DOES NOTHING EXIST???

We are? I thought you had "moved past" that. I asked you a specific question. Rather than respond in any meaningful way, you just said:



Care to answer the question I asked, if you want to stay on that topic?

To pursue other avenues also, Frank, you had asked:



I don't think anybody "know" what gravity is, Frank, as an example. That said, I would certainly trust Einstein to "know" more about gravity than some high school sophomore.

To the question: "Does anyone think their guess that the guesses of people like Nietzsche, Heraclitus, or the Buddha are any better than guesses simply pulled out of the air?," my answer is: hell, yes.

Good. I appreciate you sharing that with me.

Ask the question again.

I am not sure what you are talking about.

Yes, what is.



Yes, I mean everything that is.



I mean...WHATEVER IS.

I do not know the true nature of the REALITY of existence.

It may involve a GOD...it may be that no gods exist...there may be an all-encompassing principle...there may not be...and it may be something that humans simply are not even able to fathom as a possibility.

Whatever IS...

...that is what I am talking about when I use the expression "what IS."

Well, forgive me, Frank, if I don't quite get the idea. This much I do get, I think:

It (reality, whatever you mean) exists. It is. Kinda like Descarte "is," or so he concludes anyway.

So, whatever reality is, we do know one thing about it. It exists.

Something obviously is going on here, Layman. Either I exist alone...and in an illusion...or I exist as part of a reality, of which I can never obtain certainty.

I do not know the true nature of the REALITY of existence.

I just know that something is going on...yeah, sorta like the cogito, ergo sum.

I do not know the true nature of the REALITY of existence.

I just added this to my last post:

There are those who claim that there is no reality. I.e,, that reality does NOT exist.

They, I take it, are really wrong.

I know something exists. And whatever it IS...that is what it IS.

I'd have to hear their arguments to comment.

I wasn't talking about "their" argument, Frank. I was talking about yours. You said Reality IS.
So it exists, according to you.
It can't "not exist," according to you.
Or did I read you wrong?

Layman...what is your problem?

If you have a bone of contention with anything I have written...pick out the one most significant one...and let's discuss it.

What IS...IS.

If you cannot deal with that...go talk with someone else. I don't have time for games.

Games?

Games!

Please tell me your are not going to ask me to explain what a game is.

On that regard I am rather inclined to ask what is it that is not a game ?

I'm entering the fray late. After reading through the post I have more questions. I admit from the onset that I am the least qualified to comment on this matter. I also assume there is a correlation between this thread and the Reality is relative, not absolute thread?

I do have some understanding, a minimal one at best, of Phenomenology? At least from an existential point of view...that is my reference. That one cannot know an object, an external object, in and of itself...is that somewhat the gist?

Second, today because of the neurosciences we may have a better understanding how the brain works and a better understanding of consciousness as oppose to what Heidegger and other existential philosophers had to work with.

So where do I start?

Tautologies. I begin here because tautologies tell me absolute nothing about anything. It is what it is, Bob being Bob etc, says nothing about what Bob is?
How can any one make an assertion when there's is nothing known about what one is asserting... to the degree as to question if that something referred to even exist?

To postulate the existence of something there must be a reason for it? Or are we making random assertions for the sake of making them? Should they at least fall in the realm of minimum to high probability for their possibility?

And if there is no way of ascertaining any knowledge of this something asserted is that equivalent to zero equally nothing for all concerns?

E.G. if there were three bottles on a table and in one bottle contain all the knowledge that we had and was represented by jelly beans and a second bottle contain the equivalent of nothing represent all the things we did not know and the third bottle would contain ah...what would it contain to represent the asserted unknown which would look like what...nothing?

So if one removed both the jar full of knowledge unknown and the bottle of the asserted unknown and put them behind your back and then bringing them forward and ask some one to pick out the bottle with knowledge unknown from the asserted something unknown, to distinguish between the two, how can you tell the difference? For all intent and purpose they would be equivalent equaling zero.

Again I am talking the probability of something possibly existing.
So a tautological explanation for me is no explanation at all.
If we use language to describe things, to form and help shape our understanding and view of the world, and if we can't to some degree, even to a minimal degree, then it is as good as saying that you can not assert something or anything that you know nothing about. You are making assertions from ignorance.

I could be wrong but to assert something is a positive statement and should require some rational reason for it. Otherwise would you be willing to give equal credit to all assertions no matter how fanatical the may sound?

If I am correct I guess we are using the r = the reality that we know
as oppose to R= the external and all inclusive reality that we can't or don't know? Am I correct in assuming this?

So here is where my confusion begins. Until otherwise proven I have a difficult time differentiating the R from the r. If the r is all I know and the R can not be known then the r for me is all that there is, It is the r that is all inclusive and has the greater possibility and the greater probability to be true.

Though are senses are limited and flawed what little we have managed to garner is still more then any evidence gather to speculate about the R.

And what we have learn and haven't learn about our world doesn't mean the picture of the external world that we do possess is incorrect or unknowable. Or that is no more than a proxy for the real unknown R.
Debatable? Of course.

And it sure doesn't mean that the external world is subjective.
Otherwise I would find it hard that we are able to have some technology.

I am probably in the minority, I maybe the only one who views it this way. I maybe wrong, but for the time being I find the idea of a R reality superfluous.

Until someone can show me what this t is is I can't entertain the idea of a R reality save the one that I see, hear, taste and live in.

If it exist, to state that it exist, I think that would mean and entail that in some way, shape or fashion, that it can be experienced in the natural world of our existence?

Just trying to think things out here.

The tautology “what IS…IS”, vacuous though it may seem, is use to make a case for the ultimate REALITY being objective rather than subjective.

If the REALITY of “what is going on here” is whatever it is (without knowing what it is)…then any claim that it is relative or subjective evaporates. No matter what it IS…that is what it is.

Even if someone could make the case that REALITY is relative and subjective, as Fresco asserts erroneous that he has, actually making the case would negate it…because then THAT would be the objective REALITY.

Not sure where you are going with what you are saying here, Argome, but suggesting the tautology is not germane to the argument being made (which seems to be the essence of what you are saying) is, in my opinion, incorrect.

I acknowledge I am not addressing the subject of this thread, mostly because I consider it a trick question of sorts...sorta like "can GOD make a rock so heavy he can't lift it" or "can an irresistible force meet an immovable object," It is more an interesting paradox than a question.

I'll address this at he end




I agree, but for me the Ultimate reality is the one that I can experience not one that I can't know. So R and r are the one and the same..for me.



I agree and even say so"If it exist, to state that it exist, I think that would mean and entail that in some way, shape or fashion, that it can be experienced in the natural world of our existence?





Tautologies are conversation enders. In many instances they leave people wanting. They are for the most part empty responses, often use when people either are oblivious to the reasons of their action, when they can't explain their action nor desire to explain them. I don't think that is your intention. But it is probably why I stay away from them. As you have stated they are vacuous.

I guess in some way and manner it is like when you wanted to know about that math problem. You wanted to understand. Tautologies doesn't offer any closer save rhetoric. LOL



But at least the paradox can be addressed. If I give the dumbest answer I would still be addressing the question.

Nothing can be added to statements such as Bob is being Bob, it is what it is or I said what I said etc. To me these seem to self qualifying statements.

Like I said I was just rummaging through "the shadow's of my mind."