Russell: There is No Real Table??

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 5039
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Russell: There is No Real Table??

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Sat Oct 12, 2019 5:51 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Oct 12, 2019 5:49 am
Skepdick wrote:
Sat Oct 12, 2019 5:22 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Oct 12, 2019 5:19 am

An actual error is the human inherent potential to see illusions, e.g. the common empirical illusions like the 'bigger setting Sun at the horizon' the bent-stick-between-water-and-air, etc. Such empirical illusions are easy to explain away.
But inherent illusions are not restricted to the empirical but to the other faculties, like reason, logic and the transcendental logic, even in Music, etc.
What we are dealing here are the transcendental illusions which are very difficult to detect and to explain.

Most of the empirical illusions can be explained in terms of evolutionary psychology.
The solution to the above is to understand and explain the very difficult transcendental illusions in terms of psychology esp. evolutionary psychology plus neuroscience and whatever knowledge that is necessary.
You are not answering the question. You are skirting about it. Illusions are illusions. They can in many forms or shapes, and they can be explained (if one wants to explain them).

Why are illusions errors?
You may understand empirical illusion easily and they are not difficult to explain.
To explain a mirage one can not fly a drone to it to confirm there is no real oasis.

However you are not understanding what are transcendental illusions and how they are formed.
  • There will therefore be Syllogisms which contain no Empirical premisses, and by means of which we conclude from something which we know to something else of which we have no Concept, and to which, owing to an inevitable Illusion, we yet ascribe Objective Reality.

    These conclusions are, then, rather to be called pseudo-Rational 2 than Rational, although in view of their Origin they may well lay claim to the latter title, since they are not fictitious and have not arisen fortuitously, but have sprung from the very Nature of Reason.

    They are sophistications not of men but of Pure Reason itself. Even the wisest of men cannot free himself from them. After long effort he perhaps succeeds in guarding himself against actual error; but he will never be able to free himself from the Illusion, which unceasingly mocks and torments him.
The transcendental illusion emerged from a sort of pseudo-rational syllogism.
If you want to understand [not necessary agree with] you will have to read the CPR thoroughly. It is too complex for me to explain.
What determines one pseudo rational syllogism from another considering both the rational syllogism is cannot be proven in light of a reality that may or may not be real?

Atla
Posts: 2491
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Russell: There is No Real Table??

Post by Atla » Sat Oct 12, 2019 5:52 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Oct 12, 2019 5:43 am
Atla wrote:
Sat Oct 12, 2019 5:35 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Oct 12, 2019 5:32 am
"The star you see right now may have imploded already but it's remnants are still there, the 'physical' perspective always applies."

That is very short-sighted.
The remnants of the imploded star cannot be that star.
Will you insist, the dew drop you see in a morning is still there after the H20 molecules has evaporated and floated all over the world?
Of course not, but what the fuck are you talking about?
The world is constantly changing, but does your thinking lack the dimension of time?
You are off tangent in the first place.

The real Star you see at night is not a real Star in real time reality.
The real Sun you see is not the real Sun in reality.
My point is,
The real table you put your coffee cup in is not a real table in reality.
Whatever empirical thing you conceives, perceived and realized as real, is not really real in real time.
There is nothing that is absolute real, especially a God, in reality.

What is real is always conditional and one make the best use of it within the qualified conditions.
More word salad. Time has nothing to do with realness. We see the real star from the past.

And in our everyday world, when we are looking at very close things, like a real table, we only look a tiny fraction of a second into the past. That's for all practical purposes negligable.
Last edited by Atla on Sat Oct 12, 2019 5:52 am, edited 1 time in total.

Skepdick
Posts: 1846
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Russell: There is No Real Table??

Post by Skepdick » Sat Oct 12, 2019 5:52 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Oct 12, 2019 5:49 am
Skepdick wrote:
Sat Oct 12, 2019 5:22 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Oct 12, 2019 5:19 am

An actual error is the human inherent potential to see illusions, e.g. the common empirical illusions like the 'bigger setting Sun at the horizon' the bent-stick-between-water-and-air, etc. Such empirical illusions are easy to explain away.
But inherent illusions are not restricted to the empirical but to the other faculties, like reason, logic and the transcendental logic, even in Music, etc.
What we are dealing here are the transcendental illusions which are very difficult to detect and to explain.

Most of the empirical illusions can be explained in terms of evolutionary psychology.
The solution to the above is to understand and explain the very difficult transcendental illusions in terms of psychology esp. evolutionary psychology plus neuroscience and whatever knowledge that is necessary.
You are not answering the question. You are skirting about it. Illusions are illusions. They can in many forms or shapes, and they can be explained (if one wants to explain them).

Why are illusions errors?
You may understand empirical illusion easily and they are not difficult to explain.
To explain a mirage one can not fly a drone to it to confirm there is no real oasis.

However you are not understanding what are transcendental illusions and how they are formed.
  • There will therefore be Syllogisms which contain no Empirical premisses, and by means of which we conclude from something which we know to something else of which we have no Concept, and to which, owing to an inevitable Illusion, we yet ascribe Objective Reality.

    These conclusions are, then, rather to be called pseudo-Rational 2 than Rational, although in view of their Origin they may well lay claim to the latter title, since they are not fictitious and have not arisen fortuitously, but have sprung from the very Nature of Reason.

    They are sophistications not of men but of Pure Reason itself. Even the wisest of men cannot free himself from them. After long effort he perhaps succeeds in guarding himself against actual error; but he will never be able to free himself from the Illusion, which unceasingly mocks and torments him.
The transcendental illusion emerged from a sort of pseudo-rational syllogism.
If you want to understand [not necessary agree with] you will have to read the CPR thoroughly. It is too complex for me to explain.
I do understand illusions. I also understand transcendental illusions. I am NOT asking you to explain illusions to me.

I am asking you to explain errors.

What is an error?
Why are illusions errors?

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 5039
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Russell: There is No Real Table??

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Sat Oct 12, 2019 5:54 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Oct 12, 2019 4:50 am
Immanuel Can wrote:
Sat Oct 12, 2019 4:34 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Oct 12, 2019 2:21 am
You should read the full chapter linked and preferable the whole book.
I understand Russell was a good mathematician. He should have stuck to that.
The fact is, when Russell wrote 'The Problem of Philosophy' he was some sort of a philosophical anti-realist [which I agree with] but he later changed his views to those of the analytics.
Russell as you can see was caught in a dilemma and cognitive dissonance which he could not resolve, thus he chickened and turned to philosophical realism which is the common default.

As Kant stated,
  • They are sophistications not of men but of Pure Reason itself. Even the wisest of men cannot free himself from them. After long effort he perhaps succeeds in guarding himself against actual error; but he will never be able to free himself from the Illusion, which unceasingly mocks and torments him.
    B397
Russell was mocked and tormented and turned to philosophical realism and its illusion but not to the extent of being a theist.
He changed his view to anaylitics but what view determines analysis as a formality without going in circles (analyzing analysis) and not being able to prove analysis as real or unreal in light of sensory data not being real?

Skepdick
Posts: 1846
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Russell: There is No Real Table??

Post by Skepdick » Sat Oct 12, 2019 5:55 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sat Oct 12, 2019 5:54 am
He changed his view to anaylitics but what view determines analysis as a formality without going in circles (analyzing analysis) and not being able to prove analysis as real or unreal in light of sensory data not being real?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Dogma ... ircularity

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2778
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Russell: There is No Real Table??

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Sat Oct 12, 2019 6:02 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sat Oct 12, 2019 5:48 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Oct 12, 2019 5:19 am
Skepdick wrote:
Sat Oct 12, 2019 5:04 am

Do you think philosophers have ever come to agree on what an "actual error" is?

No realist can explain why denying reality is an error.
No anti-realist can explain why affirming reality is an error.
No perspectivist can explain which perspective is an error.

Who decides/asserts such things?
An actual error is the human inherent potential to see illusions, e.g. the common empirical illusions like the 'bigger setting Sun at the horizon' the bent-stick-between-water-and-air, etc. Such empirical illusions are easy to explain away.
But inherent illusions are not restricted to the empirical but to the other faculties, like reason, logic and the transcendental logic, even in Music, etc.
What we are dealing here are the transcendental illusions which are very difficult to detect and to explain.

Most of the empirical illusions can be explained in terms of evolutionary psychology.
The solution to the above is to understand and explain the very difficult transcendental illusions in terms of psychology esp. evolutionary psychology plus neuroscience and whatever knowledge that is necessary.
If the illusion is difficult to detect and explain, the it is not an empirical illusion as it cannt be detected and/or the framework that detects the illusion (as based upon measuring an illusion) may in fact be an illusion as well.
It is not an empirical illusion that is difficult to detect.

I stated above;

VA:What we are dealing here are the transcendental illusions which are very difficult to detect and to explain.

You can get a closer understanding of it if you are to read Kant's CPR thoroughly.

The problem with the majority is humans have evolved with a strong defense mechanism to cling and keep on to the default paradigm as with all animals.

But humans are evolved with a more sophisticated faculty of reason and philosophy with the potential to penetrate through the transcendental illusion. Thus if we use our higher faculty of reason we can understand the transcendental illusion but as Kant stated it is not easy to sustain it thus one can easily revert to caught with the illusion.

One clear case is that of Anthony Flew the once world's most notable atheist.
As an atheist, he somehow is able to hold back the impulses of the transcendental illusion of a God.
But in his later years when his neurons atrophize naturally [in his case too many in that relevant area] he was mocked and tormented and fell back into believing a God-of-reason albeit as a deist.

Actually Kant suffered the same fate [mocked and tormented] of the transcendental illusion he warned about.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2778
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Russell: There is No Real Table??

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Sat Oct 12, 2019 6:08 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sat Oct 12, 2019 5:51 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Oct 12, 2019 5:49 am
You may understand empirical illusion easily and they are not difficult to explain.
To explain a mirage one can not fly a drone to it to confirm there is no real oasis.

However you are not understanding what are transcendental illusions and how they are formed.
  • There will therefore be Syllogisms which contain no Empirical premisses, and by means of which we conclude from something which we know to something else of which we have no Concept, and to which, owing to an inevitable Illusion, we yet ascribe Objective Reality.

    These conclusions are, then, rather to be called pseudo-Rational 2 than Rational, although in view of their Origin they may well lay claim to the latter title, since they are not fictitious and have not arisen fortuitously, but have sprung from the very Nature of Reason.

    They are sophistications not of men but of Pure Reason itself. Even the wisest of men cannot free himself from them. After long effort he perhaps succeeds in guarding himself against actual error; but he will never be able to free himself from the Illusion, which unceasingly mocks and torments him.
The transcendental illusion emerged from a sort of pseudo-rational syllogism.
If you want to understand [not necessary agree with] you will have to read the CPR thoroughly. It is too complex for me to explain.
What determines one pseudo rational syllogism from another considering both the rational syllogism is cannot be proven in light of a reality that may or may not be real?
The clue to the pseudo-rational syllogism is stated in the above quote;
  • There will therefore be Syllogisms which contain no Empirical premisses, and by means of which we conclude from something which we know to something else of which we have no Concept, and to which, owing to an inevitable Illusion, we yet ascribe Objective Reality.
It is like, the idea of God do not have any empirical elements, but yet it is ascribed Objective Reality as real.
If you read the thread, Kant: God is a Transcendental Illusion, you will get an idea.
Last edited by Veritas Aequitas on Sat Oct 12, 2019 6:15 am, edited 1 time in total.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2778
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Russell: There is No Real Table??

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Sat Oct 12, 2019 6:15 am

Skepdick wrote:
Sat Oct 12, 2019 5:52 am
I do understand illusions. I also understand transcendental illusions. I am NOT asking you to explain illusions to me.

I am asking you to explain errors.

What is an error?
Why are illusions errors?
The error is taking the illusion for real.
E.g. where a very thirsty person in the desert insisting the oasis [actually a mirage] seen in a distance is real, thus react accordingly to get to it.

My focus here is the error of people taking transcendental illusions are really-real.
They are committing an error without being aware of it.
Thus theists are committing an error ignorantly in taking God [a transcendental illusion] as an objective reality, i.e. really real to the extent of listening and answering prayers.

Meanwhile the philosophical realist is commit an error of transcendental illusion that is something real [thing-in-itself] out there existing independent of the human conditions.

Skepdick
Posts: 1846
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Russell: There is No Real Table??

Post by Skepdick » Sat Oct 12, 2019 6:19 am

You continue to dodge my question..
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Oct 12, 2019 6:15 am
The error is taking the illusion for real.
Why is that an error?
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Oct 12, 2019 6:15 am
My focus here is the error of people taking transcendental illusions are really-real.
They are committing an error without being aware of it.
Why is that an error?
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Oct 12, 2019 6:15 am
Thus theists are committing an error ignorantly in taking God [a transcendental illusion] as an objective reality, i.e. really real to the extent of listening and answering prayers.
Why is that an error?
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Oct 12, 2019 6:15 am
Meanwhile the philosophical realist is commit an error of transcendental illusion that is something real [thing-in-itself] out there existing independent of the human conditions.
Why is that an error?

What is an error?

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 5039
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Russell: There is No Real Table??

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Sat Oct 12, 2019 6:20 am

Skepdick wrote:
Sat Oct 12, 2019 5:55 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sat Oct 12, 2019 5:54 am
He changed his view to anaylitics but what view determines analysis as a formality without going in circles (analyzing analysis) and not being able to prove analysis as real or unreal in light of sensory data not being real?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Dogma ... ircularity
Yeah I don't really disagree with too much of what I read so far.

Considering the "analytic vs synthetic" distinction is in itself an analytic statement, not only is analysis going around in circles (circularity fallacy and slippery slope) but this repitition of "inversion" (considering analysis is not just assumed but formless as it diverges one continuum of actions from another...one continuum to many, thus isomorpic) is effectively synthetic considering this repetition of void is the merging of irrationality states into rational one.

For example, if I break a dog down to mammal, then cell, then atom, what I am doing is causing progressively particular phenomenon to synthesize under a new term: particle.

The same occurs for breaking something down in "labels" or "concepts" or "contexts": I am joining phenomenon together under some localized symbol on one hand while creating a new general symbol on the other. Even the term "context", however relative, is still a general statement.

Analysis is self voiding by nature...even its roots in the aristotelian identity property of "excluded middle" necessitates an intrinsically empty "or" symbol. Or just observes a point of divergence with the point be...well..."nothing" or "void".

Atla
Posts: 2491
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Russell: There is No Real Table??

Post by Atla » Sat Oct 12, 2019 6:21 am

Metaphysical solipsism is hilarious: here is this idiot trying to convince us that he isn't real. And Kant and Russell and Buddhists (who also aren't real) agree with him.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 5039
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Russell: There is No Real Table??

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Sat Oct 12, 2019 6:23 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Oct 12, 2019 6:02 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sat Oct 12, 2019 5:48 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Oct 12, 2019 5:19 am

An actual error is the human inherent potential to see illusions, e.g. the common empirical illusions like the 'bigger setting Sun at the horizon' the bent-stick-between-water-and-air, etc. Such empirical illusions are easy to explain away.
But inherent illusions are not restricted to the empirical but to the other faculties, like reason, logic and the transcendental logic, even in Music, etc.
What we are dealing here are the transcendental illusions which are very difficult to detect and to explain.

Most of the empirical illusions can be explained in terms of evolutionary psychology.
The solution to the above is to understand and explain the very difficult transcendental illusions in terms of psychology esp. evolutionary psychology plus neuroscience and whatever knowledge that is necessary.
If the illusion is difficult to detect and explain, the it is not an empirical illusion as it cannt be detected and/or the framework that detects the illusion (as based upon measuring an illusion) may in fact be an illusion as well.
It is not an empirical illusion that is difficult to detect.

I stated above;

VA:What we are dealing here are the transcendental illusions which are very difficult to detect and to explain.

You can get a closer understanding of it if you are to read Kant's CPR thoroughly.

The problem with the majority is humans have evolved with a strong defense mechanism to cling and keep on to the default paradigm as with all animals.

But humans are evolved with a more sophisticated faculty of reason and philosophy with the potential to penetrate through the transcendental illusion. Thus if we use our higher faculty of reason we can understand the transcendental illusion but as Kant stated it is not easy to sustain it thus one can easily revert to caught with the illusion.

One clear case is that of Anthony Flew the once world's most notable atheist.
As an atheist, he somehow is able to hold back the impulses of the transcendental illusion of a God.
But in his later years when his neurons atrophize naturally [in his case too many in that relevant area] he was mocked and tormented and fell back into believing a God-of-reason albeit as a deist.

Actually Kant suffered the same fate [mocked and tormented] of the transcendental illusion he warned about.
But "reality" is not always real. Empirical illusions are difficult to detect in light of transcendental, and transcendental are difficult to detect in light or empirical illusions...illusions replicate, this replication is not an illusion as it necessitates an underlying void in the illusion itself.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 5039
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Russell: There is No Real Table??

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Sat Oct 12, 2019 6:24 am

Atla wrote:
Sat Oct 12, 2019 6:21 am
Metaphysical solipsism is hilarious: here is this idiot trying to convince us that he isn't real. And Kant and Russell and Buddhists (who also aren't real) agree with him.
I dont know...we all knew he was fake from the beginning...

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 5039
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Russell: There is No Real Table??

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Sat Oct 12, 2019 6:25 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Oct 12, 2019 6:08 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sat Oct 12, 2019 5:51 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Oct 12, 2019 5:49 am
You may understand empirical illusion easily and they are not difficult to explain.
To explain a mirage one can not fly a drone to it to confirm there is no real oasis.

However you are not understanding what are transcendental illusions and how they are formed.
  • There will therefore be Syllogisms which contain no Empirical premisses, and by means of which we conclude from something which we know to something else of which we have no Concept, and to which, owing to an inevitable Illusion, we yet ascribe Objective Reality.

    These conclusions are, then, rather to be called pseudo-Rational 2 than Rational, although in view of their Origin they may well lay claim to the latter title, since they are not fictitious and have not arisen fortuitously, but have sprung from the very Nature of Reason.

    They are sophistications not of men but of Pure Reason itself. Even the wisest of men cannot free himself from them. After long effort he perhaps succeeds in guarding himself against actual error; but he will never be able to free himself from the Illusion, which unceasingly mocks and torments him.
The transcendental illusion emerged from a sort of pseudo-rational syllogism.
If you want to understand [not necessary agree with] you will have to read the CPR thoroughly. It is too complex for me to explain.
What determines one pseudo rational syllogism from another considering both the rational syllogism is cannot be proven in light of a reality that may or may not be real?
The clue to the pseudo-rational syllogism is stated in the above quote;
  • There will therefore be Syllogisms which contain no Empirical premisses, and by means of which we conclude from something which we know to something else of which we have no Concept, and to which, owing to an inevitable Illusion, we yet ascribe Objective Reality.
It is like, the idea of God do not have any empirical elements, but yet it is ascribed Objective Reality as real.
If you read the thread, Kant: God is a Transcendental Illusion, you will get an idea.
"Clue"? So it is all a mystery and you are a mystic now? Is that your premise...a clue? That is not very rational, and you are subject to analytical looping.

Skepdick
Posts: 1846
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Russell: There is No Real Table??

Post by Skepdick » Sat Oct 12, 2019 6:26 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sat Oct 12, 2019 6:23 am
But "reality" is not always real. Empirical illusions are difficult to detect in light of transcendental, and transcendental are difficult to detect in light or empirical illusions...illusions replicate, this replication is not an illusion as it necessitates an underlying void in the illusion itself.
propagation of error

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider] and 6 guests