Definition of Reality

I have already, several times. But here it is again. What is real is independent of mind. What would exist even if there were no minds.

Perhaps. Try it.

That seems almost the same as: what remains after you've stopped believing it.

However, could it not be useful to consider the question of "What remains after you've stopped believing it?" using a context built around the way we think? After all, justifying the beliefs we think up is the battle in figuring out who is making things up that only exist in their head.

You asked for a definition, so I gave one. I think you are now asking how we can tell when that definition applies (although I am not sure what it is you are asking). And that is, of course, a different issue. We can, for example tell the whether what we see is a mirage or an oasis: or whether it is a man cutting a lady in half, or whether it is only a pretense. (Yes, I think that what Viereck said is pretty good. That is why I keep quoting it).

You seem to make a big deal out of "demistifying" other opinions, but you find no problem in stating what you see as obvious, perhaps you need to be demistified to a higher level of inquiry? The gears behind the clock as it were?

I have already, several times. But here it is again. What is real is independent of mind. What would exist even if there were no minds.

Perhaps. Try it.

Perhaps if people didn't say things which were absurd, I wouldn't have to state the obvious. If someone says that reality is just our lives, I feel compelled to correct them.

Demystified to a higher level of inquiry? What would that mean?

Demystified to a higher level of inquiry? What would that mean?

I mean trying to understand what develops our ability to understand. To figure out the factors that cause different beliefs to propagate, because besides the common sense answers, there are a lot of other things involved. Some would say for example that religion serves only an emotional role, but an important things to figure out would be how we latch on to a religion without realizing the emotional connection. If other beliefs are tied to irrational bases, it would be important to figure out the driving forces would it not?

...Yes why to a higher level ???

Yes that is the hard part after all... I mean it is easy in hindsight to tell that it really was an oasis, or really was a mirage. But what do you use as a system of justification?

I think that as philosophers we should strive to be clear with our language when discussing these sorts of topics. I'm scolding people not because I think they're stupid, since I actually believe many of them are intelligent. I scold because I see people incorrectly use language. Instead of clarifying, they make vaguer. And though there is a time to use obscure language (like in poetry), this is not the place.

My duty is not to sit here and translate what people may have meant. If people say something but mean something else all the time, my patience wears thin. Sure, metaphor is great sometimes, but we should generally strive for simplicity and straightforwardness.

Maybe this doesn't answer your questions, but it may help to shed light on where I'm coming from when I post.



But what would demystify to a higher level mean? Translate for me, please.

I think that as philosophers we should strive to be clear with our language when discussing these sorts of topics. I'm scolding people not because I think they're stupid, since I actually believe many of them are intelligent. I scold because I see people incorrectly use language. Instead of clarifying, they make vaguer. And though there is a time to use obscure language (like in poetry), this is not the place.

My duty is not to sit here and translate what people may have meant. If people say something but mean something else all the time, my patience wears thin. Sure, metaphor is great sometimes, but we should generally strive for simplicity and straightforwardness.

Maybe this doesn't answer your questions, but it may help to shed light on where I'm coming from when I post.



But what would demystify to a higher level mean? Translate for me, please.

What we all use. Our senses, and our reason. Have you another suggestion?

I have already, several times. But here it is again. What is real is independent of mind. What would exist even if there were no minds.

Perhaps. Try it.

It would be like the difference between knowing you like something, knowing why you like something, and knowing what led you to the "why you like that something".

And which of these do you think I'm interested in, in general?

I have no idea, but did that make some sense? I know it sounds very psychological... because it is, but it seems inevitable that certain aspects of philosophy such as epistemology will marry in some way to psychology and other sciences as our understanding of the brain and mind grows.

Yes, it did make sense mostly. But you seemed to imply that I was ignoring some aspects of philosophy, right? I mean, isn't that what you meant with the demystifying to higher levels thing? I'm trying to understand how your first comment corresponds with this last comment, and what now your conclusion is.

You might as well believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Why would that be? We know that objects existed before there were minds. Therefore they existed independently of mind. QED.

We know that objects existed before there were minds. Therefore they existed independently of mind. QED.

Thoughts without content are empty, intuitions without concepts are blind.

How about: Nothing can be known without the mind.