Has reality always been? Will it always be?

Forums: Reality, Philosophy
Email this Topic • Print this Page

I want you all to dig deep into your brains, and come up with the best answer you could possibly summon. Has reality always been? If yes why? How could it possibly have always been? All throughout human knowledge everything has a start and an end. Will reality always remain?
(Do not try to be smart and state that reality is a concept, because yes it is a concept.)

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 10 • Views: 4,822 • Replies: 70

@ApollosEnvy,

I don't actually know what you are asking...and I suspect you don't know what your are asking either, but...

...anyone who attempts to answer what you probably are asking and comes up with anything other than...

...I do not know and any guesses would be just blind guesses...

...is kidding both you and him/herself.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

I don't actually know what you are asking.

That's the most sensible thing you've said on the word "reality" for the past 10+ years !

1 Reply

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

Quote:
I don't actually know what you are asking.

That's the most sensible thing you've said on the word "reality" for the past 10+ years !

Allow me to return the "compliment."

This sentence of yours was the most coherent you've posted in the past 10+ years, Fresco.

You actually got the insult out using words that were not focused on speaking the way dumb people think smart people speak.

2 Replies

@ApollosEnvy,

My answer to you is that "reality" is not an "it". It is a word used in situations inviting consensus about "what is the case" when there may be dissent. It has no meaning in terms of an existential state independent of definers of "states".

0 Replies

@ApollosEnvy,

It depends on what you mean by "reality."

Also, one thing is the world, another thing entirely is human knowledge about the world. The world isn't limited by human knowledge.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

I suggest you think about that word "entirely". Wink

2 Replies

@fresco,

Hummm.

When I first read Blue's remark, my thought was, "Maybe there is something here about which Fresco and I could be in agreement."

But I was thinking of his sentence, "The world isn't limited by human knowledge."

I thought we might both consider that presumptuous...albeit for different reasons.

I think the sentence is more logical if written, "The world may not be limited by human knowledge"...or..."It is possible the world is not limited by human knowledge."

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

My opinion of "knowledge" is "that which informs potential human actions" (or inaction). Since all action is with respect to "a world"(physical/psychological/social) then it follows that "world" and "knowledge" are in an inextricable dynamic relationship.

1 Reply

What was it like, before reality showed up ? Surreal? Unreal? Ante-real?

1 Reply

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

My opinion of "knowledge" is "that which informs potential human actions" (or inaction). Since all action is with respect to "a world"(physical/psychological/social) then it follows that "world" and "knowledge" are in an inextricable dynamic relationship.

Thank you for sharing that opinion. And, of course, considering our many discussions over the years, I realize you are of that sort of opinion.

It is my opinion that you have much too high a regard for the "human" component of almost everything regarding the true nature of the REALITY of existence. Many of the philosophers to whom you refer make, what I consider to be, that same mistake.

But the fact is that the "relationship" between "humans" and REALITY may be about as consequential as a cell in an ant's body is to what we call "the cosmos."

We don't know.

However, IF humans are as important to REALITY as you are guessing, Fresco, that opinion may have value.

My opinion is that it is much more likely that any relationship that exists between humans and REALITY does not extend past humans trying to understand it and communicate about it.

1 Reply

Finally a philosophy thread I won't remove from my reading list immediately; in my reality, many of them are silly. This is short term thinking though, not always.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Our sticking point will always be that that you want to separate "know" from "a thing that is known" The only knowledge I have of "reality" is how I use the word as a seeking of consensus about "what is the case" (even with "myself"). Since I cannot get beyond "reality" as "a word used in certain contexts" it follows for me that "reality"only refers to human attempts to co-ordinate action . (i.e Language is a behavior which co-ordinates behavior).

Now even if we move to a comparison of species paradigm and say a frog's world" is different to "the human world", I am essentially not talking about "frog's having "a different reality", I am talking about how a frog's behavior might empirically differ from ours in what we define as "a specific state of affairs". To argue otherwise would be to assign an anthropomorphic view to a frog's perceptual processes. So my assertion about relativity of "reality" lies only in human verbal differential specifications of states of affairs (aka paradigms) and such paradigms have no developmental limit. In short there are no "ultimate states of affairs".

1 Reply

@fresco,

I am not talking about a frog's world...OR a human's world, Fresco.

I am talking about the true nature of the REALITY of existence.

"Our sticking point" is that you simply will not divorce "our ability to have knowledge of it...and our ability to describe it"...from what it is independent of us....independent of our abilities.

By now you know that, but you are stonewalling for some reason. I suspect it is because you are unwilling to concede that someone like me could possibly be on to something you missed.

Try to get past that. I'm not a bad person...and although I freely acknowledge that I am not the sharpest tool in this shed...I am by no means stupid.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

And as usual I am saying that that is either meaningless, or logically equates to a belief in a state that others assign to the province of "an omniscient deity".

And at that point you get your decree absolute.

BTW You look a like a simpleton when you call my posts "stonewalling". That attitude will get you straight back on "ignore".

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

fresco wrote:

Quote:
I don't actually know what you are asking.

That's the most sensible thing you've said on the word "reality" for the past 10+ years !

Allow me to return the "compliment."

This sentence of yours was the most coherent you've posted in the past 10+ years, Fresco.

You actually got the insult out using words that were not focused on speaking the way dumb people think smart people speak.

Frank, I don't know who Fresco is, but your comment was one of the funniest things I have ever read. Probably because I have been embarrassed for people who have done this, but no one has ever explained it so clearly. Please understand I'm not pinging you or Fresco, but the line "the way dumb people think smart people speak" caught me by surprise, but made me smile. You didn't overthink it, it was pure, I loved it.

1 Reply

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

And as usual I am saying that that is either meaningless, or logically equates to a belief in a state that others assign to the province of "an omniscient deity".

You are doing that gratuitously and out of necessity. There is nothing about my post that requires any of that.

Quote:

And at that point you get your decree absolute.

It is impossible for REALITY to be anything but absolute...no matter what it is. You are trying to find a square circle.

Quote:

BTW You look a like a simpleton when you call my posts "stonewalling". That attitude will get you straight back on "ignore".

You ARE stonewalling...and I am not a simpleton...nor do I look like one.

Put me on IGNORE if you choose.

(I do not understand people who use "I'm going to put you on ignore" as a threat of sorts???)

1 Reply

@glitterbag,

Thank you, Glitterbag. Can't take credit for it. I lifted it from someone...but I cannot remember who it was..l.but I THINK it was Paul Krugman.

It is a cool phrase.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

It was Krugman. Just Googled it and came up with:

http://www.vice.com/read/paul-ryan-what-stupid-people-think-a-smart-guy-sounds-like

EDIT: Actually, it was Bhaskar Sunkara. But I think Krugman borrowed it for one of his columns.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

It is a great way to express that particular behaviour. I like Krugman, he keeps it simple when it can be.

0 Replies

Has reality always been? Will it always be?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know