15
   

Can we ever really know reality?

 
 
layman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Nov, 2015 04:22 pm
@puzzledperson,
Quote:
If I realize that my perceptual universe is fake, I'd know they aren't "really" humans or sentient beings at all


And if you thought you "knew" that, then it could only be based on...

Quote:
the belief that some aspect of our reality is ontologically independent of our conceptual schemes, perceptions, linguistic practices, beliefs, etc.
0 Replies
 
layman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Nov, 2015 06:41 pm
@puzzledperson,
Quote:
Nor is language acquisition necessary for thought. An individual abandoned at a young age without ever having learned a spoken language could still have thoughts and still speculate about the nature of reality.


Fresky is on record as saying you can't think without language. Now just how someone can acquire a language in the first place without the ability to think aint exactly clear, but, still.....
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Nov, 2015 01:45 am
@puzzledperson,
Quote:
Nor is language acquisition necessary for thought

Prove it ! Lets hear you start by defining 'language' and 'thought'.

The history of philosophy post Kant's distinction of phenomena (what is experienced) from noumena (inaccessible 'things in themselves') has developed along a path in in which noumena have become mythical/irrelevant. The lay person may indeed have a naive view of 'reality' as being some sort of 'ultimate (non contextual) state of things in themselves'. So what ? The assumption that there is a 'God's Eye view of reality' seems to be a common psychological need, culminating for most in religion. If you were familiar with the literature I have cited you might understand these issues which have resulted in a nonrepresentationalist view of language.

In short, I am suggesting that puzzledperson might more aptly adopt the name unreadperson, since many of the 'puzzles' are have already been dealt with in depth.
layman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Nov, 2015 01:49 am
@fresco,
Quote:
If you were familiar with the literature I have cited you might understand these issues which have resulted in a nonrepresentationalist view of language.


Yeah, right, eh, Fresky? And if he read some of the voluminous literature which you DON'T cite, he would "understand" otherwise, eh?
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Nov, 2015 01:56 am
Of course you can always take counsel from Layman with his 'get Fresky' hobby. Whether he has the ability to distinguish pragmatic views of the use of the word 'reality', from 'naive realism' is up to you !
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Nov, 2015 05:58 am
@fresco,
Man you are a real charm with that cassette of yours, freaking broken record...go back to the hole were you come from you fake !
You should be ashamed of being a teacher...I petty your students...
You and your "social agreement" on Reality, self created from its own bootstraps are one sad episode of pseudo philosophy !
layman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Nov, 2015 08:04 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Quote:
You and your "social agreement" on Reality, self created from its own bootstraps are one sad episode of pseudo philosophy !


Like, the pseudoiest, eh?
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Feb, 2016 03:19 pm
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 0.04 seconds on 12/07/2021 at 09:36:41