this post was submitted on 20 May 2025
5 points (72.7% liked)

Philosophy

1554 readers
2 users here now

Discussion of philosophy

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
metic@lemmy.world
5
Is there a name for this stance on existence and incomprehensibility? (lemmy.world)
submitted 2 weeks ago by ofthemasses@lemmy.world to c/philosophy@lemmy.world
10 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Not sure how to ask this properly, so I’ll just put it plainly.

I (the subjective self) may or may not exist

That doesn’t mean anything, it just is

We can’t really comprehend this, not because we’re missing something

But because the self can’t get outside itself to understand what’s beyond it

Any attempt to do so is already shaped by being a self

I’m not saying this is profound, or depressing, or enlightening

I’m not looking for meaning in it

I just want to know if there’s a name for seeing things this way?

If this kind of stance has ever been named or written about, I’d love to know. The closest Ive found is things like quietism or madhyamaka Buddhism, yet these are very intertwined with belief and meaning.

top 10 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Tao Te Ching

The Tao Te Ching describes the Tao as the source and ideal of all existence: it is unseen, but not transcendent, immensely powerful yet supremely humble, being the root of all things. People have desires and free will (and thus are able to alter their own nature). Many act "unnaturally", upsetting the natural balance of the Tao. The Tao Te Ching intends to lead students to a "return" to their natural state, in harmony with Tao.[44] Language and conventional wisdom are critically assessed. Taoism views them as inherently biased and artificial, widely using paradoxes to sharpen the point.[45]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tao_Te_Ching

[–] ofthemasses@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

This is great! What are your thoughts on Tao Te Ching?

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

It's pretty crazy the overlap between super high level physics and the Tao.

"The Tao of Physics" is like 50 years old by now, but recent discoveries build even more bridges.

So like, I "believe" in it more than most other religions, but you can just watch The Big Lebowski and get most of the same life lessons.

Still read the Tao every year or two tho. It's not long and it does help (at least me) center myself.

[–] ofthemasses@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

I'll give it a read and probably come back with more questions then.

Do you think that it seems like the best conclusion to subjective reality is none then? This question really came from thinking about ideas like the philosophical zombie problem, after chatting with my partner about physical vs non physical consciousness. It seems to me that we are limited to comprehend outside (if there even is an outside) of subjective reality.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I mean, reality is impossible...

Which is confounding because obviously something exists.

I stopped worrying about it when I was a little kid, we'll never figure it out. Which is kind of the big message in the Tao, what's important is minimizing strife and maximizing comfort.

[–] ofthemasses@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

I think many kids did but to what point, I certainly thought it was unexplainable but to suggest the possibility of my own experience not be truly my own, no. I believed for a long time my subjective experience existed and is in physical reality therefore atheism is the logical conclusion.

If you accept that subjective experience may or may not exist or be all sorts of things but never truly know, wouldn't you have to reject atheism and religion. Yet many people subscribe to these beliefs including myself. I don't think it's a given that people don't believe in their subjective existence.

The conclusions of Tao I would be on the same page there, some form of hedonism/utilitarianism to live life by.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Was randomly watching this video and while he mentions the Dao instead of Tao, it made me think of this thread:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lGOagUj-fYM

But he's an anesthesiologist who spent like 30 years working with Sir Roger Penrose on what consciousness is. Penrose is probably the smartest living physicist right now, him and Hawking worked together to finish a lot of Einsteins work.

But that's what I was talking about how with crazy high level physics, shit starts sounding like a religion.

Like, no one knows more about consciousness than this guy in the video, but he's talking about time crystals and aromatic rings in the brain being the foundation of consciousness and that it doesn't need a biological body for a consciousness to form...

It all sounds crazy, even if he's using scientific terms and has proof to back it up.

[–] ofthemasses@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago

No not crazy, quite interesting actually! Though, I wonder how this theory could lead to answer the hard problem of consciousness. If we are orchestrated how can we say these event haven't happened before? And how come we are the current orchestration now. Perhaps if the theory unfolds it could be answered?

But if you are consciousness orchestra A and I am B. A and B are of different patterns but why are you A and I B?

[–] Initiateofthevoid@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 weeks ago

The No-self theory

That's philosophy for you. We either name it what it is, or we name it what it is in a different language.

[–] Scipitie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

The second part of your text I'd classify as nearly textbook subjectivism ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjectivism ).

The first part is more complicated. If I recall that debate got kicked off by Descartes with cogito ergo sum, I think therefore I am.

Then Hume followed up with questioning if a stable self exists at all and later Nietzsche who stated that what we call "I" is only a bundle of instincts and enjoying that we are too overcome.

The English names for those teachings I don't know though, sorry.

A philosopher arguing for the complete non existence of self is not known to me and it would be hard for me to follow to be honest. To freely quote a whale: who is that I that does the thinking and asking anyway?

Edit: language