First: I started my philosophy course last week. Assignment for next week is simply to discuss who we are verbally. I decided to write a mini essay. I have no philosophical education or knowledge so this is merely an exercise in my own writing style / for fun.
Second: Anyone who knows me knows that I like to write and sometimes, when I get an urge to write, be it erotic random or whatever, I'll write, so ya.
Asking “Who Am I?” can not be answered until you first look at the question, “What is I?”
I is a letter as the world sees it, set in a sequence from A to Z. It is a number to the Romans. Nonsense shout the scientists, I is a non-metallic element belonging to the halogens. I is everything and yet nothing; a sobriquet for illusions. It is a representation of an image, its precise definition dependent upon the particular mode of extension. Look at it:
(Here was an image of I's rotated in different angles looking cool. I don't have microsoft word or anything on my home computer [I'm lazy] so just imagine it or something)
Reach out and touch it. Try to grasp it in your hand, you can’t. Your hand merely grasps paper. The I is moulded on the paper yet it is not there, it is merely formed in your mind that what is seen is what is there. I exists in a realm within the paper.
The existence of the paper is another point entirely, but for this instance lets say the paper exists in a realm of physicality that can be explained . Does now the I exist as it has been theoretically “set in stone”? Can existence be circumvented through negation of probability, that is, if you stated “The I is on the paper, the paper is physical, I must therefore be physical,” then can you accept that there is no other probable answer?
Unfortunately that takes too much on belief, belief in knowing what the paper is, what the I could be, what is acceptable when the two join together. Belief can be shattered if I were to be printed on a concrete wall, a sheet of glass, where do you draw the line at what is physical and what I can be a part of?
You could draw I in your mind and the above statement would read “I is in my mind, my mind is physical, I must therefore be physical,” which could be argued as false as your mind has no known definitive physical shape, form, or mass.
Getting back to the question at hand, Who Am I?, well to you I may be a dreamer, a philanthropist of thoughts, perhaps a figment of your imagination (after all you cannot see me right now can you), I can be everything and nothing all the same even when not doing a thing. I am a representation of an image, dependent on the mode of extension, the thought of the particular person reading this.
I am the I and the world is my paper. Existence within an existence of a realm unknown. Created and cajoled by some visionary artist with a knack for the detail.
Was unsure to stick this in here or in critical thinking for discussion. Stick it wherever you feel best Mal / Dev.
Second: Anyone who knows me knows that I like to write and sometimes, when I get an urge to write, be it erotic random or whatever, I'll write, so ya.
Who Am I?
Asking “Who Am I?” can not be answered until you first look at the question, “What is I?”
I is a letter as the world sees it, set in a sequence from A to Z. It is a number to the Romans. Nonsense shout the scientists, I is a non-metallic element belonging to the halogens. I is everything and yet nothing; a sobriquet for illusions. It is a representation of an image, its precise definition dependent upon the particular mode of extension. Look at it:
(Here was an image of I's rotated in different angles looking cool. I don't have microsoft word or anything on my home computer [I'm lazy] so just imagine it or something)
Reach out and touch it. Try to grasp it in your hand, you can’t. Your hand merely grasps paper. The I is moulded on the paper yet it is not there, it is merely formed in your mind that what is seen is what is there. I exists in a realm within the paper.
The existence of the paper is another point entirely, but for this instance lets say the paper exists in a realm of physicality that can be explained . Does now the I exist as it has been theoretically “set in stone”? Can existence be circumvented through negation of probability, that is, if you stated “The I is on the paper, the paper is physical, I must therefore be physical,” then can you accept that there is no other probable answer?
Unfortunately that takes too much on belief, belief in knowing what the paper is, what the I could be, what is acceptable when the two join together. Belief can be shattered if I were to be printed on a concrete wall, a sheet of glass, where do you draw the line at what is physical and what I can be a part of?
You could draw I in your mind and the above statement would read “I is in my mind, my mind is physical, I must therefore be physical,” which could be argued as false as your mind has no known definitive physical shape, form, or mass.
Getting back to the question at hand, Who Am I?, well to you I may be a dreamer, a philanthropist of thoughts, perhaps a figment of your imagination (after all you cannot see me right now can you), I can be everything and nothing all the same even when not doing a thing. I am a representation of an image, dependent on the mode of extension, the thought of the particular person reading this.
I am the I and the world is my paper. Existence within an existence of a realm unknown. Created and cajoled by some visionary artist with a knack for the detail.
Who am I?
Well, that depends on who the writer is.
Well, that depends on who the writer is.
Was unsure to stick this in here or in critical thinking for discussion. Stick it wherever you feel best Mal / Dev.
Comment