David Gould

I have started reading a few philosophy things (Magee's story of philosophy was excellent, by the way) and am now reading some essays in a little book called Key Themes in Philosophy.

One of these themes is the external world, and it looks at Heidegger's statement that it is philosophy's great shame that the existence of the external world must be defended over and over again.

I am wondering why philosophy feels the need to address this issue at all.

If our experiences are all a dream or all an illusion presented to us by an evil demon then the question should be: does it matter?

For us, does it truly matter if we are being decieved or not?

If we are facing a being that can so completely deceive us then there is no real point trying to break free of the illusion because we could never know if we actually had or not.

Consider: if we can be so completely fooled then how do we know that our escape from the illusion is not merely another illusion?

Alternatively, if it is a dream or an illusion that is not caused by another being then we may either wake up one day or the illusion may fail.

As it cannot be known if it will fail at all or even if it is a dream, it should be treated as if it was real. If it is not, and you never wake up, it is the only reality you will ever expereince. Banking on waking up is not good. Better to assume that you will not.


Philosophy should have no more to say on the matter.

What do other people think?

excreationist

Yes, it is impossible to know what the outermost reality actually is like. e.g. we could be in the "The Matrix" and they didn't bother telling us. Then they might tell us and show us the "real" world, but that could also be a computer simulation (see "the Thirteenth Floor"). "ExistenZ" also has a lot about our inability to know what the outermost reality is like. The end of "Men in Black" also shows this concept.
Though this reality could just be a virtual one that is actually inside a computer or inside the mind of God, etc, I think that there would have to be a limit to the number of levels of outer reality. Unless outer reality is truly infinite and we are infinitely virtual reality inside it. e.g. a virtual world on a virtual computer in a virtual world on a virtual computer, etc, etc.

Tom Piper

David,

Does it matter whether or not I told that awful lie to my father or only dreamed that I did? Yes! for obvious reasons.

Does it matter whether or not I was unfaithful to my wife or only dreamed that I was? Yes! for obvious reasons.

and so on,...

Tom

Francois Tremblay

No, it doesn't really matter. Because even if you label the exterior world "illusion", it is still only a label. You still perceive it, draw deductions from it, etc. So whatever label you put on it, it is what philosophy has to look at.

This is perhaps related to the possible existence of some kind of meta-universe. But if we can have evidence of such a universe, then we will eventually discover it : and if we cannot, then there is no point discussing it in the first place.

Adrian Selby

But if it is possible to make a distinction, in other words, if it can be the case that there is a real world, or there isn't, then given these are two different things, surely the pursuit of truth on the matter is valid.

I think its dangerous to say that because we all behave as though its real, then it can be meaningfully said to be real, when it might not be in fact. The issue for me becomes whether or not we have to rule out in principle the possibility of discovering the truth of such arguments. If we must rule out such arguments about reality in advance of a solution either way, i.e. given we're currently at an impasse, then what are the grounds for doing so?

Also, regarding issues that matter, I wonder whether it truly matters whether or not we are minds as well as brains or just brains, after all, regardless of what we believe on the issue we all act the same, having either belief seems not to affect how we live our lives.

Personally, the notion that solipsism is as meaningful as materialism simply because the issue doesn't matter isn't quite satisfactory.

Adrian

joedad

I think it's personal. Maybe it's the same reason people wish to summit Chomo Lungma. I think such understandings are as varied as their participants. Discovery, insight, knowledge, recognition, self esteem.... I think that that would be too draconian and somewhat shortsighted, because it would impose upon freethought.

But I also think you're right, and it is similar to the "angels on the head of a pin" line of thinking IMHO.

joe

jpbrooks

This is the key to the whole issue.
How could any such distinction between illusion and reality have ever arisen if there were no reality with which comparisons could be made?

John Phillip Brooks

[ February 19, 2002: Message edited by: jpbrooks ]</p>

Laurentius

Reality imposes itself as non-illusion through its repeated (everyday) massiveness sensorially manifested in all human subjects.

When there is not sufficient evidence to support either theory between two possible explanations, the one making use of minimum of elements should be prefered. By this criterion, the idea of the evil demon inducing the same illusion in all human beings seems superfluous and, for that reason, highly farfetched. At least, to me. At least, at this point.
AVE

1sec

Laurentius, you are incomplete:


Simplicity is not enough. The theory must fully explain the phenomenon.

For some the devlish illusion hypothesis is the only one to fully satisfy their criteria fully and soundly.

crocodile deathroll

I think it probably is reality but I can never know that for sure. I may be all some elaborate dream inside God/Godesses brain. Or inside all our own brains and we are really all just collection of genetically ordered schizophrenics with the same genetically induced trait that creates this mass delusion of "reality out there" with the real reality being totally different

But I think this is all a little tongue and cheek, don't you.