kennethamy wrote:
guigus wrote:
kennethamy wrote:"before [us] it was possible for the Moon to have been observed or known about." That's it: without us the world is just a possibility.
You know what I meant. I meant the we know that there was a world of planets, and stars, an moons, which antedated the existence of people by many billions of years. So don't twist my words. I was reply to your view that it was impossible for any object to exist unobserved, and I replies it was possible. That did not mean it was only a possibility. Or as you put it "just a possibility". It is a possibility that Obama is president. But it is not "just a possibility". It is an actuality. To put the best light on it, you are confusing "X is possible" with "X is only possible", another confusion. There is a big list of them now. Everything that is actual is also possible. And so, that the Moon existed for 4 billion years before it was observed is possible because it is actual. Science supports what I say. What supports what you say?
By the way, since all you seem to mean by "true existence" is just, "existence" why not drop the "true" since it just is confusing?
I did not "twist" your words. You said that "before [us] it was possible for the Moon to have been observed or known about" just because you could not have said that before us it was actually observed and known about - which alone would make it an actuality - without seeming delusional. And you are wrong: science does not support that. Scientists are well aware that any theory is always subject to going to the garbage of history, so it is never the actuality of whatever it asserts.
But that does not mean that it will become "subject to the going to the garbage of history". Just because it is a theory does not mean that it is false. Nor should we assume that it will be false at some point. It very well might be but we cannot assert that now. Science does support it and it is true. Granted at some point in the future it may be refuted or the theory may be thrown in the garbage as you so elegantly pointed out, but that does not mean that that is the case now. The theory holds, it is true, and may or may not be false in the future. You cannot say though that it will be false because it is "just a theory" (or whatever people say condescendingly of theories).
Toodles.
Fido wrote:Believe it or not, I am not missing anything... I have looked at it from all angles, and in the end all we get of reality is a sense of the meaning, and meaning is what we share in our relationships.... Truth is just one of those forms we share meaning through.... It is impossible to grasp reality whole, impossible to say what part of existence we can conceive of in reality... What we can reasonable presume is that the end of humanity will mean the end of reality and existence because all we have of reality is a certain meaning, so that life and meaning are the same.... If reality and existence and truth were to exist beyond us then they would exist; but it would not matter... For it to mean it must matter, and for us to think of it, it must mean...
That's all fine, and I generally agree with you, provided you yourself do not fall into the idealistic trap, by reducing truth to our own side of it, which you seem dangerously near to doing: there is a difference between saying that truth does not exist without our side of it and saying it is only about our side of it. Although truth has its focus always placed on our side of it, and although whatever is out there does not actually exist outside of it (except as the nothingness of a non-actual possibility), it still depends on something out there, just as much as the actuality of that something depends on it, hence its duality.
guigus wrote:
Fido wrote:Believe it or not, I am not missing anything... I have looked at it from all angles, and in the end all we get of reality is a sense of the meaning, and meaning is what we share in our relationships.... Truth is just one of those forms we share meaning through.... It is impossible to grasp reality whole, impossible to say what part of existence we can conceive of in reality... What we can reasonable presume is that the end of humanity will mean the end of reality and existence because all we have of reality is a certain meaning, so that life and meaning are the same.... If reality and existence and truth were to exist beyond us then they would exist; but it would not matter... For it to mean it must matter, and for us to think of it, it must mean...
That's all fine, and I generally agree with you, provided you yourself do not fall into the idealistic trap, by reducing truth to our own side of it, which you seem dangerously near to doing: there is a difference between saying that truth does not exist without our side of it and saying it is only about our side of it. Although truth has its focus always placed on our side of it, and although whatever is out there does not actually exist outside of it (except as the nothingness of a non-actual possibility), it still depends on something out there, just as much as the actuality of that something depends on it, hence its duality.
Everything, all meaning has its focus on our side of It... Consider every question of justice, truth, or logic... Is it not always presented from a certain perspective??? Without that Certain perspective, of the individual, all one gets is paralax... Like Anni Defranco said: Every time I move the landscape shifts.... Ultimately, life, and our individual experience of it provides that certain perspective and grounds all questions, even moral questions in what is the good of the individual, and that sense of good is not always for the best, because the logical conclusion that the certain fact of our own lives is mulitplied in humanity is lost on most people... That is the one point were logic could support morality and does not; again, because reason and logic only work from a certain perspective, and all advances of thought and behavior take a leap of insight beyond what is strictly logical... And even when that can happen, it is still from OUR side of it because there is no other side of it... No people equals no reality..., and regardless of what Kenn says: We cannot think of a reality without our being, but we can imagine it.... Without us, the life- supporting the logic is gone, so we cannot be rational because reason needs that certain grounding of life to be made possible... Would you not agree that possibility plays a part in all rational considerations???
Fido wrote:
guigus wrote:
Fido wrote:Believe it or not, I am not missing anything... I have looked at it from all angles, and in the end all we get of reality is a sense of the meaning, and meaning is what we share in our relationships.... Truth is just one of those forms we share meaning through.... It is impossible to grasp reality whole, impossible to say what part of existence we can conceive of in reality... What we can reasonable presume is that the end of humanity will mean the end of reality and existence because all we have of reality is a certain meaning, so that life and meaning are the same.... If reality and existence and truth were to exist beyond us then they would exist; but it would not matter... For it to mean it must matter, and for us to think of it, it must mean...
That's all fine, and I generally agree with you, provided you yourself do not fall into the idealistic trap, by reducing truth to our own side of it, which you seem dangerously near to doing: there is a difference between saying that truth does not exist without our side of it and saying it is only about our side of it. Although truth has its focus always placed on our side of it, and although whatever is out there does not actually exist outside of it (except as the nothingness of a non-actual possibility), it still depends on something out there, just as much as the actuality of that something depends on it, hence its duality.
Everything, all meaning has its focus on our side of It... Consider every question of justice, truth, or logic... Is it not always presented from a certain perspective??? Without that Certain perspective, of the individual, all one gets is paralax... Like Anni Defranco said: Every time I move the landscape shifts.... Ultimately, life, and our individual experience of it provides that certain perspective and grounds all questions, even moral questions in what is the good of the individual, and that sense of good is not always for the best, because the logical conclusion that the certain fact of our own lives is mulitplied in humanity is lost on most people... That is the one point were logic could support morality and does not; again, because reason and logic only work from a certain perspective, and all advances of thought and behavior take a leap of insight beyond what is strictly logical... And even when that can happen, it is still from OUR side of it because there is no other side of it... No people equals no reality..., and regardless of what Kenn says: We cannot think of a reality without our being, but we can imagine it.... Without us, the life- supporting the logic is gone, so we cannot be rational because reason needs that certain grounding of life to be made possible... Would you not agree that possibility plays a part in all rational considerations???
Does that mean that the Moon is four billion years older than the first human being or not? And, if it is, then how could its existence depend on being thought about? How about answering that question? I have asked it often enough. Have you a sensible answer or don't you?
kennethamy wrote:
Fido wrote:
guigus wrote:
Fido wrote:Believe it or not, I am not missing anything... I have looked at it from all angles, and in the end all we get of reality is a sense of the meaning, and meaning is what we share in our relationships.... Truth is just one of those forms we share meaning through.... It is impossible to grasp reality whole, impossible to say what part of existence we can conceive of in reality... What we can reasonable presume is that the end of humanity will mean the end of reality and existence because all we have of reality is a certain meaning, so that life and meaning are the same.... If reality and existence and truth were to exist beyond us then they would exist; but it would not matter... For it to mean it must matter, and for us to think of it, it must mean...
That's all fine, and I generally agree with you, provided you yourself do not fall into the idealistic trap, by reducing truth to our own side of it, which you seem dangerously near to doing: there is a difference between saying that truth does not exist without our side of it and saying it is only about our side of it. Although truth has its focus always placed on our side of it, and although whatever is out there does not actually exist outside of it (except as the nothingness of a non-actual possibility), it still depends on something out there, just as much as the actuality of that something depends on it, hence its duality.
Everything, all meaning has its focus on our side of It... Consider every question of justice, truth, or logic... Is it not always presented from a certain perspective??? Without that Certain perspective, of the individual, all one gets is paralax... Like Anni Defranco said: Every time I move the landscape shifts.... Ultimately, life, and our individual experience of it provides that certain perspective and grounds all questions, even moral questions in what is the good of the individual, and that sense of good is not always for the best, because the logical conclusion that the certain fact of our own lives is mulitplied in humanity is lost on most people... That is the one point were logic could support morality and does not; again, because reason and logic only work from a certain perspective, and all advances of thought and behavior take a leap of insight beyond what is strictly logical... And even when that can happen, it is still from OUR side of it because there is no other side of it... No people equals no reality..., and regardless of what Kenn says: We cannot think of a reality without our being, but we can imagine it.... Without us, the life- supporting the logic is gone, so we cannot be rational because reason needs that certain grounding of life to be made possible... Would you not agree that possibility plays a part in all rational considerations???
Sure; if there is such a thing as an insensible answer to the insensible.... What exists exists because if matters, and has meaning... Is the moon older??? What is time but a certain meaning, and if because there were no people to gaze upon it, it then has no meaning, what does it matter???
Oh please! Is this this kind of gibberish that is an answer to the simple question, could the Moon which is much older than people been observed by people? The answer is to that question is, no, because no people, no observation by people. Next, does that imply that the Moon existed before (and independently of its being observed)? The answer is obviously, yes. We know that that Moon existed before people existed. The evidence is massive and overwhelming. Please, no more silly business about time having meaning, and the rest. It is just a diversion because you know very well that the Moon did exist independently of people, since everything we know tells us that. And that shoots your position (which was absurd to start with) to hell. End of story.
guigus wrote:
Fido wrote:Believe it or not, I am not missing anything... I have looked at it from all angles, and in the end all we get of reality is a sense of the meaning, and meaning is what we share in our relationships.... Truth is just one of those forms we share meaning through.... It is impossible to grasp reality whole, impossible to say what part of existence we can conceive of in reality... What we can reasonable presume is that the end of humanity will mean the end of reality and existence because all we have of reality is a certain meaning, so that life and meaning are the same.... If reality and existence and truth were to exist beyond us then they would exist; but it would not matter... For it to mean it must matter, and for us to think of it, it must mean...
That's all fine, and I generally agree with you, provided you yourself do not fall into the idealistic trap, by reducing truth to our own side of it, which you seem dangerously near to doing: there is a difference between saying that truth does not exist without our side of it and saying it is only about our side of it. Although truth has its focus always placed on our side of it, and although whatever is out there does not actually exist outside of it (except as the nothingness of a non-actual possibility), it still depends on something out there, just as much as the actuality of that something depends on it, hence its duality.
What does "our side of it" mean? You might start by explaining what the "it" is. Our side of what? By the way, what is a "non-actual possibility". Now that is a new one, I'll give you that. Perhaps what you mean is "only a possibility", as in, "it is only a possibility that McCain won the election, for he did not win it". Could that be what you mean?
kennethamy wrote:
guigus wrote:
Fido wrote:Believe it or not, I am not missing anything... I have looked at it from all angles, and in the end all we get of reality is a sense of the meaning, and meaning is what we share in our relationships.... Truth is just one of those forms we share meaning through.... It is impossible to grasp reality whole, impossible to say what part of existence we can conceive of in reality... What we can reasonable presume is that the end of humanity will mean the end of reality and existence because all we have of reality is a certain meaning, so that life and meaning are the same.... If reality and existence and truth were to exist beyond us then they would exist; but it would not matter... For it to mean it must matter, and for us to think of it, it must mean...
That's all fine, and I generally agree with you, provided you yourself do not fall into the idealistic trap, by reducing truth to our own side of it, which you seem dangerously near to doing: there is a difference between saying that truth does not exist without our side of it and saying it is only about our side of it. Although truth has its focus always placed on our side of it, and although whatever is out there does not actually exist outside of it (except as the nothingness of a non-actual possibility), it still depends on something out there, just as much as the actuality of that something depends on it, hence its duality.
What does "our side of it" mean? You might start by explaining what the "it" is. Our side of what? By the way, what is a "non-actual possibility". Now that is a new one, I'll give you that. Perhaps what you mean is "only a possibility", as in, "it is only a possibility that McCain won the election, for he did not win it". Could that be what you mean?
It is our side of the truth, "it" means the truth. And a non-actual possibility means a possibility that is not yet actual. Your example fits, as a past non-actual possibility.
But that does not mean that it will become "subject to the going to the garbage of history". Just because it is a theory does not mean that it is false. Nor should we assume that it will be false at some point. It very well might be but we cannot assert that now. Science does support it and it is true. Granted at some point in the future it may be refuted or the theory may be thrown in the garbage as you so elegantly pointed out, but that does not mean that that is the case now. The theory holds, it is true, and may or may not be false in the future. You cannot say though that it will be false because it is "just a theory" (or whatever people say condescendingly of theories).
Toodles.
[...] and all advances of thought and behavior take a leap of insight beyond what is strictly logical... And even when that can happen, it is still from OUR side of it because there is no other side of it...
guigus wrote:
kennethamy wrote:
guigus wrote:
Fido wrote:Believe it or not, I am not missing anything... I have looked at it from all angles, and in the end all we get of reality is a sense of the meaning, and meaning is what we share in our relationships.... Truth is just one of those forms we share meaning through.... It is impossible to grasp reality whole, impossible to say what part of existence we can conceive of in reality... What we can reasonable presume is that the end of humanity will mean the end of reality and existence because all we have of reality is a certain meaning, so that life and meaning are the same.... If reality and existence and truth were to exist beyond us then they would exist; but it would not matter... For it to mean it must matter, and for us to think of it, it must mean...
That's all fine, and I generally agree with you, provided you yourself do not fall into the idealistic trap, by reducing truth to our own side of it, which you seem dangerously near to doing: there is a difference between saying that truth does not exist without our side of it and saying it is only about our side of it. Although truth has its focus always placed on our side of it, and although whatever is out there does not actually exist outside of it (except as the nothingness of a non-actual possibility), it still depends on something out there, just as much as the actuality of that something depends on it, hence its duality.
What does "our side of it" mean? You might start by explaining what the "it" is. Our side of what? By the way, what is a "non-actual possibility". Now that is a new one, I'll give you that. Perhaps what you mean is "only a possibility", as in, "it is only a possibility that McCain won the election, for he did not win it". Could that be what you mean?
It is our side of the truth, "it" means the truth. And a non-actual possibility means a possibility that is not yet actual. Your example fits, as a past non-actual possibility.
Oh. I see. What you mean by "our side of the truth" is only what we believe is true. But not, of course, what need be true (although it may be that too). Well, I am glad that is cleared up.
Fido wrote:[...] and all advances of thought and behavior take a leap of insight beyond what is strictly logical... And even when that can happen, it is still from OUR side of it because there is no other side of it...
First, what you call "strictly logical" has to do with symbolic logic, which is neither all nor the only logic. Second, you are falling in the idealistic trap. From "no people equals no reality" does not follow that reality does not exist. The same way there is no reality without us, we too do not exist without reality. This is a duality, and a duality means two inseparable things, each of which does not exist without the other. Without us, reality reduces to nothing, but if we are here, then reality is there.
Of course it does not follow from, If there are no people, then there is not reality. Why should it? You would need the the additional premise, that there are no people. Then, of course, the argument would be:
1.If there are no people, then there is no reality.
2. There are no people.
3. There is no reality.
Now the above argument is valid. Which is to say that 3. follows from 1 and 2 (by the inference rule, modus ponens). But, anyway. The argument is unsound, since premise 1 is false, and premise 2 is also false. So, although the argument is (as I said, valid) it is unsound. So, just what is the trap I fell into? I think you called it "the idealist trap". I don't know what that is, but then, you have not shown I have fallen into any trap at all. So, I don't guess it matters.
Now, if we are a part of reality, then, of course, if reality exists, then so do we. But, we were talking about whether the part of reality that does not include people can exist without people. At least that is what I thought we were talking about. If we were not, then I have no idea what our dispute is all about. And, it is clear that the part of reality which does not include people does exist, and can exist even if people did not exist. And, as I keep pointing out, we know that is true because we know that the Moon antedates the existence of people.
Now, that means that if we are talking about reality as including people, then clearly, unless people exist, than a part (but not all) of reality does not exist. However, if we are talking about reality as apart from people, then we know that reality can exist without people. So, to clarify matters, we can distinguish between two different senses of there term, "reality". "Reality-1", is reality as it includes people. "Reality-2" is reality as it does not include people. Now, what is true is that Reality 1 does not exist if there are no people, since it includes people. But Reality-2 does exist without people. And we know that because science provides overwhelming evidence for it.
So, I hope you are now clearer about the matter.
Of course it does not follow from, If there are no people, then there is not reality. Why should it?
Idealists reduce reality to the idea.
guigus wrote:
I am saying is that you can accept that actual reality does not exist without your belief on it without becoming an idealist. Got it?
Sorry, no, since what you just wrote is not an English sentence. Could you please translate it into English? And be sure to mention what "actual reality" means. I have never heard the phrase before. Are you a native English speaker? That may be a part of the problem. But if I think that trees don't exist unless they are thought about (or observed) then I am an Idealist. Since I don't know what "actual reality" means, I don't know whether trees are, or are not, a part of "actual reality".
guigus wrote:Idealists reduce reality to the idea.
Do you consider Kant an Idealist? Certainly you would agree that Transcendental Idealism is a form of Idealism.
If so, Kant says that "Transcendental Idealism leads to Empirical Realism". In this way, Kant is both an idealist and a realist. In fact, he claims to be more of a realist than those who called themselves realists before him.
If not, then why isn't Transcendental Idealism a form of Idealism?
Since I don't know what "actual reality" means, I don't know whether trees are, or are not, a part of "actual reality".
And be sure to mention what "actual reality" means. I have never heard the phrase before.
