Can we ever really know reality?

@Frank Apisa,

"Are you saying that the people who post here who claim this thing we call "reality", may well be nothing more than an illusion...or something else beyond the ability of puny humans to comprehend...

...are no longer allowed to "act" as though it may well be an illusion, but are willing to live within the illusion?

Actually, I'm saying quite the opposite. I'm saying it is a waste of time to indulge in intellectual pretentiousness like sophism and such because we respond to life according to how we believe the world works as best we can.
Philosophical arguments are just that philosophical arguments, not reality as one lives it. One can argue, for example, that one and one isn't two in the abstract,two pencils or one no.2 pencil and one no, 3 pencil and set forth a
bunch of different sophistic arguments.
but if some on offer one 100 dollars to do a job I'm pretty sure if the person who does the job received a dollar bill for his services he'd be very disappointed. He isn't going to argue about the sums being the same or that that rule of math community makes no sense. because in the reality if he agreed upon a certain amount that is what he is looking to be paid.
How long would the human race survive if people consistently acted to defy the laws of gravity as far as we believe them to exist?
I think for the most part as we live and learn about life we act accordingly for our own well being, to survive.

Schrodinger's cat I believe

"Is that something that you have decided must be done as you dictate...or are you merely passing on the dictates of another?"

I don't know how you conclude this from what I posted.

1 Reply

@argome321,

argome321 wrote:

"Are you saying that the people who post here who claim this thing we call "reality", may well be nothing more than an illusion...or something else beyond the ability of puny humans to comprehend...

...are no longer allowed to "act" as though it may well be an illusion, but are willing to live within the illusion?

Actually, I'm saying quite the opposite. I'm saying it is a waste of time to indulge in intellectual pretentiousness like sophism and such because we respond to life according to how we believe the world works as best we can.
Philosophical arguments are just that philosophical arguments, not reality as one lives it. One can argue, for example, that one and one isn't two in the abstract,two pencils or one no.2 pencil and one no, 3 pencil and set forth a
bunch of different sophistic arguments.
but if some on offer one 100 dollars to do a job I'm pretty sure if the person who does the job received a dollar bill for his services he'd be very disappointed. He isn't going to argue about the sums being the same or that that rule of math community makes no sense. because in the reality if he agreed upon a certain amount that is what he is looking to be paid.
How long would the human race survive if people consistently acted to defy the laws of gravity as far as we believe them to exist?
I think for the most part as we live and learn about life we act accordingly for our own well being, to survive.

Schrodinger's cat I believe

"Is that something that you have decided must be done as you dictate...or are you merely passing on the dictates of another?"

I don't know how you conclude this from what I posted.

Let's cut to the chase, Argome.

Do you know the true nature of the REALITY of existence?

0 Replies

@JLNobody,

JLNobody wrote:

I would say that the world is illusory insofar as our perceptions of it do not come complete.

You are free to say that.

I would decline to say that.

Quote:

At most, it comes as the excessively complex basis for our simplifying interpretations.

Our interpretations MAY be spot on.

They also may not even be close.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Do you ever answer a question?

2 Replies

@argome321,

argome321 wrote:

Do you ever answer a question?

Yes.

I answered that one.

Now answer mine.

0 Replies

@argome321,

Sorry, I can't take you seriously

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Yes, they may be "spot on", but they are still interpretations. They do not come with the phenomena of life--they are our additions.

1 Reply

@argome321,

argome321 wrote:

Sorry, I can't take you seriously

You addressed that to yourself, Argome.

0 Replies

@JLNobody,

JLNobody wrote:

Yes, they may be "spot on", but they are still interpretations. They do not come with the phenomena of life--they are our additions.

Some interpretations ARE spot on. They hit it right on the button.

So...I am not sure of your point.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

You miss my point. They are interpretations in the sense that they are projected onto their experience. Reminds me of the farmer who, after complementing the astronomer on the achievements of his profession asked:
"What I don't understand, however, is how you learned the names of all those planets."

2 Replies

@JLNobody,

Did not Nietzsche say that we cannot get beyond interpretations ? That is surely the essence of rejecting an absolutist concept of "reality". We can only know how we use the word in terms of " contextual socially agreed interpretations". That is why we (you and I) can use the word "reality" in terms of our common understanding of "non-duality", and why religious believers can equally use the word "reality" in terms of their shared understanding of a "creator God". There is problem with usage between consenting adults Wink

. Problems only arise when one camp (usually the religious ones) thinks there is an absolute usage for the term.

2 Replies

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

Did not Nietzsche say that we cannot get beyond interpretations ? That is surely the essence of rejecting an absolutist concept of "reality".

Absolutely and positively NOT.

There is a difference between humans being able to understand and communicate about reality...and the REALITY itself.

Not sure why you have shut your mind off to that...but that is your problem.

Even hypothetically: The REALITY could be absolute...and still humans might not be able to get beyond interpretations.

With all that supposed philosophical background you claim to have, why are you unable to differentiate between the two?

Quote:

We can only know how we use the word in terms of " contextual socially agreed interpretations". That is why we (you and I) can use the word "reality" in terms of our common understanding of "non-duality", and why religious believers can equally use the word "reality" in terms of their shared understanding of a "creator God". There is problem with usage between consenting adults . Problems only arise when one camp (usually the religious ones) thinks there is an absolute usage for the term.

Rather than playing a philosopher here in A2K, Fresco, get an actual philosopher to explain to you the difference between human perceptions of reality...and REALITY.

REALITY is whatever actually IS.

Not sure why this has just come to mind, but in the movie, I, Robot (based on an Asimov short story) there is a line that goes: "You are the dumbest smart person I've ever known."

0 Replies

@JLNobody,

Sorry JL, typo...
...There is NO problem with usage between consenting adults....

Obviously this comment was aimed at Nietzsche readers ( Wink

) such as yourself.
It originates from the Rorty clip on "truth" which I have probably cited elsewhere.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzynRPP9XkY

0 Replies

@fresco,

BTW
There is a link from that clip to another by Rorty on "the compatibility of science and religion" which underscores the Nietzchean point. Rorty gives a balanced argument leading to chapter and verse on the pragmaticists; view of "contextually dependent evidence", which even the more dim-witted among us might understand.

2 Replies

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

BTW
There is a link from that clip to another by Rorty on "the compatibility of science and religion" which underscores the Nietzchean point. Rorty gives a balanced argument leading to chapter and verse on the pragmaticists; view of "contextually dependent evidence", which even the more dim-witted among us might understand.

The REALITY is...what IS, Fresco.

What humans think about it...what humans are or are not able to explain about it...does not change that.

BTW...I'm getting a belly laugh out of you pretending to be ignoring me.

0 Replies

@fresco,

Musings from Fred:

"The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself."

"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."

"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."

"Faith: not wanting to know what is true."

"A casual stroll through a lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything."

“In heaven all the interesting people are missing”

0 Replies

@ExistentialPotential,

Q. Can I ever really know reality?

Answer:

Everything I experience is undeniably real, in the sense that I experience it. Where errors may occur is in the interpretation of these experiences.

When I say "everything I experience" I don't just mean the phenomena commonly referred to as "sensory experience" (though I certainly include that) but also strictly "interior states" (though I find that my unexpressed interior states can have observable effects on "external reality", which suggests that the "external" is really a variety of mental phenomena).

That also means that what I can know includes directly apprehended knowledge, which might be said to include self-evident truths (but not things mistaken for self-evident truths).

So you're not asking me if I can know anything real, since all of my experiences are real. And you're not asking me if I can know something I can never experience in any way whatsoever, since that's contradictory.

What you are asking me is whether a particular interpretation of my experiences is true or false.

Its worth making this explicit to clarify the question so as to facilitate both consideration of it and an answer to it.

The subsidiary question then becomes: does my interpretation of some experience reflect self-evident truths or is it contingent upon auxiliary assumptions involving things that I do not and cannot have experiential access to? Because how can you be said to "know" something you're uncertain about? You could say you believe it or suspect it or accept it as a working assumption, but you couldn't really say you "know " it.

1 Reply

@puzzledperson,

This has all been covered by the Pragmatist's position discussed above.
NB Reading the sequence of posts in a historical thread may seem tedious or antithetical to one's motivation to publish one's own 2 cents worth, but it the essence of 'debate' and allows for exchange of references regarding the celebrated 'thinkers' on the subject.

1 Reply

@fresco,

Here is what you (fresco) wrote on the very first page of the thread:

"Check out the philosophy annals of A2K. Opinions range from "no", to "don't know" to "reality is just a word used in contextual negotiation". The seminal reference is of course Kant's Critique of Pure Reason in which he argues we cannot have access to noumena (things in themselves). More recently, Richard Rorty has dismissed the realism-antirealism debate as futile."

Citation is not debate . You may find this sort of vague "exchange of references regarding the celebrated 'thinkers' on the subject" to be informative, but I find it to be a lazy substitute for individual reasoning from first principles. I often find that those who advocate argument by footnote (or in your case mere name dropping) have a superficial understanding of the both the fundamentals and subtle distinctions, and are liable to offer false equivalencies, especially in claiming that an earlier writer has said the same thing, when in fact he said something else. This habit is especially bad in classicists, who seem to believe that the writers of antiquity have already said it all (though I do not call you a classicist -- I simply find your graduate student sensibilities redolent of musty humbug).

3 Replies

@puzzledperson,

Quote:

I often find that those who advocate argument by footnote (or in your case mere name dropping) have a superficial understanding of the both the fundamentals and subtle distinctions...I simply find your graduate student sensibilities redolent of musty humbug.

That's our Fresky, sho nuff, PP. Like most others here, you caught onto his M.O. right quick.

1 Reply

Can we ever really know reality?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know