Jump to content

Existentialism and Tulpas Discussion Thread


Linkzelda

Recommended Posts

This is the first time in a long time since I made a thread. Haaaaa Also, there may be editing of a few words along the way, pardon my minor typos.

 

TL;DR at the bottom (but check out the Disclaimer, and Words to Know section if you can)

 

Tablet of Contents (Ctrl+F, then enter the number along with the brackets for easy navigation):

 

[1.00] - Disclaimer

[1.10] - Words to Know

[1.20] - What is Existentialism?

[1.30] - My Exposition on Summing Up Existentialism

[1.40] - Criticism/Skepticism of Existentialism

[1.50] - Connecting Existentialism with Tulpas

[1.60] - Questions

[1.70] - TL;DR/Cliff Notes

 

 

 

[1.00]

Disclaimer:

 

This thread is intended to discuss the concept of existentialism, and how the premises behind the philosophy may pertain to one’s endeavor with the concept of tulpas. I will be giving a general overview of the concept, provide ad hoc claims, i.e., philosophical claims specifically catered for the concept of tulpas, and provide some general questions in hopes of others contributing their opinion behind this philosophy, and how they may or may not integrate it in their lifestyle, etc.

 

This thread is also not intended to force others to follow this philosophy, but rather just take it into consideration loosely for the sake of speculation, and group thinking, especially since I feel some of the premises would be akin to reasons why we may partake in this journey in the first place. Discussions of religion, and other beliefs may be prevalent (and may end up in controversy), but please keep in mind that if people are deeply engrained in their beliefs, try to respect their freedom to do so.

 

 

 

 

 

[1.10]Words to Know:

 

 

Ad hoc claims – “It generally signifies a solution designed for a specific problem or task, non-generalizable, and not intended to be able to be adapted to other purposes.”

 

Agnostic – “a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.”

 

Liberation – “freedom from limits on thought or behavior.”

 

Totality – “the whole of something.”

 

Inherent – “existing in something as a permanent, essential, or characteristic attribute.”

 

Mind-independent reality/objectivity – a reality where our subjective interpretation of said reality would not have any significant changes to it, i.e., reality will still exist with or without our subjective interpretations of reality.

 

Ineffable – “too great or extreme to be expressed or described in words”.

 

Cumulative – “increasing or increased in quantity, degree, or force by successive additions.”

 

Adversities – “difficulties; misfortune.”

 

Inquisition – “a period of prolonged and intensive questioning or investigation.”

 

Enquiring/Inquiring – “showing an interest in learning new things.”

 

Self-actualization – “is a term that has been used in various psychology theories, often in slightly different ways. The term was originally introduced by the organismic theorist Kurt Goldstein for the motive to realize one's full potential.”

 

 

 

 

 

[1.20]What is Existentialism?

 

There are many interpretations of Existentialism, but I’ll provide a few definitions for it:

 

a philosophical theory or approach that emphasizes the existence of the individual person as a free and responsible agent determining their own development through acts of the will.

 

Existentialism is a catch-all term for those philosophers who consider the nature of the human condition as a key philosophical problem and who share the view that this problem is best addressed through ontology.

 

a chiefly 20th century philosophical movement embracing diverse doctrines but centering on analysis of individual existence in an unfathomable universe and the plight of the individual who must assume ultimate responsibility for acts of free will without any certain knowledge of what is right or wrong or good or bad

 

a philosophical attitude associated especially with Heidegger, Jaspers, Marcel, and Sartre, and opposed to rationalism and empiricism, that stresses the individual's unique position as a self-determining agent responsible for the authenticity of his or her choices.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[1.30]My Exposition on Summing Up Existentialism

 

Essentially, (and this is just a general sum up on my end):

 

- Existentialism seems to be a thesis (or an ambiguous philosophy) on how one would react to circumstances and the big questions when it comes to existence in general. What makes it somewhat (and probably just subtly) distinguishable to other philosophies (e.g. Nihilism), is that even if one may be agnostic about life (e.g. right and wrong, purpose and meaning, value), it doesn’t mean they aren’t capable of making personal significance and subjective meaning in their lives.

 

- The premises behind existentialism seem to focus more on the individual, and them creating value through affirming those values, and living by them, and not just by speculating about it.

 

- And because the premises seem to draw a parallel with agnosticism, one may feel it would be difficult to find inherent meaning and value in existence (e.g., not having the cognitive aptitude to comprehend everything there is to reality)

 

- An individual can react in two (but not limited to) ways:

[align=center]

 

o 1. They could become cynical and apathetic towards structuring their own subjective assessment of life, despite of not knowing what could be inherently right and wrong, and whether or not their acts are in good, or bad faith. And this could lead to nihilistic thinking so great, that they’re convinced that there’s utter meaningless, and that there isn’t any incentive to act.

 

o 2. They are aware that there may not be any inherent meaning in existence that could have long-lasting value (which may exclude semantics with premises of genetics, self-actualization, etc.), they react in a way where the embrace this probability, and use that to have a sense of liberation that they are not bounded by inherent forces of nature that people may feel would dictate one’s life. Thus, they use this acknowledgment as a means of coping, and enduring in life for the sake of personal meaning.[/align]

 

It may or may not be obvious to some on how this may connect with the concept of tulpas. But first, let’s just give a general overview on skepticism behind existentialism

 

 

 

 

[1.40]

Criticism/Skepticism of Existentialism:

 

 

 

- Existentialism would have one premise that existence precedes essence, i.e., downplaying subjective interpretations of who you are (e.g. selfhood), and focusing that one exists before contemplation of what it means to exist as an individual

 

- Some may feel that the premises with existential philosophy is skewing “to be” vs. “being.” In other words, what it means to exist, and giving an objective view of “being” can be as different as night and day.

 

- Because one may very well be agnostic when it comes to cognitively processing the totality of existence, reality, universes, multi-verses, etc., even if they try to find a means to cope and act with wondering if there’s meaning, or meaningless in life, there seems to be a sense of denial of this agnostic way of thinking for the sake of affirming their own meaning, and living by them.

 

- In other words (to the previous point), if one is aware that there may not be inherent forces of nature that dictate how they should assess their life, it may encourage them to engage in acts of bad faith (this is where other religions that have certain ideological frameworks of life may conflict).

 

- Explaining the philosophy would be difficult to condense simply because it serves as a blank canvas for one to make their own interpretations, and react in certain ways.

 

- Arguments for free will in general may be presented, which may cause conflicts with the philosophy (though this philosophy seems to know that one acting on free will, whether or not it’s inherently long-standing in a mind-independent reality, would be intuitively clear to them. In other words, you don’t need to be Captain Obvious to presume that free will could be self-evident).

 

- Problems of origins, and how precedence of things could ever be proved may arise

 

 

 

 

 

[1.50]Connecting Existentialism with Tulpas

 

 

If you read some of the points addressed in this OP, you could see a connection behind this, and the endeavor one may partake in creating, and living with a tulpa:

 

- Because this is a phenomenon that we know so little of, and are agnostic in knowing any ineffable truths about, we seem to rely (mostly, but not absolutely in some circumstances) on the cumulative experiential cases from members on how they make their affirmations of assessment in living with tulpas

 

- Because we are incapable, or not currently able, to know those ineffable truths, if any exist, we still take action to make those affirmations, and live by them even if they could be acts of bad faith. This implies risk, and this implies in potentially having to overcome adversities with not just yourself and view of reality and life, but the people around you (e.g. confessing to loved ones that you have a tulpa, or being quiet and keeping it to yourself)

 

 

 

- How people go about assessing their own ways behind the self-fulfilling prophecy (I know this will be debatable) of treating a tulpa as a sentient entity, and believing that they will also need time to develop over time as well is subjective. In other words, even if we make correlations behind the potentially infinite circumstances, they are just claims that are dependent on circumstances related to tulpas (anything beyond that may require scholarly study, or experimentation to give any sense of empirical validity).

 

- There would be a lot of philosophical and psychological inquiry, i.e. introspection and meditation, involved in this seeing how there has yet to be any significant empirical, or scholarly study and experimentation in relation to tulpas. This inquisition for knowledge of tulpas for the enquiring mind can be akin to behaviors of an existentialist.

 

 

 

- What one “ought” and “not ought” to do when it comes to the tulpa phenomenon may not be easily condensed as an ineffable truth(s) since people have their own assessment in coping, justifying, and creating personal meaning.

 

- And because it would be difficult to find any universally known values behind the existence of tulpas, the only option we seem to have, for the time being, is to take risks, make values by affirming to them, and just live in hopes to find more meanings in existence with our companions.

 

- One’s reason out of many for creating and interacting with a tulpa could be having someone that could be integral in their lives for coping with things like existential strife, boredom, and void-like feelings. And going through acts of will to support their beliefs that their companions can be true to them in their perception of reality, the dynamic increases in the potential of taking responsibility of one’s actions, and being thoughtful of one’s companion’s actions as well; they find a way to reciprocate with each other in a positive manner, and finding ways to cope, tolerate, or resolve inner turmoil that may occur, or just overall strife.

 

 

 

- And because we’re willing to engage in those beliefs (for those who are doing this, of course), we have to go even deeper on how we can create and contribute value into the meaning behind a tulpa’s existence, even if the whole endeavor could just be creating a sentient entity with implicit qualities of things such as (but not limited to):

 

[align=center]o Sentience

o Sapience

o Autonomous existence (implied or not)

[/align]

 

 

 

 

 

[1.60]Questions

 

- What are your general thoughts and interpretations behind existentialism?

 

- Do you feel the premises behind existentialism can be a common philosophical base we all share?

 

- Do you feel this philosophy can be compatible, or incompatible with the concept of tulpas?

 

- What are some arguments you have that you feel could support, or go against existentialism?

 

- Do you feel there can be ineffable, or even irrefutable truths that can be prevalent in all circumstances in relation to how one assesses their lives along with their tulpas?

 

 

 

 

- Would being agnostic about whether or not there are ineffable truths, or inherent meaning and purpose in life intimidate you? Or do you see it as a sense of liberation to not be constrained by forces of nature people may feel are inherent?

 

 

- Do you feel your tulpa may self-actualize in a negative manner when they realize they could go both ways in existing with you?

 

 

 

- If not, what are attributes you feel would encourage a tulpa to not have a negative disposition towards the probable meaningless in life, and contribute in creating personal meaning with you as well?

 

- Do you feel free will is self-evident to you (whether you feel it’s inherent within your existence, or implicit)?

 

 

 

And if there’s anything that didn’t make sense, feel free to ask for clarification. There’s a lot of things we can talk about, but that’s the whole point. Let’s get the group thinking going, everyone.

 

 

 

 

 

 

----------------------------

 

 

 

 

 

 

[1.70]TL;DR Cliff Notes:

 

What is Existentialism?

 

A philosophy that can serve as a blank canvas for how a person can assess their lives by creating personal and subjective meaning despite being agnostic on ineffable truths, inherent meaning and value in life, and what are good, or bad acts of faith. In other words, they create subjective meaning and values, affirm to them, and live by them, even if they can’t cognitively conceptualize all there is to life.

 

Criticism/Skepticism of Existentialism:

 

- Any skepticism/criticism of existentialism may mostly revolve around its premise of existence preceding essence. In other words, one focusing on the fact that they exist before contemplating, and being introspective in validating their existence (e.g. selfhood, what it means to be a person with an identity)

 

- Arguments supporting, and going against the concept of free will (e.g. making free compatible with an unknowable reality, determinism) can also include existential philosophy as a part of those debates

 

 

Connecting Existentialism with Tulpas:

 

If existentialism focuses on one assessing their lives, making affirmations and living by them, it would be obvious that those behavioral trends can coincide on how one does the same with their tulpas, if they choose to create and interact with them.

 

And whether or not there are ineffable truths, and inherent meaning and purpose in relation to tulpas, it doesn’t stop us from taking a stand to take risks and find personal meaning, even if it could lead to acts of bad faith.

 

 

Questions:

 

See previous section on “Questions”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

- What are your general thoughts and interpretations behind existentialism?

Thank you for this. I really wanted to write an existential thread, but since it is something I only recently started inquiring about I figured I should wait. I have only approached it from a phenomenological standpoint and thus am somewhat acquainted with Heidegger.

 

- Do you feel the premises behind existentialism can be a common philosophical base we all share?

I wish. If it were possible, existentialism has the ideal premises for a philosophical base because it tends to be so primordial.

 

- Do you feel this philosophy can be compatible, or incompatible with the concept of tulpas?

Compatible in the sense that you could apply it to the theory of tulpas, then certainly. I do not think it will be incompatible insofar as it would challenge the authenticity of them, but it would certainly upset some of the common psychology. In other words, if you considered a tulpa existentially, it seems to be highly superficial. If I consider myself a year ago, I never had a tulpa and if I truly wanted to I could dissipate them. In that sense, what does their existence mean besides suiting some whim of mine? I only want to illustrate that it really challenges our notions of what a tulpa is because it requires us to acknowledge, to some level, who we are. I do not think such an analysis is particularly detrimental to either, although it may cause some of the philosophy and thus psychology behind tulpas to be reconsidered. It's very interesting because we tend to modify ourselves into having a tulpa. At least for me, I tend to negate the 'I' of myself and establish an idea of a collective. Yes, I do realize there is a difference between multiples and tulpas, but I still recognize their existence to some extent or another as independent of me but inclusive in one body. Therefore, the natural tendency is to say us or we. I also realize that this is probably only superficial and the result of pronoun semantics, but I have no doubt that it could impact any existential analysis of ourselves. If then, you choose to ignore your tulpa existentially, it only begs the question of what they are.

 

- What are some arguments you have that you feel could support, or go against existentialism?

Maybe we should just limit this to existentialism? I feel if we challenge that the threads could go on for days >.>

 

- Do you feel there can be ineffable, or even irrefutable truths that can be prevalent in all circumstances in relation to how one assesses their lives along with their tulpas?

I do not think that tulpas transcend language to have ineffable truths. Irrefutable is a strong term, but I suppose it is necessary when considering truth. That said, I think there is truth in all circumstances of a tulpa's existence. However, the process is often understood as subjective, that is, based on what works best for the host and tulpa. Whether you can evaluate your relationship with your tulpa in rigorous existential method and establish irrefutable truths is hard to say. I would hazard to say it is possible, but it might alienate members who already have preconceived notions about what their tulpas are.

 

- Would being agnostic about whether or not there are ineffable truths, or inherent meaning and purpose in life intimidate you? Or do you see it as a sense of liberation to not be constrained by forces of nature people may feel are inherent?

I suppose I will suggest the idea of soft agnosticism. Perhaps being so caught up in determining what is true, we are ignorant of the fact that there may be ineffable truths. Doubting what you know is a part of being. You do not have to know or understand life to find inherent meaning or purpose. It is only liberating that you do not have to be limited to your intellect or logic skills to live for something. Agnostics get so caught up in believing that nothing can be known that it becomes the almighty truth. I really do not have anything against agnostics, but even on campus more and more students seem to believe that there is no truth or at the least that it cannot be known and it just creates this atmosphere of confusion. Maybe truth can be known, but we are too blind to see it.

 

- Do you feel your tulpa may self-actualize in a negative manner when they realize they could go both ways in existing with you?

Theoretically it is possible. I feel like regardless of whether or not they know, it is improbable they would given it would probably not be in either of your best interest and probably would result in their destruction. I say improbable because they certainly could self-actualize negatively, but if you support them positively then the only reason for them to do so would be subversion. Is it possible for a tulpa to do so? Not at first and certainly it seems many years down the line where they potentially could you would both be too interdependent for it to be feasible without major consequences.

 

- If not, what are attributes you feel would encourage a tulpa to not have a negative disposition towards the probable meaningless in life, and contribute in creating personal meaning with you as well?

I partially answered this before, but I feel like a new tulpa would be very lost in their own circle of existential confusion. Showing them what you life means to you and their life means to you would, in my mind, negate a nihilistic disposition.

 

That's enough for a preliminary response, I have some editing to do but no time to do so.

 

Edit: I found that last question interesting but I decided to cut it out as you never intended for it, and it keeps me focused on explaining relevant topics as I tend to jump to conclusions.

Unless you believe, you shall not understand.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My apologies on the question that asks if one feels free will, and tulpas are self-evident to you. That was probably a Freudian slip on my end, and I'll be sure to exclude the tulpa part in that. But either way, I look forward to more detailed expositions from you and others.

 

Edit:

 

Yeah, maybe we should limit things to just existentialism, but I put it there for the sake of not being too one-sided with the philosophy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since the OP is about as comprehensible as your average Wikipedia page - if I got it correctly, are you trying to start a discussion on how much free will hosts and tulpas really have?

 

 

That could be one aspect we could talk about, though I feel most of that would be the usual free will debate you could find in other forums. Like ones where they try to find compatibility of free will in a mind-independent reality, and whether or not reality itself, and even our existence, is deterministic, or just random phenomenon that happen to have a sense of order.

 

Then the conversation could lead to questioning whether or not there’s some teleology behind tulpas, i.e., if there could be some ultimate, or grander scheme behind their existence. But some things come to mind other than just free will are:

 

- The limitation of human knowledge, and it being prone to being fallible (e.g. how others may have believed hour counts were everything in validating success in tulpas before people treated the hour count as mere amusement and supplemental tracking of the time they invested)

 

 

- Existential crises vs. situational strife we have in our daily lifestyles, and finding ways to teach, or inform one’s tulpa of dealing with that. In other words, it could be a discussion about the desire to have desires vs. the desire to want something (a want that could be transient rather than the overall desire to feel a sense of belonging, or finding meaning in one’s quotidian lifestyle)

 

- It could also be a discussion about common fears behind certain methodologies, and how people may develop doubts because they feel the risks are too high. For this circumstance, this thread could be a tool to address how we have yet to have a higher cognitive aptitude to really differentiate which methods are too “symbolic,” “detrimental,” or have “higher weight in risks than benefits.”

 

- Like Leaf talked about with his opinion with agnosticism, this thread could extend in discussing trends of people who believe nothing can be known about anything, and end up believing in dead-end philosophies (e.g. fatalism), or even more extreme cases with things like existential nihilism, or existential skepticism that might be a watered-down version of that, and how they could be applied to presumptions behind tulpas.

 

- And to extend on the previous point, we could discuss the lengths in which people are willing to consistently sustain the notion of their tulpas being sentient entities to the point where they may forget to self-reflect on how their existence (as host) would lead to question begging on a tulpa’s existence. Especially those who may feel a tulpa’s existence would be inherent, and that may involve a bit more psychological inquiry rather than a philosophical one.

 

One mustn’t stop at mere definitions, or over-generalizations from a Wikipedia page. They were just used as a pre-meal warmup for more extensive discussions, seeing how I knew I had to go in some direction, even if it was vague; it was just set up to be a device for talking about other points. The meat of the OP was mostly the questions, and everything before that was just for people who may not be proficient in Googling, or actually use cognitive strength to get the gist behind the philosophy. It was just adding more padding to the questions asked so I won’t be getting posts of people wondering what a term was, and then me, or someone else conforming to a post of “Google it.”

 

This is why if I set up a few general questions, it may get some conversation going, and if we end up talking about circumstances related to tulpas (e.g. ageism; whether or not one should be a certain age to start this journey), we could tie into how the premises of existentialism can be used as an argumentative device to support, or go against with those mental constructs we create on right and wrong in relation to tulpas.

 

 

TL;DR:

 

We could see this thread as bringing in all sorts of things pertaining to tulpas, and just analyze them from an existential standpoint, or what we feel an existentialist may interpret and respond to those concepts with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

- What are your general thoughts and interpretations behind existentialism?

 

KHost: I'm fairly skeptical of existentialism. Your range of choices will always be limited by the society you live in, by the way your parents grew you up, by the people you've met and the books you've read. Even if you discard all that and become a real agnostic - and that's easier said than done - your free will is going to be limited by your knowledge.

 

- Do you feel the premises behind existentialism can be a common philosophical base we all share?

 

K: Sorry, but no. There are some areas where we can get close to it, for example tulpa creation. But I think we need a more solid base than something like "everybody, do what you want".

 

- Do you feel this philosophy can be compatible, or incompatible with the concept of tulpas?

 

K: Again, as a tulpa I must say no. Existentialism can be applied to humans, because (and sorry if this looks overly simplified) they don't know why they were created and by whom. On the contrary, I think every tulpa deep down knows the answers to both of these questions regarding him/herself. At least I do. And for me, that makes a groundbreaking difference.

 

- Do you feel there can be ineffable, or even irrefutable truths that can be prevalent in all circumstances in relation to how one assesses their lives along with their tulpas?

 

KHost: No, it would be like setting rules. I don't think that a relation between a host and a tulpa can be ruled.

 

K: I have to disagree with my master. I don't want to set "rules", but I think (for example) that all tulpas are in debt with their creators. At the same time, a tulpa isn't a tulpa if he or she is not granted some freedom of thought and behaviour. I could go on, but I think you can see that not everything is relative.

 

- Would being agnostic about whether or not there are ineffable truths, or inherent meaning and purpose in life intimidate you?

 

K: Terribly.

KHost: Nah, I'm used to it.

 

- Do you feel your tulpa may self-actualize in a negative manner when they realize they could go both ways in existing with you?

 

KHost: If you knew her, you could tell that she's already self-actualized in a very annoying manner.

 

K: Please answer seriously!

 

KHost: Ok, what is a "negative manner"? She can choose for herself, and if I can't agree with her choices we'll talk about it. Worst case scenario, we'll separate. But at least, it will be her own decision.

 

- If not, what are attributes you feel would encourage a tulpa to not have a negative disposition towards the probable meaningless in life, and contribute in creating personal meaning with you as well?

 

KHost: If we assume that a tulpa's life is meaningless...

 

K: ... (which is not)...

 

KHost: ... I say that the solution is the same as for humans: find a goal, a dream. Something to believe in, work for, and have fun with. Plus, nothing beats a host and a tulpa with a common goal.

 

- Do you feel free will is self-evident to you (whether you feel it’s inherent within your existence, or implicit)?

 

KHost: As I wrote before, we all have some degree of free will, but it's limited by our own experience.

 

K: Thank you for this great thread!

While I was rushing downward to the lowland,

Before mine eyes did one present himself,

Who seemed from long-continued silence hoarse.

When I beheld him in the desert vast,

“Have pity on me,” unto him I cried,

“Whiche’er thou art, or shade or real man!”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for taking the time to respond to the queries. Hopefully people see they were just dummy questions rather than me actually being overly concerned about them. Kind of like an interviewer giving general questions that may seem silly, but it’s really just to hear that person’s take on the matter.

 

Anyway.

 

KHost: I'm fairly skeptical of existentialism. Your range of choices will always be limited by the society you live in' date=' by the way your parents grew you up, by the people you've met and the books you've read. Even if you discard all that and become a real agnostic - and that's easier said than done - your free will is going to be limited by your knowledge.[/quote']

 

I have a feeling that you may be thinking that true agnostics have to absolve all social interactions, their moral standards, interpersonal skills, upbringing, and such. Maybe there could be individuals with that mentality, but that may fall under the lines of a deeply cynical view on fatalism, or other beliefs. Being agnostic is simply just not knowing, and it doesn’t mean that a person will naturally shift into nihilistic speculation about their own life. They may very do so, but it would probably be a transient phase before they realize they’re going to have to move on with their lives at some point.

 

An existentialist doesn’t really mean a person who throws away all of what was stated above, because in short, they’re just people that live without certainty and with personal obligation and responsibility, and acknowledging that doing something like that can be an overbearing task. And they learn to overcome that fear and doubt simply because they know something like experiencing existential angst for example was a clear testament of how they had to resolve their mixed feelings when realizing the freedom they have in relation to actions they take. Not actions that could affect the world in entirely (since that would be questionable and debatable), but more of something like:

 

- Punching someone in the face

- Killing themselves

- Stealing something

 

You know, just obvious actions. Even if there’s acknowledgment of that freedom, it doesn’t mean they suddenly forgot the legal consequences from that. Existentialism is more of a “feeling,” i.e., a blank canvas for reacting in a certain way, rather than just something you “read” and see how to mandate your own life, if that makes any sense.

 

Don’t forget that a person’s view of personal responsibility will involve what you mentioned with social conditioning, upbringing, gregarious interaction, etc. An existentialist isn’t making an exception to this at all. They just acknowledge, from what Heidegger may have believed, is how they know, and that they know it.

 

And extending from the last sentence, a tulpa could easily contemplate on these things, become aware of their freedom (at least within what they can do with their host and themselves, and both of their imaginative potential), and simply know this realization, knowing how they came to reach that realization, and then subscribing to whatever personal responsibility, or even ownership of their self-hood and existence they feel is practical.

 

They could make a turn for the worst, but with what Leaf stated:

 

I partially answered this before' date=' but I feel like a new tulpa would be very lost in their own circle of existential confusion. Showing them what you life means to you and their life means to you would, in my mind, negate a nihilistic disposition.[/quote']

 

K: Sorry' date=' but no. There are some areas where we can get close to it, for example tulpa creation. But I think we need a more solid base than something like "everybody, do what you want".[/quote']

 

I’m not sure where you got the idea that existentialism means the believer would be predisposed for acts that may be purely hedonistic, and potentially barbaric rather than one where they take into consideration of their personal standards and responsibility (e.g. moral, ethics), and interpersonal relations with others. Just because an individual acknowledges the freedom they may have (especially when experiencing existential angst and learning from that), like I stated before, it’s not like they have an innate desire to throw everything else away. They could have that desire, but that’s circumstantial.

 

Again' date=' as a tulpa I must say no. Existentialism can be applied to humans, because (and sorry if this looks overly simplified) they don't know why they were created and by whom. On the contrary, I think every tulpa deep down knows the answers to both of these questions regarding him/herself. At least I do. And for me, that makes a groundbreaking difference.[/quote']

 

And I completely respect that you’re able to be comfortable of what you feel your existence has a purpose in. But from what you were stating within the post, it seemed to imply that you feel that tulpas would naturally become aware of the reasons why they were created, subscribe to associations of their host as their creators, and can call it a day. For you to accept this belief of knowing those answers of yourself could probably be due to what you stated before with:

 

Your range of choices will always be limited by the society you live in' date=' by the way your parents grew you up, by the people you've met and the books you've read.[/quote']

 

In other words, you’re probably comfortable with sticking to what you can know that your existence may have been supported based on your host’s desires, view of life, moral and ethical standards, etc. But just because believing that doesn’t mean a tulpa wouldn’t have the same existential angst as their host who may not know the purpose of their existence, and whether or not there was some supernatural entity, event, and such behind all that.

 

This may imply that a tulpa would be aware that their existence may be deterministic (e.g. reasons you stated behind the meaning of your existence), and they can make choices that could be compatible with that (e.g. within what they can do along with their host). While existential angst for humans (e.g. why are they here) may seemingly be a different approach, a tulpa could, for example, have mixed feelings on:

 

“Even if I acknowledge that I exist; that I exist based on the totality of my creator’s/host/companion’s predispositions, desires, upbringing, imaginative potential, and much more, why should I still exist with someone who may not know the meaning behind their existence? If they’re willing to engage in a self-fulfilling prophecy with treating me as a sentient being in hopes to contribute to my development, why would they go to such lengths while potentially being uncertain that their actions to do so may not hold any value or purpose?

 

And if they’re willing to believe in concepts of deviation, and other terms that implies that I can shift in and out of my form, and create my own meaning that could coexist with theirs, why do I have to be informed that I can do this? Shouldn’t have I been aware of these probabilities from the very start, without them having to teach me about it? Shouldn’t I have the ability for implicit knowledge, and come to that conclusion from gradually developing what I would validate as sentience, an ability to feel, perceive, or to experience subjectivity?

 

I may make justifications of acknowledging that my existence had to start somewhere, such as the desires from my host/creator/master, and consider that as having closure, but what if I went deeper than that?”

 

It’s just a general example, but in this circumstance, this wouldn’t be a tulpa that would naturally be proficient in acknowledging their ability for having those big questions answered and resolved. Now, whether or not a tulpa can engage in introspective thoughts naturally rather than what the host feels they could be capable of because they (the host) are able to be introspective is another story. At first glance, the meaning behind your existence may be as different as night and day compared to your host, but if you and your host were to engage in some kind of group thinking in thinking about the bigger picture behind that, the answers you two would formulate may be completely different.

 

K: I have to disagree with my master. I don't want to set "rules"' date=' but I think (for example) that all tulpas are in debt with their creators. At the same time, a tulpa isn't a tulpa if he or she is not granted some freedom of thought and behaviour. I could go on, but I think you can see that not everything is relative.[/quote']

 

I see, so if you generally feel one aspect in validating your existence as a tulpa is having that gift of freedom of thought and behavior…then it could be probable for a tulpa to speculate why they should attach themselves into feeling their sentience must be given directly through their host compared to metaphorical representations of what one could label as “unconscious” thoughts they could use as a supplement in developing their sentience without being overly dependent on the host’s conscious actions and willpower.

 

In other words, this could bring up questions of tulpas who may subscribe to a very loose theistic approach (e.g. labeling the host as a creator/master/or even a god), and feel their existence has some obligatory meaning for being thankful, or just being in debt to their creators. It seems that while the host may be agnostic, and maybe an existentialist, a tulpa can be an existentialist as well, but more of a theistic existentialist (loose example found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_existentialism ).

 

In other words, a tulpa could be someone that can take an existential approach towards what may be theistic implications behind their host. In this circumstance, the foundation with existentialism would be the same between the tulpa and host, but the approach is just different. Of course, I can clarify more with examples if you want me to. The point I’m getting at is that existentialism doesn’t have to be confined to agnostics, atheist, and other secular beliefs.

 

 

I think I might respond to your other points, but I feel I may repeat what I stated.

 

Just more food for thought on presumptions behind this discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don’t forget that a person’s view of personal responsibility will involve what you mentioned with social conditioning, upbringing, gregarious interaction, etc. An existentialist isn’t making an exception to this at all. They just acknowledge, from what Heidegger may have believed, is how they know, and that they know it.

 

KHost: Ok, now it makes sense. Thanks.

 

It’s just a general example, but in this circumstance, this wouldn’t be a tulpa that would naturally be proficient in acknowledging their ability for having those big questions answered and resolved.

 

K: Reading your words, I think maybe the real issue lies somewhere else. Please correct me if I'm wrong: our lives are full of doubts, both for humans and tulpas, and that's a fact. The question is: "Can we find a true and universal answer to at least some of these doubts?"

Existentialism says: "No. Each individual has to find his/her own answers".

Am I correct? If I am, there's no need to say that my answer (as far as tulpas are concerned) is: "Yes. It's not easy, but we can find some universal truths about our existence". And please note that I wrote "some", because I have my doubts and my angst, too.

Just to make myself clear, if you asked me the same question about humans, I'd say "I don't think so" or "I don't know".

 

In other words, this could bring up questions of tulpas who may subscribe to a very loose theistic approach (e.g. labeling the host as a creator/master/or even a god), and feel their existence has some obligatory meaning for being thankful, or just being in debt to their creators. It seems that while the host may be agnostic, and maybe an existentialist, a tulpa can be an existentialist as well, but more of a theistic existentialist.

 

K: Yes, that's very likely! Well, of course it would be a very peculiar kind of theistic existentialism. Imagine having a "god" that can make his/her desires very clear to you. Or a "god" that can make mistakes. Or a "god" that does not represent the Absolute Good. Or a "god" that can't promise you an afterlife as a reward for your efforts.

... Honestly: as gods, you leave much to be desired...

While I was rushing downward to the lowland,

Before mine eyes did one present himself,

Who seemed from long-continued silence hoarse.

When I beheld him in the desert vast,

“Have pity on me,” unto him I cried,

“Whiche’er thou art, or shade or real man!”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

K: Reading your words, I think maybe the real issue lies somewhere else. Please correct me if I'm wrong: our lives are full of doubts, both for humans and tulpas, and that's a fact. The question is: "Can we find a true and universal answer to at least some of these doubts?"

Existentialism says: "No. Each individual has to find his/her own answers".

Am I correct?

 

More like:

“I’m not so sure on that. Each individual has to find his/her own answers.” In short, existentialism is something you probably feel, not something you set in stone through words all the time.

 

The reason why I wasn’t so speedy in responses was the previous migration with the site, and the fact that I had to think about how I would format this post. When you stated:

 

The question is: "Can we find a true and universal answer to at least some of these doubts?"

Existentialism says: "No. Each individual has to find his/her own answers".

 

That may fall more in the line of nihilism (those who would have a positive outlook when reacting to the premise of it), especially from existential nihilism that’s part of nihilism, that life/existence/etc. wouldn’t have any inherent meaning or purpose. To me, existential nihilism seems to be more of an extreme approach of there not being any inherent meaning or purpose in life (but doesn’t argue against subjective meaning of course), and existential skepticism is just a watered-down version of that.

 

In other words, the words have a variance in intensity behind their conviction, but it seems that deep down, most would transcend to some form of existential thinking and coping. The existential skeptic may believe that there could be inherent, and long-lasting values and meaning in existence, but it’s not like they’re predisposed to think so. It could be the other way around simply because they just want to keep an open mind.

 

An existential nihilist can react in the same ways as well, though maybe their conviction is that whatever inherent meaning or purpose there could be, it’s merely transient rather than long-lasting (a skeptic can favor this disposition as well). And when I mean long-lasting, the type of meaning and purpose that can exist without our subjective interpretations of reality, i.e., attributes that would presumably be mind-independent that may imply things beyond our cognitive horizon and grasp of reality.

 

Though what’s beyond would broach metaphysical implications of the structure(s) of reality, and this thread is mostly revolved to what we can know, or at least venture within our cognitive grasp. What the limit for that horizon is probably just our imagination.

 

Again, existentialism isn’t necessarily a premise where you can make a distinctive stand from the rest like what existential nihilism, fatalism, solipsism, materialism, etc. can. It’s merely a conduit that could lead to those examples stated before seeing how the premise acknowledges that these beliefs would involve trying to find some purpose in life, and ways for coping with adversities, whether existentially, or just getting through the days.

 

K: Yes, that's very likely! Well, of course it would be a very peculiar kind of theistic existentialism. Imagine having a "god" that can make his/her desires very clear to you. Or a "god" that can make mistakes. Or a "god" that does not represent the Absolute Good. Or a "god" that can't promise you an afterlife as a reward for your efforts.

... Honestly: as gods, you leave much to be desired...

 

Oh man, that last one got me. But yeah, the example was something to take lightly, and I don’t really think a host has to define themselves as being omnipotent, and such to validate themselves as a God. It’s just that in this specific circumstance with the terminology, it’s just a supplement to imagine one of many ways of how it would be to be in the perspective of a tulpa who may face those questions, doubts, etc. about their host. They could probably see the uncertainty as more incentive to think “I exist, and I can exist to find personal meaning with them, even if how I came to existence is questionable at times.”

 

The “god” is merely a loose metaphorical representation because I’m sure that’s what people would associate for someone that would create something, someone, etc. In other words, individuals would use the word that may be referencing to other things (e.g. higher self, collective willpower), and creating their personal meaning and purpose that may go to a completely different spectrum from traditional interpretations (e.g. Christianity, or any other religion). Of course, this isn’t me shunning the traditional beliefs, to anyone that may take the last sentence out of context.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reason why I wasn’t so speedy in responses was the previous migration with the site, and the fact that I had to think about how I would format this post.

 

K: Don't worry, it's not like we're in a hurry.

 

Again, existentialism isn’t necessarily a premise where you can make a distinctive stand from the rest like what existential nihilism, fatalism, solipsism, materialism, etc. can. It’s merely a conduit that could lead to those examples stated before seeing how the premise acknowledges that these beliefs would involve trying to find some purpose in life, and ways for coping with adversities, whether existentially, or just getting through the days.

 

K: Very well, so existentialism (theistic, for tulpas) will be our approach. Then, there are two more questions I would like to ask.

According to your (everybody's) experience:

 

- Which are the main adversities a tulpa must face? That is, which are the big questions in a tulpa's life that beg for an existential approach?

 

- Should the host help the tulpa with finding the answers? Or should the tulpa find them by him/herself?

 

The “god” is merely a loose metaphorical representation

 

K: Well, it may not be as loose and metaphorical as you think it is... Of course, not many of you would define yourselves as "gods". But I believe that the power you have over us is something quite close to omnipotence, if you think about it. And that may be part of those "adversities" I would like to discuss.

While I was rushing downward to the lowland,

Before mine eyes did one present himself,

Who seemed from long-continued silence hoarse.

When I beheld him in the desert vast,

“Have pity on me,” unto him I cried,

“Whiche’er thou art, or shade or real man!”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...