AndresDeLaHoz

Yeah, I'm pretty poor at philosophy and the sorts. I'm having an argument with this guy, and I need help refuting it (it's kinda hard seeing as the person isn't quite making an argument, just pulling random things out his ass). The gist of his ideas is something like this: We perceive reality, so what we're experiencing is not reality, just our perception of reality. Our interpretation of reality is not reality, and we shouldn't go around pretending it is. Past experience can never prove the future. Nobody can really be "right" about anything, which makes arguments useless. Anyone's interpretation of things is valid, valid being "acceptable within reality". If 1+1=2, we only perceive it as being true, it doesn't mean it is.

there's some other bizarre stuff, such as the thing with interpretations. if I see a dog and call it a dog, and someone sees it and calls it a "grooajroaj", they're both right. I don't really see how this makes any sense, and an example can discard it, but I don't really know what the conventions of language are, or why this doesn't inherently make sense (or if it does, though it seems fairly obvious that it does not). there's also the strange assertion than one can say anything about god, and anyone can say anything, too, and it's all valid.

It all boils down to something like "there is no right, and even i am not right about being right" Now,personally, it sounds like a bunch of unjustified pseudo-philosophy, but still. What is this and what are the exact reasons why it doesn't work (besides the fact that there is not an actual argument put forth), and if it does work (?), why?

*and if a mod could edit the silly "helpt" typo, i'd be a happy young lad*

Keith Russell

Ask him why he thinks he's 'right'.

K

John Page

I think the protagonist to which you refer is making some relevant observations while avoiding the claim of being "right". I'm on his side.

I think Keith suggests the best approach, sooner or later he'll have to either a) deny his own existence or b) explain what he thinks reality is.

Cheers, John

Wiploc

This is an arguable position. Example: Are apples really red? The truth is, apples reflect or emit (or something) light of a certain frequency; if the light stimulates our eyes, our brains code that stimulation as color. The color exists only in our brains, not on the apple, and not in the light.


Here he's just wrong. "Pretending" we know stuff is how we do our jobs, know what to eat, recognize our wives, etcetera.


This you can grant him without pain. Induction always falls short of 100% proof. But it often does better than 0%, which is what he seems to be overlooking.


This is a self-contradiction. It also has nothing to do with what came before. The fact that that we don't know something doesn't mean it isn't true.


Again, this is a self contradiction.


He's doing exactly what he's attacking. He has developed a theory of how perception maps onto reality, and he's claiming his theory is correct. Other theories (that perceptions reveal something significant about reality) may be wrong, but at least they don't impeach themselves.


Suppose I have a thing. People of my tribe call it a cup, and people of your tribe call it a mug. We can all be right. Now suppose the rest of my tribe dies, so I alone call a mug a cup. I can still be right in that my usage of the word is consistent, and doesn't contradict itself; but I am no longer "right" in the sense that the word I use effectively communicates my thought to my listener.

[sarcasm]Looked at that way, your friend may be right after all. His thoughts are confused, and his words convey confusion to you.[/sarcasm]



It doesn't work because:

1. Logically, it is self contradictory.

2. Practically, it is sterile. You can't discover the double-helix by pretending all your thoughts are meaningless.


[QUOTE] [B]

xoc

Our pereception of "Reality" is OUR reality, and considering how well it apparently coincides with other apparently real people, that we can debate and agree on the appearence of a certain apparent "object", makes pretending our "reality" is Reality at least useful, since we can never know true Reality(the absolute state of All) perfectly anyway.

I think an important distinction should be made between pereception and conception. We do n ot so much perceive that 1+1=2, rather than we "conceive" it. Numbers are not perceived from the world, they are conceived from the mind. More basic perception and less unreal conception can help us come closer to a sense of Reality as is(rather than what we conceive it to be).
This relies on a confusion between the "pointer" and the object it points to. Words are pointers, symbolically representing "objects", "concepts", etc. If we can agree on a same pointer for a same object(we both will call that certain kind of animal "dog" for example), then the validity of a statement about the object is based on how well it correlates to Reality or at least our shared "realities" which we can easily talk about for confirmation. With God, first there must be agreement that there is an actual, definite "object" or "concept" to point to, even if we don't know it's nature; if we can't even agree on there being such an object(existing "Out There" in some sense) then it's not a question of such talk being all valid but rather if it makes sense to speak of God at all. However even through the various religious traditions there remains some key attributes by which "God" is referred by those who speak of ???: the ultimate being, or Being as ultimate, so any lesser definition does imply a different conceptual Object then what everyone else refers. If your friend wants to speak a nonsensical language, nyhar doody eko timo, he just forfeits the means of communication of thought, which is a common language.
Well denyal of truth always faces an internal contradiction, hence it should be ignored.
"There is no truth"; if the statement is true, it is false because the "there is no truth" would be true, a contradiction. However if it is considered false, then there is truth, no contradiction. He may be right about not being right, but he's not right in saying there is no right.

John Page

Morally or factually?

Cheers, John

Keith Russell

Morally or factually?

John, do you really see the two as separate?

K

John Page

Yes, I see being right factually as being based on physically measurable, objective facts. Being right morally is additionally subjective based on interest groups and outcome.

Cheers, John

jpbrooks

Your friend's position seems to make some sense from the standpoint of the Kantian noumena/phenomena distinction. If we can't know reality outside of our sensory experiences of it, then we can never confirm that our "perceptions" and ideas about that "external" reality accurately represent it. The problem is, however, that the very acknowledgement of the noumena/phenomena distinction itself assumes some knowledge of a reality that exists outside sensory experience that is difficult to avoid.

I will return later.