Reality from the view point of theists

Guys ... Guys we have another IS supporter.
I would like to share a cartoon with you guys because I think that you may find meaning in it where many other people can not. It has three parts that total less than 20 minutes.
The first time I seen it I thought it was silly and did not finish watching it but some how it was shown to me by another person so I gave it a second chance and I am glad that I did.

If you watch those videos you'll only end up hating yourself. Don't do it, choose life.

If you are one who does not like to think for yourself it would be best if you took Izzy's advice but those who like to question the status quo you may have a different opinion about it.

...It seams that I will have to wait for an approximation of "brains" to show up and have more then an empty echo for a reply...but I guess "brains" so said was off this thread sometime ago...

So if they're someone who likes to think for themselves, they should watch videos decided by you, as opposed to seeking out videos (or preferably books) for themselves.

Never mind, I'm sure you can comfort yourself with dressmaking.

Frank; I do not dispute that there is a reality of sorts, but the concept of it is what we build out of the understanding of matter by way of physical forms... But; reality also contains much that is not real in any common understanding of real... Space and time play a part in our sense of reality without being real... So reality itself is a bit of a moral form, and then if you push that quasi concept beyond the range of human knowledge and talk about existence you are finding another problem of verification... Simply, near real is real, and distant reality is less real... Now, on top of the unreality of existence, you stack another form that is no more than quasi, and that is of objectivity... Near matter can often be objective, but again, the more distant an object is the less we can be certain of it as an object... Even the most perfect form as the words, or ideas of reality, or objectivity are, though less than perfect by a far distance do not capture all the knowledge possible in any given subject...And yet it is by forms that we can talk of and understand any part of reality... Without our forms we are blind to reality, and where we are blind to reality we have no form, concept or idea to inform us... There may be some elements of reality that are objectively true, but even of those our knowledge is incomplete, too incomplete to conclude that far beyond our sight and attention there is an objective reality... To know it we must be able to demonstrate it, and we cannot... The belief in it is not the equal of knowledge of it...

Thank you JLNobody

Guilty as charged. But so is anyone trying to assert anything about what reality actually is.



That might be because it is, or it might be because an objective view is clearer to you than a subjective approach on what reality is. Saying it's either or might be saying at least as much about ourselves as about the observable phenomenon 'reality'.



Whatever is simply is. Agreed. But do you maintain scientific objectivity when saying that? If you do I would disagree.

Can u teach me or do I have to ask Spendius ?

Spendi's more of a quilt man.

Knowing what is, is beyond all of us; and being within something like nature or reality and observing it objectively is impossible, and conceiving of the phenomenal is impossible as objective or anything else... The prime purpose of ideas, forms, concepts and notions is to classify and organize knowledge... There is no class with only one element being only what it is, and such an approach of trying to conceive of phenomena is not the organization of knowledge, but the illustration of ignorance...

So I guess I will have to rely on you fairy talents to be introduced to the haute couture business out of my boredom...no worries I am sure you are more then able Zizzy !

It's all in the wrist action.

...al right Boss I think I got it ! If I don´t you can always lend me a hand...for real !

JL wrote:



Please try to divorce yourself from the notion that we can understand REALITY…or that we can KNOW characteristics of it. Let us just deal with whether or not REALITY is subjective or objective…which is what we have been discussing all along.

Now I think I mentioned that I am not interested in WHAT the REALITY is…or if I can understand it; define it; know its characteristics; be able to communicate about it or any of that stuff. In fact, I think I have mentioned it a DOZEN times. And yet we always come back to that.

NO MATTER WHAT REALITY ACTUALLY IS…REGARDLESS OF WHETHER WE CAN UNDERSTAND IT OR DEFINE IT OR KNOW IT CHARACTERISTICS…or anything else…
…it IS what IS.

WHATEVER IT IS…is the REALITY…and that is the objective REALITY. People’s considerations about it do not change it in any way….EVEN IF THE REALITY is that it is a composite of all subjective considerations about REALITY.

Why does that not get through? (Actually, the answer to that question is part of the reason I am still here discussing this topic. I suspect it will never get through in any meaningful way any more than one can “get through” to a theists determined to defend his/her god concepts at any costs. And that is an area worth exploring—which I intend to do at some point in the near future.)

Here is a hypothetical scenario, which if correct, shows an OBJECTIVE REALITY without a question:

Everything we see…and are able to discover…is the REALITY. Nothing exists except that which can be perceived…even if not yet perceived (yet to be discovered or uncovered)…and any “spiritual” component simply does not exist. No considerations about the REALITY impacts in any way upon the REALITY…any considerations that occur are simply considerations…a subjective take on the REALITY.

In that hypothetical…the REALITY is OBJECTIVE. No subjective considerations can possibly impact on that OBJECTIVE REALITY. The OBJECTIVE REALITY remains intact no matter what subjective considerations are brought to bear on it.

Now…considering that hypothetical…can you think of any way to make it be that the OBJECTIVE REALITY is other than the OBJECTIVE REALITY. (Keep in mind that I am not saying this is the way things are…I am just creating a hypothetical in which there can be no question that OBJECTIVE REALITY…is OBJECTIVE REALITY.)

Do what you will with this…but the next part of this will be: Create a hypothetical in which there can be NO objective reality. Do whatever you want…use whatever hypothetical elements you want…but at the end, there can be NO OBJECTIVE REALITY.

It simply cannot be done…and I think you will see that.

The assertion “there is no objective reality” SIMPLY CANNOT BE SUSTAINED.

But give it a try. Then we will continue our discussion.

Gotta help Nancy get the kitty to the vet. Will be back to respond to Fido and Cyracuz later this afternoon.

If we cannot understand reality we cannot conceive of it, that is, have a concept, idea, or form to represent it because all forms represent knowledge... Moral forms, as reality is, is meaning without being... When you say reality it means something to you, and may mean something to me, but if I cannot associate the form, or concept with specific knowledge my concept is primarily a word that I would blow out my ass except for the fact that what is my fart seems to be your fact... You can form a concept of a cat, a dog, a square, a ladder, a number, and etc... Not only do such forms allow us to differenciate between this and that, it lets us group all the this away from that... How does that work if you only have one reality that is the mirror of your meaing, and nothing more substancial??? To be fair you could say reality is how I conceptualize my ignorance of reality...We will never know all we need to know about cats or dogs, but at least we can say that we know enough to tell them apart... Relatively speaking we don't know enough of reality to say we know anything significant...WE could pour every word in the dictionary down the throat of reality and it would not gain an inch... It is pointless...

What is "pointless", Fido, is refusing to acknowledge that whatever happens to be...whatever the REALITY actually is...IS what it IS.

It is an objective REALITY.

Not sure why that is so troubling to you or the others arguing as you are, because it doesn't really say very much. It is a tautology.

This has become a scene from an act in the theater of the absurd.

Try the experiment I offered to JL. Produce a hypothetical scenario where the REALITY is subjective rather than OBJECTIVE.

Then let's discuss it and see if it is actually subjective rather than objective.

Here...let me give it a try:

Okay...let's say that the only thing that exists is what we humans sense exists...and that there is NO OBJECTIVE REALITY WHATSOEVER. NONE...ABSOLUTELY NO OBJECTIVE REALITY WHATSOEVER....the only thing that constitutes REALITY is subjective realities.

NOW THE ANALYSIS;

But then the OBJECTIVE REALITY is that there is no objective reality.

Fido...on the question of REALITY...the proposition "there is no objective REALITY" defeats itself. If there is no objective reality...THAT IS THE OBJECTIVE REALITY.

Frank I see that every thing is what it is but that says nothing other than, "the state of things are what ever they are". To me it is almost meaningless. There may be a sanario where "Is what it Is" has great utility but I can not think of one at hand maybe you can.

Frank, I think you mis-attributed statements to me. I don't recall saying the following:
Quote:
"Surely "IS" is what "IS" is, but more than that, "what can "IS" tell us about things like "Reality?"
and
"Every thing IS what it is but I do not see where IS can bring out any characteristic about anything."

I agree with the latter quote but it sounds more like a statement by RL

Reality's IS-ness is obvious and requires little further discussion. But the ACTUALITY of reality points to the latter's infinite characteristics in all particular situations.

The issue of Reality's OBJECTIVITY does not mean to me the same thing as the ACTUALITY of Reality. "Objectivity" makes better sense in this discussion as one half of a contrast-set containing "subjectivity." I have to modify my earlier agreement with your insistence on the objectivity of reality. I meant to agree with the notion of the "actuality" of what is. But I also insist that MY reality as well as yours is a dynamic, creative, and largely socially constructed process which is SUBJECTIVE (and inter-subjective). One cannot meaningfully have just half the set.
Actuality is more like an absolute fact; objectivity is relative to subjectivity.* By definition all experience is subjective, and that is part of the objective or actual structure of Reality--or as I've paraphrased Searle to have said: "and that's an objective fact." (my change of heart here is no more than a refinement of the terms of this discussion. That's the point of this engagement, not the attempt to win an argument).
*setting aside for the moment my reservations about the reality of the subject-object split imposed on our thinking by grammar.