Yeah, that’s one way of looking at it; but I would describe it as challenging the knowledge of the reality of sense-organs, & not solely of their causality. So it does seem as if you’ve been thrown off, a little, by my manner of writing. So, to be sure, I’m not solely challenging the knowledge of the causality of the sense-organs but of their reality altogether.... it seemed that you were saying that you were challenging the causality of senses. — Jack Cummins
Yet, but note that the knowledge of these are themselves reducible to sensuous identities, i.e., sensations; & that therefore these can’t be the reality upon which sensations depend or are conditioned.Our knowledge that these are the senses is primarily our sensory experiences. — Jack Cummins
“Why,” as in a purpose? Surely one can explain “how” things are, without explaining why, or for what purpose, they are; & so I’ll skip over the question of why “we need to experience life in sensory terms at all?” & instead proceed to the question of “how” one could possibly raise your question, if sensory information is all there is? Seems as if the very possibility of raising this latter question would provide the answer to it. “How”? By the very same kind of way that we can intelligibly represent, in our question, that which exists other than in “sensory terms.”Of course, if I read beyond the surface of your logic we could be left with a new question in terms of why do we need to experience life in sensory terms at all? — Jack Cummins
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.