Russell: There is No Real Table??

[Skepdick]

In real time, the star you are seeing as real could have already been imploded in reality at the distance of 100 million light years away.

If this happened to the Sun, you would know about it in 8 minutes or so.

At which point the realness of the Sun would be philosophically irrelevant.

[Veritas Aequitas]

After long effort he perhaps succeeds in guarding himself against actual error

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.

[Atla]

...

After implying that Kant was definitely a metaphysical solipsist piece of shit, you are now doing the same with Russell? It's just your existential crysis at work again, you want to make the world disappear, pretend that it's not real (and hurt everyone who isn't like you, who isn't frightened to death by existence).

'Perspectives', the way you are using them, are cognitive illusions Kant warned us against. Maybe you should read that guy. The real table 'out there', which we have all the reasons to assume, is always there, it doesn't give a flying fuck whether you are making up perspective A at time X, or perspective B at time Y.

Yes, the real table is always there when you are stuck in one paradigm that make it so. Your thinking is too narrow and shallow.

The table is merely one example for demo sake.
The philosophical implication is with reference to all physical things.
Note the example I raised somewhere, is a 'star' you see at night always there.
In real time, the star you are seeing as real could have already been imploded in reality at the distance of 100 million light years away.

Kant's vision of the above is targeted at getting rid of a belief in a real God [that kills] and promote efficient morality and ethics toward perpetual peace.
You don't have the capacity of envision but merely is stuck in your selfish shell of cowardice.

Your thinking is too shallow and narrow. So you don't understand the hierarchy of perspectives and paradigms. The star you see right now may have imploded already but it's remnants are still there, the 'physical' perspective always applies.

This has abso-fucking-lutely nothing to do with God and morality.
In fact I would say that if you want to get rid of all forms of evil, start with the creep in the mirror who wants to force his cowardish, obsessive, mentally ill bullshit on everyone, while parading himself as a visionary savior.

[Skepdick]

After long effort he perhaps succeeds in guarding himself against actual error

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.

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?

[Veritas Aequitas]

In real time, the star you are seeing as real could have already been imploded in reality at the distance of 100 million light years away.

If this happened to the Sun, you would know about it in 8 minutes or so.

At which point the realness of the Sun would be philosophically irrelevant.

Thus the point, the Sun we see and realized is always the 8-9 minute historical Sun.
It is the same for the supposedly real table, it is always some X-nano-second historical Sun we see or even feel because there is always a time gap between the physical table and the mind.

The time-gap is one restraint to the truth.
The other is, even if we can close the time to Zero, is there a real table at all, which could be a cluster of molecules, atoms, electrons, protons, quarks, or whatever X if there is such a thing.

Some will speculate, the table is made of real God-particle which is illusory in all cases.

[Skepdick]

In real time, the star you are seeing as real could have already been imploded in reality at the distance of 100 million light years away.

If this happened to the Sun, you would know about it in 8 minutes or so.

At which point the realness of the Sun would be philosophically irrelevant.

Thus the point, the Sun we see and realized is always the 8-9 minute historical Sun.
It is the same for the supposedly real table, it is always some X-nano-second historical Sun we see or even feel because there is always a time gap between the physical table and the mind.

The time-gap is one restraint to the truth.
The other is, even if we can close the time to Zero, is there a real table at all, which could be a cluster of molecules, atoms, electrons, protons, quarks, or whatever X if there is such a thing.

Some will speculate, the table is made of real God-particle which is illusory in all cases.

How does any of this affect my putting a coffee cup on it?

Why does the 'realness' of the table (or anything) matter in practice?

[Veritas Aequitas]

After implying that Kant was definitely a metaphysical solipsist piece of shit, you are now doing the same with Russell? It's just your existential crysis at work again, you want to make the world disappear, pretend that it's not real (and hurt everyone who isn't like you, who isn't frightened to death by existence).

'Perspectives', the way you are using them, are cognitive illusions Kant warned us against. Maybe you should read that guy. The real table 'out there', which we have all the reasons to assume, is always there, it doesn't give a flying fuck whether you are making up perspective A at time X, or perspective B at time Y.

Yes, the real table is always there when you are stuck in one paradigm that make it so. Your thinking is too narrow and shallow.

The table is merely one example for demo sake.
The philosophical implication is with reference to all physical things.
Note the example I raised somewhere, is a 'star' you see at night always there.
In real time, the star you are seeing as real could have already been imploded in reality at the distance of 100 million light years away.

Kant's vision of the above is targeted at getting rid of a belief in a real God [that kills] and promote efficient morality and ethics toward perpetual peace.
You don't have the capacity of envision but merely is stuck in your selfish shell of cowardice.

Your thinking is too shallow and narrow. So you don't understand the hierarchy of perspectives and paradigms. The star you see right now may have imploded already but it's remnants are still there, the 'physical' perspective always applies.

This has abso-fucking-lutely nothing to do with God and morality.
In fact I would say that if you want to get rid of all forms of evil, start with the creep in the mirror who wants to force his cowardish, obsessive, mentally ill bullshit on everyone, while parading himself as a visionary savior.

"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?

[Atla]

"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?

[Veritas Aequitas]

If this happened to the Sun, you would know about it in 8 minutes or so.

At which point the realness of the Sun would be philosophically irrelevant.

Thus the point, the Sun we see and realized is always the 8-9 minute historical Sun.
It is the same for the supposedly real table, it is always some X-nano-second historical Sun we see or even feel because there is always a time gap between the physical table and the mind.

The time-gap is one restraint to the truth.
The other is, even if we can close the time to Zero, is there a real table at all, which could be a cluster of molecules, atoms, electrons, protons, quarks, or whatever X if there is such a thing.

Some will speculate, the table is made of real God-particle which is illusory in all cases.

How does any of this affect my putting a coffee cup on it?

Why does the 'realness' of the table (or anything) matter in practice?

As stated, the table one put a cup of coffee is real subject to its empirical qualifications. There is no issue with this.
But as I had stated, the table is merely an example to represent all that is physical and empirical.

If we do not differentiate all the real empirical things from the non-empirical, this will enable theists to be deluded in conceiving the non-empirical God is real and it will effect all and you if you ever have to face an angry jihadist looking for a non-Muslim to kill.

[Veritas Aequitas]

"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.

[Skepdick]

As stated, the table one put a cup of coffee is real subject to its empirical qualifications. There is no issue with this.
But as I had stated, the table is merely an example to represent all that is physical and empirical.

Then why did you feel the need to give an example of something that is not in dispute?

If we do not differentiate all the real empirical things from the non-empirical, this will enable theists to be deluded in conceiving the non-empirical God is real and it will effect all and you if you ever have to face an angry jihadist looking for a non-Muslim to kill.

So the practical utility of the distinction is the enablement of FUD?

What distinction do I need to draw to prevent your delusion?

[Skepdick]

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.

Then you are not real. For all I know you are a voice in my head and I am being delusional. Exactly like a theist.

Why should I listen to you? Perhaps, before we go any further with this discussion, you should prove to me that you are real.

[Eodnhoj7]

After long effort he perhaps succeeds in guarding himself against actual error

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.

[Veritas Aequitas]

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.

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.

[Eodnhoj7]

"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.

So there is nothing real in reality?