But you're doing it again - "see that it exists", "obviously there". What part of it is obvious? Does seeing something prove it exists? If I see a ghost, does it exist?
I'm trying to argue that sensory phenomena does not necessarily equal reality; you are assuming that it does and using that as proof. "Reality is definite because I can see it" isn't a rational argument to me.
I see what you mean, and know I'm confused about what to believeD:!! Especially with the ghost thing. Have you decided what you believe yet? I won't be able to help with this one:L
ding an sich vs. cogito ergo sum
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
But you're doing it again - "see that it exists", "obviously there". What part of it is obvious? Does seeing something prove it exists? If I see a ghost, does it exist?
I'm trying to argue that sensory phenomena does not necessarily equal reality; you are assuming that it does and using that as proof. "Reality is definite because I can see it" isn't a rational argument to me.
--
bananaface
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
I see what you mean, and know I'm confused about what to believeD:!! Especially with the ghost thing. Have you decided what you believe yet? I won't be able to help with this one:L