Well...
I agree with Frank Aspia... but that is only because he presents nothing new to the nature of the universe... My problem is this... I never liked Descartes's full argument... holes in assumption of g-d imposing thought of g-d... but thats not the point.
The point is my problem is this. I believe that there is a universal truth of some sort; please grant me that. To construct reality from the bottom up, at some point requires some inductive leap. I refuse to confine truth to my own personal existence, and cannot accept that the universe simply is. I do have an idea about what comes next... but I would prefer if someone else said it. I think I can construct reality beyond the self using pure logic and nothing else. Input please... argument to follow (mine or your's... doesn't matter really).
I think I'm starting to piss some people off... damn... breaks my heart :-D!
Second Socrates
SS
You aren't pissing me off -- and I suspect you aren't pissing off most people here. You are merely having your say.
You wrote: "The point is my problem is this. I believe that there is a universal truth of some sort...."
Well...I'd be damned surprised if there were not a universal truth of some sort -- even if it is something like "There is no universal truth."
That is not a contradiction in terms.
My posts -- and most of the posts, including yours -- really are not dealing with the "universal truth." We are talking about whether or not we KNOW what the universal truth is -- and we are doing some speculating about whether or not it is even possible TO KNOW what the universal truth is.
truth
Well, gentlemen, I guess I must be a nihilist. I think (and again I can't provide evidence for this speculation based purely on intuiiton) that the notion of "universal truth" is philosophically questionable. To say that it IS but we cannot know WHAT it is forgets that we invented the term itself. Please reconsider the logic underlying my comment about the definition of "puppy." We invented a term, "universal truth," which had no prior existence as "young dog" did at the time "puppy" was coined. This term, Universal Truth (like Reality, Universe, God, The Good, etc. etc.) is purely a product of our minds. As such, we should not try to find objectively verifiable descriptive definitions for such non-empirical notions (here I agree with Farmerman's insistence on the priority of empirical experience for a definition of Reality) which are experientially VACUOUS--we cannot point to the thing referenced by "universal truth" as we can for "puppy." Such high level abstracts are instruments of thought--I use them all the time--but should not be treated as if they were observable entities capable of discriptive definitions necessarily acceptable to all thinkers.
Words and phrases are invented for a purpose.
The words "universal reality" has a purpose -- which is to serve as nomenclature for "that which actually is."
It is possible and reasonable to talk of "universal reality" -- especially if someone is attempting to make a statement about what it is.
My point was that we do not know what it is.
The term "universal reality" or what I prefer "ultimate reality" simply "stands for" that which actually is -- no matter the fact that is seems we don't (and perhaps cannot) know what that reality actually is.
reality
Frank, I agree with your notion that Truth or Reality merely refers to that which is the case--can't do better than that. But it's not much better than nothing, which points to what I refer to as a vacuous term. We do not know with any concreteness what "ultimate reality" refers to. It's no better than the symbols "?" or "X". I prefer Wittengenstien's prescription here, that (and I paraphrase grossly) "what we cannot talk about we should remain silent." I guess this is why mystics (e.g., zen buddhists and early Taoists) refuse to discuss it.
"reality" is an absurd (in the philosophical sense) construction
reality
Dyslexia. :
Life is absurd, which is what makes it exciting.
Reality is whatever we perceive it to be. Nothing more, nothing less. c.i.
"reality" somewhere between Peter Berger and Albert Camus
FrankA; This is most definitely meant as a compliment:
You are so firmly, and reliably "wishy washy";
I love it !
And to continue jl's analogy; reality is not the young dog, or the puppy; it is the little pool of piss in the middle of the livingroom carpet!
Take a whiff.....
BoGoWo wrote:FrankA; This is most definitely meant as a compliment:
You are so firmly, and reliably "wishy washy";
I love it !
I take it as a compliment, Bo, but I do not think I am wishy washy in the least. I think I am the most specific.
It appears to be wishy washy since spicifying the truth in these matters requires one acknowledging "I do not know."
speaking confidently like a true "know it all";
FrankA; was that you.... on the carpet?
humble
Frank, you are not any more "wishy-washy" than the rest of us when dealing with such wishy washy subjects. On the contrary you are generally humble and subtle.
i prefer a liquid soap, usually calgon but whatever is on sale works for me.
soap
Dys, don't be cheap; buy the best.
you guys are all wussin out here.
What are the properties of reality???
farmerman's quote: "What are the properties of reality???" It really depends on who's reality you are talking about.
c.i.
Reality is waking up in the same body you went to sleep in the night before.
