is fleeting. That human feeling that you can always improve, that you haven't hit the peak yet, that there's always a better way, that you need to analyze, the masculine seeking the feminine, and the rest of it... that's what I called the human striving for perfection. But the point is it's just a human perspective, because the Absolute is, as the word itself implies, Absolute—all-encompassing.
What would God create out of if not the being that already exists? It's not literally reincarnation—that's why I used quotes—nor is it gods reincarnating. God as the Absolute can't be some separate, distant entity; everything that happens must happen through providence and being. Spirit is always one, or even beyond that, since spirit transcends numbers and categories like that. Remember the Holy Trinity.
And yeah, you're right that the Absolute can't lean toward things the way we imagine it, but that's just a flaw in language. It's like saying an idea is "in" the mind, which automatically implies space, even though space has nothing to do with it. That's why I emphasized "man," or how when we say "in life," we're really just describing a person moving through stages—we're actually just describing matter and its causal chain, without even touching the essence of life.

brightdrifter18 said:@ amberpilot, you write incredible posts!

I have a question for you: How do you interpret the concept of human "ontological identity"? Buddhists don't really buy into ontological identity. In their view, there is rebirth, but there isn't a "self" that undergoes it. Humans, animals, and plants are just mediums through which this cycle flows. There's no claim that humans are somehow more valuable or elevated than a plant or an animal in that sense.

The goal of Buddhism is to reach samadhi, which means escaping the illusion of the "self." The "I" is a trick, the world is an illusion—"maya"—and truth is just eternal rebirth. The ultimate aim is to break free from that cycle entirely. But I feel like Buddhists are missing something. They don't explain what the purpose of eternal rebirth actually is if that process lacks any ontological identity. If there is no personal nature, what is moving?

That’s why I see Buddhism more as a meditative technique rather than a religion. It doesn't account for a personal concept of consciousness, and to me, splitting consciousness away from personality is a fundamental mistake. When you dichotomize consciousness and personality like that, you end up with nothing.

Now, why did I start with all this Buddhist talk? Because when you suggest that nothing truly begins or ends with human birth, you’re likely referring to the Absolute, and you're probably right. But here is the real question:

Can we say that our immortal soul, once it breaks free from the shackles of time and space after death, will truly "become" part of eternity again—returning to its "homeland" as Plato (in his own "Buddhist" way) might imagine? Or will it exist in a sort of "linear" eternity—immortal, yet perhaps not eternal since it wasn't uncreated—forever praising God and thanking Him for the fact that He created us? This implies a beginning, even though the whole concept of "beginning-middle-end" shouldn't apply outside the context of time and space, right?

Angels were also created, yet they aren't bound by time and space, are they?

Are you a Platonist in this regard? Or do you admit you don't have a definitive answer on whether human consciousness—the soul—can be immortal without being eternal? Do you accept the possibility that something can be eternal only in one direction (toward the future)? Or do you think that being immortal (eternal toward the future) inherently changes the nature of eternity once we limit it to a single direction?

God leans toward maximum imperfection, while humans strive for maximum perfection. I'm not sure if this resonates with you. 🤷 To me, that is the balance of existence—two sides of the same coin, a continuous movement, and I don't mean physical motion, but a deeper existential significance. If we return to the source upon death, only to find ourselves locked back in, we'll run right back into the same Will that sent us here in the first place. It's pointless; we didn't think through that Will very well. Humans have infinite potential for improvement, but that doesn't have to happen through matter alone. Matter is just a phase. The point is that the Absolute cannot exhaust all possibilities within what is "separated," because infinity isn't just about the number of souls, but the infinite possibilities of a "single" being. Returning home means merging with God (Brahma) and becoming God, but God doesn't necessarily love His homeland. Personally, I see nothingness and being as a kind of hell (not literally) that we fled from—metaphorically speaking, God fled. That's why we are here. Self-improvement doesn't have to be tied to time or a specific direction. You know how in a dream there is no flow of time, yet you still experience events. Regarding self-improvement, we can only say it is an upgrade of essence; it is still "derived." No one can know for sure what lies after death, even if we know with certainty that *something* is there. For me, "maya" is a positive illusion because being itself is trapped, and in that sense, being is inherently flawed. I'd argue that "illusion" is actually the desire to be the Absolute, though we don't see it from this perspective. Perfection guides imperfection, where the meaning lies in imperfection because it is dynamic—it is what changes. That’s why understanding "being" matters, so we can catch glimpses of these things. In reality, we never actually left home. Home is the "ground" we move upon. Being itself. There is no essence without action, and no action without essence. Those are the principles of existence. It's hard to wrap your head around, but let me try to explain it visually. Imagine two parallel shores. The same objects are on both sides, but the difference is that one set stays still while the other is constantly moving. Together, they form one existence. We are all more or less tied to these bodies and this earthly life, yet we know matter is just one stage that creation draws from. We can never exhaust everything contained within the Logos; that path is eternal. We can't imagine it any other way than as a line. Every birth is a form of "reincarnation." What else is a human if not an "imperfect God"—one who is always learning and always "to be," a perpetual process. If we lived on Earth eternally, how could someone fix themselves if they had already cemented their prejudices or were born with a disability? They would suffer for eternity and never unlock what the original intent of the Will was. We can't equate suffering with evil. Change is everywhere, in everything. The same goes for acquiring spiritual values through infinite ways. It's true that our souls are trapped in matter, but merging with the Absolute would be simultaneously absolute freedom and absolute imprisonment (it would become nothingness). When people hear "illusion," they immediately think of something bad, but illusion is exactly what unlocks ideas from transcendence.
Ethics and aesthetics stem from our very being; there’s really no debating the existence of ontological identity, whether people like it or not. As you pointed out, I’m approaching this through the lens of substance, because that's the only thing capable of explaining space and time. Everything else is just an illusion designed to let a "human" function normally within the phenomenal world—and I don't see any issue with that. It isn't a problem if it's all an illusion; the problem is that people have such a warped understanding of what an illusion actually is. They come in here claiming they've found "reality," yet they don't even grasp the things they think they're talking about...

brightdrifter18 everything is eternal! Just look at music. We will never reach a point where we've exhausted every possible way to create it; there will always be a new song waiting to be written that sounds nothing like anything before it.

brightdrifter18 said:@ amberpilot, you write incredible posts!

I have a question for you: How do you interpret the concept of human "ontological identity"? Buddhists don't really buy into ontological identity. In their view, there is rebirth, but there isn't a "self" that undergoes it. Humans, animals, and plants are just mediums through which this cycle flows. There's no claim that humans are somehow more valuable or elevated than a plant or an animal in that sense.

The goal of Buddhism is to reach samadhi, which means escaping the illusion of the "self." The "I" is a trick, the world is an illusion—"maya"—and truth is just eternal rebirth. The ultimate aim is to break free from that cycle entirely. But I feel like Buddhists are missing something. They don't explain what the purpose of eternal rebirth actually is if that process lacks any ontological identity. If there is no personal nature, what is moving?

That’s why I see Buddhism more as a meditative technique rather than a religion. It doesn't account for a personal concept of consciousness, and to me, splitting consciousness away from personality is a fundamental mistake. When you dichotomize consciousness and personality like that, you end up with nothing.

Now, why did I start with all this Buddhist talk? Because when you suggest that nothing truly begins or ends with human birth, you’re likely referring to the Absolute, and you're probably right. But here is the real question:

Can we say that our immortal soul, once it breaks free from the shackles of time and space after death, will truly "become" part of eternity again—returning to its "homeland" as Plato (in his own "Buddhist" way) might imagine? Or will it exist in a sort of "linear" eternity—immortal, yet perhaps not eternal since it wasn't uncreated—forever praising God and thanking Him for the fact that He created us? This implies a beginning, even though the whole concept of "beginning-middle-end" shouldn't apply outside the context of time and space, right?

Angels were also created, yet they aren't bound by time and space, are they?

Are you a Platonist in this regard? Or do you admit you don't have a definitive answer on whether human consciousness—the soul—can be immortal without being eternal? Do you accept the possibility that something can be eternal only in one direction (toward the future)? Or do you think that being immortal (eternal toward the future) inherently changes the nature of eternity once we limit it to a single direction?

Bravo! Great questions. Let me throw in one of the most important ones in the history of human thought...

You brought up mysticism. First, I have to clarify the difference between philosophy and mysticism. Mystics are people who experience the transcendent in their own unique way—if you can even call it that. When they try to pass that experience on to us, it usually boils down to symbols just to make it understandable. That means it stays incomplete; the mystery remains closed to anyone who hasn't lived it. This isn't schizophrenia or some fabrication, which is how most atheists like to paint it... though of course, that doesn't mean there aren't scammers out there. It’s the reality of our spirit, but everyone views that spirit differently, which explains why there are so many religions all talking about the same thing. Philosophers, on the other hand, don't rely on experiences. They use logic to explain how we reach the transcendent, pushing right up to the limits of the mind. They use step-by-step methods where every conclusion needs a rational justification. Sometimes, a philosopher ends up reaching a conclusion that actually provides a clearer picture than what the mystic was trying to convey. Of course, nobody knows everything. But as long as scientists insist they are only dealing with phenomena, and certain believers insist that God is literally a man in the clouds (believe me, they exist), there will always be these camps of atheists and theists fighting. Usually, neither side is entirely right... or both are only partially right. Some people want to play "philosopher" without being willing to shed their prejudices. You can't do that. You have to fight for the truth. You mentioned Buddhism. I’ve written before that Eastern intuition is often easier to explain through philosophy, because Christianity requires much deeper insights... specifically regarding the question of the individual. Take Christianity versus Buddhism or Hinduism. On one side, we have a distinct entity we call a persona; on the other, a formless cosmic energy. Is it the same thing? Is one correct? Or maybe both are lies? That’s the question. If I had to give my take, I’d say each side lacks what the other possesses. Holy texts like the Torah, the Quran, and the Bible emphasize the relationship between God and man; they don't really dwell on the fundamental nature of being itself, which is why I find the philosophical approach more compelling. In those texts, God is presented somewhat like a human. Eastern religions are the opposite—they sense the substantial foundation much better and are closer to actual "states" of being, while the concept of a persona is nowhere to be found. That's why I told Sigmund that if we look at the Absolute this way, we haven't destroyed theism. What kind of "dark psychology" is in a person that makes them conclude the truth lies halfway between two extremes only in philosophy, but never in practice?🙄

Regarding Plato, the truth is I’ve been thinking along those same lines since I was a kid. Looking back, I realized I had intuited a lot of what he eventually said, though that doesn't make me a Platonist or mean I agree with everything he wrote. When it comes to Angels, the word "creation" is actually quite helpful, like I've mentioned before, because they are still symbols we have to visualize in human form. It's hard to define what an angel really is—a thought, a being from another dimension, or some kind of fused transcendent essence (it's close, but there are nuances). We can only speculate; the only thing we can truly know is what they aren't. As spiritual beings, they don't exist within space-time or anything tied to "matter."
Buddhist meditation is about turning inward, which is something I've discussed here quite a bit. That's why I usually say Buddha revealed our true self (our spiritual substance), while Jesus revealed the Logos (the meaning behind that spiritual substance). All of this boils down to one single question: Why did the will become objective? Every mystery is hidden within that one question. Optimism or pessimism? Leibniz argued this is the best of all possible worlds, while Schopenhauer claimed it's the worst. My take? This is the best possible world in terms of purpose, but humanity has made it the worst possible world. Personally, I think we should take the thoughtfulness from pessimism and the patience from optimism, then try to balance them depending on the situation... which isn't nearly as easy as it sounds.
I don't believe life is such a hell or that being born is a true tragedy. Quite the opposite. I see it all as unlocking nothingness, where everyone gets a chance. It's better to be "bad" with the possibility of becoming good than to be nothingness with no chance to be anything at all. That's why I found my explanation for evil in nothingness.

Jonathan Brooks8 said:No, of course—it wasn’t your age I was questioning, but rather how you chose to respond. My apologies if my approach felt a bit too blunt... But you answered with "you"—as a mode of existence. And that isn't some timeless, spaceless abstraction (to borrow your critique from earlier), but rather something with a very distinct beginning and end in both time and space. You could have responded differently—which would have been just as truthful and sincere, I suppose—but it would have pointed toward an entirely different level of consciousness...

When you look at the word "that one"—it’s more than just a pointer—it implies a specific gendered identity anchored within a particular slice of time and space. So, when you say, "that one who I am," you aren't just talking; you're actually bridging several different layers of consciousness and existence...

When a being becomes conscious, meaning it's aware of its own existence, it says "I exist" or "I am the one who I am." When that's said, it can't imagine anything besides its own body, which is just the objectification of that essential SELF. Yet, that essential SELF was never created and will never vanish. Space and time only exist when there is consciousness. By being born, the self gains the ability to change states while the SELF remains constant; then we have the conscious, unconscious, subconscious, and superconscious, with all their shifts and combinations. In the "state of death" or the "state before birth," none of that exists, but there must always be some state because there is always the ONE who wasn't born, the ONE who lives, and the ONE who has died. This "ONE" is always universal, regardless of our individual existence. It isn't based on consciousness, or the brain, or anything like that—it's the SPIRIT, and that represents the intuitive SELF that people just aren't aware of. When they say "I," they think of the body or the personality, but the true SELF is the essence. The "I" we usually think about is the one we ourselves "introduced" into the framework of time and space. It's a derivative, merged with the forms of perception and reason. A human being is a derived being from the spirit, a being of change.

Jonathan Brooks8 said:amberpilot, how old are you exactly?

23... why? You're still young. You'll figure some things out as time goes by...🙄

Jonathan Brooks8 said:My intention here is simply to open up the question—to point out that we often use phrases that imply everything is understood and settled when, in reality, it isn't. We tend to settle for any convenient answer, which doesn't necessarily mean we lack intelligence; it just means we fail to see the vast landscape opening up before us.

For instance, I could open up an entire spectrum of existence right now—when I say "I exist," I am actually referring to several different layers. For example, "I am" or "I think, therefore I am" ties existence to consciousness, yet we also exist through our subconscious. And who else exists through me, considering my subconscious contains both collective memory and the collective unconscious?

Furthermore, there is the matter of collective consciousness, which in turn shapes my own existence—my being is manifested through the consciousness of others, specifically yours, in this very moment. We are talking about various dimensions of being, and it is impossible to truly grasp what existence is if we don't examine all these different levels...

Existence simply is. It doesn't have an opposite like non-existence. There is no opposition. Existence just is. What's the issue? If you're already thinking in terms of the "I," then that is the substance of the entire manifest world. The "I" isn't part of some causal chain, nor is it tied to space or time. It is eternal, static, and unchanging. Now, you're trying to explain this "I" by attaching qualities to it taken from the world of objects. There are no multiples here, no such categories... it's purely metaphysical. The "I" exists outside of cause and effect.

Jonathan Brooks8 said:The problem with using "who" in this context is that it acts as a heavy assumption—it predetermines far more than we actually comprehend. And frankly, even the definition of what it means to "be"... that remains entirely elusive...

It isn't an assumption. It’s a fact—the only thing you can be 100% certain exists. It is the prerequisite for any existence we find within consciousness. "That One" belongs to the realm of intuition, not empirical knowledge. We aren't talking about objects we can just visualize and assign traits to.
You can't doubt the one who is doing the doubting. Therefore, it can't be an assumption.

brighteagle26 said:I think the philosopher you're looking for was basically just arguing that he himself didn't exist, rather than claiming everyone else was a figment of his imagination or some other thing like that.

The Philosopher doesn't exist.

Philosopher = concept, person, word = something, not nothing, which means existence.
"Doesn't exist" = exists. Incorrect.
"Doesn't exist" = doesn't exist. Correct.

1. Philosopher = existence
2. Doesn't exist = doesn't exist.

Existence cannot be equal to non-existence, therefore the philosopher exists. The second point is just useless filler because non-existence isn't a thing.

..............can lock this😁

Kenneth Sullivan2 said:Language, Truth, and Logic
Alfred Jules Ayer criticized Descartes' Cogito... though I wouldn't say he proves I don't exist, since he isn't really proving *what* I am, right? Just the things that are thinking...
The flaw lies in the fact that the argument doesn't even align with a standard skeptical approach...
Instead, he suggests that rather than saying I think, we should say there are thoughts, because perhaps thoughts can exist independently of a thinker.
The error is in the very structure of our language—the way I could be functionally identical to it, where that "it" carries no actual meaning, much like I think / it is raining.
🤷

But that thinking thing is enough to prove existence, there's no other way. The "I" is a metaphysical entity and you can't attribute anything else to it besides what it is, which is me. Within that "I," there isn't a plurality; rather, plurality arises from that "I."
Thinking requires a thinker, so you can't just skip over the foundation of the "I."
It’s like if I started counting 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7.......
"I think" = a thought. It won't work because a thought is derived by itself; as such, it's projected, so it must have a source in something that isn't a thought. "Thoughts exist" isn't enough because a thought is triggered by something rather than nothing, whereas the "I" is the foundation from which everything originates—a foundation that isn't part of causality itself.
Therefore, the "I" isn't "nothing," but rather "I" signifies a spiritual substance; we grasp it through intuition. The word "it" is uselessly inserted here. It's not the linguistic structure that guides us, but our sequence of thoughts. The "I" isn't an object, but something we reach via intuition. No one ever actually "imagined" the "I."

Jonathan Brooks8 said:Since there isn't one single, definitive answer to the question "who am I?", the very nature of our existence—or whether we even truly *exist* at all—hinges entirely on how one chooses to answer that query.

Take mereological nihilism, for instance—a rather extreme flavor of atomism... it essentially denies the reality of anything that can be broken down into more fundamental components. Under this view, "I" don't actually exist; there are merely the most basic subatomic particles that happen to make up my structure.

Then there is eliminativism, which suggests that things like consciousness, beliefs, and desires should be stripped away from any serious discussion of existence—viewing them as nothing more than mental constructs we use to obscure the blunt fact that everything is just purely physical processes occurring within the brain.

Or, we could look at existential monism, which posits that there is only one indivisible, absolute reality... implying that anything more granular or elementary than that single entity simply does not exist.

The answer is simply: I am who I am.🙂

Amanda Jackson5 said:It’s actually a pretty broad claim—even if they rarely say it out loud—that you see popping up among radical skeptics and positivists. Their whole deal is arguing that since they can't make genuine decisions, they aren't held morally accountable for anything, mostly because they believe everything is predetermined. When you tack on their other favorite talking point—that consciousness is just some kind of illusion—you end up at the logical conclusion that you don't even exist.

As a being, you don't change; rather, everything derived from that being changes. Feelings, ideas, desires, values... they all shift. But I was always me—whether I was good, bad, thin, heavy, patient, or impatient... "time" is just a category we derive. Since all those things fluctuate within your consciousness, there has to be a witness to it all. Your perception of the world is constantly shifting, so I don't see why that shouldn't be called an illusion. What exists in your mind is reality to you, yet a moment later, that reality is gone. To judge whether something is real or an illusion, you need someone there to make the judgment. Saying "I don't exist" is just an absurd claim.

You’re going to have a hard time squeezing discrimination into the category of a "core philosophical concept."
It might overlap with ethics here and there, but honestly, the term carries much more weight in legal studies.