I feel that there are 3 aspects on reality.

1. Reality as the preliminary condition for life and things. It must exist prior to all life and all things. Without the reality, nothing else can exist. In that sense, it is the same concept as "The World".

2. Reality of an individuals in everyday life. What they see, hear, touch and interact with in their own environment. This is equivalent to the material world.

3. Reality as a concept. When born and in early stage of life, one has no concept of reality. But as one grows and being educated about the world, countries and the planets etc, one get to have a concept of reality. This is evolutionary idea which changes and grows.

So, no I don't believe that reality is a emerging property. I feel that it is a narrow and awkwardly pigeonholed concept.

"I" is a perceived being.
It is not a logically deduced or proved by reason being.

"I think, therefore I am" — Qmeri

I used to think that statement has been always wrong.
One cannot deduce "am" from "think".
It is a category mistake.

Existence cannot be logically proved by thoughts.
It can only be perceived.
Perception has possibility of error.
Reason has its limitation.

Merleau-Ponty's Philosophy by L. Haas.

This book seems a good introduction to Phenomenology and Merleau-Ponty's main ideas.

Yes, my choice of words can have negative connotations. But I think it would only bother you this much if you believe that what you’re doing is inherently good. Because you ARE identifying faith and reason and examining or dealing with them separately. And you ARE removing aspects of reality from philosophical consideration. And you have probably always seen this as something good, following in the noble tradition of famous philosopher — Possibility

I am not bothered at all. As I have said, I will say again. You are keep repeating yourself with the same point, which is negative and not productive for you at all. So I was just pointing out. But somehow you think that I am bothered. This is very strange.

Your argument is not consistent even in one post. One minute you say that, you were not negative, but it was positive, and you even bother to copy and paste meanings of the words from some internet site. But then you cannot help noticing it yourself, those words have negative connotations. And then you turn to negative again. It is strange circulation. My points had been put across a few days ago. There is nothing more productive to add to the main topic of the thread, but then you keep saying isolation and exclusion, and your negativity again. So I am just making my points on this situation.

I think you are not after a sound philosophical debate, but just trying to judge others points and ideas. Not productive at all.

You’re getting defensive again. I’m not saying that isolation and exclusion are ‘bad’ or ‘negative’. I would say that they can be seen as ‘positive’ aspects to a model of truth — Possibility

It was not just your choice of the words. You kept saying due to the isolation and exclusion, I will never be able to arrive at the truths that need more than reason.

I have been saying, one arrives at the truths which are outside of boundary of reason, by other means than reason, i.e. faith, meditation or prayers, if they are wanting to or able to.

But ok, you meant to be positive, you confirmed. I will take it, your opinion was positive. Thanks.

You’re getting defensive again. I’m not saying that isolation and exclusion are ‘bad’ or ‘negative’. I would say that they can be seen as ‘positive’ aspects to a model of truth. But I also think they’re no more important than the ‘negative space’. — Possibility

Just quick reply, as I have a lot to do today. Will read the rest laster when quiet.

I was not defending anything, but just noticed that your choice of the words "isolation and exclusion" was very negative. Anyone who can speak English will tell you that. It is not even in any philosophical books or schools unless you are talking about some pessimistic "Existential Philosophy" describing destitute human condition or fate, because they will all die in the end.

Denying that or saying otherwise, I would take it as pure dishonesty or you don't know how to use some basic English words.

Drawing lines on the mental faculties, or boundary of the senses and reason, is perfectly philosophical expression which had been used for long time by many famous philosophers.

Reason, which is universal to human being's mind will authorise you to do that, if you follow proper guidelines and apply the right methodology to your truths seeking process. Surely that is not isolation and exclusion, but it is just a part of the right procedure in truths yielding.

Drawing arbitrary boundaries and lines, declaring what is in and out - please tell me how this is not isolating and excluding. There are no boundaries except those we draw in our own limited perception. I’m not expecting truth to be concrete or conclusive - that doesn’t mean it can’t be both accurate and practical. — Possibility

It is not arbitrary boundaries. The boundary had been drawn since time of Kant. And that was a part of his mission in Philosophy. I thought you did read Kant's Critiques.

Drawing boundaries is not isolating and excluding, because it is saying that you go, and investigate the topics of out of the boundary of reason via faith, meditation or whatever other means that requires for you to get to the knowledge or truths you are after.

Bracketing out skepticism from a discussion of truth or reality is just a way of avoiding uncertainty. So, we can make these assertions about reality IFF our underlying logical assumptions and the meanings we attribute to language are true about reality. That we cannot use reason alone to verify this is a serious problem with the methodology in relation to determining an accurate model of truth. But you’re not after accuracy or correctness, only an illusion of certainty. And you’re willing to ignore, isolate or exclude any human capacity to access truth beyond reason in order to retain that illusion. — Possibility

Again, the same points :) you are the one self oscillating on the same points.
Topics that are out of boundary of reason should be left to the faith and mysticism, because you cannot come to concrete truths or conclusion by reasoning. So boundary has been drawn on the reason and faith. It is not isolating or excluding.

But you ARE treating them with your philosophical methodology by isolating and excluding them from any critical discussion of truth. — Possibility

I was drawing lines between subjects that can be dealt with reason, and subjects which is out of boundary of debate with reason. I cannot understand why you must be negative and keep saying "isolating and excluding".

It just seems to me as if you’re judging the validity of other models against a methodology that is itself limited in relation to truth. Your claim that reason is the ‘best’ tool for verification and validation (ie. an illusion of certainty) is argued within a tradition that dismisses other tools as ‘not philosophy’ because they don’t follow this tradition which claims (arbitrarily) that reason is the ‘best’ tool... It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy, an imaginative ‘what if’ that ‘worked’ consistently enough to be consolidated into a formidable institution - rather like Christianity, or geocentrism - and now fights for ‘survival’ by beating back all but the most ‘pure’ fundamentalism. — Possibility

My claim was not reason is the only and best tool, but rather, I was saying for Western Philosophical tradition rationalism has been dominating trend, and I follow the tradition.

Anyhow I feel that you are repeating yourself with the same thing, on which I have already clearly explained in the previous posts.

hen you need to understand how its methodology differs from your own traditional ‘Western Philosophy’ model — Possibility

I wouldn't treat mysticism, religion and any other non philosophical subject with the philosophical methodology. If I am interested in a mysticism (which I am not in real life), then I would just go and read up about the mysticism. I will not try to bring mysticism under philosophical methodology, unless such situation had risen for some some peculiar circumstance, which I doubt.

keeping in mind that your traditional model has its own serious problems with reality and appearance, language and meaning, etc — Possibility

Could you please explain in detail on your saying "its own serious problems with reality and appearance, language and meaning etc"? What serious problems are you talking about here?

Again, I’m not denying this - my point is that this foundation does not then define what Philosophy is or should be. Philosophy that ventures beyond the capacity of reason does not cease to be philosophy. — Possibility

Perhaps that's where our difference lies. To me, knowledge and truths beyond reason are in the realm of religion or psychology or whatever, but they are not philosophy. What cannot be said, sensed, talked or verified is not subject of philosophy. They are mysticism.

The reference I made to Kant was to counter your suggestion that my definition was formed outside of philosophical discourse - a ‘layman’s definition’, I think were your words. — Possibility

It was obvious that you intended to bring Kant into the debate just to counter the opinion on the "Layman's definition", which suddenly sounded all too abstract and unclear, because a few days ago, you have been saying that reason and logic have no place in philosophy. Without these faculties, you cannot even talk about imagination, understanding or judgement, because these mental activities are based on reason essentially and logic to some degree. It was totally conflicting argument and definition, and had no consistency whatsoever between them.

I want to be clear that I am not defining the whole of Western Philosophy — Possibility

I don't believe it is a possible task for you anyway.

I find it amusing that you consider my approach to be too narrow simply because of the words I’ve used, yet ‘extracting the common denominator from the tradition’ and the ‘prevailing attitudes’ of Western Philosophy to define all philosophy is not narrow? — Possibility

That is just my way of the defining. You have yours.

It’s a bit like defining ‘humanity’ by extracting the ‘common denominator’ from patriarchal tradition and the prevailing attitudes of men. — Possibility

No. Humanity is not Philosophy. I made clear that Philosophy is a very unique subject, different from all other subjects. Humanity is not even a subject. Humanity is - well it will have many definitions I am sure, but it is not a subject, art or science.

You’re only making it clearer to me that you’re unfamiliar with his third critique. I can’t say that I’m surprised — Possibility

I have all the books, and read them years ago light heartedly. I know what they are about roughly. I could reread them and refresh my memory, but I feel that Kant's Critique is not something that to be discussed in detail here.

Separate from philosophy? — Possibility

Separate from the question on what reality is.

Verifying and validating against what? Against your conception of reality? Against logic or reason?

It is the structure of this co-relation that is the key: the model of truth. But where does experience fit into this? Without an understanding of how feeling affects our perception of reality, reason or logic, and how this affected perception influences attention and effort, your verification and validation will never be accurate in relation to reality. At best you have a prediction. — Possibility

Yeah, same point again. verify and validate against what? If you read Kant, you surely would know against what by now. You have universal categorical perceptual tool in your mind called "REASON". That is what you veryfy against.

OK, there are problems with reality and appearance, and whether what you see or hear were correct etc, but that is another issue and it is about skepticism. This is I feel, a separate issue.

Still the best tool human has for the verification and validation is 'reason" and logic. If one doesn't see, or agree to this, then I have no other way to convince than tell him to meditate or pray for the truths he is after.

I’m not ‘just saying it’, I’m employing the discourse of Western Philosophy to define Philosophy. And I’m not talking about any contents or objects, but the faculties themselves. This is a common error that originates with the translation of Kant’s ‘Kritik der Urteilskraft‘ into English, and the failure of many philosophers to even read this third critique. He’s not referring to the actual ‘judgement (urteils) of something’, as in CofPR, but to the faculty of judgement - not just the capacity to judge, but the pure possibility of human judgement - which influences both reason and ethics at an a priori level.

But here Kant glimpses beyond reason, and recognises free, non-judgemental harmony between the faculties of imagination and understanding as the realm of ‘genius’, wisdom, sagacity. He left the door open to a broader approach to philosophy... — Possibility

In Kant, experience and truths is only possible, when you allow the inherent reason and sensory experience are combined. He distinguished different kind of reasons - Pure Reason (for general perception and mathematical perception), Practical Reason (for ethical and aesthetic judgements). These reasons are inborn, and universal. They are transcendental and categorical. It is the foundation for all human knowledge.

But you cannot know Ding-An-Sich, which is God, Freedom and Death and so on. These items does not provide you with the universal sensory data. You must trust them, or presume them or come to some sort of conclusion by some other means than knowledge in general.

This is something that can go on in 1000s of pages, but my idea is just from my fuzzy memory of reading Kan 10 year ago. But you get the gist, and appreciate reason is most significant foundation in Western Philosophy.

I’m not ‘just saying it’, I’m employing the discourse of Western Philosophy to define Philosophy. — Possibility

I feel that "experience" is just far too loose and abstract term in defining methodology for arriving at truths from my description above.

And you cannot just pick out one school or philosopher and use his ideas and definition to define the whole Western Philosophy. As I have been saying, there have been too many divergent schools and ideas even in Western Philosophy, hence why I have been talking in terms of the tradition and prevailing attitudes of Western Philosophy. And I based my own definition from that.

Using Kant's terminology to define the whole Western Philosophy would be too narrow and wrong too to cover the whole Western Philosophy. We can only extract the common denominator from the tradition, and establish our own definition. I feel that it is more practical and constructive.

Ok, you can have your own definition on the WP, no one will tell you that you can't. But we can still debate whether yours is making sense and why mine is more sensible definition than yours.

Well, that was badly worded on my part - sorry. I was trying to say that methodology is limited when a privileged place (over experience) is given to reason and logic. When all experience must be logically structured and filtered through reason, then you begin the process of thinking with a limited access to truth. — Possibility

Experience is another abstract terminology, which is not clear. Experience, to me, is something that you have gone through in the past? It is also always about something. It has contents which is private and past. So what do you mean by privileged place over experience?

To me, experience is like memory? Or it is not even that, but it is so abstract term, I am not sure if it can be used for meaningful tool for arriving at truths. Perhaps, you could reflect or compare something with your own experience? But still you must use reason to do that. Experience sounds like just pile of personal memories of someone on something.

In Philosophy I feel that every issue we are discussing is current, and up-to-date, now issue. We can be talking about the ancient philosophies of course, but we are discussing and contemplating and investigating now. So your saying that "When all experience must be logically structured and filtered through reason, then you begin the process of thinking with a limited access to truth."
I am not quite getting it again. Why do you have to filter all experience logically and filtered through reason? Could you give daily life example for that?

You have a philosophical issue to investigate, and analyse, and come to conclusion via verification or validation. And maybe sometimes, your experience on something might help in that process, if it is related to the topic, background or conclusion, then you might reflect or base on the experience in coming to the conclusion and truth. But is is not necessary step to take always.

I will consider the next part when time is permitting. Just concentrating the part by part whenever I have a chance to be back here.

they have no privileged place over experience that limits the methodology, and thereby access to truth. — Possibility

Could you give some examples on this? I am not sure what experiences you are talking about here, and where it came from.

The use of ‘the faculties of imagination, understanding and judgement’ comes from Kant. — Possibility

They make sense, when one is reading the book "Critique of Pure Reason" with the context, but when someone is just saying it or written down out of blue without telling where it came from, then it can cause confusion. Kant has been talking about them in his grand scheme of human understanding how they all work.

But when you just say it, one will wonder, what imagination, understanding and judgement? Because they are always imagination of something, understanding of something or judement of something. How can you just talk about empty imagination, understanding and judgement without any contents or objects? It just sounded abstract and empty and meaningless.

If reason and logical process and conclusions do not agree with reality, how far back will you go to restructure? If you employ a set methodology that gives primacy to logic and reason within a Western philosophical discourse, how can you investigate the correctness of that methodology?

I get that clinging to a logical foundation or reasonable methodology gives the illusion of certainty. But what if that’s where you’re wrong? How will you ever know? — Possibility

You keep verifying and validating. You don't restructure anything. Restructuring comes automatically after the verification and validation. Reason and logic is the tool for that exercise. But without co-relation of reason, logic and reality, your verification and validation will never be possible.

Philosophy deals with every subject in universe, but its methodology is different from other subject. So if you are doing Philosophy of Religion, then you don't talk about the religion itself, but the criteria for logical validity with reason and reality, of the religion at investigation. To me, that is the core point of Philosophy.

Ignoring and denouncing the relation between logic, reason and reality sound utterly addlepated.

I’ve already answered this question here. Twice.

Philosophy is exploring the faculties of imagination, understanding and judgement to determine a model of truth.
— Possibility — Possibility

It sounded like not Philosophy defined by philosophical view point, but from a psychology or layman. It is just too loose definition, and unclear. It does not mention anything about methodology of the subject.
"determine a model of truth"? by how?. Do you want to determine a model of truth, but deny the importance of logic and reason?

So, when I say that the investigation of logical correctness of terminology, sayings, codes, principles, etc has nothing to do with reality, I’m saying that it is subject to human decisions and conventions - namely, language. — Possibility

Language alone would be insufficient. I am not sure if language alone can cover and reflect the whole picture of mental activities such as thinking, believing, imagination and judgement. Your thinking is very much limited. I feel that reality and logic and reasoning are closely related. If reason and logical process and conclusions do not agree with reality, then something is wrong somewhere, and you need to find out about that.

Then it has no relation to reality, and serves no practical purpose in itself. It’s all just words. The self-appointed ‘voice of Reason’, except no one can agree on what she’s saying... — Possibility

There is more to correct reasoning than logic. — Possibility

This time, let me ask you questions.

1. What is Philosophy in your thought?
2. What is your definition of Reality?

Is that what you think I’m doing? Or is this another strawman argument? Try reading my definition again. — Possibility

Yes, I think you have been emotionally stretching yourselves rather than engaging a debate.
It is like, I said "Tokyo is not in Europe. It is in Asia. They have different weather compared to Norway.", and
youz have been saying "Oh, you discarded us, you denied us, you are a racist. Maybe not quite racist, but a chauvinist. yawn yawn"

Get over it. Read some Hume at least, and History of Western Philosphy by Russell, before coming to the debates.

Hume said "Reason is slave of Passion." Because it tells you things, but cannot make you to act. It is Passion which does it. I or Hume couldn't have been a chauvinist or any ist, when kept saying Reason is a universal tool to tell things to you, and is slave of passion. (Hume, Enquires and Treaties of Human Nature, somewhere).

We do have Philosophy of Religion, Philosophy of Emotion (passions) and Ethics etc.
But their way of studying these subjects are different from the religion or psychology or ethics themselves.

In Western Philosophical tradition, they investigate logical correctness of the terminology, and their sayings, codes, principles etc, whether they are making sense in logical point of view. So it is critical study of the subjects rather than learning the subject themselves.

Both achieve the same clarity, but in Taoism you haven’t thrown out half the river in the process... — Possibility

No, we don't and haven't discarded anything. What is not in the realm of reason and logic, will be in the realm of faith, or as you say emotions. I am not saying which is better than the others.
They just operate in different world, and need different methodology to work with. If your aim is to heal or educate or achieve Nirvana, you must be in that world use the appropriate way to work on them.
If your aim is to analyse people's behaviour and their psychological motives for their actions, then your must look into their emotions.

But reason is a tool to for knowledge and truths, and that is all there is to it. Of course you can decide to use it for supporting your faith or justifying your actions or decisions or controlling your emotions, yes by all means you can use it. But it would be not the be the origin of reason and logics nature or ability to able able to help you or make you doing that. The original power of reason and logic is just for your knowledge and understanding on the things, situations or ideas or whatever.

Meaningful to whom? Productive for whom? For you? So long as you ignore, isolate or exclude any challenging material, nothing can mess with your system... — Possibility

Meaningful to whom? It depends on what one wants to achieve. If your goal is clarifying muddled ideas by others, coming to logical and clear conclusions, that is meaningful to you. If your idea is just to keep asking and arguing without purpose or destination confusing and complicating while emotionally cracking up, then it would feel meaningless and look futile.

You have been denying it. You see no value in source material that doesn’t follow your strict protocol. At best, you afford them the position of being ‘wrong — Possibility

Clarifying and classifying is not denial. Please don't mix emotion into it.

Life ain't that bad. :)

cheer up

Others have noticed that the vast landscapes of human history, experience and culture provides unexpected perspectives, differing connotations, and - surprises. These are valuable both as source material to compare or contrast with existing thought, and in their own right.

But it seems you can't see that, which is a pity. — Banno

I have not been denying it. I was just saying they are different. What has to be said to get through to you, I fail to understand. You seem in perpetual negativity and denial just for sake of it.

I feel, it is better to have narrower and stricter definition of Philosophy, if we purport to arrive somewhere more meaningful and productive conclusions from the system, ideas or debates.

I intend to approach wisdom - where will you arrive? — Possibility

yeah, what truths or knowledge can you manage or expect to have from the simple saying "It is a love of wisdom."? So what?

Oh, sure. I think you are being chauvinistic. I'm happy with that. — Banno

I think your judgement is groundless, weird and wrong. :)

So, you don’t think Philosophy has anything to do with wisdom anymore? Or do you think its focus is more or less than wisdom? Not ALL wisdom, or only what can be proven? — Possibility

Wisdom is too abstract and relative term. I think it was meant to mean "knowledge", but it still too wide and loose. What was wisdom to you could look stupidity to others. And it changes case by case, and time to time. There is no such object called "wisdom". It is a word to describe someone's mental attitude or decision when it resulted in positive outcome for the person.
Surely that cannot be what Philosophy is. It was a textbook description of Western Philosophy in history. I advise you not to take it seriously or put your life on it. Because things have moved on.

Yeah, racism is a bit strong. Chauvinism would be a better noun for what you advocate. — Banno

I didn't advocate anything. I made clarification. Calling it chauvinism is your judgement from your own emotion. Not a fact or knowledge.

And ok, you mentioned "Philosophy means Love of Wisdom." Well, that was 2500 years ago, and it is really Etymological definition. If you want to stick to that, then be my guest. Where will you arrived with that?

That is how it started, but it has had 2500 years of evolution. At times, there have been many Western Philosophers who were devoid of any sense of logical thinking or system based on reason time to time due to the social and historical environment and maybe personal differences maybe.

In fact during most of the medieval period, your know that Philosophy had to hide underground due to fear of the persecutions from the religious authorities in most parts of Europe. But they bounced back with the Enlightenment period of pre modern Europe, which had many important and influencing philosophers such as Descartes, Hume, Berkley, Lock, Kant, Hegel, Heidegger .... hundreds and thousands of them, name but few.

We are talking about that traditions, not a particular philosophy, which gives foundation for the accurate and meaningful definition of Philosophy.

And to me, from that tradition, Philosophy is a systematic methodology of subject which is totally based on logic and reason, which clarifies on all ideas and things in this universe. You shouldn't be afraid asking any questions when in doubt, or disagree on something and everything until it is crystal clear to all of us. And from the universal faculty we have which is called reason and logic in our mind, even a child or an old man in Tibet would understand and agree when it is critically analysed and put down with the conclusion, whatever topic or idea it was, when philosophically debated. At least that should be our attitude, although it might be challenging often than said, I believe.

You seem to have been deeply confused between racism and clarification. If one says, ok your idea is not philosophy, and you don't have philosophy as such, therefore you are inferior and you should not be sitting in the same train as us, or you have no right to vote, then this is racism.

But when one says, your idea is not philosophy, and historically your part of the world has never had a vocabulary describing Philosophy. But you can still use the word philosophy to whatever idea you feel it fits to be described as philosophy, if you want. It is up to you. But from my point of view, it is not Philosophy in strict sense. It is wrong, it is illusion and self deception on your part doing so. This is a clarification. That is not racism at all. It is just an opinion and argument.

This is a serious and typical problem when debating philosophical topics with non philosophical people. They somehow misinterpret the other party's argument, and then blow up into racism or sexism or whatever isms they want, and attack the other party personally and emotionally. I feel that it is also global effect of Internet SNS age, and should be avoided. Because it feels like that they are not into serious philosophical discussion as such, but are trying to accuse and punish others using the debates. It seems now global trend, that if you hate or disagree with someone, then just accuse him of racism, sexism or sexual harassment, and he will be taken off from the society next day. This is a serious crime itself, and should be stopped at all costs. Not good.

Well, Descartes, yes he is one of the most influencing classic Western Philosophers in history. I was not talking about a particular Western philosophy as such, but the Western Philosophical Tradition. It has had many different schools of different ideas and philosophical system in its history, so you cannot say this is What Western Philosophy is, in one sentence. But I have been talking about the evolutionary traditions which took place for 2500 years, and said this is what I think it is.
I will pick out ideas from Descartes, Hume or Kant, Hegel, Heidegger or Plato, where I agree with their points and methodology.

After all, one of the reasons we study and read History of Philosophy and the Classic Philosophers is that so we want to learn their ideas and systems, analyse, reject what we don't agree, accept what we agree, so that we could use the bits in moulding our own philosophy.

Yes, I would agree with you. From Oriental or Chinese Philosophical tradition, the Western Philosophical Traditions and Methodologies and the Ideas, by and large might looked upon not making sense or meaningless. This is natural, because they have totally different goals, methodologies and ideas on their system. So Philosophy of the World is much divided and separated.

But if we just consider the origin of the word "Philosophy", outside of the Western tradition, they did not even have a word meaning "Philosophy". They started using the word philosophy only not long ago when they heard the word Philosophy from the West. And then they named anything and everything remotely resembled things as Philosophy.

The main difference of Western tradition is the way they acquire knowledge and truths. It must come from your own reason and sensory mechanism. The other traditions knowledge and truths come from anywhere and everywhere, and in many cases, they don't ask and analyse in critical manner. They are just told to believe things or feel things, and do and follow as told. They call it wisdom and truth and knowledge.

Now this is not just big difference but they are in totally different dimension. Do you still want to call it Philosophy in academic sense? Its up to you, but to me it is illusion and self deception.

Philosophy is a unique subject where one must start from nothing, but doubt. And feel free to ask until all doubts exhaust and the certainties emerges based on logic, reason and sensory perceptions, To me, that is a genuine Philosophy. Your mileage may vary of course.