Is this whole universe only a concept?

I have seen snippets of how Conan the barbarian was raised, I have seen how he reacts to certain stimuli, I know what he looks like when experiencing different emotions.

:dry:

Yeah....Maybe in movies, cartoons, or comics, but at the same time, this in fact makes him less real, as your only seeing him portrayed through others thoughts on how he would act.

The books, while awesome, would not afford you such clarity, and even if they did, they are in the fiction section, and we are not in the Hyborian age. You do not have to be a rocket scientist to be able to understand Conan isnt real on any level.

If you really think that I can't tell the difference between a character in a movie and a real person who was born and existed, that tells me you have a very low opinion of my intelligence.

Well, yes.

Your the one who stated...

Conan the barbarian is more real to me than most of the people in this temple. That is, I know Conan better than I know most of the folks here. I can imagine what Conan might say about any given topic and I can tell people about Conan as though he really is a real person. If you didn't know that Harry Potter is a fictional character, some people might be able to describe him in such a way that you go through life believing that he really exists. In that sense, he is just as real as any other person you have heard about but never actually met.

Yet you say you can tell the difference between a character in a movie and a person who existed....

So then, no, someone could not then in fact be able to describe Harry Potter in such a way that you would go through life believing he exists. As you allude to keen powers of deduction that would prove otherwise.

I do not believe it is possible to really get to know someone without some kind of gave to face interaction.

Interesting place to habit then, and contribute at, and study to become a Jedi at then, because if you cant really know others in this medium, how can you know yourself any better through this medium given what you say?

Would it in fact be as fake as Conan? Or Harry Potter?

To that end, what value does TotJO posses outside of roleplaying for you?

Khaos wrote: To that end, what value does TotJO posses outside of roleplaying for you?

TotJO has more integrity than any of the other Jedi communities that I have been exposed to over the past 20 years (I don't know how I didn't find this place sooner). Yes, there are a few prickly pears here, but they just provide contrast that makes me appreciate, even more, the Jedi who are committed to peace and understanding as espoused by the doctrine.

I am here for the personal growth. I'm slowly getting to know some people here. I am trying to avoid making a judgement about any particular members because it might make it more difficult to objectively hear what they say. At the same time, it's important to recognize the context of any given statement and that would include the world view of the person and their position in life (age, race, social class, etc).

Khaos, I don't know if you're a 40 year old office worker going through a midlife crisis or a 16 year old loner with your face buried in your iPhone. The only thing I know about you is that you are very good at tearing down the statements of others but you have poor grammar and spelling which weakens your arguments. If someone asked me who you are, that is really all I could tell them. However, if someone asked me about Conan (I just keep using him as an example because it is one of my favorite Schwarzenegger movies), I could give them a detailed description of his likes and dislikes, his philosophy, his religion, what he looks like, and where he came from. There is so much more information, it makes him a more real figure in my life/memory than you are. The only difference being that you actually exist in real life and he only exists within a fictional story. Like Akkarin said and was then quoted by Streen, "What does real mean?"

I am only trying to follow the line of thought presented by the OP. How do you know that anything in the universe is real?

Picking a fictional character described in a book and trying to describe that characters traits in a similar manner to a real person is not an exercise in sanity.

If I describe to you Winston Churchill You can verify the description and details of his life because people knew him and wrote about him. The "cannon" of his story is absolute and cannot be changed.

However If I tell you the life story of Starbuck from Battlestar Galactica, what are you to believe? The TOS version where he is male or the Moore version where she is female? Which one is "cannon"? Different reality? Not really.

Fictional characters are subject to any interpretation that money can pay for. Actual people are not this way. This is the difference between Fantasy and Reality. I question the goals of any individual that can’t tell the difference. In fact it’s one of my pet peeves with Jediism. Sometimes one can’t seem to describe their Jedi spiritually without including some aspect of a fictional character out of science fiction movie. It blurs the lines and just gives the impression that they are pretending to be something that does not exist.

I agree that fictional characters are subject to change. However, the main elements in the story of Cinderella have been fairly well preserved in the various tellings over the centuries. Do you remember what Joseph Campbell presented in the first lesson of the IP? The value of the myth in our daily lives is not dependent on the factuality of the story. It's about how we approach the lessons conveyed.

I have been trying to avoid this argument because people have mixed feelings on the reality of it, but is Jesus a real figure or not? Is everything that has been written about him true? How do we know? All I know is what was written about him. People claim that he really existed and that what the bible says about him is true. I choose to believe it is, but is it really a fact? What about other ancient figures that are said to have existed? Did King David really exist? Did Xerxes, Alexander or Genghis really exist? Probably. There is a lot of written evidence that they really existed, but any of it could be manufactured just like it is possible that everything we know about about Jesus was made up. And, if I may really stir the pot, who is to say that there wasn't an actual person who lived in ancient Samaria, was captured and raised as a slave with all the same experiences and teaching that is described in the story of Conan. Just playing devil's advocate here, but how do you know that there isn't some truth to the story?

Am I coming across as rude or obstinate? I am not trying to use personal attacks to prove my point. Do you think that it helps your argument to infer that I am insane? I am just trying to approach this topic with an open mind.

Viewing things as two domains is the easiest way to handle this IMO, the inner subjective world and out objective world. You can then use the same language without it contradicting itself so much... are dreams real; why yes they are in my inner subjective world but of course not in the outer subjective world, for example.

Things like visualization and imagination are real in that regard, in terms of their information as experienced by the individual having them. Memories blur the distinction a little because they introduce the concept of 'time', they were real and now only concept. But even the conceptualization we have with the information of something like imagination does also have a presence in the objective world as the activity can be measured by neuroscientists!!!
:lol:
So yes, Conan is real inside my head in more ways then one, without explicitly it being a problem of being delusional. :S :silly:

I think a few of you are missing my point, it's akin to the line of thinking "A fictional character is a concept formed from memory as I am, so we both have the potential to be more or less real than the other."

Also, I put in the topic of free will for a reason. You could view it like, we are a story still being written. I mentioned that there are two, or at least one (because the other is merely a matter of perception) differences between us and fictional characters, and that is emotion, feeling, ect.

When you die, you will leave behind your legacy, like it or not. It will stick to people, even if you were just a loner who really never talked to someone, there's people who notice and care. And, depending on how much your memory affects their actions, they might tell stories about your heroic feats to others, which will inspire them.

You are made from memory, and the memory of others is made from memory. Characters are made from the memory of the author.

CableSteele wrote: I agree that fictional characters are subject to change. However, the main elements in the story of Cinderella have been fairly well preserved in the various tellings over the centuries. Do you remember what Joseph Campbell presented in the first lesson of the IP? The value of the myth in our daily lives is not dependent on the factuality of the story. It's about how we approach the lessons conveyed.

I have been trying to avoid this argument because people have mixed feelings on the reality of it, but is Jesus a real figure or not? Is everything that has been written about him true? How do we know? All I know is what was written about him. People claim that he really existed and that what the bible says about him is true. I choose to believe it is, but is it really a fact? What about other ancient figures that are said to have existed? Did King David really exist? Did Xerxes, Alexander or Genghis really exist? Probably. There is a lot of written evidence that they really existed, but any of it could be manufactured just like it is possible that everything we know about about Jesus was made up. And, if I may really stir the pot, who is to say that there wasn't an actual person who lived in ancient Samaria, was captured and raised as a slave with all the same experiences and teaching that is described in the story of Conan. Just playing devil's advocate here, but how do you know that there isn't some truth to the story?

Am I coming across as rude or obstinate? I am not trying to use personal attacks to prove my point. Do you think that it helps your argument to infer that I am insane? I am just trying to approach this topic with an open mind.

I did not infer that you were insane. What I did was say was that it was insanity to treat a fictional character as if they were real. As for Jesus there is actually less evidence that he ever existed than the other characters you mention. The others are mentioned in multiple texts by many authors that span multiple cultures so there is good evidence that the existed. Jesus is mentioned only in the bible which was written decades after he supposedly lived and those accounts in the bible are contradictory. Now I am not saying he lived or didn't live, I'm just saying the evidence is lacking. In the end its about what you can prove.

As for fictional characters yes they can live in our heads and their stories can deeply influence our lives. But they do not come from memory. They come from inspiration and creativity that is the collective unconscious. The myths and legends that Campbell speak about are ideas that tap into our subconscious and evoke deeply seated concepts of archetypes that span back through our entire history. But in the end it is not the legend itself nor the characters that we should worship and we are not to consider them as "real" as flesh and blood people. On the contrary, these legends and myths and characters are simply personifications of those aspects of our reality that are otherwise indescribable. They represent the meanings behind life, mysteries of the cosmos and our connection to it and to each other. they are facets of the human condition and to take these characters and reduce them to something akin to reality is doing them a disservice as I see it. They in fact transcend our corporeal existences.

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: As for fictional characters yes they can live in our heads and their stories can deeply influence our lives. But they do not come from memory. They come from inspiration and creativity that is the collective unconscious. The myths and legends that Campbell speak about are ideas that tap into our subconscious and evoke deeply seated concepts of archetypes that span back through our entire history. But in the end it is not the legend itself nor the characters that we should worship and we are not to consider them as "real" as flesh and blood people. On the contrary, these legends and myths and characters are simply personifications of those aspects of our reality that are otherwise indescribable. They represent the meanings behind life, mysteries of the cosmos and our connection to it and to each other. they are facets of the human condition and to take these characters and reduce them to something akin to reality is doing them a disservice as I see it. They in fact transcend our corporeal existences.

Very well said. I am always trying to grasp that transcendent aspect of existence, those mysteries of the cosmos that are unspeakable. I find that relaxing my machine mind from time to time and letting my imagination run wild helps me connect with the characters of myth and see things from their perspective. I never totally lose myself in the fantasy, but I try to. As a result, I really enjoy real life.

I think we're arguing apples and oranges here. As Adder said earlier, we are talking about subjective reality vs objective. You can't argue with how someone perceives the world, but you can argue facts and data. Since we are ultimately discussing whether or not the whole universe is just a concept, I can see why you would be adamant about drawing a distinct line between fantasy and reality. If the universe is only a concept, what are the implications regarding our own existence? It's like our whole concept of reality is based on the "fact" that the universe is not only a concept, but it is "real."

Ryder wrote: I think a few of you are missing my point, it's akin to the line of thinking "A fictional character is a concept formed from memory as I am, so we both have the potential to be more or less real than the other."

Also, I put in the topic of free will for a reason. You could view it like, we are a story still being written. I mentioned that there are two, or at least one (because the other is merely a matter of perception) differences between us and fictional characters, and that is emotion, feeling, ect.

When you die, you will leave behind your legacy, like it or not. It will stick to people, even if you were just a loner who really never talked to someone, there's people who notice and care. And, depending on how much your memory affects their actions, they might tell stories about your heroic feats to others, which will inspire them.

You are made from memory, and the memory of others is made from memory. Characters are made from the memory of the author.

I can't see having free will or reason as a prerequisite to being real. I mean lots of inanimate objects are real and posses neither of those qualities.

Should "real" be defined be each individual person? That our individual perceptions define what is real to us.

If our individual perceptions define what is real to each of us individually, or if real should be defined by collectively shared and agreed upon information?

I believe that the individual defines their own definition of "real".

Uh-oh. It is time for Adi to derail yet another thread with the Facts Train™. CHOO CHOOOO

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: Jesus is mentioned only in the bible which was written decades after he supposedly lived and those accounts in the bible are contradictory.

(emphasis mine) Sorry, but this is not true, and is probably one of the very worst possible arguments one could make against the "validity" of Christianity. The consensus among nearly every single ancient Near East scholar worth his or her salt is that Jesus definitely existed, as a man who lived in ancient Judea, and that he was baptized by John the Baptist (another person whose historical existence is certain), got on the wrong side of the authorities and was punished, by the administration of Pontius Pilate, by crucifixion. There is no dearth of sources , even contemporary ones, that mention Jesus. Some of these sources aren't even sympathetic toward Jesus or Christianity , or have anything to do with Christianity. They just happen to mention him. If he didn't exist, that would be kind of strange.

Whether the events in the Bible transpired exactly as they are written is certainly up for debate, and the value of each non-biblical source that mentioned him is also up for debate (like Josephus's Antiquities of the Jews, which is fairly controversial), but whether Jesus existed or not is a question that has been pretty decisively answered by historians over the last two centuries. There are even works by atheists and agnostics who argue that Jesus, at the very least, existed and that the historical record bears this truth. For what it's worth, I actually think the New Testament is the best proof there is for the historicity of Jesus — the writers of the Gospels and especially Acts have a very strong track record of historical reliability. There are works, written by non-Christians, that go through the whole New Testament with a fine tooth comb and find details borne in the historical record that are both obvious, common-knowledge facts and things that literally only someone who was there would have known.

Luke Timothy Johnson, a prolific New Testament scholar, wrote in the 1990s, "Even the most critical historian can confidently assert that a Jew named Jesus worked as a teacher and wonder-worker in Palestine during the reign of Tiberius, was executed by crucifixion under the prefect Pontius Pilate and continued to have followers after his death." I have no idea where the "the Bible is the only place Jesus is mentioned" trope comes from, aside from just plain ignorance of the historical record, whether willful or genuine. Whatever you think about Christianity or Jesus, the only way to assert that he is not mentioned anywhere but the Bible is to exclude a ton of valid, contemporary sources. Which is not a good way to go about making historical arguments, about anything, from any era. History just does not work that way.