Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Tyler Durden · 07-02-2003, 04:38 AM

Since there is no "thing-in-itself," reality is not "given" to us.

The empiricist's "myth of the given" has been consigned to the flames a long time ago.

Bob Stewart · 07-02-2003, 04:51 AM

Quote:

there is no "thing-in-itself,"

What, exactly, is being denied here? Does this mean, for example, that there are no chairs? How does this relate to the opening question, if it does?

Bob Stewart

Yggdrasill · 07-02-2003, 09:07 AM

I've been busy for the last few days, and I see that the thread has gotten a few replies, I'll try to respond to a few.

xoc, I suppose I can agree with the "grades of reality" bit, but I am not convinced by this bit:

Quote:

Originally posted by xoc:

One more compelling reason to believe in "reality": pain. If "Reality" were our own invention, I think it's safe to say that we would have a much better time of it(I would anyways). The fact that we are subjugated (by?) to a world whose laws and conditions we may at time dislike, even hate, should at least be ample reason to suppose we are not just deluding ourselves; but if someone else(God, the devil, aliens who have us suspended in some prison somewhere while computers direct our consciousness,etc.) is deluding us into believing "Reality", how do we discern it?

Do you believe in pain? If you do, it wouldn't be impossible that the "existence" of the pain is a effect of your belief in it. (Just to mention one possibility.) You are not always in control of your beliefs, so if reality was shaped by your beliefs, you would not necessarily be in control of reality.

Quote:

Originally posted by jpbrooks:

The assumption of the "reality of reality" is (ontologically) unavoidable. Even if we assume that all of reality is only a "dream", we are still assuming that the "dream" is real.

But, if there is no reality, there wouldn't be logics, so there may actually be no reality whatsoever. (Yes, it seems nonsensical, but it is a possibility nonetheless.)

Quote:

Originally posted by Barcode:

Well ya know, I figure even the external world is an illusion, I'd better behave as if it were real. It's either that or find myself committed to the nearest lunatic asylum.

That may be true, if the external world exists. However, if the external world does not exist, you wouldn't be commited to an asylum. Perhaps you ought to be open to the possibility of it's non-exsistence, and not start with the premise that the external world exists.

Quote:

Originally posted by Koyaanisqatsi:

Oh, great. Yet another variation on solipsism.

Ehm, no. There is a big difference between lacking a belief in the existence of reality, and believing yourself to be the creator of reality.

Quote:

What "lack of evidence" are you referring to?

Perhaps "lack of objective evidence" is more accurate.

I did not think of this sentence. (Probably, or maybe possibly.)

I might respond to some more posts later, I hadn't the time to write as much as I wanted.

spacer1 · 07-02-2003, 09:50 AM

Something which I posted on another forum which might be relevant to this discussion:

Assuming that philosophy_is a purely social enterprise, involving_the communication of ideas and concepts to others via language (which is_itself a social/shared means of communication), must already presuppose the existence of these other (like) minds,_for whom the communication is intended, which itself presupposes an external world for these other (like) minds and their bodies to inhabit.
_
Therefore, the existence of the external world and other minds is already presupposed before one endeavours to undertake philosophy.

jpbrooks · 07-05-2003, 02:09 PM

I apologize for these extremely late posts.

Quote:

Originally posted by spacer1
Something which I posted on another forum which might be relevant to this discussion:

Assuming that philosophy_is a purely social enterprise, involving_the communication of ideas and concepts to others via language (which is_itself a social/shared means of communication), must already presuppose the existence of these other (like) minds,_for whom the communication is intended, which itself presupposes an external world for these other (like) minds and their bodies to inhabit.
_
Therefore, the existence of the external world and other minds is already presupposed before one endeavours to undertake philosophy.

This is an excellent point!

But more fundamentally ...

Quote:

Originally posted by Yggdrasill

Quote:

Originally posted by jpbrooks:
The assumption of the "reality of reality" is (ontologically) unavoidable. Even if we assume that all of reality is only a "dream", we are still assuming that the "dream" is real.

But, if there is no reality, there wouldn't be logics, so there may actually be no reality whatsoever. (Yes, it seems nonsensical, but it is a possibility nonetheless.)

Since meaningful statements (including the ones above), ideas, etc., "presuppose" logical "first principles" (such as the principle/"law" of NonContradiction), there is logic, and thus, (according to the implication in the comment immediately above), reality. IOW, the statements, ideas, etc., about reality themselves rule out the possibility that "reality" might not exist. It remains, of course, always a logical possibility that "reality" might not exist (because there is no logical contradiction involved in the proposition, "reality might not exist"). But there is an Ontological inconsistency involved in conceiving the nonexistence of "reality".

I'll be back later.

JERDOG · 07-05-2003, 04:10 PM

Quote:

I am confused, I find myself less and less able to accept the existence of reality. Whatever I do, reality seems like a more and more implausible concept. It just doesn't seem real.

It doesn't seem real? Think about what you have just said.
That is a contradiction. If there was nothing real then you would have not a concept of something not being real.

That's like saying.

''This just doesn't seem splarp to me".

WTF is a splarp? I dunno.

You gotta know something before you can say its not like something.

Do we see an exact mirror image of reality? No. Simply looking at the sun we are seeing it 8 minutes ago.

But what we are seeing are the effects of that reality. And thoes effects are real.

We see or interpret effects of reality. That doesn't change the actual existence of something.

JERDOG · 07-05-2003, 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by spacer1
Something which I posted on another forum which might be relevant to this discussion:

Assuming that philosophy_is a purely social enterprise, involving_the communication of ideas and concepts to others via language (which is_itself a social/shared means of communication), must already presuppose the existence of these other (like) minds,_for whom the communication is intended, which itself presupposes an external world for these other (like) minds and their bodies to inhabit.
_
Therefore, the existence of the external world and other minds is already presupposed before one endeavours to undertake philosophy.

Exactly. just like the simple act of asking the question, "Do things exist?" presuppose that things do exist.

John Page · 07-05-2003, 07:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Yggdrasill
I am confused......

Didn't Norway have that effect on Wittgenstein, also?

What do you think non-reality is? Do you use unreality as a term to desribe what is outside your mind (i.e. not imaginary)?

I guess what I'm trying to suggest is that instead of trying to concretely determine whether something is, think of the relationship between the mind and whatever is "out there".

Cheers, John

spacer1 · 07-08-2003, 10:38 PM

I came across this in my travels, and thought it would be appropriate to this discussion.

mimi · 07-10-2003, 04:44 AM

I'm not really sure where I stand on this, but here's what's floating through my mind...

There is definitely a lack of evidence to me - I can't help thinking of the 'brain in the bottle' scenario explored in the Matrix.

If i feel something, or see something, it doesn't necessarily mean it exists. I perceive that it exists.

If I communicate with someone, in the context of philosophy or otherwise, it doesn't necessarily mean that person exists. I perceive that they exist.

Forgive me - I can't help but imagine virtual reality on a grand scale. I watched Reloaded last night.

Assuming that reality is real, what's more intriguing to me is:

How can I trust my senses? 'Crazy' people can imagine ('perceive') all kinds of stuff, even intelligent people. (I also watched 'A Beautiful Mind' not long ago.) Everything is perceived by everyone in different ways. How big are the variations?

How do we know that what we're perceiving is 'correct'? I used the example of colour-blindness in a previous post.

07-02-2003, 04:38 AM	#21
Tyler Durden Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: I am Jack's ID Posts: 592	Give me a break. Since there is no "thing-in-itself," reality is not "given" to us. The empiricist's "myth of the given" has been consigned to the flames a long time ago.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-02-2003, 09:50 AM	#24
spacer1 Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Australia Posts: 564	Something which I posted on another forum which might be relevant to this discussion: Assuming that philosophy_is a purely social enterprise, involving_the communication of ideas and concepts to others via language (which is_itself a social/shared means of communication), must already presuppose the existence of these other (like) minds,_for whom the communication is intended, which itself presupposes an external world for these other (like) minds and their bodies to inhabit. _ Therefore, the existence of the external world and other minds is already presupposed before one endeavours to undertake philosophy.

07-08-2003, 10:38 PM	#29
spacer1 Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Australia Posts: 564	I came across this in my travels, and thought it would be appropriate to this discussion.

07-10-2003, 04:44 AM	#30
mimi Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Australia Posts: 17	I'm not really sure where I stand on this, but here's what's floating through my mind... There is definitely a lack of evidence to me - I can't help thinking of the 'brain in the bottle' scenario explored in the Matrix. If i feel something, or see something, it doesn't necessarily mean it exists. I perceive that it exists. If I communicate with someone, in the context of philosophy or otherwise, it doesn't necessarily mean that person exists. I perceive that they exist. Forgive me - I can't help but imagine virtual reality on a grand scale. I watched Reloaded last night. Assuming that reality is real, what's more intriguing to me is: How can I trust my senses? 'Crazy' people can imagine ('perceive') all kinds of stuff, even intelligent people. (I also watched 'A Beautiful Mind' not long ago.) Everything is perceived by everyone in different ways. How big are the variations? How do we know that what we're perceiving is 'correct'? I used the example of colour-blindness in a previous post.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.