butlerk

In a recent "discussion" with some friends, we somehow evolved into a discussion of reality and the perceptions on it.

There argument was that "reality" was nothing more than a perception, and that which we claim to know is merely based on "faith." They posed questions like "how do you know what you know" and "prove your existance." To me, at least, it seemed like the whole Matrix film put to question.

Being the materialsit (as a basic definition) that I am, I quickly began to argue their points. Needless to say, I can't argue philosophy very well and I didn't even know if I was correct in what I was saying.

Much of what I stated to them was shot down with points like any "true" or "ultimate" reality can never be known because humans can't even prove reality exists.

At this point I was just lost, mainly because I have a hard time envisioning the nil existance of reality. Anyone have any suggestions or suggested readings on the matter.

(if the question seems odd, it's probably because I didn't know quite how to phrase it and I've not posted to IIDF but a few times)

Clutch

Define 'reality'. Ie, what are they claiming cannot be proven to exist? Presumably reality is whatever exists. Not even a solipsist denies reality; she just has a weird view of what it is.

Sounds like they're claiming that a world of physical objects independent of one's perceptions is what cannot be proved.

Question is, why not?

butlerk

That's just it, they weren't defining reality. They blew it off by saying we can't define reality.

I agree, the question is then "why not?" I just want to know if there is an answer to the why not part.

Chip

I'm trying to get a handle on this psychosis that puts humans beyond any universal and rational morality. I find that many so-called religious afflictions are just existentialism in many disguises, the individual becomes separate and coerced to taking up arms for the most powerful cultural expediency, the factions that tells its minion not to question as their questions are all meaningless. These are the faith sufferers, tools and dupes of anti-humanism.

There are two kinds of faith, one that accepts something as true because others claim it so and one that is based in knowledge. Should "might make right" or should careful attention to science and reason prevail?

Shadowy Man

They need to define "reality", "faith", and "prove". If they don't want to define the terms about which they are arguing then they're just talking gibberish.

[ October 09, 2002: Message edited by: Shadowy Man ]</p>

picklepuss

Everybody defines reality. If you have no definition of reality to guide you, you either are, or soon will be, insane. The thing is, only a subjective definition is necessary in order to protect your sanity.

The question then appears to be, is there an objective reality? Can we(I) know what it is and so define/describe it, and can I prove to myself and others that my description of this objective reality is accurate, that my definition of an objective reality is true. The problem is obvious--how can any subjective description or definition be proven objectively true?

It may be true, it may be false. The point is, existence is real, or following Descartes, we couldn't be talking about it. Following Aristotle, existence can have only one identity, since it is a principle of logic that no entity, including reality, can have more than one true identity. Reality cannot self-contradict itself by being two or more different things. So, logically, there is only one objective reality in existence. And over six billion subjective realities.

As Shadowyman points out, trying to debate without defining your terms is an exercise in futility. Everyone just spouts gibberish past one another. To have any kind of useful discussion, a mutually agreeable understanding of basic language has to be agreed upon right at the start.

First the term 'reality' has to be commonly defined, then a distincion made in the modifiers, subjective and objective 'reality', and then the debate begins over which subjective reality best describes objective reality. That's metaphysics. It's a debate that's been going on pretty much continuously for about 2,500 years in western society, and is probably in no danger of being settled anytime soon.

The trick, in coffeehouse philosophy, is to not let your opponent make the debate all about you defending your subjective definition. You have to make the debate about your definition compared with his, as to which makes better sense. That's the only way you'll stand a chance.

butlerk

Interesting, I'll have to ponder this.

I'm wondering however, if the potential exists for a person to actually prove his or her existance. I don't deny objective reality, since (to me) it makes logical sense. However, I wonder if your statment (above) provides a complete enough proof to articulate why we exist. (if this doesn't make any sense, I'm sorry but I don't quite know how to make the points I'm trying to make)

picklepuss

**
Well, yes, as I mentioned, Descartes', "Cogito ergo sum."

Technically the 'cogito' only demonstrates our own subjective reality to each of us, but there are other arguments against solipsism which lead to the acceptance of both self and other, and from there to an independently existing, objective reality. Such as Wittgenstein's argument from common language. Semiotically speaking, a person does not need symbols in order to communicate with himself, and yet in order to express his own understanding of his own existence to himself, the solipsist finds that symbolic language is necessary. I haven't thought about this much, so perhaps I'm messing it up.

Anyway, just what constitutes that objective reality is still an open question, and since the 'what' of it has not been conclusively determined, the 'why' of it is still wide open to debate.

Naked Ape

I am somewhat philosophically illiterate, bur have you considered inviting your opponents to run towards the wall (or any large heavy object) at a speed proportional to their disbelief in it’s physical objective existence? Would declining an offer like this insinuate that these doubters have more or less faith in an objective external reality? Would uttering the mantra “There is no spoon.” have any effect on the outcome of my hastily proposed experiment?

Cheers,

Naked Ape
?

Clutch

Naked Ape,

An excellent suggestion, worthy of Dr Johnson himself.

But perhaps they could just shout "Spoon!", like The Tick.