One essential criticism about Descartes’ “I think, therefore I am” is that we have no idea about what “to be” or “to exist” means. — Angelo Cannata
I don’t think that questioning our understanding of “to be” is equivalent to say that communication is impossible. We don’t need to assume that we have a clear idea about the meaning of “to be” to be able to communicate. — Angelo Cannata
:up:Yes, of course we cannot speak without using the verb to be. But this does not imply that we must have a strongly clear idea about its meaning. — Angelo Cannata
One essential criticism about Descartes’ “I think, therefore I am” is that we have no idea about what “to be” or “to exist” means. The same applies to our conversation as a proof that the world exists, which is almost the same argumentation adopted by Descartes: it cannot be a proof of the existence on the world, because we have no idea of what “existence” means. — Angelo Cannata
I'm confused — Count Timothy von Icarus
You aren't ruling it out, you're just saying you don't want to talk about it.
Meanwhile you are talking about it. — frank
If I can jump in, to me the big Hegelian insight against postulating a hidden Base Reality is that anything that's meaningful for us is caught up in our inferences --- the game of justifying our claims and explaining our deeds. If the Base Reality is given no inferentially significant relationship whatsoever to other entities, it's also given no meaning. If, on the other hand, it is caught up in such reason-giving, it's on 'this' side of 'appearance.' [ So we get a continuous flat ontology with no disconnected quasi-mystical disconnected points.] — plaque flag
That's all the intellect can deal with: partial truths. — frank
Maybe I do and maybe I don't, but I get the feeling that you getting a feeling isn't terribly authoritative. It's a bit cowardly to resort to cheap ad homs instead of, I don't know, doing some actual philosophy. Fucking weak, bro. — plaque flag
Alternately, if we do talk about this "base reality", then it's not the case that we can say nothing about it. — Banno
Meanwhile you are talking about it. — frank
, like most folk, agrees with you, but only when someone else is doing the cheap ad homs.It's a bit cowardly to resort to cheap ad homs instead of, I don't know, doing some actual philosophy. — plaque flag
Something felt more than heard? An interesting metaphor?(I just prefer bass to base) — frank
Like the sustained double low C of Sunrise in Also Sprach Zarathustra, a barely audible 65.4 Hz.Although I may only work within the confines of my own subjective reality, this does not disprove a bass reality that exists outside of my own perceptions. — vanzhandz
Well, on the one hand, you thought you knew where your keys were but you were mistaken.How can you tell the difference? — LuckyR
Yrs, in much the same way as Antigonish is about a little man who wasn't there. — Banno
like most folk, agrees with you, but only when someone else is doing the cheap ad homs. — Banno
But you didn't rule out the unknown or unknowable reality. — frank
Not much more might be involved than a choice of ways of speaking about the unknown. — Banno
You can only properly be said to "know" something if it is true. Otherwise you allow folk to know things that are false, and our use of "know" becomes inconsistent
If you cannot define what "base reality" is, how can you witness it? :smile:When I say "Base Reality" I do not purpose that there is a definite physical reality in which I exist, I am, instead, pointing more to a thought or an argument. I am incapable of witnessing any sort of base reality but I am not incapable of inferring its existence. — vanzhandz
The argument that seems salient to ↪vanzhandz's OP is that if one can say nothing about the mooted "base reality", then it is irrelevant to our conversations.
Alternately, if we do talk about this "base reality", then it's not the case that we can say nothing about it.
Even if my consciousness did exist before it was aware of its consciousness, then in what reality did that unconscious mind exist?
Thoughts? — vanzhandz
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.