Reality - thing or phenomenon?

@tomr,

It is a sort of 'chicken and egg' situation.
We can only resolve it through assumptions, but many of those assumptions have very compelling arguments such as hardness and texture, which can lead us to think of 'objective existence'.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

But whatever it is...IT IS.

It objectively IS.

On the subject of whether reality is objective or not, there are philosophers who say that it is and there are philosophers who don't agree with this. The philosophers who don't agree that reality is objective are very large in number and stretch back over many thousands of years as well as there being many contemporary philosophers (and scientists) who hold that position today.

You Frank have latched on to the first group and arrogantly repeat that reality is objective without refuting those eminent philosophers who disagree with you. You have not read these philosophers and have made no attempt to refute their position yet you 'know' that reality is objective!!!???

It is arrogant to say you will repeat you claim 'at' ci until he understands he is wrong because he has all those eminent philosophers who disagree with you on his side. If you can't offer a refutation of those eminent philosophers please stop being so arrogant and stick to only guessing.

1 Reply

Accusations of arrogance from igm are hilarious, given his penchant for spouting his religious superstitions as though they were fact.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

Accusations of arrogance from igm are hilarious, given his penchant for spouting his religious superstitions as though they were fact.

I disagree.

Even if it was true (which it isn't) that would not make my last post to Frank... incorrect.

Please quote me saying something that is superstitious as if it were a fact?

2 Replies

@igm,

I have amended my last post.

0 Replies

@fresco,

Quote:

I have argued before that the abstract permanance of words taken out of context lulls us into that belief in the abstract existence of "a reality" (IS-NESS independent of context).

Yes. I have tried rather ungracefully to communicate that point. But the permanence of words seems to quickly and unnoticed become the permanence of whatever the words refer to. I wonder if this was part of Nietzsche's motivation for calling grammar the metaphysics of the people.

1 Reply

@igm,

I did not say that you were "wrong." You called Frank arrogant, and i am pointing out that that is hypocrisy on your part. Here is s glaring example of you peddling your religious superstitions as though they were fact. This is just one example of many. The mere use of the term buddha is religious superstition. You cannot demonstrate that Siddartha was "awakened" or "enlightened." Certainly you can believe it if you choose. The use of any claims about enlightenment or states of consciousness are exercises in religious superstition. You can certainly believe in those things is you like, but you cannot demonstrate that there is any such thing as enlightenment or states of consciousness as those terms are used by Buddhists.

igm wrote:

To muse...

The Universe appears differently to each and every sentient being because of how they view reality. What appears is experienced differently because of that... and has psychological implications which can make for a happy life or an unhappy life and anywhere in between.

There are Universes for those that reason; others for those that rely on instruments that measure. Yet others created by the results of pure math. Universes for those with faith and those without it. Universes for the pessimistic and Universes for the optimistic. Others for the brave and still others for the cruel. They are all valid but some are psychologically happier places to be and some are hellish.

It's like the many-worlds QM interpretation. There are as many Universes as there are sentient beings. Those that view a similar Universe can indirectly communicate and interact but they don't view the same Universe as they are infinite and no two are identical.

For those that measure the Universe then it appears as relatively measurable but the drawback is a Universe which leads to a psychological state that sees the individual as insignificant within the vastness of that measurable place it finds itself in.. just a tiny insignificant speck.

For those with faith and those with reason, their Universes have doubt and confusion as both don't stand up to close scrutiny.

No Universes are permanent as sentient beings constantly change their views. Sentient beings eventually experience them all in an endless cycle, until...

The letting go of all world-views... leads to psychological perfection... and the notion of 'Universe' is transcended.

End of muse.

I don't have a problem with people having beliefs, nor with them airing their beliefs. The problem i have is with the arrogance of those who pretend that their beliefs are indisputable truths, and that holding those beliefs makes them intellectually and morally superior to those who do not. You do that all the time.

2 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Hmm ...Nietzsche is more JLN's srea of study, but that statement makes sense to me.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Loath as I am to encourage your belligerence, I would simply point out with respect to igm's contributions that this is a PHILOSOPHY THREAD, where words like "facts", "evidence", "beliefs" and "truths" are up for grabs. It is perfectly acceptable, to set up "a Buddhist scenario" as a contextual background to a particular "take" on those words, just as it is to set up a Heideggerian one or a Socratic one. The arrogance (or ignorance) lies with those who argue that the meaning of those words is set it stone. Such proponents are wasting their time, and everybody elses, who are genuinely pursuing metaphysical issues.

1 Reply

@Ding an Sich,

You didn't explain that very well, did you. You wrote,

Quote:

he's still right. Whatever "right" would mean in a guessing framework.

You just can't admit your mistake. That has absolutely nothing to do with Law of Identity. It's a non sequitur, AND a straw man. IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE LOGICALLY OR IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE.

0 Replies

@fresco,

Quote:

Since this context is by definition shifting in space-time, the law of identity (A=A) is a questionable axiom based on static set theory rather than dynamic interaction of observer and observed.

That's only true in the context of your confused mind.

Do you own à car or a house? Can I help you "let them go", since they are not the car or house you once bought?

2 Replies

@Olivier5,

It seems to me that so many posters on this thread like to confuse simple concepts. I think they read too many philosophy books. LOL Mr. Green

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Where's the confusion ? I "own both" which means I have socially agreed rights and responsibilities with which I can forward plan. But I am also aware that those "things" are in the continous process of change as indeed am I, such that my exercise of those rights and responsibilities also change.

Transience of co-relationship is the name of the game, not freeze-frames of epheremeral "is-ness", which some posters would like to call "reality".

1 Reply

@fresco,

Quote:

Where's the confusion ? I "own both" which means I have socially agreed rights and responsibilities with which I can forward plan. But I am also aware that those "things" are in the continous process of change as indeed am I

Since you are not who you used to be and these things are not equal to what you bought, in what sense do you still own them? Why is everything changing and "ing-ing" but not your property rights?

2 Replies

@igm,

igm wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

But whatever it is...IT IS.

It objectively IS.

On the subject of whether reality is objective or not, there are philosophers who say that it is and there are philosophers who don't agree with this. The philosophers who don't agree that reality is objective are very large in number and stretch back over many thousands of years as well as there being many contemporary philosophers (and scientists) who hold that position today.

You Frank have latched on to the first group and arrogantly repeat that reality is objective without refuting those eminent philosophers who disagree with you. You have not read these philosophers and have made no attempt to refute their position yet you 'know' that reality is objective!!!???

It is arrogant to say you will repeat you claim 'at' ci until he understands he is wrong because he has all those eminent philosophers who disagree with you on his side. If you can't offer a refutation of those eminent philosophers please stop being so arrogant and stick to only guessing.

Thank you for sharing that, igm.

1 Reply

@fresco,

The "belligerence" is all in your head, except, of course for your new propensity to call people disobliging names if they question your premises. I also question your silly insistence on statements from authority, and appeals to authority. I guess in your silly, narrow little world, that is also belligerence.

I don't argue that anything is set in stone. I argue that absent the ability for igm to demonstrate his claims about Siddartha and his own, personal "enlightenment," he is simply peddling a religious superstition, no better nor worse, and no different from any other religious superstition. I truly do not care what your silly take on the subject is.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Change occurs at different rates relative to different systems (social, psycholgical, physical..). In time of war or civil disturbance "ownership rights" can change over night.

What is the point of dragging this out ? I am illustrating the school of philosophical thought which regards "reality" as useful word denoting a lay concept, but a problematic one at the metaphysical level. There have even been moves to exclude the ambiguous verb "to be" from philosophical language, and replace it with a synthetic language called "E prime".

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

I like your "ing-ing" explanation about change. LOL

0 Replies

@Setanta,

No, The belligerence emanates from the mouth of one who continuously uses words like "silly", "peddling" , and "hilarious" coupled with the inevitable "I don't care what you think". You don't like it when people expose you as a loud mouthed bully. Tough ! I assure you, I intend to remind you about it every time you use that choice of words.

1 Reply

@fresco,

Quote:

Change occurs at different rates relative to different systems (social, psycholgical, physical..). In time of war or civil disturbance "ownership rights" can change over night.

Change therefore occurs VERY slowly when your ownersip rights are concerned... I see... What else changes VERY VERY slowly like this? The humand mind, maybe? Wink

1 Reply

Reality - thing or phenomenon?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know