Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 7:38 am
In Russell's book,
The Problems of Philosophy, he raised the point,
"
Perhaps There is No Table At ALL?
Russell did not ultimately prove there is a real independent table at all.
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Apr 08, 2021 12:43 pm
perhaps you could get straight to the point I'm making.
For example, do you think that everything that was, is and will be the case in the universe exists only if and because humans exist?
The way you phrased the question is not my point.
My point is,
everything that was, is and will be the case in the universe CANNOT exist independently of the human conditions.
To me this is close enough to the question "peter holmes" is asking you.
If everything CANNOT exist independently of the human conditions, then everything CAN ONLY exist because of the human conditions, and OBVIOUSLY the human conditions CAN ONLY exist if humans exist.
You will have to learn how to better word "yourself", "veritas aequitas", if what you really want what you want to say to be better heard and understood.
Obviously thee One and ONLY Universe existed BEFORE human beings came into existence, and could exist without human beings, but 'things', with an 's', can and do only exist because of the human conditions, or 'human beings'.
What other 'life' is there besides the 'daily life'?
Some may assume certain things, but not all of us do.
Contradictions are VERY EASILY and VERY SIMPLY NOTICED, SEEN and OBSERVED when one is NOT believing and assuming.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 7:38 am
In the search for certainty, it is natural to begin with our present experiences, and in some sense, no doubt, knowledge is to be derived from them [experience].
But any statement as to what it is that our immediate experiences make us know is very likely to be wrong.
Why are 'you', people, 'searching' for things?
All there is is HERE, right in front of 'you', to be NOTICED, RECOGNIZED, SEEN, and UNDERSTOOD.
I suggest just expressing what has been 'experienced', correctly, instead of expressing that what has been experienced is correct.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 7:38 am
Here we have already the beginning of one of the distinctions that cause most trouble in philosophy -- the distinction between '
appearance' and '
reality', between
what things seem to be and
what they are.[/list]
Russell used the example of a Table and demonstrate the uncertain reality of the properties [color, sound, shape, texture] of the table via sense-data
But what is absolutely CERTAIN is just so OBVIOUS. And, WHY 'you', human beings, OVERLOOK the OBVIOUSNESS just makes this more ridiculous and humorous.
When this, what thee True CERTAIN Reality is, is KNOWN, then WHY it took so long to SEE and UNDERSTAND becomes just blatantly obvious.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 7:38 am
- It is plain that if we are to know anything about the table, it must be by means of the sense-data -brown colour, oblong shape, smoothness, etc. -- which we associate with the table; but, for the reasons which have been given, we cannot say that the table is the sense-data, or even that the sense-data are directly properties of the table.
So, I suggest just expressing thee ACTUAL ONLY, instead. That way only thee ACTUAL Truth is being made, shared, and KNOWN.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 7:38 am
Thus a problem arises as to the relation of the sense-data to
the real table,
supposing there is such a thing.
WHY is there ANY doubt that such a, so called, "real table" actually exists or not?
Does the same doubt exist in regards to whether the arm or nose of that body is 'real', also?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 7:38 am
It will be remembered that we asked two questions; namely,
(1) Is there a real table at all?
(2) If so, what sort of object can it be?
Define the words 'table', and, 'real' here.
What sort of object 'it' (ANY 'thing') can be, is depended upon 'agreement'.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 7:38 am
Thus what we directly see and feel is merely 'appearance', which we believe to be
a sign of some 'reality' behind.
If that is what 'you', human beings, do, then I suggest STOP 'believing' this, and EVERY thing else. That way you will not get so disillusioned.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 7:38 am
But if the reality is not what appears,
have we any means of knowing whether there is any reality at all?
Yes.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 7:38 am
And if so,
have we any means of finding out what it [the object] is like?
Yes.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 7:38 am
Such questions are bewildering, and it is difficult to know that even the strangest hypotheses may not be true.
Thus our familiar table, which has roused but the slightest thoughts in us hitherto, has become a problem full of surprising possibilities.
The one thing we know about it [the table] is that
it is not what it seems.
But what does 'it' 'seem like', to you?
And, HOW do you KNOW that 'it' is NOT what 'it' 'seems like', to you?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 7:38 am
Among these surprising possibilities, doubt suggests that
perhaps there is no table at all.
[/list]
Throughout his book, Russell never proved there an an independent real table or rather there is a real independent external world,
If ANY one can NEVER prove to "them self" that there is an independent real table or rather that there is a real independent external world, then I suggest that take a GOOD HARD LOOK at their pre-existing and current ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS.
So what if "he" conceded this?
Many things are 'conceded', but they have NO relation to Reality nor thee Truth, Itself.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 7:38 am
So he concluded,
- Thus, to sum up our discussion of the value of philosophy;
Philosophy is to be studied, not for the sake of any definite answers to its questions
since no definite answers can, as a rule, be known to be true,
but rather for the sake of the questions themselves ......
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Page%3AR ... 2.djvu/253
If this human being's BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS are NOT BLINDINGLY OBVIOUS here, by now, which led to this OBVIOUSLY False, Wrong, and Incorrect conclusion, then WHY is this?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 7:38 am
There is no definiteness to the existence of an independent external world other than by subjective instinctive beliefs.
If ANY one is NOT definite that an independent external world existed BEFORE 'you', human beings, came to exist, then how do they EXPLAIN how human beings came to exist?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 7:38 am
It is on this basis that there is no proven independent external world and that it cannot be proven, that I state,
everything that was, is and will be the case in the universe CANNOT exist independently of the human conditions.
So, how do you EXPLAIN how 'you', human beings, came to exist if there is, supposedly, NO proven independent external world?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 7:38 am
The onus is on the realists if they insist,
to prove the real universe can exists independent of the human conditions.
WHY is the onus on the "other" to prove things?
If there is NO independent, of human conditions, thus independent of human beings, "themselves", external world, then HOW did human beings come to exist?