Which of these is Real and True?

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 3964
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Which of these is Real and True?

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Fri Nov 29, 2019 7:40 am

A real apple ...;
  • 1. .. is a fruit
    2. .. is a physical thing of material, colors, solidness, etc.
    3. .. comprised n-numbers of molecules
    4. -- comprised n-numbers of atoms
    5. -- comprised of n-numbers of protons and electrons
    6. -- comprised of n-numbers of particles or waves
    7. -- comprised of n-numbers of quarks
    8. -- possible to comprise of an unknown numbers of substance
The above as reference to an apple is merely an example.
The above principles applied to all things that are supposed to be real.

Are all the above true statements?
If yes, why are there so many true statements.
What is the most truest statement one can state of an apple.

What philosophical implications can you abstract from the above?

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 3964
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Which of these is Real and True?

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Fri Nov 29, 2019 7:43 am

Bertrand Russell reflected on the above [e.g. a table] and arrived at the following;
Among these surprising possibilities, doubt suggests that perhaps there is no table at all.

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 is that it is not what it seems. Beyond this modest result, so far, we have the most complete liberty of conjecture. Leibniz tells us it is a community of souls: Berkeley tells us it is an idea in the mind of God; sober science, scarcely less wonderful, tells us it is a vast collection of electric charges in violent motion.

Bertrand Russell - Problems of Philosophy.
Could we say, based on the listing above, there is no apple at all?

surreptitious57
Posts: 4030
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Which of these is Real and True?

Post by surreptitious57 » Fri Nov 29, 2019 9:52 am

All of the statements are true because they are both mutually compatible and are specific to the properties of the apple
The truest thing you can say about it or any other thing from our perspective is that our mind perceives them to be real
But they could however just be an illusion and so therefore would not exist but there is no way of knowing if this is true
Absolutely nothing that we perceive can be assessed independent of our minds so we have zero choice but to trust them

Age
Posts: 4481
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Which of these is Real and True?

Post by Age » Fri Nov 29, 2019 1:29 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Nov 29, 2019 7:43 am
Bertrand Russell reflected on the above [e.g. a table] and arrived at the following;
Among these surprising possibilities, doubt suggests that perhaps there is no table at all.

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 is that it is not what it seems. Beyond this modest result, so far, we have the most complete liberty of conjecture. Leibniz tells us it is a community of souls: Berkeley tells us it is an idea in the mind of God; sober science, scarcely less wonderful, tells us it is a vast collection of electric charges in violent motion.

Bertrand Russell - Problems of Philosophy.
Could we say, based on the listing above, there is no apple at all?
'you' could say that, but would it be true?

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 7212
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Re: Which of these is Real and True?

Post by henry quirk » 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.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 3964
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Which of these is Real and True?

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Sat Nov 30, 2019 5:00 am

surreptitious57 wrote:
Fri Nov 29, 2019 9:52 am
All of the statements are true because they are both mutually compatible and are specific to the properties of the apple
The truest thing you can say about it or any other thing from our perspective is that our mind perceives them to be real
But they could however just be an illusion and so therefore would not exist but there is no way of knowing if this is true
Absolutely nothing that we perceive can be assessed independent of our minds so we have zero choice but to trust them
Agree.

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.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 3964
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Which of these is Real and True?

Post by Veritas Aequitas » 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'.
Kant used the term, 'given' i.e. the apple is Given to consciousness as real.

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 7212
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

"That apple cannot exists absolutely independent of the human established perspectives."

Post by henry quirk » Sat Nov 30, 2019 5:13 am

If every human dies now all those delights we call apples will still exist. All that would die with us is the placeholder 'apple'.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 3964
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Which of these is Real and True?

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Sat Nov 30, 2019 5:16 am

Age wrote:
Fri Nov 29, 2019 1:29 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Nov 29, 2019 7:43 am
Could we say, based on the listing above, there is no apple at all?
'you' could say that, but would it be true?
Russell's question meant,
is there a real apple out there independent of human interaction?
As such there is no real apple out there independent of human interaction, is true.
It is truly verified per the listing of human related perspectives listed in the OP.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 3964
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: "That apple cannot exists absolutely independent of the human established perspectives."

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Sat Nov 30, 2019 5:24 am

henry quirk wrote:
Sat Nov 30, 2019 5:13 am
If every human dies now all those delights we call apples will still exist. All that would die with us is the placeholder 'apple'.
Point is you/humans are asserting the above projection while you/they are alive.
If all human dies NOW, there is no more humans to do whatever.
All that would die with us is the placeholder 'apple'.
Not only the place holder 'apple' but every variable in the above perspective, i.e. fruit, molecules, atoms, quarks, particles, waves, exist, will, still, the implied time, etc. would have died/stopped.

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 7212
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Re: "That apple cannot exists absolutely independent of the human established perspectives."

Post by henry quirk » Sat Nov 30, 2019 5:32 am

"Not only the place holder 'apple' but every variable in the above perspective, i.e. fruit, molecules, atoms, quarks, particles, waves, exist, will, still, the implied time, etc. would have died/stopped."

Yeah, all our notions, ideas, discoveries, about the thing we call 'apple' would die with us, but not the thing itself. Apples would grow, ripen, fall to the ground, be eaten by animals or rot. All that would be missin' is a man to name it all.

Age
Posts: 4481
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Which of these is Real and True?

Post by Age » Sat Nov 30, 2019 6:07 am

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 am
Kant 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.

Age
Posts: 4481
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Which of these is Real and True?

Post by Age » Sat Nov 30, 2019 6:26 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Nov 30, 2019 5:16 am
Age wrote:
Fri Nov 29, 2019 1:29 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Nov 29, 2019 7:43 am
Could we say, based on the listing above, there is no apple at all?
'you' could say that, but would it be true?
Russell's question meant,
A 'question' is BEST NEVER meaning any thing.

If some thing is MEANT, then it is BEST said in STATEMENT or EXAMPLE.

Questions, obviously, are BEST ASKED for clarity, and NOT for expressing what are perceived to be truths.

Also, how would 'you' KNOW what "another" person's question MEANT.

'you' can NOT even understand what I MEAN, in the words I use, even when I specifically TELL 'you' what they MEAN.

So, HOW can 'you' KNOW, 100% for sure, what is MEANT in the question of what one wrote, which 'you' are NOT even in direct conversation with?
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Nov 30, 2019 5:16 am
is there a real apple out there independent of human interaction?
To me, this LOOKS like an OPEN question, posed for clarity and/or a solution/answer. To me, it certainly does NOT look like it MEANS any thing in particular. But, as OBVIOUSLY prove, 'we' do SEES things VERY DIFFERENTLY.

'you' "veritas aequitas" says, "No". (Unless you prove me WRONG here now).

Some "other" people say, "Yes".

Some "other" people say, "I do NOT know".

While "other" people will NOT say any thing.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Nov 30, 2019 5:16 am
As such there is no real apple out there independent of human interaction, is true.
So, according to 'your' so called "logic" just because one person asked one question, which to me looks like an open question WAITING for an answer, you somehow supposedly KNOW, for sure, that was actually MEANT was; There is NO real apple "out there" independent of "human interaction", IS True.

'you', "veritas aequitas", never cease to amaze me with ALL of the ways 'you' can "justify" to "yourself" that what 'you' ALREADY BELIEVE IS True, IS actually True, Right, and Correct.

PLEASE keep providing these EXAMPLES that 'you' DO PROVIDE. They are so entertaining AND amusing to LOOK AT and SEE, as well as being very ENLIGHTENING as EXPOSING thee Truth.

Is it at all POSSIBLE that 'you' are SEEING things, which REALLY might NOT be there at all?

Could 'you' READ into what is said and/or asked things that actually do NOT exist?

Is it all POSSIBLE that 'you' are LOOKING AT and SEEING things from an ALREADY distorted BELIEF system?

Could 'you' be answering questions in ways, which are although wrongly, falsely, and/or incorrectly being answered, BUT which suit your ALREADY HELD ASSUMPTIONS and/or BELIEFS, and then just JUMPING straight to a conclusion, or a conclusion that that "person" is saying and "proving" what I am saying?
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Nov 30, 2019 5:16 am
It is truly verified per the listing of human related perspectives listed in the OP.
LOL "truly verified..."

If "it" IS "truly verified", then "it' MUST BE truly True, correct "veritas aequitas"?

Age
Posts: 4481
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: "That apple cannot exists absolutely independent of the human established perspectives."

Post by Age » Sat Nov 30, 2019 6:36 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Nov 30, 2019 5:24 am
henry quirk wrote:
Sat Nov 30, 2019 5:13 am
If every human dies now all those delights we call apples will still exist. All that would die with us is the placeholder 'apple'.
Point is you/humans are asserting the above projection while you/they are alive.
If all human dies NOW, there is no more humans to do whatever.
I hope, one day, 'you' will SEE that the point IS; Apples CAN STILL EXIST without "veritas aequitas" nor "human beings" existing.

If there are NO more human beings, and so there is OBVIOUSLY NO more human beings doing "whatever", then so what? This has absolutely NO point in relation to what WAS being discussed.

Also, OBVIOUSLY "veritas aequitas" and "other" human beings assert thing while they are "ALIVE", 'you' and "them" OBVIOUSLY could NOT do assert things when and while 'you' and "them" are "dead" or NOT living.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Nov 30, 2019 5:24 am
All that would die with us is the placeholder 'apple'.
Not only the place holder 'apple' but every variable in the above perspective, i.e. fruit, molecules, atoms, quarks, particles, waves, exist, will, still, the implied time, etc. would have died/stopped.
LOL

Are 'you' ACTUALLY SERIOUS here now?

What 'you' WERE saying previously could have been expressed Truthfully, from a specific perspective, BUT now this is getting beyond ridiculous now.

'you' really will NOT stop fighting for 'your' BELIEFS, even if what 'you' say is just pure ludicrous, will 'you'?

PLEASE inform 'us' just HOW ALL of an 'apple" would have died/stopped, just because human beings are NOT existing anymore.

commonsense
Posts: 1952
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

We can accept that the apple exists independent of human experience...

Post by commonsense » Sat Nov 30, 2019 5:58 pm

...but we have no means at our disposal to actually prove it exists.

When a human experiences an apple, it certainly exists for that human, as long as that human accepts its own experience as evidence.

This acceptance, or assumption, is wholly dependent on the human.

If the human cannot accept/believe/trust his experience, he cannot function in the world he perceives.

So, to be a functional human being requires acceptance of one’s own experience as evidence or proof.

And when a human is not experiencing an apple, there is no means to verify the existence of apples.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 28 guests