are you happy in false realitly?

@Olivier5,

Correct! Something exists for some thinger ! Smile

2 Replies

@fresco,

This is where you are, Fresco:

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTeUaIr6wz1dXVPZG3wtFyTrOkFHuo5mUYPoTKtOuDG0Al_14XW

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

In your dreams.

1 Reply

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

In your dreams.

If you consider me to be sheep...

...it is YOUR dream you are in, Fresco.

By now, you have to realize that your assertion that your position has to be right...

...is wrong.

Your position may be right...but it is not a settled matter.

I think you realize that...and cannot think of a graceful way of acknowledging it.

Too bad that!

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTLwVShm_aM6H47xddcuJysb6NKEPLo7dT-1_lwHuA8EcCOMTd1

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Only a naive realist sheep to whom it has been explained a number of times that the concepts of "right" and "wrong" have no place outside of naive realism would continue to bleat about them. Some of the alternative views about perception cited here are acknowledged as what works by workers in the field in which "realism" models have failed. And "what works" is the best anybody can expect in epistemological progress.

1 Reply

@fresco,

Even if it's all contextual and relational, those relations and these contexts must exist then, for your argument to even exist. And last time I checked, the existence of a relationship between two "stuff" A and B (in the case of your theory, A could be the world and B the self, or whatever you chose to focus upon) implied the existence of A and B...

1 Reply

@fresco,

Therefore, 'thingers' exist.

1 Reply

Quote:

Hylas : I agree with you.
Philonous: Wheter does anything consist in embracing the affirmative or negative side of a question?
Hylas: In neither; for whoever understands English cannot but know that doubting signifies a suspense between both.
Philonous: He then that denies any point can no more be said to doubt of it than he who affirms it with the same degree of assurance.
Hilas: True.
Philonous: And, consequently, for such his denial is no more to be esteemed a skeptic than the other.
Hylas: I acknowledge it.
Philonous: How comes it to pass then, Hylas, that you pronounce me a skeptic because I deny what you affirm, to wit, the existence of matter? Since for aught you can tell, I am as peremptory in my denial as you in your affirmation.
Hylas: Hold, Philonous, I have been a little out in my definition; but every false step a man takes in discourse is not to be insisted on. I said that a "skeptic" was one who doubted of everything; but I should have added: or who denies the reality and truth of things.
Philonous: What things? Do you mean the principles and theorems of sciences? But these you know are universal intellectual notions, and consequently independent of matter; the denial therefore of it does not imply the denying them...

Berkeley. Three Dialogues.

We simply can't ignore that without "we" - the physical beings existing at this moment- there is no reasoning to discuss.

How far we can go with our thoughts won't rule our tendency to live in a world that is not connected with physical reality. This is a weird condition in our minds, and great philosophers suffered and mastered this condition.

If a person denies physical reality because he thinks that is just the product of our minds, then rather than being a great thinker, he must be taken to the nearest mental institution.

How we live in a physically real world and still live as well in a world full of thoughts, is a question without answer, we just don't know. We can create thousands of hypothesis trying to explain it, and the final agreement will be a disagreement.

When one stops imitating the rest, and think different, he realizes that the handicap dude in the wheelchair is not a genius but an idiot. So I agree 100% with the questioning found in the first post of this thread.

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

You need to spot that you are doing the thinging (of a relationship or anything else), and if not you, some other like you from whom you acquired the language.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Quote:

Therefore, 'thingers' exist.

No, they co- exist with the things they evoke.
(Reference Heidegger example. In "seamless coping" of a carpenter automatically hammering nails, neither the"self" of the carpenter, nor his "tools" can be said to exist except for a third party observer. It's only when things go wrong in the interaction, the nail slips say, that "self" is evoked as a hammering agent begins talking to itself and segmenting "a world" which was previously absent from consciousness)

1 Reply

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

Only a naive realist sheep to whom it has been explained a number of times that the concepts of "right" and "wrong" have no place outside of naive realism would continue to bleat about them.

Only a person who realizes in the middle of an argument that he is wrong...would resort to what you are doing here, Fresco. It doesn't make you a bad guy...but it does cause some laughter.

I am NOT a naive realist...and probably come much closer to JL's views when making guesses (which I normally do not do).

And as you know by now...the last thing in the world I am is a sheep.

But...you have no where else to go...so head to the meadow and mistake any sheep you see for me.

Quote:

Some of the alternative views about perception cited here are acknowledged as what works by workers in the field in which "realism" models have failed. And "what works" is the best anybody can expect in epistemological progress.

Yes, I know. Some people guess the way you do...and in your obsession with appeals to authority, you cite them as infallible.

So...your religion has decided on "infallibility" as one of its tenets. Can the trinity be far behind?

1 Reply

@fresco,

I am aware of that or at least could meet you half way there. But my point is that any philosophy that is internally logically coherent must assume the existence of some "stuff", if only itself (the philosophy) and some sort of 'space' or 'universe' within which this philosophy can exist. I mean 'space' in the mathematical sense. Natural numbers form a space, real or imaginary numbers too. It's not necessarily Euclidean, but there must be a set of everything that exists, and then within it there should be all sorts of stuff interacting...

Just like in any mathematical construct, one needs to start with a series of axioms establishing what one is talking about, in any philosophical discourse some stuff must be assumed to exist, including some kind of space within which stuff exist. Or you're talking of nothing, literally.

2 Replies

@fresco,

You keep missing the obvious point that a 'whole' (eg a carpenter manipulating tools) cannot exist if the parts (the carpenter, the tools) don't exist. A real structure is composed of real elements.

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

It exists simply from the fact that those participating on a2k are able to communicate with one another through language. This is REALITY at its core.

Anyone who disagrees with the idea of reality needs to be in a mental institution.

We are the product of our genes and environment - from which we have become who we are. That I met Frank, Joe, and Tzar in New York recently is REAL. They are not false. We had some drinks, talked, and hugged, and I still remember that in my memory bank.

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Not necessarily. You are just using traditional logic as an authority.
Cynically, some philosophers (Maturana perhaps) might claim that the content matter is irrelevant and that all that is happening here is a form of social dancing.
Others (Wittegenstein say) might claim that what is going on here is not epistemology or ontology but "therapy".
Heidegger's axioms involve being thrown (moulded like clay) into a pre-existent dynamic social world which populates our human consciousness via language. Insofar that "causality" and "stuff" are shared concepts in that world then we might claim them as part of "existence". But note that causality, axiomatics and logic are inextricable.

I suggest, without going into details, that the findings of modern physics question the universal authority of "logic" in epistemological and ontological discourse. But that argument will tend to send us over ground already covered here or elsewhere. I suggest therefore we simply agree to differ about the words "reality" and "existence" whose meanings seem to be embedded in different paradigms.

1 Reply

@fresco,

In order to philosophize, we have to use some sort of logic, or it's pure poetry (and that too, some form of logic, must be assumed or defined first, for any philosophy to exist and be able to proceed).

Even is only 'social dancing' or 'therapy' is assumed to exists, that's already something... At least those guys know what they are talking about.

I suggest, without going into details, that you define a bit more precisely what you are talking about, and in what sort of space those stuff you talk about are assumed to 'function'.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

My final comment in the matter of "reality" which is the subject of this thread, is to re-iterate that it is a word that denotes agreement between humans about "states of affairs". Anything more than that is to extrapolate from the persistence of words to the persistence of those states, contrary to our knowledge about the transience of states.

Thankyou for your comments.

2 Replies

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

My final comment in the matter of "reality" which is the subject of this thread, is to re-iterate that it is a word that denotes agreement between humans about "states of affairs". Anything more than that is to extrapolate from the persistence of words to the persistence of those states, contrary to our knowledge about the transience of states.

Thankyou for your comments.

I consider that to be a totally invalid portrayal of what exists. And for certain, something exists.

The word certainly has a function in human affairs...one that allows for a discussion of a thing that is an unknown to us...what you term "a state of affairs."

But to suppose that what really is...is contingent upon what humans have managed to devise to communicate with each other is beyond simplistic.

I suspect you have misunderstood what the people you so often apply to as authority for your pronouncements, but I am not learned enough to substantiate that.

And since you have already given your final word on this issue, it may very well remain unresolved here.

0 Replies

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVJ-W6LioB8

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank susggested that Fresco might have realized in the middle of an argument that he was wrong. This could be taken as a compliment. When we are suffiently aware to recognize our errors-- amount to precious moments of clarity (indeed, enlightenment). I must confess--as most of us might--that I am rarely, if ever, able to realistically evaluate the limitations of my philosophical assertions while making them. Fresco is one who is more likely to do so.

1 Reply

are you happy in false realitly?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know