9
   

Could there possibly be an edge to existence itself.

 
 
layman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Mar, 2015 02:31 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Quote:
...suckers immersed in obscure academic parlance without an original thought in their minds...

That's our Fresco, sho nuff!
0 Replies
 
layman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Mar, 2015 02:42 pm
For those who may not get the [*kicks rock*] reference:

Quote:
After we came out of the church, we stood talking for some time together of Bishop Berkeley's ingenious sophistry to prove the nonexistence of matter, and that every thing in the universe is merely ideal. I observed, that though we are satisfied his doctrine is not true, it is impossible to refute it. I never shall forget the alacrity with which Johnson answered, striking his foot with mighty force against a large stone, till he rebounded from it -- "I refute it thus."
Boswell: Life

Johnson didn't need no candy-ass, high-falutin, pretentious lingo, eh?
Quote:
“Do not accustom yourself to use big words for little matters.” (Samuel Johnson)
fresco
 
  0  
Reply Mon 30 Mar, 2015 02:58 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
To repeat, the questions about "a reality" are meaningless, except perhaps to the six year old who thinks that "reality" might also be about "mysterious stuff" akin to gods, fairies and perhaps "things yet to be discovered".
What I have in common with JLN is perhaps experience of a level of consciousness from which it is self evident that observer and observed are inextricable. At that level the word "reality" is inappropriate as are all words whose meaning and grammar reside at levels which assume "subjects observing independent objects". Hence the term "ineffability" to describe such levels.
I put it to you that the "brat" is the six year old who does not understand his conditioning via language. Adults with sufficient intelligence should be able to progress a bit further. Note that your persistent demand for a fundamental epistemological substrate substrate was dismissed by Rorty with his phrase "the myth of the given". I can only suggest you read "Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature" if you are interested in the argument. It would be a bit daunting for six year olds.

fresco
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Mar, 2015 03:04 pm
@layman,
Duh ! Did you really think we were ignorant of that quote illustrating of Dr Johnson's naive realism? (said the one who doesn't suffer fools) Obviously irony about "kicking rocks" is over your head. (said the poet)
0 Replies
 
layman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Mar, 2015 03:05 pm
Quote:
"I refute it thus."

My personal refutation to Fresco might take on a slightly different form.

[*slips on brass knuckles*]
fresco
 
  0  
Reply Mon 30 Mar, 2015 03:11 pm
@layman,
Hmmm....brass = prostitute (in UK) ....I'm working on it ! Cool
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Mar, 2015 03:13 pm
@fresco,
So let me see if I get this you believe there is no reality to speak about...the term is a social invention referring to what ? What is it that is not real that we refer to as real and how do you know ?

Inextricabality between observer and observed ultimately leads to a solipsist approach . If not please clarify in layman terms and clear thought.

How do you negotiate something socially with other agents via language when there is no reality which is not observer dependent ? The other agents are a construct of your mind perception or not ?

You have nothing in your hand to show off for...except pseudo elaborate parlance about nothing.

Moreover admitting something is ineffable or impossible to know with precision is not the same as saying there is nothing out there. That would be reality.

The ultimate contradiction that amuses me in this soup of words is that there is no way of engaging against reality without imposing an alternate reality as fact of the matter...Very funny if it wasn't sad to start up with...
layman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Mar, 2015 03:26 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Quote:
If not please clarify in layman terms and clear thought.


Best bring your lunch if you're waiting for that, Fil.

Quote:
The ultimate contradiction that amuses me in this soup of words is that there is no way of engaging against reality without imposing an alternate reality as fact of the matter...


Well, Fil, ya know, it's kinda like this here: Reality ain't what you think it is. It's what Fresco says it is.

Pretty simple, actually.
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Mar, 2015 03:35 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
The answer lies in an honest observation exercise.
Examine the normal (non philosophical) social contexts where the word "reality" is used. I have no intention of doing it again. I assert that examination will reveal that it (the word) is used in consensus seeking contexts about "states of affairs". Agreement establishes transient functional "reality". Such states inform potential subsequent action. The word is NOT applied to uncontroversial interactions with common "objects" except where "mental health" or "magic shows" are the context.
An anthropological example might highlight the point.
According to Evans-Pritchard, the Azande reaction to a "guilty verdict" by a western style court was to ritually slay a chicken and examine its entrails in order to establish whether the accused had been "bewitched". Without such local social agreement, neither the accused nor his society would accept the "reality of guilt" as "the correct state of affairs".
layman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Mar, 2015 03:40 pm
@fresco,
Quote:
...the word "reality"...The word is NOT applied...


As usual, you are asked a question about ontology, and your predictable response is to pretend to answer an unasked question about linguistics. With some god-awful conglomeration of fancy-ass sounding words, no less. Such a one-trick pony, I tellya.
0 Replies
 
argome321
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Mar, 2015 04:04 pm
@layman,
Quote:
To be is to be perceived. If I think I'm "looking" at a tree, I'm just fooling myself. In truth I am "creating" it with my mental images (imagination). If I "look away" from it, it no longer exists. It's "existence" is solely in my mind. So said Berkeley. And Fresco.


Does this mean if I hit someone with my speeding car and killed them because I had turn my head and I didn't see them does it mean they didn't exist? Can I be charged with vehicular homicide?
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Mar, 2015 04:07 pm
@fresco,
The problem as usual is that you confuse lack of certainty about states of affairs with lack of states of affairs...

...also had it occurred to you the word is not used unless in controversial situations because reality is a given ? No one questions the reality of common objects...but also no one with two fingers of size in their forehead happens to believe a common description of an object exhausted its reality...proof can be given with further investigation of its contextual operations in different situations.

Finally had people been talking about the real problem here people would skip observer observed dichotomy...the problem is rather to establish if the observer has control/will or if he doesn't...

...you happen to believe the observer "constructs", "builds" reality, that the observer has control...while sane people admit the observer perceives within reality, is part of reality, but has no control in his perception...he constructs nothing...he and his perception both are a bi product of what is the matter of fact !
layman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Mar, 2015 04:09 pm
@argome321,
Quote:
Can I be charged with vehicular homicide?


Only if you want to imagine that you are being charged, eh, Arg?
argome321
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Mar, 2015 04:16 pm
@layman,
Quote:
Only if you want to imagine that you are being charged, eh, Arg?


Maybe I can get Fresco as a juror?
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Mar, 2015 08:51 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Your conditioning on "realism" is preventing you from understanding what I am talking about. The observer does not construct...language ( as the covert presence of society) constructs. Read Heidegger. There are no subjects and objects most of the time, there is merely seamless coping (Dreyfus).

I think I have spent enough time spoon feeding on this thread . Its time for other posters to do a bit of reading for themselves if they want to progress beyond bar stool banter.
layman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Mar, 2015 08:56 pm
@fresco,
Quote:
I think I have spent enough time on this thread


Yeah, long past time to bolt, eh, Fresco?
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Mar, 2015 09:19 pm
@layman,
Quote:
The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.

Mark Twain.
layman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Mar, 2015 09:45 pm
@fresco,
Quote:
The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.


Quote:
"The man who reads but can't understand nuthin don't have no advantage over a stupid-ass rock."


My Mama.
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Mar, 2015 04:03 am
I find it very amusing how some people who have indeed denigrate the importance of Philosophy in the eyes of other Sciences (who have just an outsiders bare glance in) because of this kind of bullshit have the continuous nerve, of keeping coming back with a hand full of nothing for a debate. So many words to talk about something so simple to grasp as interpretation and contextual functionality...none of it, absolutely none of it, puts a stain in the heart of the matter regarding states of affairs on which no subject, and by extension no society, has the control off. Immediately this kills the issue, realism is must be true. Seamless coping is fancy talk for interpretation in functional specific contexts...what else is new ?

...its all very amusing...the lingo, the parlance...but above all the emptiness of coherent reasoning skills...
layman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Mar, 2015 04:21 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Quote:
The problem as usual is that you confuse lack of certainty about states of affairs with lack of states of affairs...


That's our Fresco, sho nuff. Every issue of substance, from politics to science to economics, you name it, is a question of epistemology for him. Why? Because that's all he thinks he knows (he should think again, there, cause he gets awful confused about epistemological matters, too).

Quote:
“If the only tool you have is a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail.” (Abe Maslow)


Pound them there nail, Fresky-baby!
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 © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/23/2022 at 01:21:13