Comme des milliers de personnes, recevez gratuitement chaque semaine English only
All your questions about the English language, no French allowed.
others ?
Message de gewurz posté le 10-05-2005 à 23:08:43 (S | E | F | I)
In your opinion, what do you think that would exist if you (yourself) stopped thinking ?
Message de gewurz posté le 10-05-2005 à 23:08:43 (S | E | F | I)
In your opinion, what do you think that would exist if you (yourself) stopped thinking ?
Réponse: others ? de emy64, postée le 10-05-2005 à 23:19:19 (S | E)
Hi !
If I try not to think, I 'm thinking that I must not think so I'm still thinking !! Have you ever managed to stop thinking?
Réponse: others ? de bridg, postée le 10-05-2005 à 23:25:27 (S | E)
The peace for the others
Réponse: others ? de gorgayles, postée le 11-05-2005 à 00:04:47 (S | E)
hi !!!
I’m not used to thinking so the world won’t change but if one day I begin to think the world should be afraid
Réponse: others ? de serena, postée le 11-05-2005 à 01:32:03 (S | E)
So, gorgayles, do not change please.
Hi gewurz !
If by "stop thinking" you mean "putting things out of our mind", then what would still exist is nature. The sea, the wind, the flowers, the animals.....all what doesn't refer to human being.
But if you mean "stop having ideas", then, if I stop thinking, there won't be any mess around me anymore!
It's a tough question, you know. Give some precisions, please. This does interest me.
See you soon !
Réponse: others ? de ruofei, postée le 11-05-2005 à 02:48:27 (S | E)
...um..difficult question...I think I'd be in great despair if I stopped thinking, because it means that I'd have been turned into a man
(for further details, see Gorgayles' post....just kidding you )Réponse: others ? de gewurz, postée le 11-05-2005 à 11:38:21 (S | E)
by "stop thinking", I mean, all we think are datas ; for instance, time is a parameter of our perception, memories are datas of our thought so what is the reality of you, others, everything that is not "my thought" ?
Réponse: others ? de bridg, postée le 11-05-2005 à 12:33:52 (S | E)
Sorry but even in French, I should take an aspirin to give you an answer, so I ask you for a joker to talk about this subject in English
Réponse: others ? de lethidee, postée le 11-05-2005 à 13:10:06 (S | E)
Hello gewurz
Actually, what's your problem? Maybe, a lot of English to learn of more and more stress. Can we help you ?
Réponse: others ? de gewurz, postée le 11-05-2005 à 16:18:54 (S | E)
Hello Lethidee,
no problem at all
Just a subject to discuss, opinions to expand.
Just to know what you think about "Is there anything else but 'I', what are others"
If anybody is interested in this little subject of philosophy, people are more interesting than books
Réponse: others ? de post-scriptum, postée le 11-05-2005 à 21:57:55 (S | E)
Good evening,
In my opinion, I would certainly be bored stiff if I stopped thinking!
As a matter of fact I would have got neither dream nor plan!
It's no use asking me wether I would like to have a new idea...
I wouldn't have any hope of course!
I would be so stupid that I would be less intelligent than an earthworm.
Maybe I would be as intelligent as a vegetable...
And you?
See you (perhaps).
Réponse: others ? de ruofei, postée le 12-05-2005 à 13:02:40 (S | E)
Oh now I see what your question is really about (Gewurz
, I'm sorry, I thought first that you meant it as a joke)"Corgito ergo sum". your topic reminds me very much of my philosophy classes in high school: 10 hours a week of which 3 on Monday and 2 on Saturday..that makes you question yourself a lot on weekends, indeed: "Something's going wrong in this world...or is it just that I'm too drunk
? I concluded that weekends were no time for metaphysical debates ! Ok, joking apart. It's hard to figure out what the outside world would end up like if you changed your inner 'data'unless you do what Descartes did: confine yourself for months until you convince yourself that what you've been taught so far is some kind of lies. Here I found a nice Cambodian quotation:
"i>I sing for those who understood that, like a dream, the world is only a thought" (Vatt Sathor)
What I understand is that the said worldly things are in fact just as immaterial as we are. Senses wrong us. But are senses dissociable from thoughts?
My! I can go no further...Blur in my mind!
Hope to read you soon
.PS: yes, people are more interesting than books, the only problem is that you can't really skip ahead to the end of a story when you argue with a woman
!Réponse: others ? de serena, postée le 12-05-2005 à 21:08:55 (S | E)
Hi gewurz !
Here me back after thinking about how to express what I felt after I stopped thinking.
You say this is all about philosophy. I've never been good at philosophy, I'll just tell things in my own words. And my own thoughts. (See, the ego always gets over it!!)
We exist by our thoughts. Without them, we can or we’d exist no more.
We start existing in ourselves. By seeking our character, we leave our pride have the upper hand in our relationships. We pretend to be unique, with unique memories. Then we come off a kind of egocentricity that claims our difference from the others.
This egocentricity is of course in our unconscious. It becomes negative only when we remain rigid in the part given to the character our conscious has created.
When I stop thinking, I put my ego aside. I exist no more as a unique entity. I can see nature, people, the whole world. I can look at them with a brighter heart, with love and tolerance. Cause I become aware that I’m only matter, like all what surrounds me.
But this state didn’t last long as my ego got over it again. There’s nothing I could do, or will ever be able to do as long as I'll be thinking.
Ruofei said it: Corgito ergo sum = je pense donc je suis = I think, therefore I am.
(René Descartes).
But well, my last view will be that basing our ego on artistic creation leads us to deeper feelings. And this always brings us back to our surrounding. So, no way forgetting the others.......I think.
Hope what I said deals with the subject.
See you !
PS : I remember a discussion I had once with a friend of mine who told me: why not translating "je pense donc je suis" by "I think, therefore I follow" ?
It would be easier....I think !
Réponse: others ? de gewurz, postée le 12-05-2005 à 22:49:24 (S | E)
Hello,
yes, you're right, pride is a brake on evolution, good pride can make you progress but most of the time, pride leads to constructiveless fights.
"cogito ergo sum"...
What about "cogito ergo est" ?
Are we our own thought ? All we can say is that if we think, then something exists. Whatever that thing is.
Ruofei,
"But are senses dissociable from thoughts?"
--> Senses are some parameters of our thought. If others exist, then senses are the interface which makes possible to bind our thought with others. For example, somebody who has no sense of smell, must trust people who say that smells exist.
But even without the sense of smell, we can think.
Even without any sense we can think, even though it isn't a nice life anymore.
We can't say that because we can see something, then that thing exists, we can only say that our thought tells us that our view saw this thing.
Réponse: others ? de rafara, postée le 13-05-2005 à 00:14:16 (S | E)
Hum...
It's simple : I'm everything else, and everything else is "I"
So, the question doesn't matter.
If "I" stop to think, the thought'll find another spirit to be improved.
Don't worry!
Réponse: others ? de gewurz, postée le 13-05-2005 à 00:36:33 (S | E)
Hello Rafara,
thanks to take part
What is the nature of the "another spirit" you are talking about ?
If everything is "I / my thought", how can another spirit exist ?
Are you talking about reincarnation ?
Réponse: others ? de ruofei, postée le 13-05-2005 à 02:53:19 (S | E)
?i>For example, somebody who has no sense of smell, must trust people who say that smells exist?(Gewurz). Yes, but I don't think that is solving the problem: what if that "somebody"was wrong? What if they say that a rose smells like a tulip? Trusting does not prevent you from wrongfulness and illusions.
?i>Senses are parameters of our thought? I agree with you [and must add that this association cannot always be relied on]. You cannot sense something unless you have a body and if your body/senses were off, then you would likely stop thinking then you would likely stop existing.
Essentially, if you stop 'dreaming' of the world, the world would no longer be; the greatest power we have is not our sense perceptions but our imagination.
Could you please clarify that?:
"But even without the sense of smell, we can think.
Even without any sense we can think, even though it isn't a nice life anymore. We can't say that because we can see something, then that thing exists, we can only say that our thought tells us that our view saw this thing."
I don't think I understood what you think can and cannot be said.
Réponse: others ? de serena, postée le 13-05-2005 à 05:01:41 (S | E)
Hi ruofei !
You said :The greatest power of our thought is not our sense perceptions but our imagination.
Well, what could you imagine if you don’t know the feelings we have when we smell flowers, when we hear melodies which can give us strong emotions and carry our thoughts very far, when we look at a non-colored world (as for the colour-blind people : daltoniens), and so on…..?
So, I agree with gewurz when he says "Senses are parameters of our thought". For me, the best way to think is to feel first.
Maybe you have better explanations to make us understand what you mean.
Also gewurz, I think I didn’t do a good job expressing myself!
I told you I’ve never been good at philosophy !!
I'll give precisions later, cause now, I'm really tired.
See you soon !
Réponse: others ? de traviskidd, postée le 13-05-2005 à 06:36:48 (S | E)
You might be interested in the story of Helen Keller. If I remember correctly, she was both deaf and blind since birth, but I think she overcame that and ended up living a quite meaningful life.
Réponse: others ? de ruofei, postée le 13-05-2005 à 11:05:22 (S | E)
Serena,
If you read my post again, you'll see that I didn't go against Gewurz' idea: "senses are parameters of our thought"....I actually agreed on that. I just add that our 'imagination' is that device that enables our perceptions to have a 'consistence', a meaning....And so the chain would go like this: senses > imagination > mind.
But well, I don't think I can discuss on that topic as I've always felt kind of uncomfortable to talk over philosophical matters...
I just get confused!
Réponse: others ? de gewurz, postée le 13-05-2005 à 13:17:27 (S | E)
Hi all,
senses > mind or mind > senses ?
difficult question...
When we talk about "thought", it isn't necessarily an evolved thought, it's for example the nucleus of a protozoan, it's what enables a living being to collect the datas coming from its senses and to respond accordingly, even though these are mechanisms scheduled in DNA.
So I think that the mind/thought is the matrix that includes everything.
The mind collects datas from senses so
senses are included in mind.
Imagination is based on experience, we can't imagine something we are not aware of. Based on things that exist, imagination create something new. Imagination uses the datas of the mind, so I think that imagination and senses are independent, for datas coming from the senses are already processed when the imagination starts.
Imagination is what makes us different.
"We can't say that because we can see something, then that thing exists, we can only say that our thought tells us that our view saw this thing."
--> The Indian shaman when after having smoked the Devil herb, can see the eagle hovering over the desert. Though, he's sitting in his cave, under the ground, eyes-closed.
Does he really see this eagle ? His mind tells him yes.
Can you see your shoes ? Your mind tells you yes.
Which of the eagle or your shoes exist ? You can see both.
We rely on what we perceive because it's more conveniant, but where is the truth ?
Mulder, where are you ???
Réponse: others ? de aimen7, postée le 13-05-2005 à 16:09:28 (S | E)
Hello everybody,
As far as I'm concerned, if I was deprived from the ability to think, it would mean that I would not have in mind : my family, my little 8-year old son, my friends, the beautiful trees I see when I open my window, the generous and wonderful people I have met in Anglaisfacile.com(persons that I don't see but have in mind), and a million other things...
"My mind would be blind".
I prefer keeping my thoughts, that's what keeps me alive and let the world come to me.
Réponse: others ? de serena, postée le 13-05-2005 à 20:30:27 (S | E)
Hello !
Helen Keller became blind, dumb and deaf at about 2 years old.
Yes, I know this woman. I could never forget the sentence someone said about her: "She will live on, one of the few, immortal names not born to die." She had the chance to meet a woman who let her have that amazing life. (I forgot her name but will give it later
). So, didn’t she use her other senses to feel like fighting and thus improve?
In fact, gewurz, I didn’t mean that we are really egocentric inside. I just meant that human being "works" this way. He thinks first about himself above all. This is quite normal unless he starts denigrating the others to reach his goals.
When I said artistic creation let us never forget what life is all about, I didn’t want to talk about those who do that to be famous or for money for example. We’re all artist in some way, we all have something special and compulsory to give without caring of being thanked or applauded. Such people feel things so deeply that they don’t need to stop thinking in order to put their ego apart. It becomes a part of their personalities. And their creations can be a simple word as well as bigger projects for people in need.
Also, like you said we see what our mind wants to. Just like we can be looking at something without seeing it, listening to something without hearing it. And this is scientifically proved.
But if we take Helen Keller as an example, we’ll notice that she mostly used her heart to achieve what she did. She is the best evidence we could find to say that we're not only dealing with our minds (I know ruofei, I'm in contradiction with what I told you above
). Being blind, dumb and deaf at 2, she couldn’t remember any shape, colour or sound. But by following her heart needs, she succeeded in doing great things. Things we’re too far from reaching anyway.Ruofei, you’re so right!!! I’m going to stop here, otherwise I’ll become
and won't know anymore how and what to think. Like you, I’m now getting confused! I used to fall asleep during my philosophy courses!
-------------------
Edité par serena le 13-05-2005 20:41
PS: For Travis: Anne Sullivan is the one who helped Helen Keller overcome her handicap.
Réponse: others ? de lethidee, postée le 15-05-2005 à 19:17:40 (S | E)
Hello everybody
I'm very interesting by all the messages that I read and the subjects that you propose to our intention and I must say that I'm very admiring by the facilities and the control of your English practice.
thanks a lot
-------------------
Edité par bridg le 15-05-2005 19:21
Réponse: others ? de zuzuu, postée le 16-05-2005 à 13:51:42 (S | E)
You are all so funny !!!!!!!!!!! I like it!
Réponse: others ? de Aussie, postée le 18-05-2005 à 07:50:50 (S | E)
Hi every one,
It is nice to read philasophical theory from genious members. Thank you all for providing the informations regarding zero thinking.
Let me tell you dear members, that it is possible to go out of your thoughts in special exercises. And these are in "yoga" and "Maraqba".
In these, the person performing frees himself from thoughts or outward
senses and begins his journey in the inward senses to gain primordial
knowledge of his ego, self or soul.
This is very lengthy topics and this forum discussion does not demand it.
How ever, nice to be with such learned people.
Thaks. Aussie
INDISPENSABLES : 