If this is a paradox, I don't think it is a very complicated one.............Of course, it's impossible to talk about them yet here we are talking about them. — T Clark
Who started saying that we cannot talk about things? T Clark is alone in this, I believe. — Carlo Roosen
I modified the text, it was not fair — Carlo Roosen
why do you think that? — Carlo Roosen
For that reason we invent a term, I call it fundamental reality. It is about the things we don't understand. It is perfectly fine to have a term for the collection of things we have no name for — Carlo Roosen
One of the things we can say about fundamental reality is that if you know what you are looking for, you can find conformation that it is there. And those conformations regularly do align. So there must be *something* out there, we cannot say everything is just an imagination. — Carlo Roosen
I believe what I say is obvious and simple — Carlo Roosen
For that reason we invent a term, I call it fundamental reality. It is about the things we don't understand. It is perfectly fine to have a term for the collection of things we have no name for, that happens all the time. Just like "future". We can say a few things in general about fundamental reality, in the same way we can have predictions about the future. Still, both the future and fundamental reality are fundamentally unknowable. (that is the only thing these two terms have in common, it is not a full analogy) — Carlo Roosen
Without humans inventing the letters E and F, how can there be these letters in fundamental reality? — Carlo Roosen
Who started saying that we cannot talk about things? — Carlo Roosen
Indirect realists, unlike idealists, believe that our ideas come from sense data acquired through experiences of a real, material, external world. In any act of perception, the immediate (direct) object of perception is only a sense-datum that represents an external object.
The earliest reference to indirect realism is found in Aristotle’s description of how the eye is affected by changes in an intervening medium rather than by objects themselves. He reasoned that the sense of vision itself must be self-aware, and concluded by proposing that the mind consists of thoughts, and calls the images in the mind "ideas."
a real, material, external world
I just gave it another name, "fundamental reality" instead of "a real, material, external world". T Clark doesn't seem to like this. I don't understand, both are descriptions of the same.external object
I believe my terms work better because they take away the unease of things not being real. — Carlo Roosen
I am curious, am I now crossing a border that Indirect Realists don't like? — Carlo Roosen
When I talk about a duck here, without quotes, still there is no duck. — Carlo Roosen
There are two ways in which we could fail to understand something like fundamental reality, the first of which is the unknown which we could come to know, the second of which is the unknown which we could not come to know. The first unknown is like the future, like what will happen tomorrow. — fdrake
An agglomeration of all these concepts is self contradictory — fdrake
..............that with a concept in our mind we can do all kinds of tests to confirm that concept in fundamental reality........................So the concepts still *apply* to fundamental reality..............................You rely on fundamental reality every moment. — Carlo Roosen
, it forms empirical evidence of the consistency of fundamental reality.. — Carlo Roosen
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.