Definition of Reality

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;127280 wrote:

I guess what you mean by, in the perceived reality of the Middle Ages, germs did not exist, but plagues from God existed, is that people in the Middle Ages did not know about germs causing disease, but they believed that God caused disease.

And I agree, of course.

Do you agree that is what you meant? Only you said it in philosophese.

No, you need to address the second half of my post.

"This would not mean that our current reality that includes germs is wrong, just different."

He is saying that our current reality is connected to our current language, so in their reality there were no germs, while in ours there are. I think he's saying there is only current reality, and germs vs. plagues from God are both just concepts in language that do not reflect reality.

I agree in a way, except that I think the understanding of our reality develops with time, so that the perceived reality of the Middle Ages and our perceived reality are the same, but our understanding of that perceived reality is further developed.

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil. Albuquerque;127284 wrote:

Ah, intrinsically intertwined! Why didn't you say so before? Now it is all clear.

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;127288 wrote:

Ah, intrinsically intertwined! Why didn't you say so before? Now it is all clear.

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil. Albuquerque;127291 wrote:

Because even if I did not exist, Mars would still exist. I know that since I know Mars existed way before I existed.

1 Reply

@MMP2506,

MMP2506;127245 wrote:

Very true, after the Enlightenment this problem of a universal objective reality arose and we have not been able to recover on a widespread scale. If you study the Ancient philosophies, before Newtonian physics ran the world, you will find that they greatly valued the subjective experience.

Sadly we can't get rid of this mindset even though we have gotten rid of Newtonian physics. One day the culture will catch up to quantum mechanics, it will just take time.

I agree. You like Blake? Good stuff. There does seem to be a time lag.

Check out this passage from Kojeve:

In the course of history, man speaks of the real and reveals it by the meaning of his discourses. Therefore the concrete real is a real revealed by discourse. Consequently, when he says that Nature is only an abstraction and that only Spirit is real and concrete, he is saying nothing paradoxical. He is simply saying that the concrete real is the totality of the real from which nothing has been taken away by abstraction, and that this totality, as it exists really, implies that something which we call history. To describe the concrete real, therefore, is to describe its historical becoming too. Now this becoming is precisely what Hegel calls dialectic or movement. To say that the concrete real is spirit, then, is to assert that it has a dialectical character, and to say that it is a real revealed by discourse, or Spirit.

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;127293 wrote:

Because even if I did not exist, Mars would still exist. I know that since I know Mars existed way before I existed.

No ! ...I know this argument already...but its not holistic perspective...remember butterfly effect ?

Probably, no, not probably, With certainty, if you not existed, and therefore your mind to, then the entire Universe would be different, including Mars of course...

...thus Mars would be something else, maybe and just maybe, close to what Mars is now... Laughing

....so whatever might be your relation with Mars, is Real, even as a perspective and mind dependent !

2 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil. Albuquerque;127299 wrote:

No !
I know this argument already...but its not holistic perspective...remember butterfly effect ?

Probably, no, not probably, Certainly ! if you not existed, and your mind to, the entire Universe would be different, including Mars of course, thus Mars would be something else, maybe and just maybe, close to what Mars is now...

It is flattering for you to say that had I not existed everything would be different, but really, I don't think that I am as important as all that. And even if I were, and Mars would be different, Mars would still exist.

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

kennethamy;127293 wrote:

Because even if I did not exist, Mars would still exist. I know that since I know Mars existed way before I existed.

Fil. Albuquerque;127299 wrote:

No !
I know this argument already...but its not holistic perspective...remember butterfly effect ?

Probably, no, not probably, Certainly ! if you not existed, and your mind to, the entire Universe would be different, including Mars of course, thus Mars would be something else, maybe and just maybe, close to what Mars is now...:lol:so whatever might be your relation with Mars, is Real, even as a perspective !

Lol, but Kenneth you take is as proven that Mars is not just a figment of your imagination, or of everyone's imagination. If Mars did not exist in the Matrix, and we are discussing it in the Matrix, would you not then say "Because even if I did not exist, Mars still doesn't exist. I know that because I know that there is no such planet as Mars."? Hence you would be wrong, but use the same line of reasoning you are using now.

0 Replies

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;127305 wrote:

It is flattering for you to say that had I not existed everything would be different, but really, I don't think that I am as important as all that. And even if I were, and Mars would be different, Mars would still exist.

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil. Albuquerque;127307 wrote:

No. Why do you think I am? What question do you think I am begging?

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;127309 wrote:

No. Why do you think I am?

0 Replies

@housby,

A suggestion: what is essential in this dialog is a vantage point somewhere outside 'the matrix', to use the analogy that has been suggested. The only way to criticize 'existence as matrix' is from some place beyond it. Then you can look down at it, as it were, from beyond it.

Otherwise if your perspective is simply inside the matrix, then you can't entertain this perspective, and what exists, just exists. That is your starting point, the pre-supposition to everything else.

2 Replies

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;127313 wrote:

A suggestion: what is essential in this dialog is a vantage point somewhere outside 'the matrix', to use the analogy that has been suggested. The only way to criticize 'existence as matrix' is from some place beyond it. Then you can look down at it, as it were, from beyond it.

Otherwise if your perspective is simply inside the matrix, then you can't entertain this perspective, and what exists, just exists. That is your starting point, the pre-supposition to everything else.

At bottom, the Matrix notion is just Descartes's evil demon warmed over in living color. And it fails to make sense for the same reason. Pointless skepticism. There is absolutely no reason in the world to believe it is true. It is just a bare possibility. That I am mistaken about everything. But there is no outside to look from, since there is no inside. I turned the DVD off after ten minutes, since it made no sense. You can make a mistake only if you know what it would not be to make a mistake. The supposition of the Matrix is like the supposition that all money is really counterfeit. Even genuine money made by the government. It makes no sense to suppose that all money, even genuine money, is counterfeit. Counterfeit as opposed to what? Not genuine money, since genuine money is also counterfeit money! But how can there be counterfeit money unless there is something it makes sense to call genuine money which the counterfeit money is not? Not only is there no reason to believe it is true, but there is no reason to believe it makes sense.

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;127316 wrote:

At bottom, the Matrix notion is just Decartes's evil demon warmed over in living color. And it fails to make sense for the same reason. Pointless skepticism. There is absolutely no reason in the world to believe it is true. It is just a bare possibility.

1 Reply

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;127313 wrote:

A suggestion: what is essential in this dialog is a vantage point somewhere outside 'the matrix', to use the analogy that has been suggested. The only way to criticize 'existence as matrix' is from some place beyond it. Then you can look down at it, as it were, from beyond it.

Otherwise if your perspective is simply inside the matrix, then you can't entertain this perspective, and what exists, just exists. That is your starting point, the pre-supposition to everything else.

What if there is a matrix inside a matrix and so on? I don't see thinks that way in a practical sense, but I'm joining in this amusing theme. Once the notion of the matrix exists, the possibility of being inside or outside one is at least imaginable, even (to stretch things) possible. Consciously possible.

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil. Albuquerque;127322 wrote:

Would it make sense to suppose that all money is counterfeit, even genuine money? Isn't counterfeit money exactly not genuine money? But what if even genuine money is counterfeit money? Then, what is counterfeit money? It cannot be not genuine money, for there is no genuine money. The supposition of The Matrix is just like the supposition that all money, even genuine money is counterfeit money. How could that be? As Wittgenstein once wrote, do not saw off the branch you are sitting on.

2 Replies

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;127325 wrote:

What if there is a matrix inside a matrix and so on? I don't see thinks that way in a practical sense, but I'm joining in this amusing theme. Once the notion of the matrix exists, the possibility of being inside or outside one is at least imaginable, even (to stretch things) possible. Consciously possible.

Hi ! ...Its indeed a very pleasant exercise...but, the many you would have, you always would be inside the ONE...numbers are not important you agree of course... Smile

...the same goes for multiverse argument...

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil. Albuquerque;127328 wrote:

Hi ! ...Its indeed a very pleasant exercise...but, the many you would have, you always would be inside the ONE...numbers are not important you agree of course...

...the same goes for multiverse argument...

It would be even more amusing if it made any sense.

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;127329 wrote:

It would be even more amusing if it made any sense.

0 Replies

@housby,

It is very easy to get lost in a hall of mirrors once you reach this point. It requires great caution combined with the ability to think very imaginatively about what everyone usually just takes for granted. There are precedents in philosophy but not in 20th Century philosophy, which is mainly 'philosophizing inside the Matrix'. That is why I always quote the ancient Greeks and Hindu and Buddhist sages. They all have a vantage point. They are willing to consider that conventional existence might be illusory in many respects. But it is a very disorienting thing to consider.

1 Reply

Definition of Reality

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know