1. Reality itself. The thing-in-itself is probably what I have in mind.
2. Perceptions of reality. phenomenon seems to fit the bill. — TheMadFool
That it's a worrying possibility is lost to no one — TheMadFool
It doesn't worry me in the slightest. — Neb
Aren't the concepts "real" and "Illusory" inherently exclusive? If something is an illusion, then it is by definition "not real". So saying "reality is an illusion" essentially just denudes the meaning of both reality and illusion. Like saying, circles are squares.
If reality is an illusion then, to the same extent, illusions must be real. — Pantagruel
Illusions are real. They cause us to behave differently. They are a misinterpretation of sensory data. What they are interpreted as isnt real until you interpret it as an illusion.If reality is an illusion then, to the same extent, illusions must be real. — Pantagruel
Illusions are real. They cause us to behave differently. They are a misinterpretation of sensory data. What they are interpreted as isnt real until you interpret it as an illusion. — Harry Hindu
:death: :flower:I have known many gods. He who denies them is as blind as he who trusts them too deeply. I seek not beyond death. It may be the blackness averred by the Nemedian skeptics, or Crom's realm of ice and cloud, or the snowy plains and vaulted halls of the Nordheimer's Valhalla. I know not, nor do I care. Let me live deep while I live; let me know the rich juices of red meat and stinging wine on my palate, the hot embrace of white arms, the mad exultation of battle when the blue blades flame and crimson, and I am content. Let teachers and philosophers brood over questions of reality and illusion. I know this: if life is illusion, then I am no less an illusion, and being thus, the illusion is real to me. I live, I burn with life, I love, I slay, and am content. ~Conan the Cimmerian — Queen of the Black Coast
:up: vide Epicurus, Sextus Empiricus ... Spinoza ... Peirce, Zapffe, Merleau-Ponty, Clément Rosset ...Given this is the case, the issue of whether reality is an illusion (or not) has nothing to do with reality itself (noumenon) or pereceptions of them (phenomenon) but is entirely a matter of how the mind interprets/analyzes perceptions/phenomena. In short, when we say, "reality could be an illusion" it doesn't necessarily mean that there's something fishy going on with reality itself or with perception/phenomenon; what we actually want to convey is our lack of confidence in the mind's analysis/interpretation of perception/phenomenon. — TheMadFool
(emphasis is mine)What we make of their testimony, that alone introduces lies; for example, the lie of unity, the lie of thinghood, of substance, of permanence. “Reason” is the reason we falsify the testimony of the senses. Insofar as the senses show becoming, passing away, and change, they do not lie. — Twilight of the Idols
:up:Add Nagarjuna to the list — Gregory
Agreed. Also very much like Ernst Cassirer's neo-kantian "symbol theory". Or Zapffe's / Camus' confrontation-divorce-mismatch of our minds with the world aka "the Absurd". Acculturated repertoires of overlapping interpretations, idiosynchronized by lived experiences, mediate-regulate our illusions about reality (not of reality), no? Thus, inescapable fallibilism.↪180 Proof :up: Whatever the noumena or phenomena are, the final stage of the our mind's interaction with reality involves judgements made by the mind i.e. the mind is not a passive victim of the illusion if there's one but, in fact, actively participates in creating the illusion. — TheMadFool
I agree. Many people assume that what you "see" is what's out there. But they forget that "what you perceive" sub-consciously (the Territory) is typically converted into a conscious concept (the Map). Yet we faithfully follow the map, as-if it were the terrain, ignoring the fact that a simplified map omits the fine details of the specific topography. That is basically what Don Hoffman is talking about in his book, An Argument Against Reality.interpretation of perception — TheMadFool
Indeed. So it would seem that being real for a subject is independent of being real as an object. — Pantagruel
faux doubt indulged in by Descartes — Ciceronianus the White
Specifically what about Descartes' proposition of radical metaphysical doubt qualifies it as being faux doubt? — Pantagruel
I would say we cannot truly doubt everything because by living we don't doubt everything. In fact, we rely on everything, for the most part unreservedly. Thus we eat, drink, walk, build things, interact with each other and the world at large every minute. We wouldn't if we had any real doubt. We doubt, really, when we have reason to in specific circumstances. — Ciceronianus the White
No. A subject is an object. — Harry Hindu
I would say we cannot truly doubt everything because by living we don't doubt everything. — Ciceronianus the White
Correct. And I disagreed and said that a subject is an object.I'm pretty sure I said being real for a subject is not the same thing as being real as an object. I'm quite sure I did not say a subject is an object — Pantagruel
If Descartes' doubt is faux doubt, then equally anyone's commitment to any belief could be characterized as faux belief...unless it led to a serious commitment in actual circumstances. Unless you are practicing faux philosophy, please don't minimize one of Mssr. Descartes' central tenets. :) — Pantagruel
He was engaging in an extended game of "let's pretend." It isn't clear to me that the result of the game was in any way useful. — Ciceronianus the White
So if you want to discount any beliefs that aren't "existentially impactful" I'll just as casually ignore your comments about Descartes. — Pantagruel
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.