Why the FSRK Basis of Reality?
Posted: 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.
You deny this?
Does anyone have any way to know or prove the existence of a real thing [or reality] independent of perception?
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.
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.
Is the Nearest Star [not our Sun], Proxima Centauri Real?
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.
The problem arise within philosophy when philosophical realists adopt the mind-independent reality as an ideology, i.e. my way or the highway.
On one hand, perception-itself alone cannot be reality because what is perceived is within the subjects' brain and mind.
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.
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. It would be more effective to give up this option of establishing reality where it matters.
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.
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.
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 the FSR-FSK sense of reality is preferred is because it is a more realistic option within an inherent dilemma faced by humans.
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.
You deny this?
Does anyone have any way to know or prove the existence of a real thing [or reality] independent of perception?
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.
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.
Is the Nearest Star [not our Sun], Proxima Centauri Real?
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.
The problem arise within philosophy when philosophical realists adopt the mind-independent reality as an ideology, i.e. my way or the highway.
On one hand, perception-itself alone cannot be reality because what is perceived is within the subjects' brain and mind.
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.
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. It would be more effective to give up this option of establishing reality where it matters.
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.
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.
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 the FSR-FSK sense of reality is preferred is because it is a more realistic option within an inherent dilemma faced by humans.