The questions strike back
nessonite said:
Hmmm...to answer or not to answer? I would definately say "to be"...because I mean, I certainly want to be, but for others, I often want them "not to be." I would say that, if you are you, "to be" is what you want, however, if you are someone who is other than you, "not to be" is the way to go. Furthermore, in order to be or not be, it is presupposed that one already "be". However, if post-modern philosophy has taught us anything, our ability to prove that we, in fact, actually "be" (or exist) is based upon a series of absolute presuppositions. We presuppose that we exist, so therefore, we wonder why we exist. We then get so wrapped up in trying to find out the why of existence that we completely ignore the fact that we never proved that we actually exist. I mean, if something never existed in the first place, for it to sit around and ponder the why of it's existence is absurd. So in other words, we never proved our existence and we never proved the nature of our supposed existence, yet we wonder questions like "to be or not to be." Now, for those of you logically deducing that we must exist for us to have the ability to quesiton our existence, you are forgeting what, in fact, our supposed existence is truely made up of. Through our scientific research on the brain (which is also built upon absolute presuppositions), we have discovered that the 5 senses (our only tangeble methods for defining our supposed existence) are all nothing more than electrical signals interpreted by the brain. Everything that you taste, smell, see, hear, and touch (or tickle) is nothing more than a bio-electric reaction in our brain. That was the point of The Matrix, our perception of reality is superficial at best; therefore,
we have no real connection to our supposed reality...and therefore, it is absurd of us to question the why of things.
The answer then is: To be...but very carefully.
😎
