Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Nov 30, 2019 5:08 am
henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Nov 29, 2019 2:17 pm
1: Are all the above true statements?
2: If yes, why are there so many true statements.
3: What is the most truest statement one can state of an apple.
4: What philosophical implications can you abstract from the above?
1: Yes
2: There are many ways to say the same thing.
3: It exists.
4: Things exist and (can and often do) exist independent of other things.
If not many ways, but there are many perspective the truths of whatever.
In addition, the truth is, with philosophical precision there is no 'same thing' as I mentioned above;
- In a finer point,
the above statements where n-number is referred that is only relative to a specific time.
The apple-that-is at t1 will become the apple-that-was in t2 and imagine where time t is in nano-seconds.
3.It exists?
That apple existence is interdependent with the perspective listed above.
That apple cannot exists absolutely independent of the human established perspectives.
Rather than saying the apple exists, it would be more rational to assert 'that apple emerges upon human consciousness'.
Obviously just because some thing appears more rational, from your perspective, then that does NOT make it 'more rational' in and of itself.
What 'you' are actually attempting to be "arguing" for and "concluding" for, actually PROVES THIS FACT. 'you' are therefore defeating 'your' OWN argument with 'your' OWN words.
If, as you say, nothing exists absolutely independent of the human established perspectives, then also saying "that apple emerges upon human consciousness" MEANS that whether that saying and BELIEF itself is a more, or less, "rational" thing to assert, also relies SOLELY "upon human consciousness".
Therefore, IF the assertion "that apple emerges upon human consciousness" does "NOT emerge on human consciousness" as being "more rational", THEN that assertion is NOT "more rational" at all.
If that statement emerges SOLELY on the human consciousness of the one known as "veritas aequitas", then that does NOT mean that it actually exists in Truth. Because if it did, then that would also mean that just because the statement "God is real to exist" emerges on just one human being, and is thus a "human established perspective", so therefore IT IS REAL TO EXIST. And OBVIOUSLY this would COUNTER what you also allege is thee Truth of things.
I have told 'you' "veritas aequitas" 'you' can NOT have things in two OPPOSING ways. So, when will 'you' STOP writing so CONTRADICTORY?
The truth of "veritas aequitas" statement, according to "veritas aequitas" so called "logic", srests SOLELY upon "human established perspectives", and besides the two very inconspicuous and very insignificant human beings known as "veritas aequitas" and "kant", the IDEA that an apple does NOT exist until "human established perspectives" is KNOWN to exist ONLY in one of those very insignificant "human established perspectives".
Therefore, it exists only in the BELIEF of that one known as "veritas aequitas".
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Nov 30, 2019 5:08 amKant used the term, 'given' i.e. the apple is Given to consciousness as real.
Is absolutely EVERY thing some human being known as "kant" has said is absolutely True, Right, and Correct?
If yes, then okay.
If no, then what that "kant" said here could be WRONG or partly WRONG as well, correct? (Or, are you NOT open to this FACT?)
Just because that "veritas aequitas" might worship and BELIEVE what that "kant" says, this does NOT make what some "kant" said to be true, nor right, nor even correct, correct?
Prove WITH evidence just HOW what is generally known as an 'apple' did NOT exist prior to human beings having consciousness, AND just HOW 'apples" will NOT exist also if human beings, and their conscious thoughts, go extinct?
Will apples exist when "veritas aequitas" is NOT conscious anymore?
Do apples STOP existing when "veritas aequitas" is sleeping at night time?
Until 'you' PROVE with EVIDENCE what 'you' are claiming, then all you are really doing is just expressing and SHOWING your BELIEFS of what 'you' BELIEVE is true, right, and correct, which it appears your BELIEFS are being based off of NOTHING, other than what some other "kant" has said. A "kant" seems to be what 'you' look up to, and idolize. Some "kant" appears to be who 'you' use for 'your' guidance.
Here is some advice, the ONLY One that it is better to LOOK UP TO and TO FOLLOW, for guidance, is 'your' OWN True Self.
Now, take it or leave it.