Objective truth - from a Buddhist perspective #01

Ok.. but do you agree that something that is real (a brain in a jar for example) is experiencing these things (rock, paint, etc.) ?

I'm the first to agree that objective reality cannot be observed. All we perceive of it is our own subjective reality. But fact remains that these 'impressions' must be caused by something, something that is objective.

I agree that it cannot be proven to exist. But it can be shown to exist beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No need for anger. I'm not sure I fully agree with the nature of your "proof"... it seems confusing to me... but I now think I accept the principle and intent behind it. My only issue with it: if all we can say about it is that it exists... of what use is it?

Where have I said that it doesn't exist? Just a moment ago you were claiming that we were in agreement, and now you seem to think the complete opposite?? I can offer no proof that it doesn't exist. If I could, would I be of the opinion that it does exist?
The "option 4" I suggested was merely to cover up a perceived flaw in the "proof" you offered, as I felt "option 2" could be the case whether Objective Reality existed or not... i.e. you can not prove non-existence. But looking at it again, it does not alter the principle/intent of the "proof".

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

My bad, friend. I use all-caps to stress words. It is a horrible forum habit and never comes across right. When I talk, I use a lot of emphasis on certain words, and my fingers try to emulate that. I am enjoying the hell out of our discussion, and I will begin ending my STRESSED sentences with smilies.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Of what use it is to KNOW that Objective Reality exists? For one thing, it avoids an entire school of philosophy, solipsism, that has no other function besides derailing honest discourse and assisting our quest to better-approximate Truth. : )

It is a starting point, if nothing else. We can all agree that something outside of us is real. The surety of this is a whole lot better to set our other assumptions on than trying to rest them on themselves. Do you not agree?

Imagine if we could KNOW that the universe started 18 billion years ago and before that moment there was nothing. No space, no time, no gods, nothing. That it all popped into being. It wouldn't matter that we don't understand how that is possible, or that we will never know if it could have popped a different way, it would just be great to have some bedrock for our cosmology.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Objective Reality is this bedrock for philosophy. We may be trapped in a dimly-lit cave, but at least we know those shadows are SOMETHING.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I wasn't actually referring to the caps.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I don't think it does avoid solipsism. Solipsism doesn't deny an objective reality - it merely limits it to the individual's mind, to their existence alone, with everything else being subjective.

My point in raising the brain-in-a-jar (which I think Enmos linked to solipsism) was not to provide an example of a non-objective philosophy but to show how our senses could easily be fooled, and that we make the implicit assumption in practice that what we observe is a reasonable approximation of whatever is objective... when in reality (objectively) it could be significantly different - i.e. that knowing the objective is an impossibility. It was never intended as a rebuttal against the objective per se.

It is the very fact that we can't know these things that makes the search that much more interesting. If we did know, everything else is then just like a large jigsaw puzzle where we know the picture on the box. How much more interesting is it when we don't even know what the picture is... or even how large the puzzle is.

But bear in mind that the "something" of shadows is actually the absence of something entirely different?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Of course I do. There aren't any rules that say I have to make it "easy", or follow any instructions.

But what does "act" mean? Who's acting, me or you? Or neither?

You see, all you can do is suggest ideas, have you noticed that? You have no actual way to communicate "what you mean", unless you assume a few things.
But assuming things is disjoint from actuality, assumption is "from" your internal subjective frame.
You can prove anything you want to, including that "objective reality exists", but you can't do this for me, you only have you to do it for. I need to agree with what you then say about it, don't I? So does everyone else you deal with, so "objective reality" is: "agreement".


P.S. this is not solipsist, it's what the situation is. You can give it whatever label you like, it doesn't alter the "reality", does it?
There is no way you can prove an external reality except by experiencing it. We accept that "it's there", but how do you experience something external from "you"? Think about it.

 

How do you know that ? I thought you claimed that one cannot know actuality ?

But if you are not real, if you are but a projection of my mind, how come you don't agree with me ?

I don't see how anyone can come up with a scenario that excludes objective reality.

Seriously, are you a solipsist ?

 

It sounds pretty much like solipsism to me.
How can you claim that "it's what the situation is" if you denounce objective reality, or at least a knowable objective reality ?

Reality ? If you can't know what reality is, how can you know a label doesn't change it ?

I thought that's precisely what we are doing.. ?

So are you saying that "it's there" or not ? Or are you just claiming that it is unknowable ?

 

That's the part where they fall on their face.

The arrogance of "I admit that I am stupider which makes me the smarterest" is what kills me. Typical college stoner logic after one semester of philosophy.

 

Why don't you? Can't you just agree with me?
When did I exclude objective reality? Where did I say "objective reality is excluded"?
I didn't say that did I? Are you being solipsist?

You just fell on your face.

 

I'm in all honesty trying to figure out what you mean.
So, please, just give some straight answers.

Are you denying objective reality, or are you saying it exists but is unknowable ?

 

I'm saying subjective and objective "reality" can't possibly be something that's outside your mind.

 

Then what is the difference ? And what do you mean to indicate by putting quotation marks around 'reality' ?

 

You tell me, you should know, shouldn't you?

Why is there a problem having quotes around a word?

 

Why should I know ? It's your statement, and I obviously don't agree with it. So please explain why they are different if they are both a product of the mind.

Well, it would seem that one does that for a particular reason.. :shrug:

 

Aha, why should you? Why should anyone?

I'll make a leap here and presume that with "your statement", you mean this:

And you disagree with this?
Why are you disagreeing with it? What does it say? Where do I claim they're different and why do you want me to explain the difference?
What does "outside your mind" mean, do you have an opinion?

 

Objective cannot possibly be something inside your mind. It is impossible for any human to decide make something true or not true. Observers can only observe it, and state their observations.

 

You are wrecking this thread. You have no idea what the words you are using even mean.

 

Yeah, well. that's my job, dude.

Do you know what the words mean? Considering you still haven't shown that you do?

P.P.S. You and Enmos and lixluke are bloody hopeless. When are you going to explain how an object is something outside you?
You can't, because it isn't.

There is no "external" except as an "experience". So how do you have an external experience?

I mean, check this lot out:

An observation is not "outside your mind". Therefore objective reality is "inside your mind".
Alternately, there are no objects and no mind.

I mean, for FS, we all know there's an "external world", right? We just can't "prove" there is. But "we don't have to".

 

I asked you what the difference is. If you think they are the same you can just say so. If not, explain. Simple as that.

 

I have no fucking clue what you mean by this. Cut it out with the quotation marks already.