Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Feb 25, 2024 4:49 am
We have a
dilemma [
see below] with 'what is reality'; so we have to choose the more realistic option at the right time and conditions to optimize the well-being of individual[s] and humanity.
First there is no way humans can ever know what reality is by itself, i.e. a real thing-in-itself [if there is such a thing] that is absolutely independent of any human interactions.
All you are more or less saying and claiming here is that if humans did not exist, then 'they' could know what 'really exists'. Which is beyond absurdity. Humans exist. Therefore, they interact.
There is no way for a 'human' to not interact. Therefore, there can never ever be any 'human knowing' independent of human interaction.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Feb 25, 2024 4:49 am
You deny this?
Does anyone have any way to know or prove the existence of a real thing [or reality] independent of perception?
Do you have any way to know or prove what you claim here, and claim to be a real thing [or reality], independent of perception?
In fact can you know, or prove, absolutely any thing you say, write, and claim, independent of any human interaction or perception?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Feb 25, 2024 4:49 am
If one cannot show any way nor prove the existence of a real thing [or reality] independent of perception, then one are merely speculating which possibly could be a falsehood or illusion.
So, absolutely everything "veritas aequitas" claims, including the above here, is merely just speculating, which means that all and everything it claims could be a falsehood or illusion.
Which, obviously, no one could nor would deny, including even "veritas aequitas", "itself".
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Feb 25, 2024 4:49 am
I raised a thread, re, the nearest 'real' star one see in the night sky based on its light having to travel millions of light year to reach oneself, is likely have exploded and non-existing in real time now.
Well this is obviously a Falsehood, and a proven Falsehood for centuries 'now', when this is being written.
The nearest so-called 'real' star to earth, after the sun itself, is only about 4.2 light years, and so the light from it, literally, only takes about 4.2 years to reach 'us', or "oneself" if one likes, and not millions of light years to reach 'us' as this one here claims. So, although, and obviously, the nearest 'real' star to 'us', besides the sun, could have exploded at the moment of 'now', when this is being written, or read, but that this has 'happened and occurred' is not necessarily 'likely', at all. And, especially so if 'we' are to use past happenings and occurrences to 'go by'.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Feb 25, 2024 4:49 am
Is the Nearest Star [not our Sun], Proxima Centauri Real?
Do you presume or believe it is not?
And, what do you even mean by 'real', exactly?
If it is an illusion, to you, the how do differiante between what is 'real' from what is an 'illusion' exactly?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Feb 25, 2024 4:49 am
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40154
The point is all humans has an inherent evolutionary default [instinct] to make such speculations necessarily to facilitate survival and various reasons.
So, 'the point' has more or less absolutely nothing at all do with what you have been talking about and writing here.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Feb 25, 2024 4:49 am
The problem arise within philosophy when philosophical realists adopt the mind-independent reality as an ideology, i.e. my way or the highway.
But you do not adopt the 'my way or the highway' attitude at all, do you "veritas aequitas".
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Feb 25, 2024 4:49 am
On one hand, perception-itself alone cannot be reality because what is perceived is within the subjects' brain and mind.
Obviously, you would have to present and show where this 'perceived mind' is, exactly, which you claim is where 'perception - itself' is located and within. Are you able to do this for us here?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Feb 25, 2024 4:49 am
Yes, via common sense, perception is
known to be independent of the-perceived [the thing]
BUT on the other hand,
with more refined thinking, there is no thing that exist in itself [the-perceived] that is absolutely independent of any human interactions; there is no way anyone can prove it realistically.
Just because one cannot, supposedly, prove some thing in no way means that 'that thing' exists in, and/or of, itself.
To claim, for example, that just because "veritas aequitas" cannot prove that the earth was existing here before "veritas aequitas" came to exist in absolutely no way at all means that the earth is or was not existing as a thing, in itself.
you appear to be so utterly blind, lost, and confused here "veritas aequitas".
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Feb 25, 2024 4:49 am
We have a
dilemma.
1. The thing [or reality] by-itself or in-itself that is absolutely independent of any human interactions is like a square-circle i.e. an impossibility to be real.
So, well to this one anyway, 'the thing', which is called and referred to as the 'earth', is an impossibility to be real, just like a so-called 'square-circle' is.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Feb 25, 2024 4:49 am
It would be more effective to give up this option of establishing reality where it matters.
'We' do not have absolutely any dilemma here, "veritas aequitas". Although you may well.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Feb 25, 2024 4:49 am
2. Thus, the most realistic option is for us to work from the basis of what we have on our "hands", i.e. perceptions, appearances, experiences and observations, and from there dig deeper into their root sources within human nature to understand their relation to reality.
That is where Kant introduced his Copernican Revolution.
This is a complex task because we have a 13.7-billion-years-history that is conditioned upon human nature to work with.
But, why only use and work from such a Truly narrowed and small perspective?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Feb 25, 2024 4:49 am
It is from the preferred mode 2 where the theme of intersubjectivity [
FSRK basis] arise.
As such, reality is relative and must be qualified to the FSRK at the time or conditions.
But absolutely every thing is relative, to the observer. So, why say just 'reality is relative' here?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Feb 25, 2024 4:49 am
What is realized as reality is because so and so FSRK said so, of which the scientific FSRK is the most credible and objective.
The point is before we perceive, know and describe a thing, there are prior processes within human nature [intersubjectively] that enable the emergence and realization of reality.
One cannot ignore these processes. see next post.
Why?
This post shows and reveals enough about Truly twisted and distorted 'confirmation biases' already.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Feb 25, 2024 4:49 am
Why the FSR-FSK sense of reality is preferred is because it is a more realistic option within an inherent dilemma faced by humans.
The only, supposed, 'dilemma' here is the one existing solely in your own imaginations solely "veritas aequitas".