9
   

are you happy in false realitly?

 
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Oct, 2014 03:11 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
....a full page MyTurn in Newsweek Magazine....

Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing
No wonder it closed down !
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Oct, 2014 03:12 pm
@room109,
What's the difference between 'false reality' and 'reality?'
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Oct, 2014 03:25 pm
@fresco,
fresco wrote:

Quote:
....a full page MyTurn in Newsweek Magazine....

Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing
No wonder it closed down !


Good one, Fresco. I laughed!

But I'm pretty sure my article was not part of the reason Newsweek closed its print edition. It appeared back in 1994...long before the impact of the Internet on newspapers and news magazines.

That trend, by the way, I think is a negative. The news magazines covered stories in depth...and in ways most newspapers did not. It is not a good thing so many have gone out of business...or discontinued the print edition.

What worries me more, though, is the fact that so many news sources seem to be under the control of fewer and fewer people.

"Ominous" is how I would describe it.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Oct, 2014 03:31 pm
@Frank Apisa,
I believe it was inevitable that many print magazines went out of business. Most people are too lazy to read long articles on most subjects, and the access to the internet with cryptic articles satisfies the curiosity on most current events. I think in one period of my life, I used to subscribe to a half dozen magazines, and that included the WSJ.

The longest subscription was to the National Geographic.
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Oct, 2014 07:06 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Virtual reality?
Razzleg
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Oct, 2014 11:12 pm
@JLNobody,
JLNobody wrote:

Yes, is it not the case that Kant claimed all phenomena are human constructions, that what we experience are only the manifestations of how we filter the "thing in itself"? You agree it seems with Nietzsche and the phenomenalists that there are no things-in-themselves, only our "human" perceptions. That is my view: the world is me (or cada cabeza is un mundo) (or us: i.e., our culturally constituted reality is our effort to create the illusion of a completely shared experience). What is beyond that, the Tao, is ineffable.


No, Kant would not support your interpretative reformulation of his position. His position was that human minds conformed to a transcendant manifestation of reason. And while he may have tolerated your metaphor of human mental categories as a filter through which the "thing-in-itself" imposed a form, Kant would not have "claimed" that experience was a matter of anthropocentric "construction".

Likewise, neither Nietzche nor the phenomenologists thought that our perceptions constituted reality, or even an ego-generated reflection of it.

Your acceptance of "the Tao" and your rejection of "the thing-in-itself" is indicative of much...
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Oct, 2014 12:05 am
@Razzleg,
Quote:
Likewise, neither Nietzche nor the phenomenologists thought that our perceptions constituted reality, or even an ego-generated reflection of it.


With respect to that word "reality", I suggest we note that Wittgenstein argued that language is an imprecise 'language game' with many different rules for words depending upon how the word is used.

Quote:
Philosophy is a battle against the bewitchment of our intelligence by means of language. ... For philosophical problems arise when language goes on holiday.


The way a Buddhist thinks about "reality" is influenced by all pertaining to the Samsara-Nirvana dichotomy. On the other hand, a phenomenologist is influenced by Kant's argument that there can be no direct access to hypothetical noumena.

In short, there is no agreed context (language game) among those we call philosophers to anchor the term "reality". That is why I argue above that "reality" is simply a word in everyday (non philosophical) usage denoting agreement about "states of affairs". But this line of argument tends leave "reality" to the layman, and to shift the philosophical (ontological) focus towards descriptions of those "states". Those descriptions will certainly differ according to one's philosophical leanings. Some phenomenologists, like Heidegger and Merleau-Ponty indeed argued that those states involve the inextricability of observer and observed, and this has something in common with Buddhist holism. The word "ego" plays no part in phenomenological descriptions because that word is embedded in other philosophical paradigms such as "naive realism".

Razzleg
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Oct, 2014 01:42 am
@fresco,
fresco wrote:

Quote:
Likewise, neither Nietzche nor the phenomenologists thought that our perceptions constituted reality, or even an ego-generated reflection of it.


With respect to that word "reality", I suggest we note that Wittgenstein argued that language is an imprecise 'language game' with many different rules for words depending upon how the word is used.

Quote:
Philosophy is a battle against the bewitchment of our intelligence by means of language. ... For philosophical problems arise when language goes on holiday.


i have to admit, i don't particularly care, at this moment, how you or JLN use the term "reality"; What i object to is the misrepresentation of other thinkers' positions. Think or believe what you want, but don't misrepresent the dead and then co-opt them as authorities supporting your position.

fresco wrote:
The way a Buddhist thinks about "reality" is influenced by all pertaining to the Samsara-Nirvana dichotomy. On the other hand, a phenomenologist is influenced by Kant's argument that there can be no direct access to hypothetical noumena.

In short, there is no agreed context (language game) among those we call philosophers to anchor the term "reality". That is why I argue above that "reality" is simply a word in everyday (non philosophical) usage denoting agreement about "states of affairs". But this line of argument tends leave "reality" to the layman, and to shift the philosophical (ontological) focus towards descriptions of those "states". Those descriptions will certainly differ according to one's philosophical leanings. Some phenomenologists, like Heidegger and Merleau-Ponty indeed argued that those states involve the inextricability of observer and observed, and this has something in common with Buddhist holism. The word "ego" plays no part in phenomenological descriptions because that word is embedded in other philosophical paradigms such as "naive realism".


It is naive to believe that ego, as either word or concept, plays no part in phenomenological endeavors. Read your Husserl...

And as long as you are intent on invoking the great LW in defense of phenomenology, chew on this quote:

"There is no such thing as phenomenology, but there are indeed phenomenological problems" -- Ludwig Wittgenstein, "On Color"

Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Oct, 2014 06:01 am
@JLNobody,
JLNobody wrote:

Virtual reality?


A brand new oxymoron!
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Oct, 2014 06:08 am
@Razzleg,
Ostensibly fair points.

However
1. I specifically don't quote Husserl because my preferred "phenomenologist", Heidegger was a reactionary with respect to him. In that sense Heidegger might be said to be agreeing with Wittgenstein with respect to "established phenomenology". As I understand it, that reaction focused on the very rejection of a continuous extant "ego" that could contemplate "the objects of consciousness". Rather, "the self" and "the world" co-evoked each other and were co-extensive.

2. As for "misrepresentation of Kant", a reading of Derrida (for example) suggests that there is no such thing as a "static position" even for the originators of texts themselves. Texts are produced against ephemeral backgrounds that can never be re-created. So irrespective of your own views on Kant's position, other sources suggest that what Kant did was to open the floodgates for assorted holistic paradigms whether he intended to or not.
Quote:
In terms of culture, Kant's early views may be placed in a Eurasian rather than a purely Western context. Recent research suggests that key ideas of Kant's natural philosophy also have sources in Taoist and Confucian thought, which were disseminated in continental Europe by Jesuits based in China, popularized by Leibniz and Wolff, and further developed by Wolff's Sinophile student Bilfinger.
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

carloslebaron
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Oct, 2014 07:31 am
Too much Kant here and there and whoever more who wrote something about "reality" in the past.

What about now, when new discoveries have updated our perception and understanding of ourselves and the universe?

What it counts is what is "reality" in general terms, what is "physical reality", what is "virtual reality", and so forth.

My position has been always "I exist, therefore I think".

With the new technology, a man who became blind when he was four years old was able to see again at the age of forty. But seeing again was something different to what many had expected. According to the records, the first sensation he perceived was motion. For him was like shadows moving from one place to another. Later he finally saw shapes, but he wasn't capable to recognize a square from a circle. Months later he recognized the silhouette of people but can't do the same with faces.

In other words, it is a learning process, a learning process that is observed in infants as well, when a few days after birth, they only follow you with their eyes because they can only perceive motion, but they won't recognize you, and etc. Same with smell, taste, touch, and so forth.

So, reality implies received information in our brains by different stimuli.

From here, what kind of information we receive will determine our perception of reality in general terms, and of the different kind of realities according to the branch of knowledge we have established to understand ourselves and the universe.

This is to say, virtual reality does exist but is just a simulated environment; and we can perceived with out senses, but it is not what it is in physical reality: the reality we confront for our survival.

In this case, and trying to respond the question made in the first message of this topic, many people will love to live more interested in virtual reality and experience it rather than confronting the physical reality that carries information like wars, crimes, debts, love rejection, etc.

fresco
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Oct, 2014 10:04 am
@carloslebaron,
Quote:
"I exist, therefore I think"

Very Happy
Ah ! An Inverse-Cartesian ! Sum ergo Cogito !

Try reading a bit of Heidegger. According to him "you " don't exist quite a lot of the time. ! Where were "you" last night for example during dreamless sleep ? (No answer expected....consider it to be a rhetorical question Wink )
And as for the Buddhists, your "self" is an illusion !

Speaking of recent advances, unless you can understand that "information" is observer defined you will have no clue about the import of the perceptual studies I cited above. But I realize that I have little chance of getting you to understand that, so alas you are likely to be stuck with that failed "information paradigm" which those studies refute.

BTW. I agree with you that the lay usage of the word "reality" as in the preferential indulgence in "virtual reality" is an interesting topic in its own right, but from a psychological rather than a philosophical point of view.
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Oct, 2014 11:20 am
Bookmark
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Oct, 2014 04:45 pm
@fresco,
Just because our conscience is not permanent, or permanently in the same state, does not mean it does not exist.
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Oct, 2014 10:25 pm
@Olivier5,
"Conscience" is not the same as "consciousness". The former has to do with guilt, the latter with awareness. The ego-self is another matter. We feel that it is a permanent entity, a subject of experience and an agent of action; and THAT is an illusion.
shimply
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Oct, 2014 11:40 pm
@room109,
After looking and thinking a lot i found that i'm happy in false reality...yes i'm.
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Oct, 2014 12:13 am
@JLNobody,
To be fair, I think Olivier did mean "consciousness".

...yet there's another word word existence, the bed fellow of reality, with which we can play language games. With respect to the antithesis of the concept of nothing physicists certainly talk about "particles popping in and out of existence". Are they talking about "particulate states" which result from interactions of e.m. waves ? ... and if so who defines such statehood in a hypothetical observerless void?..... Wink

Such thought experiments which evoke Godel's ( not God's* Smile ) incompleteness theorem should reveal the flaws in any absolutist claims about the words "reality" and "existence", yet how many have the ability to muster such thoughts ? If we accept Godel's implication that there can be no ultimate axioms about reality and existence, we are surely left with the pragmatists position that such concepts are merely useful for joint human enterprise, dependent on specific contexts. They may be considered as "the ball" in assorted ball( =language) games, whose form is dependent on the particular game being played.

* Berkeley's requirement that "God is the ultimate observer" is a "completeness theorem" antithetical to Godel's "incompleteness theorem".
This underscores the point that absolutist claims about existence and reality are no different to religious ones.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Oct, 2014 04:47 am
@JLNobody,
JLNobody wrote:

"Conscience" is not the same as "consciousness". The former has to do with guilt, the latter with awareness. The ego-self is another matter. We feel that it is a permanent entity, a subject of experience and an agent of action; and THAT is an illusion.


THAT MAY BE AN ILLUSION, JL.

Why can you not grasp that it is only a possibility you speak of...rather than a substantiated fact?
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Oct, 2014 05:52 am
@JLNobody,
Sorry JL, I keep making the confusion because it's just one word for both in French. I meant consciousness.
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Oct, 2014 05:55 am
@JLNobody,
And as you might remember, I think it's an illusion to think of 'these stuff' (self, consciousness, ego etc) as an illusion.
 

Related Topics

Nature of gun laws - Discussion by gungasnake
Reality - thing or phenomenon? - Question by Cyracuz
Atheism - Discussion by littlek
Is Reality a Social Construction ? - Discussion by fresco
The 10 Most Destructive Americans - Discussion by coldjoint
Deportation Bus - Discussion by gungasnake
The reality of time - Question by dalehileman
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 12/12/2019 at 06:17:20