does reality exist before Human existence and thinking exist ?

It's interesting given how large our universe is, how willing people are to make it so small. The idea that we are so important that we hold reality together is rather vain. More vain is the notion that no reality exist prior to us.

A
R
T

2 Replies

@failures art,

failures art wrote:

It's interesting given how large our universe is, how willing people are to make it so small. The idea that we are so important that we hold reality together is rather vain. More vain is the notion that no reality exist prior to us.

A
R
T

Well, one explanation I have gotten from Fresco is that time was thinged by Man. And then Fresco glosses that with, "Existence of things" implies relative "persistence". Since we are aware that all is in flux, that relative persistence must be functional not independently ontological. " And some of us wonder why philosophy has such a dismal reputation among non-philosophers. They read such nonsense, and think it typical of philosophy, and so hold philosophy in contempt. And who can blame them?

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

So if it's too hard for you it's "nonsense" is it ?

Who do you think wrote this then ?

Quote:

..for us physicists believe the separation between past, present, and future is only an illusion, although a convincing one.

1 Reply

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

So if it's too hard for you it's "nonsense" is it ?

Who do you think wrote this then ?

Quote:
..for us physicists believe the separation between past, present, and future is only an illusion, although a convincing one.

I don't know who wrote that, but my guess is Einstein. But the problem is I don't know whether when whoever wrote that meant to imply that it was an illusion to think that I had an appointment with my dentist at a particular time. But, whatever he might have meant, if what he wrote implied that my appointment with the dentist was an illusion, then he was mistaken. So, my conclusion inevitably is that either that statement does not imply that I don't have an appointment with my dentist, or else the statement is mistaken. Now, which of the alternative it is, I cannot say for sure, but I would put my money on the first alternative: namely, that the statement does not imply that I don't have a dental appointment. But now I am puzzled for the reason I have already given. Namely, if the statement does not imply that I do not have a dental appointment, then I am not sure what it is that the author of that statement means when he says that the separation between past, present, and future is only an illusion" since it certainly seems to me that when I think I have an appointment with my dentist in two days (which I do) I am separating the present from the future. You do see my puzzlement, don't you?

1 Reply

@failures art,

Quote:

More vain is the notion that no reality exist prior to us.

No... more vain is that the human concept of "reality" would make sense in a universe devoid of humans.

2 Replies

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

Quote:
More vain is the notion that no reality exist prior to us.

No... more vain is that the human concept of "reality" would make sense in a universe devoid of humans.

Well, fortunately I am not very much interested in what takes the prize for vanity, since the important issue is what is true. And, I think I am going to go along with the scientists on that, particularly since i haven't a clue what it is you think it true except that you seem to think, contrary to everything we know, that the existence of people antedates the existence of the Moon. Why you think such a think is more a question of pathology than it is of philosophy, it seems to me. Or, as Wittgenstein would have put it, you are "in the grip of a theory".

0 Replies

@kennethamy,

Well guessed. It was Einstein.
And the fact that you don't understand him either, was well demonstrated.

Your "puzzlement" comes from the fact that you are unaware that you are stuck with the layman's use of "time" as a social convention useful for predicting and planning our interactions. For modern physicists it has no status of its own independent of "space" (hence "space-time"), and by extrapolation "space-time" too only has "existence" in relationship to concepts which ultimately correlate with human observations.

(My other answer was to North. I don't intend to go through your misunderstanding of Wittgenstein with you)

3 Replies

@fresco,

oooooh snap
ROFL

1 Reply

@GoshisDead,

Link ?

1 Reply

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

Well guessed. It was Einstein.
And the fact that you don't understand him either, was well demonstrated.

Your "puzzlement" comes from the fact that you are unaware that you are stuck with the layman's use of "time" as a social convention useful for predicting and planning our interactions. For modern physicists it has no status of its own independent of "space" (hence "space-time"), and by extrapolation "space-time" too only has "existence" in relationship to concepts which ultimately correlate with human observations.

(My other answer was to North. I don't intend to go through your misunderstanding of Wittgenstein with you)

That Einstein, and other physicist mean something different from the ordinary use of the term "time" does not make our ordinary use of the word, "time" illusory, or imply that I don't have an appointment with my dentist in two days time. No more than that in physics, "force" is defined as mass x acceleration, means that my belief that I was forced to hand over my wallet to a mugger is an illusion. And despite the eminence of Einstein, to tell me that physics has revealed to me that my belief that I have an appointment with my dentist in two days time is an illusion is simply nonsense.

To suggest that I misunderstand Wittgenstein and then, in the same breath say that you won't justify your remark, is a hit a run tactic as intellectually disreputable as hitting a person with your car, and running is morally disreputable. And it is a shameful thing to do. If you knew anything about Wittgenstein, you would not attempt to philosophize as you do.

1 Reply

@fresco,

I was just being a jerk, as in appreciation for a nice burn on someone.

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

Quote:

"time" does not make our ordinary use of the word, "time" illusory,

Of course it doesn't. It simply confirms the point that "time" is a useful SOCIAL convention, thereby underscoring the argument for "reality as a social construction". Those who don't understand that fairly simple point have no place on a philosophy forum, which is presumably why you were banned. Indeed since you don't like "philosophese", and you denigrate philosophers, one wonders what you are doing here at all ! Is it some sort of "mental jogging" exercise for seniors ?

1 Reply

@GoshisDead,

0 Replies

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

Quote:
"time" does not make our ordinary use of the word, "time" illusory,

Of course it doesn't. It simply confirms the point that "time" is a useful SOCIAL convention, thereby underscoring the argument for "reality as a social construction". Those who don't understand that fairly simple point have no place on a philosophy forum, which is presumably why you were banned. Indeed since you don't like "philosophese", and you denigrate philosophers, one wonders what you are doing here at all ! Is it some sort of "mental jogging" exercise for seniors ?

It demonstrates that there are two different uses of the term , "time". And that the physicists' use of the term does not make the ordinary use of the term illusory anymore than, as I pointed out, does the physicists use of "force" make the ordinary use of "force" illusory. Not liking philosophese is not evidence that I don't like philosophy. On the contrary, it is evidence that I have great respect for philosophy, and don't like those who distort philosophy and make it nonsense. If you knew anything about Wittgenstein, you would know that it was he, above all other modern philosophers who despised philosophers who speak philosophese and make philosophy into a laughing stock.

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

So go one then, tell us why you were banned .

0 Replies

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

Quote:
More vain is the notion that no reality exist prior to us.

No... more vain is that the human concept of "reality" would make sense in a universe devoid of humans.

Fair enough.

A
R
T

1 Reply

@failures art,

failures art wrote:

fresco wrote:

Quote:
More vain is the notion that no reality exist prior to us.

No... more vain is that the human concept of "reality" would make sense in a universe devoid of humans.

Fair enough.

A
R
T

What is "fair enough" about it? It is just false, so far as I can see. You too don't think that there was a Moon before there were people? Perhaps you also need to brush up on science. It not merely makes sense, it is true to the best of out knowledge. "Fair enough" my left foot!

1 Reply

For some reason I just got a vision of a senior with a false left foot, hobbling round the jogging track.

1 Reply

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

For some reason I just got a vision of a senior with a false left foot, hobbling round the jogging track.

Abuse is no argument. Try to think up an argument, even if pitiful.

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

It's that the human concept of reality is flawed. That's what I'm saying is fair enough. I read fresco's italics, and thought it was a fair enough critic. I'm not saying that nothing existed before humans. Far from it. Read ANY of my posts to see that.

I'd say the comparison between the concepts of reality ans time is a bit abstract too. The concept of time does have function while reality does not. Perhaps humans one day will have a better functional concept of reality such that fresco's statement would be false, but as is, I think it's fair.

Forget reality, and simply know that the universe did not begin with man. Life and cognition came later. Whatever reality is (if it is anything to be conceptualized at all) is probably not a matter of the universe but simply a social exchange.

A
R
T

0 Replies

does reality exist before Human existence and thinking exist ?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know