Author Topic: What is true?  (Read 16603 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

April 07, 2007, 09:44:15 AM
Reply #60

Faijer

  • Veritas Moderator
  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****
  • Existential Pragmatist

  • 3201
  • Karma:
    40
  • Personal Text
    The Devil's Advocate
    • View Profile
    • WordPress Blog
Oriens, you're wasting your time, I already argued along that line of argument:
Quote from: Faijer
Thus, while you can argue until your blue (or is it green?) in the face, your argument over 'subjective truth' within this example is still flawed because our perception is based on the objective nature - something that is independant of our perception.

Quote from: kobok
That just depends on your definition of "proof".  Can you prove it beyond all reasonable doubt?  Absolutely.  Can you prove it beyond the objection of some silly pseudophilosopher who would argue against anything?  No, but who cares?
Descartes :wink:

This entire argument seems to be about the Meditations on First Philosophy. If you're part of this discussion and haven't, please read the entire meditations and realise that while Descartes said that we should doubt our reality and never accept anything as truth without questioning first, he, through his own meditations, continually suggested that there was an objective reality (or non-contingent essence), whether we were experiencing/able to know it or not. But even if we are experiencing a false reality, a Matrix-esque computer simulation, there is still an objective component to that. Whether we see that objectivity in its pure abstract form or not is immaterial, because we do see it.

The meditations were meant to be a series of doubts to make one question their existence (in the context of them being written, they were Descartes attempt to understand his existence, since each person has to, if they follow the meditations' paths of logic, come to conclusions over their existence individually), to understand it better, all based on logic and reason because Descartes believed that the senses and anything that came from the external world could potentially be a deception.

Quote from: The Jacket
how do you know I actually exist
Because you just said that. If we're going to argue by Descartes' philosophy, I would use one of the objections I raised in my coursework on The Cogito. You exist because I see you, or an avatar of you. Whether you exist like I do, whether you are a being like I who can in fact claim, "I think, I am", is a redundant point to consider when asking whether you exist or not. Because you clearly do exist, whether as a being like I, as part of my imagination, or something else, you very much do exist, just like I do, and everyone else does.

If alternatively, you want to start moving more into Discordianism, be my guest and tell me that 'nothing is true, everything is premissible'. It'll prove a great deal :rolleyes:
« Last Edit: April 07, 2007, 09:50:58 AM by Faijer »
My WordPress Blog is updated regularly.
NEW UPDATE: Life begins at conception: A thought experiment (29/08/2012)

April 07, 2007, 02:52:00 PM
Reply #61

Oriens Lvx Lucis

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 766
  • Karma:
    -1
    • View Profile
Looking back on how redundan the debate has become, I believe the problem may lie with someone either not understanding, or simply not accepting the point.

Perhaps this will help:

"I see the orange in front of me.  Therefore, something which the apparent color, shape, density, weight, diameter and overall size of the orange I perceive must exist.  My perception may be flawed.  However, in order for there to be perception, I must perceive something.  This means that any perception I have, no matter how flawed, represents an object which exists in reality, but which I am simply interpreting in a flawed or simply adulterated manner."

Of course the orange is not really orange.  It doesn't appear to a cat as orange, but it appears to a cat, does it not?  One sees identifies a frequency range around the orange as orange (humans) one identifies that same frequency range as what we would call grey (cats).  But both are seeing something which exists independent of themselves, and therefore holds an objective reality.

I'm not sure I know of a better way to explain the same point.  May it suffice.

Namaste.

April 07, 2007, 06:24:07 PM
Reply #62

Tsumaru

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 1780
  • Karma:
    0
    • View Profile
I don't think this argument matters anymore. The Jacket is repeating the same thing over and over, convinced that we don't understand or don't agree - I don't know which. However, we all know what he's trying to say, and we all agree that perception has room for doubt. But we also realise that perception is separate from objective reality and thus suggesting that perception is subjective does not mean that reality is. So, either The Jacket does not accept this point and cannot at all in any way argue against it without arguing the subjectivity of perception...or he's making some other point which he is also unable to express properly so we don't know.

Either way, it's been going around in circles for a long, long time now. In fact, I'd say it's probably cycled about 4-5 times at least. Let it be unless The Jacket can bring something new to the discussion.
don't believe everything you read... especially if it comes from me.

April 07, 2007, 08:54:59 PM
Reply #63

The Jacket

  • Veritas Furniture

  • Offline
  • ****

  • 384
  • Karma:
    1
  • Personal Text
    Just to the right side of wrong.
    • View Profile
I guess, then, that its time to let it be.

Really, I agree with you all that there is an objective reality. I was just arguing for the remote possibility I am, or you are, the only true being in what you percieve as reality.  Its called playing devil's advocate.

I just thought that it would be fun to intfoduce a point of view that, for the most part, completely contradicted the point of view of the majority. Personaly, I rather enjoyed it.

"pseudophilosopher"? That was uncalled for.
« Last Edit: April 09, 2007, 04:50:46 AM by The Jacket »
Every thing you know is wrong! Only what you dont know is true. Surely then the wisest man is he who knows nothing! By knowing nothing, clearly you know everything that isn't, and therefore everything that is.

April 07, 2007, 09:16:23 PM
Reply #64

Tsumaru

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 1780
  • Karma:
    0
    • View Profile
Quote
Really, I agree with you all that there is a subjective reality.
We are arguing for an OBJECTIVE REALITY, even though there is a potential for SUBJECTIVE PERCEPTION.

Quote
I just thought that it would be fun to intfoduce a point of view that, for the most part, completely contradicted the point of view of the majority.
It doesn't completely contradict anything. In fact, most of us agreed with you that perception can be misleading. Hell, I even mentioned Descartes Meditations on First Philosophy before you had even posted such views in the first place.
don't believe everything you read... especially if it comes from me.

April 08, 2007, 01:18:11 AM
Reply #65

kobok

  • Tech Team
  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****
  • Veritas Council

  • 4988
  • Karma:
    171
  • Personal Text
    Veritas Council
    • View Profile
"pseudophilosopher"? That was uncalled for.

It was not intended as anything personally directed.  I classify all philosophy in which a claim is made similar to the form of "nothing can be known" as pseudophilosophy.  This is a quite sensible classification, for if nothing can be known, then there can exist no philosophy, and thus no meaningful philosophical discussion can exist from within this premise.
Latest article:  Construct Dynamics

Want to learn psi?  Check out our collection of psi articles.

April 09, 2007, 04:59:56 AM
Reply #66

The Jacket

  • Veritas Furniture

  • Offline
  • ****

  • 384
  • Karma:
    1
  • Personal Text
    Just to the right side of wrong.
    • View Profile
Just a mistype, tsumaru. I meant objective.

Basically anyone who thinks about it long enough will come to the conclusion that everyone here has.  Our senses may not percieve the reality around us in its entirty, but the reality is independent of our interpretation of it.

What I was suggesting is that the reality itself is subjective and our senses percieve what we want them to because thats whats there if we believe it is.

Ofcourse I know thats not accepted as true, and is unlikely to the point of nearly impossible. I was just arguing for that side to try and stimulate some thought, either to wonder if it may be, or to prove that its wrong.

Objective Reality, Subjective Perception. Fully accepted.
Every thing you know is wrong! Only what you dont know is true. Surely then the wisest man is he who knows nothing! By knowing nothing, clearly you know everything that isn't, and therefore everything that is.

April 09, 2007, 05:52:32 AM
Reply #67

Tsumaru

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 1780
  • Karma:
    0
    • View Profile
But your points never supported a subjective reality - only inaccurate/subjective perceptions. That's the issue.
don't believe everything you read... especially if it comes from me.

April 10, 2007, 03:28:32 PM
Reply #68

Steve

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 3685
  • Karma:
    139
    • View Profile
"I was just arguing for the remote possibility I am, or you are, the only true being in what you percieve as reality." If this were true, it wouldn't matter if it were true or untrue as you then would be the only person alive to care. As such, it becomes a paradox of purpose (whatever you choose life to be, it will be that) versus usefulness (but even if life seems like whatever you want it to be, what's the point? there is no heaven or hell or purgatory or Tao or God or anything, only your delusion/imagination. so ... what then?).

There are certain theoretical points where even if reality is the truth that some philosophers say it could be, there'd be no benefit from knowing such.

~Steve

       The words of the Teacher, son of David, king in Jerusalem:

       "Meaningless! Meaningless!"
       says the Teacher.
       "Utterly meaningless!
       Everything is meaningless."

       What does man gain from all his labor
       at which he toils under the sun?

       Generations come and generations go,
       but the earth remains forever.
Mastery does not occur when you've performed a feat once or twice. Instead, it comes after years of training, when you realize that you no longer notice when you're performing a feat which used to require so much effort. Even walking takes years of training for a human: why not everything else?

April 10, 2007, 05:56:23 PM
Reply #69

The Jacket

  • Veritas Furniture

  • Offline
  • ****

  • 384
  • Karma:
    1
  • Personal Text
    Just to the right side of wrong.
    • View Profile
Quote
But your points never supported a subjective reality - only inaccurate/subjective perceptions. That's the issue.

yeah, its a bit difficult to think up things to support something you dont really think is true, no matter how much you want to. And believe me, I wanted to.  Also hard to support something that says nothing exists. That would lead into nihilism and throw the world into untter chaos. And while Loki might like that, I doubt it would be benificial to anyone else.  So we ignor such slim possibilities by necesity.

But anyway, I've said what I was trying to do. 
Every thing you know is wrong! Only what you dont know is true. Surely then the wisest man is he who knows nothing! By knowing nothing, clearly you know everything that isn't, and therefore everything that is.