Wittgenstein will say we are compelled (to strip our world of any measure and replace it with a requirement for certainty). — Antony Nickles
capable of telling us its secrets........ — Antony Nickles
.....but not if we require that it be certain knowledge or necessarily stem from a cause. — Antony Nickles
Wittgenstein will say we are compelled (to strip our world of any measure and replace it with a requirement for certainty). We may hope that a moral discussion will end in agreement, but the temptation is to define our morals beforehand so we are ensured of what is right. We may see the world as intelligible, capable of telling us its secrets, but not if we require that it be certain knowledge or necessarily stem from a cause. — Antony Nickles
(BTW, You might want to correct "irregardless" to "regardless".)I would define it [reality] as "That which is right now, irregardless of belief, attitude or consideration." — Cidat
The term "reality" is one of the hottest and most misunderstood ones in philosophy (and of course in the entire human race!). Each dictionary has its own definition, but this can be settled. The real problem is that reality is usually confused with the "physical universe", the "world", as we commonly say. So people talk about "absolute" and "objective" reality; a reality that is "outside us". And what is strange is that they can't go a step forward and ask themselves "If there were absolute, objective reality, who will be there to tell?" Isn't that very interesting? Because at least someone should be able to perceive and describe such a reality. But the "physical universe" is outside us. We exist or not, the physical universe is always there. If no human being were alive, what would be the meaning of a reality? So, reality can only be subjective. It is created and sustained in our minds as we perceive what is outside us (physical universe) and inside us (thoughts, beliefs, ideas, imagined things, memories, etc.)Is it possible to give a rigorous definition of 'reality'?— Cidat
Illusions, mistakes and disagreements are most simply accounted for if what is the case is different to what is thought to be the case. Reality is not what one experiences. Reality is what is the case. — Banno
We may see the world as intelligible, capable of telling us its secrets, but not if we require that it be certain knowledge or necessarily stem from a cause.
— Antony Nickles
Wait. Wha??? W says we’re compelled to certainty, but we should at the same time disregard the first principle of certainty, re: cause and effect? .....what did I mistake? — Mww
....(We) must approach nature with the view, indeed, of receiving information from it, not, however, in the character of a pupil, who listens to all that his master chooses to tell him, but in that of a judge, who compels the witnesses to reply to those questions which he himself thinks fit to propose.... — Kant, Critique of Pure Reason
the human system attempts to... if not attain to certainty, at least have some certainty by which to judge our comprehensions a priori. Hence, the three Aristotelian laws of logical thought — Mww
Still, to be compelled implies the limitless, insofar as it demands an end even if it be contradictory or absurd, the very epitome of irrationality, but to merely wish implies its own limit, and it is always better to be unsatisfied that irrational. — Mww
Our compulsion for certainty is from our fear of the failure of our ordinary means of judgment — Antony Nickles
Kant's imposition of the terms of judgment as what blinds us to the vast variety of criteria of every different thing — Antony Nickles
Our compulsion for certainty is from our fear of the failure of our ordinary means of judgment
— Antony Nickles
Only the common, or the uninformed, succumb to such disaster. Everyone makes mistakes; no need to fear anything. — Mww
The human compulsion for certainty is merely a reflection of our nature as rational agents to seek truth, and we seek truth because anything else is reducible to it. Simple as that. — Mww
All this just seems like a solution in need of a problem. — Mww
Tell that to Descartes. — Antony Nickles
And we do not succumb..... — Antony Nickles
....making the inherent potential for failure and uncertainty seem like (the) only state (left to us) — Antony Nickles
capable of telling us its secrets, — Antony Nickles
The problem is the projection of reality — Antony Nickles
Descartes’ metaphysics at least, was merely the other of a pair of extremes, in accordance with the human system of rational complementary. As such, he didn’t fear it, or its potential, but rather accepted its formal necessity, for without it, his idea of god would be meaningless. — Mww
....making the inherent potential for failure and uncertainty seem like (the) only state (left to us)
— Antony Nickles
.....IS to succumb. It just makes no sense to me, to argue the validity in fearing a mere potential, or in doubting the possibility of avoiding it. Why would anybody even get out of bed in the morning, if he was constantly wracked with fear for making potential failure the rule of the day?
Nahhhhh.....no profit whatsoever in allowing the exception to the rule to become the expectation. — Mww
As regards reality, if we always receive, who or what is projecting? ...[we] always and only tell ourselves how reality appears to be. As soon as this is understood as the fundamental condition of the human state of affairs, there is no legitimate reason to fear — Mww
I make the case for wishing to be understood BUT NOT holding with any fear of failing in my own understanding, you make the case for the fear of not being understood BECAUSE of the potential for failure in one’s own understanding. — Mww
the fear of the conclusions of the radical skeptic creates the need to answer him with a particular kind of solution, ignoring the ordinary means of judgment we already live within, because they are not a solution. — Antony Nickles
The ultimate groundlessness of knowledge is not an exception but our human condition, without an intellectual solution. — Antony Nickles
we want to ensure our being understood...... — Antony Nickles
we want our knowledge to guaranty our acts beforehand....... — Antony Nickles
relinquish us from responsibility for failure. — Antony Nickles
and so we save the world and internalize the failure as our own..... — Antony Nickles
we take responsibility to avoid being responsible. — Antony Nickles
what does it mean to “fear” the conclusions of a radical skeptic? How would that conclusion manifest? — Mww
I grant the need to answer the radical skeptic with a solution (rebuttal? refutation?) of a particular kind. — Mww
If ordinary means of judgement result in truth, why wouldn’t that answer the radical skeptic, as a legitimate solution? — Mww
what is an ordinary means of judgement? Are there extraordinary means? — Mww
I grant the contingency of empirical knowledge is a human condition, but reject the groundlessness of it. Knowledge is an intellectual process giving a solution in itself, which suffices as necessary ground. There is irreducible certainty in human rationality, therefore knowledge is possible. That which is possible must have a ground. — Mww
This is the desire for certainty to] relinquish us from responsibility for failure.
— Antony Nickles
Perhaps, insofar far as the failure is not mine, but the other’s. I try my best to be understood, and that I have tried relinquishes me from responsibility for you not understanding me. — Mww
we take responsibility to avoid being responsible.
— Antony Nickles
I can see taking responsibility FOR avoiding being responsible, but if I do take responsibility, something I’m responsible for is presupposed. It would seem I cannot, then, take responsibility TO avoid being responsible. If I take responsibility I AM responsible for taking it, hence haven’t avoided being responsible at all. — Mww
In other words, reality just is and no amount of mental manipulation/acrobatics can/will alter/affect it. Reality then is that which you have to accept. — TheMadFool
radical skepticism differs from regular doubt in that it is not just: how to identify a goldfinch from a robin, but: how do we know that is (an instance of) a table, or a piece of wax? — Antony Nickles
Once we get to that question (taken from your “how do we know that is (an instance of) a table”), the fear is that there needs to be an answer or we end up in a place where we are asking how do we know what is real at all. — Antony Nickles
Wittgenstein and others found is that the skeptic's abstraction from tables and goldfinchs to generalized terms like appearance and particular and meaning and true, stripped away our criteria for each thing and a context in which to apply them. — Antony Nickles
What I was tracking was that if we want to ensure that the world is "real" (certain), then the fallible part must be me, my perspective, my individuality, my irrationality — Antony Nickles
Math and formal logic and science are grounded within themselves. — Antony Nickles
Now the question becomes, to whom does the fear intrinsic to radical skepticism belong? — Mww
Skepticism is, at bottom, the consciousness of ignorance. — Mww
We don’t abstract from, we assign to. Finches don’t inform us as to what they are, but only provide the data from which we tell them how they are to be known. That feat is accomplished with such speculative metaphysical predicates as appearances, particulars, meanings and truths, along with that which unites them all under a logical system, which doesn’t strip away, but PROVIDES our criteria for each thing and the context under which they are applied. — Mww
What I was tracking was that if we want to ensure that the world is "real" (certain), then the fallible part must be me, my perspective, my individuality, my irrationality
— Antony Nickles
That is.....er......absolutely.....most agreeable. — Mww
What if the human cognitive system is itself a logical system? — Mww
What ground do we have to prove certainty, when what we use to prove it, isn’t certain. — Mww
if we (neuroscience!!) could figure us out, or how we can't see the real world, then we will understand how we are certain, or could compensate for our imperfection, or, as you say:
What ground do we have to prove certainty, when what we use to prove it, isn’t certain.
— Mww — Antony Nickles
Thanks. It's good to have an audience. Even of a single person!You described the problem of objectivity well. — Yohan
Certainly. The word "real" has a lot of meanings and it can be used in a lot of different contexts. But here, I believe the word "reality" has to be taken in a philosophical context, i.e., as a philosophical term, even if there are almost as many definitions of it as there are people who try to define it!Still, in everyday use, we talk about real vs unreal. — Yohan
Actually, I believe that it can't make sense without subjectivity! :smile:Can 'real vs unreal' make sense without objectivity? — Yohan
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.