Russell: There is No Real Table??

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

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 6:30 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.
At least credit Russel for that joke ;)

"As against solipsism it is to be said, in the first place, that it is psychologically impossible to believe, and is rejected in fact even by those who mean to accept it. I once received a letter from an eminent logician, Mrs. Christine Ladd-Franklin, saying that she was a solipsist, and was surprised that there were no others. Coming from a logician and a solipsist, her surprise surprised me." (Russell, p. 180). Russell, Bertrand., Human Knowledge: Its Scope and Limits

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 6:34 am

Skepdick wrote:
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
Yeah, again from "what I understand"...no real disagreement.

Error is thus definition as divergence, where one form entropies into another form causing a perceived disconnect but this disconnect (ie "error" or "contradiction" with even these terms, due to a language game subject to the same nature of "error" or "contradiction" then mean) is self negating as a new assumption is synthesized from the old.

If error can be mapped, then error is subject to form and thus is rational and self referencing both in the respect of objective and subjective reality (with this dichotomy really be an error, thus synthetic as well).

Analysis is strictly synthetic wholism by nature as it is self defeating....analysis is void.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2773
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Russell: There is No Real Table??

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Sat Oct 12, 2019 8:05 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
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

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.
It is only because of your ignorance that I have to give a clue.

Note a 'clue' is often given in TV Reality Shows that involved Test of Knowledge, when the participant hesitate. What is so mystical about that?

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2773
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Russell: There is No Real Table??

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Sat Oct 12, 2019 8:18 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.
You are the ignorant idiot who do not know what you are talking about and constructing strawman all over the place.

Where did I claim the above?
I have always stated whatever is empirical is real within the empirical context.
Therefore me and all humans are empirically real.
This is in line with Kant's view of an empirical realist.
  • .. an Empirical Realist, and allows to Matter, as Appearance, a Reality which does not permit of being inferred, but is Immediately Perceived.

    Thus External Things exist as well as I myself, and both, indeed, upon the immediate witness of my Self-Consciousness.

    CPR-A371
Kant claim your type is a Transcendental Realist, where reality is not immediately realized but inferred from the waves and sense-data within your brain/mind and never realizing the real thing.
You are a transcendental realist because your reality is only realize in your mind/brain.
  • Transcendental Realism, on the other hand, inevitably falls into difficulties, and finds itself obliged to give way to Empirical Idealism, in that it regards the Objects of Outer Sense as something distinct from the Senses themselves, treating mere Appearances as Self-Subsistent Beings, existing outside us.
    CPR-A371
You think you are interacting with the real thing, but in fact you are only dealing with external-waves and appearance in your brain/mind.
In addition, what is interacted in your brain/mind is upside down and the brain has to realigned it thus reducing its fidelity.

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 8:42 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Oct 12, 2019 8:18 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.
You are the ignorant idiot who do not know what you are talking about and constructing strawman all over the place.

Where did I claim the above?
I have always stated whatever is empirical is real within the empirical context.
Therefore me and all humans are empirically real.
This is in line with Kant's view of an empirical realist.
  • .. an Empirical Realist, and allows to Matter, as Appearance, a Reality which does not permit of being inferred, but is Immediately Perceived.

    Thus External Things exist as well as I myself, and both, indeed, upon the immediate witness of my Self-Consciousness.

    CPR-A371
Kant claim your type is a Transcendental Realist, where reality is not immediately realized but inferred from the waves and sense-data within your brain/mind and never realizing the real thing.
You are a transcendental realist because your reality is only realize in your mind/brain.
  • Transcendental Realism, on the other hand, inevitably falls into difficulties, and finds itself obliged to give way to Empirical Idealism, in that it regards the Objects of Outer Sense as something distinct from the Senses themselves, treating mere Appearances as Self-Subsistent Beings, existing outside us.
    CPR-A371
You think you are interacting with the real thing, but in fact you are only dealing with external-waves and appearance in your brain/mind.
In addition, what is interacted in your brain/mind is upside down and the brain has to realigned it thus reducing its fidelity.
You are the sick fucking idiot making nothing but strawmen.

There is no such thing as an 'empirical context' here. Nor was Russell talking about some transcendental illusion.

And Matter is not Appearance, that makes NO SENSE AT ALL. Matter is purely a human-made concept.

And it makes abso-fucking-lutely no sense to mix internal and external things with some "witness of my Self-Consciousness".

And I'm NOT this Transcendental Realist you speak of or whatever because it makes abso-fucking-lutely no sense to talk about "realizing reality". And it also makes abso-fucking lutely no sense to bring in unrelated temporal issues like 'immediate'.

And I DON'T think that I'm directly interacting with the thing-out there. But that DOESN'T make it not real.

Please just do the right fucking thing already. If you want to fight evil than keep banging your head against a concrete wall. We have already too many idiots on this planet causing havoc.

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 9:49 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Oct 12, 2019 8:18 am
Therefore me and all humans are empirically real.
I know that I am real. I don't know if you are real.

To me - you are no different to a table.

If your words are to be believed, from some perspectives you are real, from some perspectives you are not real.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2773
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Russell: There is No Real Table??

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Sat Oct 12, 2019 10:00 am

Skepdick wrote:
Sat Oct 12, 2019 9:49 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Oct 12, 2019 8:18 am
Therefore me and all humans are empirically real.
I know that I am real. I don't know if you are real.

To me - you are no different to a table.

If your words are to be believed, from some perspectives you are real, from some perspectives you are not real.
Yes, in certain perspective "I" am not real.
Note Hume's 'self'.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hume#The_self

The above is similar to the one aspect of no-self of Buddhism and other Eastern philosophies.

In this perspective, the reference is to the soul that survive physical death.
There is no real self that survives physical death.
The pinning for such a soul is the root cause of all the terrible evil and violent acts stemming for the quest for salvation of the soul.

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 10:04 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Oct 12, 2019 10:00 am
Yes, in certain perspective "I" am not real.
Note Hume's 'self'.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hume#The_self

The above is similar to the one aspect of no-self of Buddhism and other Eastern philosophies.

In this perspective, the reference is to the soul that survive physical death.
There is no real self that survives physical death.
The pinning for such a soul is the root cause of all the terrible evil and violent acts stemming for the quest for salvation of the soul.
So you are a transcendental illusion. Like God.

If I can ignore God, then I can ignore you also.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2773
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Russell: There is No Real Table??

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Sat Oct 12, 2019 10:17 am

Skepdick wrote:
Sat Oct 12, 2019 10:04 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Oct 12, 2019 10:00 am
Yes, in certain perspective "I" am not real.
Note Hume's 'self'.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hume#The_self

The above is similar to the one aspect of no-self of Buddhism and other Eastern philosophies.

In this perspective, the reference is to the soul that survive physical death.
There is no real self that survives physical death.
The pinning for such a soul is the root cause of all the terrible evil and violent acts stemming for the quest for salvation of the soul.
So you are a transcendental illusion. Like God.

If I can ignore God, then I can ignore you also.
It is only when one reify the thing-in-itself as real that the error of illusion occurs.
I don't do that.

If you are a philosophical realist [not sure if you are one] then you are chasing an illusion but claim it is real.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism
  • In metaphysics, [philosophical] realism about a given object is the view that this object exists in reality independently of our conceptual scheme. In philosophical terms, these objects are ontologically independent of someone's conceptual scheme, perceptions, linguistic practices, beliefs, etc.

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 10:23 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Oct 12, 2019 10:17 am
It is only when one reify the thing-in-itself as real that the error of illusion occurs.
I don't do that.
So you are saying that reality is not real?

Because that's what I am getting from your refusal to reify The Universe.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Oct 12, 2019 9:22 am
Note Wittgenstein's
'That whereof we cannot speak, thereof we must remain silent',
You keep talking about The Universe.

Do you believe in The Universe or not?
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Oct 12, 2019 10:17 am
If you are a philosophical realist [not sure if you are one] then you are chasing an illusion but claim it is real.
No. I am holding you accountable to your own rules.

You are speaking of The Universe. I am inferring that you believe in it, else - why would you speak of something you know nothing about?

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2773
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Russell: There is No Real Table??

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Sat Oct 12, 2019 10:36 am

Skepdick wrote:
Sat Oct 12, 2019 10:23 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Oct 12, 2019 10:17 am
It is only when one reify the thing-in-itself as real that the error of illusion occurs.
I don't do that.
So you are saying that reality is not real?

Because that's what I am getting from your refusal to reify The Universe.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Oct 12, 2019 9:22 am
Note Wittgenstein's
'That whereof we cannot speak, thereof we must remain silent',
You keep talking about The Universe.

Do you believe in The Universe or not?
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Oct 12, 2019 10:17 am
If you are a philosophical realist [not sure if you are one] then you are chasing an illusion but claim it is real.
No. I am holding you accountable to your own rules.

You are speaking of The Universe. I am inferring that you believe in it, else - why would you speak of something you know nothing about?
I have already stated before;

1. Reality is real within the empirical perspective and
2. Reality is not real within the transcendental perspective, e.g. Maya.

I thought I have already stated,
I do not believe in the WHOLE Universe that is created by a God.
I believe in whatever is empirically justified as per astronomy, stars, planets, blackholes, galaxies, space, light, etc.
I have already stated this MANY TIMES.

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 10:39 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Oct 12, 2019 10:36 am
I have already stated before;

1. Reality is real within the empirical perspective and
I am very much talking about the empirical perspective.

What evidence do you have for the existence of The Universe/Reality/The Cosmos?
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Oct 12, 2019 10:36 am
I do not believe in the WHOLE Universe that is created by a God.
I am repeating myself here. I am not accusing you of believing in a CREATED universe.
I am accusing you of believing in The Universe. Irrespective of its origin or composition.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Oct 12, 2019 10:36 am
I believe in whatever is empirically justified as per astronomy, stars, planets, blackholes, galaxies, space, light, etc.
I have already stated this MANY TIMES.
I am not asking you about stars, planets, blackholes, galaxies, space, light, etc.

I am asking you about The Universe.
I am asking you about Reality.
I am asking you about The Cosmos.

Either you believe in it or you don't. It's a yes or no question.

Why is it so fucking difficult to answer?

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2773
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Russell: There is No Real Table??

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Sat Oct 12, 2019 10:49 am

Skepdick wrote:
Sat Oct 12, 2019 10:39 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Oct 12, 2019 10:36 am
I have already stated before;

1. Reality is real within the empirical perspective and
I am very much talking about the empirical perspective.

What evidence do you have for the existence of The Universe?
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Oct 12, 2019 10:36 am
I do not believe in the WHOLE Universe that is created by a God.
I am repeating myself here. I am not accusing you of believing in a CREATED universe.
I am accusing you of believing in The Universe. Irrespective of its origin or composition.

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Oct 12, 2019 10:36 am
I believe in whatever is empirically justified as per astronomy, stars, planets, blackholes, galaxies, space, light, etc.
I have already stated this MANY TIMES.
I am not asking you about stars, planets, blackholes, galaxies, space, light, etc.

I am asking you about The Universe.

Do you believe in it? It's a yes or no question.

Why is it so fucking difficult to answer?
I have already stated many times.

I do not believe in The Universe that is created by God.
I do not believe in a WHOLE Universe that cannot be justified empirically.
I do not believe in The WHOLE Universe which Kant has proven is a transcendental illusion.
What else?

Btw, it is your problem where you have not defined what you meant by 'The Universe' in details, then expect me to understand what is that exactly in want.

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 10:54 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Oct 12, 2019 10:49 am
I do not believe in The Universe that is created by God.
I didn't ask you whether you believe in a created Universe.
I only asked you whether you believe in The Universe.

The one you keep talking about.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Oct 12, 2019 10:49 am
I do not believe in a WHOLE Universe that cannot be justified empirically.
I do not believe in The WHOLE Universe which Kant has proven is a transcendental illusion.
I didn't ask you whether you believe in the WHOLE Universe.
I only asked you whether you believed in The Universe.

The one you keep talking about.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Oct 12, 2019 10:49 am
What else?
The Universe.

The one you keep talking about.

Do you believe in it?
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Oct 12, 2019 10:49 am
Btw, it is your problem where you have not defined what you meant by 'The Universe' in details, then expect me to understand what is that exactly in want.
Why do I have to define the terms you are using?

What is in want is a yes/no answer.

Do you believe in The Universe/Reality/The Cosmos?

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2773
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Russell: There is No Real Table??

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Sat Oct 12, 2019 10:57 am

Skepdick wrote:
Sat Oct 12, 2019 10:54 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Oct 12, 2019 10:49 am
What else?
The Universe.

The one you keep talking about.

Do you believe in it?
Where?
Show me the post[s]?

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests