Before we evolved to the point of being able to perceive and reason, we received sensory input and nourishment from that same physical outside; we responded to it, interacted with it, injected waste products into it, manipulated and altered it. — Vera Mont
I think that you are right from your own perspective.For if one is unable to know anything about the external world, then one can not make any claims about it at all – even claiming that knowledge about it is impossible, because that too is knowing something about the external world – namely, that it is unknowable — Thales
Now you can see that there isn’t inconsistency anymore, because we have clearly separated the two perspectives. We don’t say “Reality cannot be reached”, but “What you call reality cannot be reached”. — Angelo Cannata
To make it complete, we need to realize that, given the described situation, we not only don’t have any contact with reality, but actually, as a consequence, we have absolutely no idea about what the word “reality” means. We need to realize that thinking that it is possible to think of the concept of “reality” is an illusion. If whatever we think comes exclusively from a contact with our own subjectivity, then the very idea of “reality” is an illusion. It is like those who have been born blind and, nonetheless, that try to figure some ideas about what colors are. They do it, they say that they have tried and they have been able to produce some ideas, but it is clear that, whatever idea they have been able to produce inside themselves, it can only be an illusion. — Angelo Cannata
For if one is unable to know anything about the external world, then one can not make any claims about it at all – even claiming that knowledge about it is impossible, because that too is knowing something about the external world – namely, that it is unknowable. — Thales
Yes, it is very similar to Berkeley.This last option is from Berkeley? — Joshs
I think that your point shows again the essential importance of taking perspectives into account.It would seem to just reverse the roles that subject and object play in a realist account, by placing an idealist subject in the position of the really real object. What you left out is a relativism which eliminates the distinction between reality and appearance. This allows for the existence of that which is outside of or other than the subject without claiming any foundational status for what appears. — Joshs
This means that we have no idea about reality, mirrors, mirroring, being; we have no idea about anything and we cannot escape this conclusion. — Angelo Cannata
There is obviously an internal world, and it seem empirically true that our internal world (sense) can't access the external. Are you able to pinpoint what about that you're rejecting? — AmadeusD
How could there be an internal world if there were no external world? — Janus
We know the external world as it appears to us — Janus
we cannot know the nature of what might exist beyond our capacity to sense as appearance. — Janus
It doesn't appear to us. It appears to our sense organs. Our sense organs then present something which is not the external world to our mind. We don't know the external world. — AmadeusD
we cannot know the nature of what might exist beyond our capacity to sense as appearance.
— Janus
Exactly why the above is true. I'm not seeing an objection other than the issue of my, probably, illegitimately using 'internal' there. — AmadeusD
You don't need to be dishonest to mistrust reason and logic. The problem is that the only way we have to check the reliability of reason and logic is to use them on themselves. How can we trust reason and logic, given that we have no way to assess them without using them again? How can I trust my brain, since I have no way to assess it without making itself in charge of making the assessment, without giving it the responsibility of assessing itself?unless im being dishonest — AmadeusD
think that, at that point, an infinite number of come up, waiting for us to explore them. — Angelo Cannata
The problem is that the only way we have to check the reliability of reason and logic is to use them on themselves. — Angelo Cannata
I agree that the evidence seems to indicate that we are precognitively affected by the external world, — Janus
Your idea that something is presented "within the mind" — Janus
But it is tendentious to think of our perceptions and judgements as being somehow separated from those precognitive processes — Janus
which, as far as we can tell, are both within and without us — Janus
It does not follow from the fact that we can consciously know only that which appears to us, that it is illegitimate to say that there is a world of existents external to our bodies. — Janus
Is it possible that there is something logically unsound with the following proposition – a proposition that some skeptics embrace?
“We can never know anything about an external world because all we have when we make such an assertion is our perceptions ... .” — Thales
Yet being insignificant in physics is not a failure in being real in biology where colours are significant. Hence colour realism. — jkop
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.