Your point on evolution is an interesting one; I didn't even think about that. I think you missed my point with the dog, but I agree with most of what you're saying -- until you start explaining how obvious and absolute it is. It IS obvious, because we operate under the assumption that reality is definite, otherwise we'd be paranoid wrecks. We must assume these things are real. But the best we can do is assume, because it sure isn't absolute.
I'll take your dad-shooting example. If you never come out of that stupor, which is the reality? You even see your dead dad and you are convinced that it is an impostor. To you personally (and what else is there?), that is reality. I know you want to argue that everyone ELSE knows your dad is dead. But if that's your argument, then you're saying that reality is democratic - you're in the minority, thus you're wrong. But how do THEY know your dad is dead? Isn't it possible that everyone else is hallucinating and you're the only one seeing "definite" reality?
Thus is my point. You're talking as if there is a definite reality that we DIRECTLY communicate with via our senses. How is this at all verifiable? How could you possibly know that? You're saying that reality is definite because everyone can see that my dad and my dog are dead, but that's a self-reliant assumption. I'm asking how you know your senses are an absolute interpretation of reality, and you're saying "because I can sense reality". It's circular logic, no?
I didn't really consider this pondering existence, since I definitely believe this is all real. I already had an opinion, don't know exactly when I formulated all this but it's been a while.
I thought I understood your point about the dog. You're saying that because a dog can or can't discern things in the same way a human can or can't that it somehow changes the realness of 'it'. Right? Wouldn't that just prove the tree thoery, too? A dog whistle. I can't hear it but that fucker can. My unawareness of it doesn't make it not real.
The reason why I think that the senses prove that it's real is just based on evolution of various life forms. It just seems to make sense that there is a dfinite reality because every living thing developed the senses to varying degrees, all for survival purposes. I see what you are saying, and yes, it does seem kind of circular...I agree, let me sleep on it and try to come up with a better worded...eh...retort? Tired...must sleep...
It does support your tree theory, that's the point. Those first two examples reinforce the idea that reality is definite, and the second two examples argue that it is subjective.
But my main issue with your argument is that you're proposing that reality is definite based solely based on the fact that its observable phenomena. You're saying reality is a noumenon (exists separate from senses) based on a phenomenon (objects of the senses). I agree that there is a "definite" reality, but I'm saying there is absolutely no way to know that.
If our sense channels are our only means of dialogue with reality, then why do we think (and how could we ever know) that there is something beyond that?
In my opinion, we think like this precisely because of the dog. The dog has so little awareness of reality that it's only fair to assume that ours is limited too. But that's exactly the problem - if we aren't getting a full picture of reality, then what is it and how do we see it?
You're right, there IS no way to know. I lean towards no.
But if there is more out there that we have no way of sensing or detecting it would be just as real as anyhting else, wouldn't it? As your second arguement relates, no, I don't believe something needs to be recognized or detected to be real (a blind person can still get a sunburn). So whether we can't detect it or haven't detected it, I believe it exists, as just another part of reality.
Think of it this way - we're in a room, and it is pitch black. Then, the lights gradually begin to spread until it is incredibly well-lit, and you see that the walls are white. Forget about the colors that you now see - based on the level of light that is reflecting off the walls and into your eyes, what color were they in the dark? Objectively speaking, they were black. Not white. And they only become white in the brightest light. And they are gray when it is dim - we only see white walls in a dim room because our brains are adjusting to what we think we know. It's a delusion; your brain is lying to you. But it's an exceptionally useful delusion.
That's what I think of our assumption of concrete reality. It's a useful delusion. If we didn't function under this assumption, we wouldn't be able to interact with the world out of paranoia and uncertainty. But that doesn't mean that it's axiomatic.
ding an sich vs. cogito ergo sum
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
I thought you hated pondering your existence?
Your point on evolution is an interesting one; I didn't even think about that. I think you missed my point with the dog, but I agree with most of what you're saying -- until you start explaining how obvious and absolute it is. It IS obvious, because we operate under the assumption that reality is definite, otherwise we'd be paranoid wrecks. We must assume these things are real. But the best we can do is assume, because it sure isn't absolute.
I'll take your dad-shooting example. If you never come out of that stupor, which is the reality? You even see your dead dad and you are convinced that it is an impostor. To you personally (and what else is there?), that is reality. I know you want to argue that everyone ELSE knows your dad is dead. But if that's your argument, then you're saying that reality is democratic - you're in the minority, thus you're wrong. But how do THEY know your dad is dead? Isn't it possible that everyone else is hallucinating and you're the only one seeing "definite" reality?
Thus is my point. You're talking as if there is a definite reality that we DIRECTLY communicate with via our senses. How is this at all verifiable? How could you possibly know that? You're saying that reality is definite because everyone can see that my dad and my dog are dead, but that's a self-reliant assumption. I'm asking how you know your senses are an absolute interpretation of reality, and you're saying "because I can sense reality". It's circular logic, no?
--
wigsplitz
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
-
wigsplitz
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Well, and I can't resist your polls. I do enjoy them, and I enjoy you in this form.
I didn't really consider this pondering existence, since I definitely believe this is all real. I already had an opinion, don't know exactly when I formulated all this but it's been a while.
I thought I understood your point about the dog. You're saying that because a dog can or can't discern things in the same way a human can or can't that it somehow changes the realness of 'it'. Right? Wouldn't that just prove the tree thoery, too? A dog whistle. I can't hear it but that fucker can. My unawareness of it doesn't make it not real.
The reason why I think that the senses prove that it's real is just based on evolution of various life forms. It just seems to make sense that there is a dfinite reality because every living thing developed the senses to varying degrees, all for survival purposes. I see what you are saying, and yes, it does seem kind of circular...I agree, let me sleep on it and try to come up with a better worded...eh...retort? Tired...must sleep...
--
flutterhigh
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
It does support your tree theory, that's the point. Those first two examples reinforce the idea that reality is definite, and the second two examples argue that it is subjective.
But my main issue with your argument is that you're proposing that reality is definite based solely based on the fact that its observable phenomena. You're saying reality is a noumenon (exists separate from senses) based on a phenomenon (objects of the senses). I agree that there is a "definite" reality, but I'm saying there is absolutely no way to know that.
If our sense channels are our only means of dialogue with reality, then why do we think (and how could we ever know) that there is something beyond that?
In my opinion, we think like this precisely because of the dog. The dog has so little awareness of reality that it's only fair to assume that ours is limited too. But that's exactly the problem - if we aren't getting a full picture of reality, then what is it and how do we see it?
--
wigsplitz
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Ahhh, this is tough!
You're right, there IS no way to know. I lean towards no.
But if there is more out there that we have no way of sensing or detecting it would be just as real as anyhting else, wouldn't it? As your second arguement relates, no, I don't believe something needs to be recognized or detected to be real (a blind person can still get a sunburn). So whether we can't detect it or haven't detected it, I believe it exists, as just another part of reality.
--
flutterhigh
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Think of it this way - we're in a room, and it is pitch black. Then, the lights gradually begin to spread until it is incredibly well-lit, and you see that the walls are white. Forget about the colors that you now see - based on the level of light that is reflecting off the walls and into your eyes, what color were they in the dark? Objectively speaking, they were black. Not white. And they only become white in the brightest light. And they are gray when it is dim - we only see white walls in a dim room because our brains are adjusting to what we think we know. It's a delusion; your brain is lying to you. But it's an exceptionally useful delusion.
That's what I think of our assumption of concrete reality. It's a useful delusion. If we didn't function under this assumption, we wouldn't be able to interact with the world out of paranoia and uncertainty. But that doesn't mean that it's axiomatic.