The in-it-self thing cannot exist

[bobmax]

The in-it-self thing cannot exist.

Because there exists only that which owes its very existence to something other than itself.

While the in-it-self thing should only be based on itself.

Therefore it does not exist.

[Dontaskme]

The in-it-self thing cannot exist.

Because there exists only that which owes its very existence to something other than itself.

While the in-it-self thing should only be based on itself.

Therefore it does not exist.

You cannot even say ...it, or something cannot exist.

[Impenitent]

so much for solipsism

-Imp

[Harbal]

The in-it-self thing cannot exist.

Because there exists only that which owes its very existence to something other than itself.

While the in-it-self thing should only be based on itself.

Therefore it does not exist.

And what use can we make of this "knowledge"?

[bobmax]

The in-it-self thing cannot exist.

Because there exists only that which owes its very existence to something other than itself.

While the in-it-self thing should only be based on itself.

Therefore it does not exist.

And what use can we make of this "knowledge"?

In my opinion this consideration can be useful if we let it enter into ourselves.

That is, if we really live it.
Without relegating it to the strangeness of the world, but addressing it as a question of meaning addressed to ourselves.

Because it is the experience of the limit.
The non-existence of the in-it-self is about what we love, what we are.

It is a silent question of what is really worth in this life.

[Flannel Jesus]

The in-it-self thing cannot exist.

Because there exists only that which owes its very existence to something other than itself.

While the in-it-self thing should only be based on itself.

Therefore it does not exist.

I don't think that's what someone means when they talk about a thing in itself, but I could be wrong. I don't think they're talking about the thing outside of the context it exists in.

[Harbal]

In my opinion this consideration can be useful if we let it enter into ourselves.

That is, if we really live it.
Without relegating it to the strangeness of the world, but addressing it as a question of meaning addressed to ourselves.

Because it is the experience of the limit.
The non-existence of the in-it-self is about what we love, what we are.

It is a silent question of what is really worth in this life.

I sometimes think I just don't have the intellectual capacity for philosophy. I don't understand a word of that.

[bobmax]

The in-it-self thing cannot exist.

Because there exists only that which owes its very existence to something other than itself.

While the in-it-self thing should only be based on itself.

Therefore it does not exist.

I don't think that's what someone means when they talk about a thing in itself, but I could be wrong. I don't think they're talking about the thing outside of the context it exists in.

It is precisely the context, in the broad sense, that implies the existence of the in-it-self thing.

The in-it-self thing is taken for granted, otherwise the whole context would falter.

I think anyone dealing with something thinks it exists as an in-it-self thing.
But actually ... that thing can't exist.

I touch something and I am in contact with it with my fingers.
But it is that contact that makes that thing is.
In turn, the contact refers to interacting electromagnetic fields.
Which are the manifestation of relativistic effects.
And so on.
But each of these things in themselves do not exist.

[bobmax]

In my opinion this consideration can be useful if we let it enter into ourselves.

That is, if we really live it.
Without relegating it to the strangeness of the world, but addressing it as a question of meaning addressed to ourselves.

Because it is the experience of the limit.
The non-existence of the in-it-self is about what we love, what we are.

It is a silent question of what is really worth in this life.

I sometimes think I just don't have the intellectual capacity for philosophy. I don't understand a word of that.

I apologize for the way I express myself.

The thing is, I don't know how else to do it.
The words I use are always insufficient, but even adding others would only make it even more obscure.

Reading you I believe that you have great potential.
Your irony suggests it.

Irony can open the world to you, but if it ends in sarcasm it closes it.
It all depends on your love.

[Harbal]

I touch something and I am in contact with it with my fingers.
But it is that contact that makes that thing is.
In turn, the contact refers to interacting electromagnetic fields.
Which are the manifestation of relativistic effects.
And so on.
But each of these things in themselves do not exist.

But you still have to interact with things as if they do exist, and I don't see what advantage could be gained from getting round that, even were it possible.

[Harbal]

I apologize for the way I express myself.

The thing is, I don't know how else to do it.
The words I use are always insufficient, but even adding others would only make it even more obscure.

No need to apologise. I wouldn't even attempt to put some of my thoughts into words. You are braver than me, that's the only difference.

[bobmax]

I touch something and I am in contact with it with my fingers.
But it is that contact that makes that thing is.
In turn, the contact refers to interacting electromagnetic fields.
Which are the manifestation of relativistic effects.
And so on.
But each of these things in themselves do not exist.

But you still have to interact with things as if they do exist, and I don't see what advantage could be gained from getting round that, even were it possible.

Your love.

That simmers inside you and that presses to go out.

This love can erupt from you just when the nothingness appears behind everything.

[Belinda]

The in-it-self thing cannot exist.

Because there exists only that which owes its very existence to something other than itself.

While the in-it-self thing should only be based on itself.

Therefore it does not exist.

I like that reasoning

[Harbal]

I like that reasoning

I don't dislike it; I just don't understand it.

[Belinda]

The in-it-self thing cannot exist.

Because there exists only that which owes its very existence to something other than itself.

While the in-it-self thing should only be based on itself.

Therefore it does not exist.

And what use can we make of this "knowledge"?

I struggle to make sense of bobmax's answer.
I'd rather answer Harbal as follows.
It matters what we think exists, as at least one theory of existence , Cartesian dualism, is actually immoral besides being badly argued in one important respect.

Another theory of existence, that of Heidegger, is based on a concept that leads to tolerance and forgiveness.
Enough about existence!

What we know without any possible doubt is that experience is happening.It's happening right now as I type this, and right now as you read this. Experience is therefore real and there is no need whatsoever to posit "things in themselves" which is nonsensical compared with experiences
and contexts of experiences. Experiences are always experiences in contexts or, if you prefer, experiences in environments.

I think bobmax goes on to explain that love is caring about the contexts.