3
   

No Reality Outside Our Own Existence

 
 
rufio
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 May, 2004 12:29 pm
My theory is that we don't have enough existing knowledge. Until we can explain every quirk in the atmosphere from the beginning of time, we don't have enough knowledge to say what will happen next. C02 has been here forever.

What does make logical sense to me, however, is that this sounds exactly like every other scare the media has come up with. Africanized bees, El Nino, Y2K, etc. Every single one of these has turned out to be nothing at all. Every scientist I've ever talked to doesn't think anything of global warming. It's just the media that's hyping it. It has nothing to do with any philosophy, since we don't know enough about anything to decide based on philosophy. It's just from my personal experiences.
0 Replies
 
Ameth A Morgana
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 May, 2004 10:28 pm
Re: No Reality Outside Our Own Existence
Child of the Light wrote:
I read Decartes' opinion on this and I have never been more indifferent to anything else in my entire life. Anyone have any strong opinions on this?


Decartes was an oddball.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 May, 2004 11:03 am
Re: No Reality Outside Our Own Existence
Ameth A. Morgana wrote:
Decartes was an oddball.

Well, I think that pretty much decides the issue. What is left to be said after that stunning logical tour de force?
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 May, 2004 06:21 pm
Well I guess he was an oddball in that he was a genius, setting major problems for future philosophy, especially his pernicious mind-body split. He was the Supreme Dualist.
0 Replies
 
David Henry
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 May, 2004 02:24 am
David Henry wrote:
Ladies and gentlemen.

Unless I'm mistaken, Kant says that the noumena is the external source of sense impressions and that phenomena is the sensation, ie, we only know of the phenomena{sensations} but don't directly access the noumena, although we must assume it's existence to explain our sensations.
If this accurate?
If it isn't, surely one of you kant fans can type a little paragraph correcting my interpretation.

It would seem reasonable to assume that any realm, no matter it's name, can be considered supernatural if it is beyond our perceptions.


KANT SUX.
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 May, 2004 01:39 pm
I would prefer the term, supersensational to supernatural, except that it sounds like an advertisement. Kant sucks? Is that Ayn Rand speaking?
0 Replies
 
JoanneDorel
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 May, 2004 04:47 pm
Laughing
0 Replies
 
David Henry
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 May, 2004 07:21 pm
JLNobody wrote:
I would prefer the term, supersensational to supernatural, except that it sounds like an advertisement. Kant sucks? Is that Ayn Rand speaking?


I consider the supernatural a necessary realm to explain the universe, but I don't consider that what we see is anything other than reality.

Objectivists don't support Kant{particularly wrt to existence}, but I'm just a humble philosopher who has been influenced by "some" objectivist epistemology.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 07/26/2021 at 08:42:44