The debate "There is no such thing as the true world. Truth is not discovered or unveiled. Truth is created" was started by
July 7, 2020, 3:49 pm.
33 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 45 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
Cdawgthree posted 33 arguments, Nemiroff posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
diecinueve posted 6 arguments, TheExistentialist posted 1 argument, Nemiroff posted 8 arguments, Cdawgthree posted 2 arguments, candice14coza posted 4 arguments, Allirix posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
Cdawgthree, Abeah and 31 visitors agree.
diecinueve, Nemiroff, TheExistentialist, Clint1234, DavidTheGreat, Aphyllous, Maxxx, candice14coza, Joseph314, Allirix and 35 visitors disagree.
So to clarify:
X does A
Y doesn't know
Y says X didn't do A
Is Y's claim true?
If your claims are:
(1) X cannot be certain it did A, so that truth is subjective and
(2) Y's claim is as true as X's memory because both are subjective
then we agree...
The objective truth is unknown and inaccessible. Their truths are equally valid in the eyes of solipsism... but it's a dangerous approach to life and society. If Nietzsche truly believed this I'm not surprised he went mad.
So it's interesting to think about, might inform other philosophies, but it's pretty useless on its own.
Your question is rigged. You are already assuming that claims can be objectively true or false. If that's your partners perspective, then that's their truth. If your perspective is different, that's your truth. All perspectives are merely appearances rather than actualities, as actualities in nature do not exist. Even cheating itself is a vague term that everyone uses differently, and therefore exists as a human construct rather than an objective actuality.
If I cheat on my partner and they never find out, and one day a curious friend randomly asks my partner if I ever cheated, and my partner claims I have never cheated, is that a false claim?
Convictions are a function of power, not truth, so don't be so quick to assume that your truth is 'the' truth. You have your truth, and they have theirs, but what if you were to find out that your truth was not what it seemed? Some people who don't have jobs would call themselves "entrepreneurs" or something along those lines. You don't necessarily need a job to support yourself. What if you went to a psychologist and they said your problem wasn't depression? Is their truth now 'the' truth? What if their diagnosis is removed from the DSM (the official book for psychological disorders)? "Truth" changes all the time.
When you see him on the screen, is that not actually him? How do we know what he looks and sounds like before ever meeting him? Either way we are perceiving him through a delayed/distorted auditory/visual stimuli. What constitutes the "real" SLJ when any individual entity or "shape" in reality, including the ego, is a result of this distorted stimuli and imagined dichotomy between them, between "I" and "not I."
Anyone who thinks that truth can be discovered instead of created or adopted.
What we CONSIDER to be "true" is the same as what we CONSIDER to be "apparent".
Yes. I agree.
If I tell my parents I have an amazing job and a happy life and Instagram and friends support that narrative, then if they believe me, that is their truth. But if I don't have a job and I'm depressed then it's not what's really happening.
Now if I get a job, and it makes me happy, that would validate the narrative I told my parents. Now their apparent truth about me having a job and being happy is what is really happening.
Their "apparent" was in opposition to the "real", but then it aligned.
And the analogy is lost on me. A record of X is not X, even if we experience the record as X. It's true we only ever experience SLJ as visual stimuli, whether we see him on TV or in real life. And since we don't see in perfect real-time (there's a slight delay between SLJ in the real and what we see) what we see of him is also just a recording of visual information. But none of those recordings are the real SLJ entity itself.
Also, I just realised, you're calling a dichotomy a paradox. That's an axiom of dichotomies. Tis how they're defined. But who here is saying "nature" vs "our interpretation of it" is actually a dichotomy?
It's a dichotomy because the definitions of "true" and "apparent" directly oppose eachother. "Apparent" things are what 'seem' true while "true" things are what 'are' true. This implies that there is an underlying "true" reality that is independent of the "apparent" reality. In truth, what we consider to be "true" is the same as what we consider to be "apparent."
Maybe this example will help:
Say you're watching a movie and you see Samuel L Jackson. One could say "that's not truely Samuel L Jackson! That's just LED lights on the screen making an image that appears to be Samuel L Jackson." To this statement, I ask: what constitutes the real Samuel L Jackson? Is SLJ himself not simply yet another appearance created by our minds? Instead of LED lights making the shape of SLJ, it's atoms and molecules making the shape of SLJ. Furthermore, these atoms don't define who he is, because we replace atoms constantly; we aren't made of the same matter we were in the past. Samuel L Jackson is merely an appearance that we have constructed into our reality, same with everything, even your own ego. The Samuel L Jackson you see on the screen is just as "real" as the Samuel L Jackson you can touch.
Of course, that was just an analogy. The real proof concerning why opposites cannot exist in nature is because all opposites are merely perspectives and not absolutes.
Then why are all forms of truth supported entirely by belief systems?
Hmm there's a lot to process there.
Could you explain why making a distinction between the real and apparent is incorrect? I'm really not getting it.
Because it doesn't exist in nature? Any conceptual distinction is parsed into nature, so I don't agree there. That's how language works. I also view the real and apparent as overlapping boxes, so I don't think it's accurate to even call it a dichotomy.
I'm also too busy to jump into a complex proof that shows it's a paradox.
Things are true or u true irrespective of what people believe lol. Even if every single person on earth believed that earth is flat, it will still be untrue
You could've typed all of that into a single paragraph instead of spamming.
Nothing you are mentioning is on topic. You're simply asserting your beliefs to me instead of addressing the topic (epistemology).
Corona virus is real
one can never fight for something he believes not in
true love exist
you can never see , feel , or have an experience within something you believe not in
(2/2).. even our perspective determines the position and function of a photon, but I think I may have already mentioned that so I don't want to get repetitive.
You understand Descartes leap in assuming that we are thinking rather than thoughts in themselves, but as for the second half of that response I can't understand what you're trying to say. Overall, the main lesson to take from Descartes is that thought constitutes the existence of anything.
I'm also a bit confused on what you're trying to ask here as well.
An idealist thinks the material world is the apparent world and that the real world exists within their ideals (more accurately the ideals of the "sage, the pious, the virtuous man). A materialist thinks the inverse; a materialist thinks the internal world is the apparent world and the material world is the true world. Both of them are ignorant to the fact that this distinction between real and apparent, ideal and material, objective and subjective, does not exist in nature. The mind cannot be entirely material because the mind is full of ideals. What we consider to be "material," "matter," or "physicality" isn't actually a substance, it's a perspective. Imagine your mind as a coin. From one perspective it is a material brain, from another it is a free spirit, immaterial entity, or "ego." Neither perspectives are more valid than the other.
Not really sure what your next paragraph is meaning to say
The dichotomy can be any pair of opposites that are presumed to be objective or absolute qualities of nature rather than perspectives. (1): This paradox is logically disproven through a rigorous and detailed euclidean geometric demonstration by Spinoza in his Ethica Geometrico Demonstrata. I could explain it, but you would have to first be introduced to concepts like substance, modes, attributes, Cartesian dualism, ect. Or, I could give a simple explanation that religions like Daoism, Buddhism, Hermeticism, Occultism, ect have been using for millennia. Anything that is derived from an opposite (eg the concepts of cold, left, inward, evil, ect) is necessarily a perspective because any opposite implies the existence of it's inverse and is therefore not the entire reality of any particular thing, but only a partial perspective of a whole. For example, if I were to say "go outside" I'm automatically implying the existence of an inside. If these opposites are perspectives, we can't prescribe them to the whole of existence, but only to our limited viewpoint. (2) What constitutes the world is simply our perspective thereof. There is no hidden message or strings attached. (3) No. Internal implies an external. All is one. The dichotomy between internal and external is part of the reason that this misconception between real and apparent exists. I think the rest of the questions are non applicable, as I deny the internal world as well as the external.
Yes, they are still true or false, but we are the ones who create the truth of the situation. Even (1/2)...
Substance dualism is a paradox created when we presuppose any dichotomy unto nature.
A materialist does not presuppose a dichotomy right? I believe all of subjective experience exists as a result of objective reality. The mind is entirely material. Those materials synergize into a system that simulates its own version of reality, but that doesn't mean the simulation is seperate to its constituent material. All of it is still inside objective reality.
So something isn't necessarily objective OR subjective. Something subjective is both because subjective experience is defined by objective reality, and something outside our subjective experience is objective because we don't exist everywhere in the universe, like the specific interactions happening in the centre of Earth don't exist in my apparent world because I don't experience them nor know what is happening.
Is the dichotomy the idea there is an inside and outside our experience? If so, (1) How is that a paradox? It's just a way to describe my scope of existence (2) what constitutes "the world" if there is no external world? (3) Is it all just internal? (4) What's the proof that it's internal? (5) why isn't that the same as solipsism? (6) what have I missed?
Your comments (my reply):
Just like left and right, all opposites are, by nature, a perspective and not an objective reality. ( Relative terms like left and are still true or false statements. Relative to my perspective there is an objective left and right direction.)
There is also proof in the fact that "sum ergo cogito; cogito ergo sum" demonstrates that even out basis of knowledge comes from itself. (I am the thinking, I am not causing the thinking. My understanding is Nietzsche's criticism was on Descartes' leap to me being the cause of my thinking. Whatever the cause, I am the result of it, so I exist. Nietzsche's claim where "I exist so I think" seems to just be provocative. It's obviously a fallacy, although I haven't read into it much.)
I don't think Nietzsche believed it was possible to parse language into objective reality. Like, did he believe my understanding of "forward movement", maps onto an objective direction I can take?
Here is the quote:
1. The true world - attainable for the sage, the pious, the virtuous man; he lives in it, he is it.
(The oldest form of the idea, relatively sensible, simple, and persuasive. A circumlocution for the sentence, "I, Plato, am the truth.")
2. The true world - unattainable for now, but promised for the sage, the pious, the virtuous man ("for the sinner who repents").
(Progress of the idea: it becomes more subtle, insidious, incomprehensible - it becomes female, it becomes Christian.)
3. The true world - unattainable, indemonstrable, unpromisable; but the very thought of it - a consolation, an obligation, an imperative.
(At bottom, the old sun, but seen through mist and skepticism. The idea has become elusive, pale, Nordic, Konigsbergian.)
4. The true world - unattainable? At any rate, unattained. And being unattained, also unknown. Consequently, not consoling, redeeming, or obligating: how could something unknown obligate us?
(Gray morning. The first yawn of reason. The cockcrow of positivism.)
5. The "true" world - an idea which is no longer good for anything, not even obligating - an idea which has become useless and superfluous - consequently, a refuted idea: let us abolish it! (Bright day; breakfast; return of bon sens and cheerfulness; Plato's embarrassed blush; pandemonium of all free spirits.)
6. The true world - we have abolished. What world has remained? The apparent one perhaps? But no! With the true world we have also abolished the apparent one.
(Noon; moment of the briefest shadow; end of the longest error; high point of humanity; INCIPIT ZARATHUSTRA.)
First we must clear up this misconception that you have concerning the ego. I am not claiming that there is nothing external to you, I am not even claiming that you exist. Denying the objective world is also a denial of the ego or the subjective world. This separation your mind is creating between "I" and "not I" is imaginary. This destroys any idea of solipsism.
You ask "where do I receive my information if not the objective world?" and the answer is THE world. Neither subjective nor objective, but both. You are part of the world and the world is part of you. All is one. Within every Yin exists Yang and vice versa.
Here's the thing about these mental shapes that your brain is creating: "shapes" or individual concepts always imply a perspective, and a perspective always implies a limitation or subjection. So, how in the world could a shape possibly exist that does not apply to this logic? All shapes are limited. The attributes we give them are necessarily a result of our limited viewpoint, therefore any shape of any attribute is necessarily a perspective and not an object.
Yes, the burden is on me, and the proof is essentially this: substance dualism is a paradox created when we presuppose any dichotomy unto nature. Just like left and right, all opposites are, by nature, a perspective and not an objective reality. There is also proof in the fact that "sum ergo cogito; cogito ergo sum" demonstrates that even out basis of knowledge comes from itself. After all, thinking itself constitutes all of existence. Even quantum mechanics demonstrates this truth in proving that the position of a photon depends on your perspective.
My "sweeping statement" was by no means a misinterpretation. The true world is not simply inaccessible, it does not exist. The apparent world does not exist either. The world is all that there is. What you are describing is exactly what Kant proposed and what Nietzsche rejected.
Let me share with you one of my favorite Nietzsche quotes on how the true world became a fable in my next post
Every conceptualisation of the objective world is subjective, yeah, that's necessary by definition. I agree that I can never be objective, that's no revelation, and nor is that proof there is no objective world.
I agree that the external world cannot be proven, but without proof there is nothing external to me I choose to believe there is. There is something I parse into subjective experience. I receive information from somewhere. What is it if it's not the objective world?
I'll never truly experience the objective world by definition, but it exists until proven it doesn't. Otherwise the conclusion is: I'm the only thing in the universe, and that's an unuseful solipsistic nightmare.
Something I find curious is vision is just my mind creating a neat little chemical trick that I perceive as shapes and colours around me. It's important to note that none of the things around me are those shapes. I'll never experience the weirdness of what they really are, but that doesn't mean there's nothing external to me existing as the basis for my perception. I do think the burden is on you to prove nothing is there.
The burden is on you to prove we create the truths of the universe by just imagining them.
It may not be useful to think about the real vs apparent because all we ever know is the apparent. But sweeping statements like "we create truth" instead of "we create knowledge" reject the existence of the real instead of simply claiming the real is inaccessible thus it's useless to think about.
My understanding of Nietzsche was he didn't reject a real, he just rejected the usefulness of it because everything we can conceive of is apparent. And the only way we can rebuild a moral framework after we truly 'kill God' is to tear down our idea of the real because it's a barrier to getting in touch with humanity. What matters for morality is us and life, not a "real" we can never access. But I'm no expert on him so I'll happily be proven wrong.
(continuation of last comment) If my second paragraph was confusing, I apologise. In simple terms, granting the existence of knowns also grants the existence of unknowns due to the fact that opposites do not exist in nature. Your mind grants the existence of every unknown simply by asserting that they exist, same with the way that you asserted the tree falling.
By our objective reality I mean reality itself. You fail to realize that reality is a perspective and not a substance. What you call "objective reality" exists subjectively to your own perspective. Your own mind is the only evidence that you are thinking. (Sum ergo cogito, cogito ergo sum). It's self contained. All of your knowledge is built upon axioms that you created. The "slice" is not real, it's imagined. Even your ego or sense of self is imagined. Nothing is separate. All is one.
Your hypothetical is what validates the shapes, but there is even something else that validates the shapes prior to your analogy. The simple fact that existence is monistic proves that it is infinite, and therefore posseses infinite things in infinite ways. Every conceivable (non-paradoxal) "shape" is granted from the infinite sphere of the intellect prior to any visualization or experience of said shape.
My ideals come from the king of perspectivism himself: Nietzsche. He was far from an idealist and often criticized it for it's decadence and nihilism.
"There are no facts, only interpretations." -Nietzsche.
The very reason Nietzsche denied philosophers like Kant and Plato was because they based their philosophy on this idea of a "true world." A perspectivist denies both objective and subjective truth on the grounds that truth itself is a perspective.
What is 'our' objective reality? We only have a subjective reality. Nothing about objective reality is ours except for the part that defines who we are. The vast majority of objective reality is independent to us, but our subjective reality is entirely dependent on objective reality. It muddies the water calling anything "our" objective reality. Our subjective experience and perspective of a slice of objective reality is the only thing that could be considered 'our' objective reality, and that's just a slice.
And the shape analogy wasn't about actual shapes. Yes we can imagine any shape, but we haven't imagined every possible irregular shape. There's an infinite number of possible irregular shapes. If they all existed in the soup, and we never encountered or imagined most of them, then to say it's not true that they exist makes no sense to me. To also say they exist because I personally am creating a hypothetical where they exist is missing the point of the analogy. If it's not you need to do a better job explaining it.
If your ideas are coming from elsewhere could you reference them so I can look into them further. I can't help but get the impression you aren't picking up some of the nunace, but I may also be making that mistake.
You've mentioned Perspectivism, but that's the idea I've explained and you don't seem to agree. On-top of Perspectivism you seem to also assert that objective reality does not exist, not simply that our experience of reality can never be objective. Perspectivism is realist in the sense that it claims we interpret an external world. It is the position that "no perspective is definitely true" instead of your position of "truth is created by us". Your statement is flat out idealism. Subjective truth is created by us, yes, but objective truth is not.
I mean that our objective reality is our apparent reality.
In your analogy, you fail to examine who cooked the soup. You did! Nature is a human construct just like everything else. The only difference between the box and the soup is how stable and complete each construct is. Your "box" or your immediate reality is more coherent and sensible than your sense of nature or the universe. You feel as if your constructed understanding of the universe is less "stable" than your immediate perspective. This is the only difference: a vague feeling! When you examine the nature of truth, you find that it is never static. Truth is not a separate and distinct box floating in a soup of objectivity. Truth, any truth, is an ever-changing complex of ideals and constructs within your mind.
The human mind is capable of creating any geometrically coherent shape that it wants, so I'm failing to see how it would exist beyond us. Remember, the soup exists within our mind just as the box exists within the soup. Therefore, to grant that this mysterious shape exists within the soup is just like the "tree in the woods" example. Do we experience the shape or the falling of the tree? No. Are we pre-conceiving their existence by claiming them to exist within this infinite soup? Of course. We still created the unknown shape, even though we never bumped into it.
But we can! Through dialectical reasoning! Thesis, antithesis, synthesis. One such example is Einstein's construct of spacetime. Prior to this synthesis, scientists struggled to reconcile the problems presented by space and time as separate entities and not the same thing.
When you say "Objective reality is your apparent reality" do you just mean our apparent reality lives within objective reality?
As an analogy, our subjective experience is like a little box that navigates a soup of other boxes and shapes. It all exist as a single soup. The soup is the real, but our little box and what it bumps into and experiences is our apparent. The other boxes and shapes in the soup are everything else in reality. That's my interpretation of "Objective reality is your apparent reality". Objective reality is the set we live in. It is us and we are a part of it.
That's not a dichotomy or a suggestion of a dichotomy though. What it means is there are some shapes we never bump into, so we'd never experience those shapes and therefore have no idea that they exist. If we don't know they exist, yet the shape is in the soup, then it's still true that the shape exists. It exists in the soup, so it exists in objective reality, but if I never bump something that knows about it then it doesn't exist in my apparent world.
And yes we cannot conceive of logical contradictions, one of which is a paradox. But we also cannot conceive of solutions to problems or physical phenomena that we have not encountered. Our imagination is not limitless.
If those terms are equivalent to you, then let's continue to use them as such just so we are on the same page.
Even in this instance, there is still a false dichotomy. Objective reality is your apparent reality. Separation of the two implies a substance duality in nature, and as I have already explained, this is a paradox.
What evidence even supports the idea that we can perceive knowledge beyond perception? This is an obviously self-contradicting proposition to say the least.
Concepts that we cannot conceive of are called paradoxes. For example, we cannot adequately conceive of a circle-square or a married bachelor because they contradict themselves. Paradoxes do not exist in nature, and therefore nothing of this nature exists beyond us, or at all.
What is the difference between apparent and subjective? And what is the difference between objective reality and the real? I see them as equal. If something is real it exists in objective reality, if something is apparent it exists in subjective reality.
Our apparent world is the world we experience as a subject, we only know what WE (the subject) sense and imagine. The objective world is external to us (but our subject experience is also defined by it). It's true nature is hidden from us, but it still exists and we're able to pick up enough to function.
And the tree is an example of natural phenomena we don't experience. What about natural phenomena we cannot conceive of? Is it true that that whatever that is exists in the real? So as an objective truth, not a subjective truth. Are you going to then say that thinking of stuff I can't think of as a hypothetical makes it true that it exists? If so, then "Everything I do and don't know is true". Bam. I just made everything true.
If we never imagined inconceivable phenomena, would it still be true that inconceivable phenomena existed in nature?
If so, then the phenomena exists in objective reality, but not my subjective reality. So it exists in "just one" but not the other.
Sorry for the few days of absence. Work has been keeping me busy.
You say a tree falling in the woods makes a sound, and so do I. But why? The only reason the tree is granted a sound is because YOU first proposed that a tree has fallen. YOU have created this axiom on which to base your reasoning. YOU have assumed that this tree exists physically, and therefore you assume all of the physical implications along with it. So, to say "they weren't interpreted by anyone" is a lie. You interpreted the existence of the tree and the falling of said tree before you experienced it. You conceived it as existing. You created this truth.
The false dichotomy I spoke of was the dichotomy between true and apparent, not objective and subjective. I only mentioned the false dichotomy between objective and subjective for comparison, same with left and right. For example, no matter how objective math & science are, they are only ever verified by our subjective experience, constructs, ect. Claiming that something can be "just one," as you put it, is a misconception. It's similar to claiming that one direction can be "just left" or "just right." You fail to realize that people can change their perspective of "left" and "right."
Your "both" analogy on the moving picture is correct. Is it moving? Is it still? That truth, like all truths, depend on your perspective.
You said "separating truth into these two categories is yet another false dichotomy". Which makes no sense to me because there is no implied dichotomy between subjective and objective truth. Something can be both objectively true and subjectively true, something can be neither, something can be one. Creating categories is no implication truth is on a binary scale between the two. It's just a way to think about truth in relation to experience and nature.
A moving object on a screen is the subjective truth to someone who is blissfully ignorant, a flipbook of static pictures is the objective truth. This is how I accept your "both" answer.
Could you also explain why subjective truths and objective truths make no sense? If you hadn't rejected them then I'd happily accept your "both" answer.
Remain as basic as possible please. Because opposition to realism can quickly sound like absolute nonsense if you're not already down the rabbit hole.
This is a great place to take this:
"If a tree falls in the woods, but no one's there to hear it, does it make a sound?"
As a materialist I say: as a tree falls, pressure waves are emitted into nature, so even if no ear is around to interpret the pressure waves as sound, it still makes the waves.
The presence of a subject doesn't change whether the tree created pressure waves as it fell. It just means they weren't interpreted by anyone.
What about this question:
"If a tree falls in the woods, but no one's there to see it, does it actually fall?"
Or must a subject see it on the ground and think of the tree falling for it to be true that it fell?
As a materialist I obviously believe trees fall all the time without people ever knowing. That doesn't make it untrue that any trees not known to fall haven't actually fallen.
It resides in both! Nature is a construct of our reality in itself!
The LED diodes do not merge. Red and green are simply conceived as yellow by humans because humans only perceive RGB.
"Whatever color we perceive is the ideal." Is this not to say that out truth corresponds to both our ideals and our perception?
Whatever wavelengths of light you are talking about (like ultraviolet) that were "undiscovered" by previous humans still existed, but ONLY because of the fact that YOU conceived of them existing in the first place. This is a "does a tree in the woods make a sound when it falls" sort of question. Your movie analogy is another example. Does the movie move or is it perceived as moving? The answer is: both!
This is why I make such a big deal between apparent and true, objective and subjective, black and white, left and right, ect are all dichotomies. None hold any more truth value than the other unless you grant (from the imagination) that a certain perspective is more valid than the other.
At the core of what I'm asking is: does truth rest in our ideals/models of nature and not nature itself? If so, then what is nature?
I think for your LED example, because it's additive colouring, the red and green wavelengths of light technically merge to form a new wavelength (as long as we're far enough from the LEDs). The new wavelength is what we perceive as yellow.
Even if it's just our eye receptors interpreting the addition of those two wavelengths as yellow, whatever colour we perceive is the ideal, and in nature it's just ripples in the electromagnetic field.
There is a wider range of wavelengths we cannot perceive, yet they're still around us in nature. What about before we knew about those other wavelengths? Was it untrue that they existed because truth comes from our perspective? Did we create them instead of discover them?
Another example: when we watch a movie on a screen we perceive moving objects, but in nature there are no moving objects on the screen, just static images moving by at 30 fps. If I did not know how screen technology worked, and I believed the objects were actually moving on the screen, would that be the truth? Or would that simply be knowledge I have that doesn't align with nature, making me blissfully ignorant?
There are things we don't know about our reality, and things we may never know. While we don't know them it is still true that they exist.
I only used "chaotic" because you used it the first time I noticed you recognising a nature outside of us. I didn't want to use different words to you in case that ignited an irrelevant tangent. I don't think it should matter here if nature is orderly or chaotic. Perspectivism is concerned with how we interpret nature, not whether nature is deterministic.
That's also why I've avoided using the terms objective and subjective truths, which make this conversation a lot easier. You seemed to go on a tangent last time with that somehow being a "false dichotomy".
I'm VERY glad you bring up the flat earth theory. Your debates seem, not only to stay on topic (which is alot to say concerning others on this app), but they actually seem to dive deeper into it.
However, let me back up a moment and counter your flat earth analogy with yet another one (don't worry, I'll implement it later). Say you're looking at a yellow LED screen. For all intents and purposes, the screen not only appears yellow, but IS yellow. Now look at it through the perspective of a microscope. LED screens do not contain yellow diodes, only red and green diodes that APPEAR to be yellow. Now zoom in further. The atoms that constitute the LEDs posses no color at all. So what is the true reality? Is the screen yellow? Is it red and green? Is it no color at all? You'll find that all of these truths are only valid relative to which perspective you hold. The same could be applied to the flat earth theory. From a narrow, personal view, the Earth is "flat." From a scientific understanding, it can be different. I remind you, science is an art. Some scientific facts arent authentic to our perspective and can only be taken as fact if you accept hearsay. The flat earther may argue that experience is superior in truth-value than hearsay. This, I believe, can be the only argument that validates any truth in a "flat earth."
I should warn you, I prescribe neither chaos nor order to the existence of nature. I only mentioned chaos in relation to unprocessed information, such as ones and zeros that we do not yet understand (patterns that we do not yet recognize). I think you have a misunderstanding of perspectivism as the idea that truth is relative, or the idea that nature is chaos. A perspectivist would deny any prescription of nature existing as order or chaos, relative or absolute.
Both idealism and materialism prescribe a method to find the "real world." Perspectivism denies both methods on the grounds that the "real world" does not exist. "The world" is simply derived from both our senses and ideals.
Nietzsche denied both the subject and the material reality
If I believe the earth is flat, and all my sense experience, peers, and empirical data validates that belief, yet in nature the thing beneath my feet is actually closer to a geometric sphere, what is true?
I find it confusing that you call nature "random chaos" and label our ideal interpretation of it as "truth", yet claim to not be idealist. If it is our mind's model of nature that is truth, what is nature itself?
Traditional Perspectivism is all about knowledge, ie truth CLAIMS, not the truth itself. It is the idea that the 'random chaos' of reality is the truth, and we gain imperfect biased knowledge of it via interpreting it from our perspective.
And how are idealism and materialism two perspectives of the same thing? One claims the mind creates reality, the other claims reality creates the mind.
My understanding of what Nietzsche took further was we only live in our knowledge world because we because it requires a subject to perceive a material reality. The thoughts we use to make sense of that reality are biased, come from material.
My overall argument is that the "apparent" and "true" world are false ideals. Only the world exists, and the world is a construct of the mind. This is because knowledge is active (created). We know this because random 1's and 0's do not become code until they are computed, nor do random symbols spell out any words unless someone conceives them through language. We also know this because dualities cannot exist in nature (this is because substance, or the indwelling of existence, is logically monistic). The reason this is NOT idealism is because ideal and material are not two opposing entities, but rather two perspectives of the same thing. Hopefully this is enough to make sense
Yes, I'm saying that truth is created solely through the mind. Nature is simply a soup of random chaos. It does not form into knowledge or truth until it is picked up as signals and are interpreted as such in the mind.
I reject idealism on the same grounds that I reject materialism. Both sides are blind to the contradictions that the other side presents. My philosophy is closest to perspectivism, which posits that "ideal" and "material" are merely two perspectives of the same thing and not truths in themselves. Perspectivism directly opposes Plato's theory of the "true world." His epistemology is exactly what I was challenging when I posted this.
I see that, and I addressed that a few posts ago. Saying that you knew hunger before you knew yourself is still a presupposition of the ego
TLDR of my last message.
Is your argument just "the external world exists solely within minds, therefore truth is created by those minds"?
Could you put forward an argument for why the external world exists solely in the mind? I may have missed it, could you do it again?
I am a materialist, which is monoist like idealism. But instead of asserting there is no material world, I believe everything is built on the material world. That's the assumption the empirical part of science uses, and it's quite successful.
Your arguments I have seen so far seem to assume we're on board with the view that materialism is nonsense. I am open to having my mind changed but you'll need to bring out your underlying reasoning
i said "i knew hunger before i knew myself." you are misquoting me. please read my post again.
When you get into topics like this language is an imprecise minefield. Even philosophers use the same words differently. So including definitions is always wise.
If I said "calling an institution FBI was sexist", you should not agree. But if I clarified and said "calling an institution Female Body Inspectors will make many women uncomfortable", more people would agree because we'd all be on the same page.
So I don't mean to be rude, but since you did not define your terms (well I didn't see it) I guessed at what you meant.
Is your argument just "the external world exists solely within minds, therefore truth is created by those minds"? Is that the basis of your claim that truth is created not discovered? If so, do you label your view about the mind as idealist? Idealism is the stance where everything is a product of the mind; where there is absolutely no material world. This view never made sense to me in the modern world.
The only idealists I meet are religious people who believe the world exists within God's mind. Most religious people I speak to are dualists though, where they believe in both an ideal spiritual world and material world.
I am a materialist, which is monoist like idealism. But instead of asserting there is no material world, materialism asserts everything is built on the material world; so the idealist abstract world is just a part of the material world. All the features of the mind, like sensation and awareness, emerge from materials in objective reality, not vice versa.
Without materialism as an assumption, science would be unable to accurately predict events external to minds. To me that's evidence against idealism. like Hume's anti cause and effect stance, idealism points out the assumptions we make, but it offers no useful alternatives.
And if you're coming at this from Plato's thought experiments, what's stopping Platonic Forms from just being our mind's way of understanding the universe. Our mind observes the universe, observea, then packages observations into simpler ideas so it can understand and communicate those ideas efficiently. The mind's model of the universe is still built upon reality.
I don't know. That's YOU making that ridiculous claim, not me. You were the first to say "I knew hunger before I existed."
"You just are" isn't anywhere near substantial enough to be considered an "undeniable truth," as you claim. Anyone can deny or doubt the validity of a feeling, as feelings are often misleading and confused.
how can i know hunger before i existed? how can i have hunger before i existed? you arent making any sense. there is no contradictions, just a misunderstanding.
"how do you know that (you think)"
what? how do you know your in pain? you just are. how do you know you are thinking? im sorry, i dont get your question here. it makes no sense.
But now you're no longer claiming that you knew hunger before you existed, you are claiming that you knew hunger before you knew you existed, thus claiming that you, the ego, actually exists (which is a presupposition based on a paradox). How do you know that "you think?" Neither existence nor essence precede eachother.
i do not need to agree with neitzhe philosophy to agree with him that freud is bs. i do not study philosophy and had a very minor intro to neitzhe here, but my view of Freud came from my science education on psychology. it is my conclusion, not just a conclusion i agree with.
i knew hunger before i knew myself. as a fetus/baby i did not know what existence is, i just knew my feelings in a void. *i never said thinking proves existences in general. my thinking proves the existence of me*.
to correct the quote. "i think, therefore i know i am".
And Nietzsche was the one who claimed Freud's "ego" was BS... Are you arguing for or against your ideology here?
If "you" knew hunger before "you" existed... well... how do you not see the contradiction here?
You think thinking proves existence? Don't you see anything wrong with that question? It begins with the presupposition "you think," therefore ASSUMING the existence of ego prior to the existence of being. This is a paradox.
freud is the one who coined the idea of ego. if your definition of ego is specific or unique, then we need to reconcile that difference.
as for self validations, that is false. my ego does not validate my thinking. my thinking is a fact independent of anything else. i knew pain, hunger, warmth well before i knew myself. i think, therefore i am. not i am therefore i think. they do not validate each other, the logic works in only one direction.
Again, Im speaking strictly about ontology, not psychology or Freud.
this has nothing to do with Freud or psychology though?
the id, ego, and superego are all part of you according to the cocaine and sex obsessed freud. there is no penis envy, no edipus complex. freud is a fool who invented the excellent tool of psychoanalysis, and then misapplied it in every case.
the ego is but a part of me.... and freud is a quack.
But that's exactly what they mean by "ego." Ego is the sense of self; it is what what constitutes "I" or "me." You can only prove that thoughts and existence justify eachother. This is proven in the fact that "cogito ergo, sum" is equally as justifiable as "sum ergo, cogito." If thoughts justify existence, and vice versa, then proof of anything is necessarily created or propagated by the mind.
im not sure if its the ego thinking, but it me thinking. i know i am thinking, therefore i know that i, in some form, do exist. beyond any doubt.
whether you, the chair, or anything beyond me exists beyond a reasonable doubt, but my existence is certain to me. its not the act of thinking that makes me exist, the act of thinking is proof that i exist.
Well yes... it does. In fact, if you deprive the brain of sensation, it will start to hallucinate its own.
External and internal reality are not like black and white. If from something white you take away everything white, it becomes black, on the other hand, if from an external reality you take away all external reality, it does not become an internal reality.
I have already addressed this before. I have never claimed that "everything is the same." This proposition does not even make sense because it would imply infinite absurdities like 1+1=3. For example, a boulder is the same as a pebble, IN NATURE, but different in degree.
Internal and external reality are not exempt from being opposites. Why would this dichotomy suddenly supercede the paradox of substance dualism? What makes this paradox so special that it gets to override all logic?
If I did not misunderstand you say that the substance is the whole and therefore there cannot be two substances. But that does not mean that all parts of the substance are the same. External and internal reality are part of the same whole, but they are not the same. External reality is independent of internal reality.
@nemiroff Does it? Philosophers of the modern era, particularly those who dismissed the false idea of "rationalism," discredit this assertion on the grounds that "I think" is merely a presupposition that the ego, not only exists, but can think. The ego itself has been discredited as an illusion, forged by an imaginary duality in nature between "I" and "not I." I may have mentioned this to you before, but dichotomies in nature are always paradoxal.
that quote represents an unquestionable truth.
If you examine the nature of substance, aka the indwelling of reality or nature, we see that it is that which exists within itself and is conceived through no other concept, as opposed to a modification or contingency that exists within something other than itself and uses other concepts to be conceived. Two substances cannot be conceived as existing because, if this were to occur, they would share the attribute of thought, thus contradicting the nature of substance as being self-contained, independent, and absolute simply because a substance cannot share attributes with anything other than itself. This is the reason why left cannot exist without right, ect. All opposites are therefore merely two perspectives of a whole and do not exist in nature.
Why is a duality in nature impossible?
Separating truth into these two categories is yet another false dichotomy. Not only does it imply an opposition between "real" and "apparent," but also an opposition between "objective" and "subjective." Dichotomies cannot logically exist in nature. They are paradoxal when conceived as absolute and not merely perspectives of the same thing.
"Truth" without knowledge thereof cannot be conceived as true, but only unknown. There cannot exist any truth that is beyond our cognition.
The "law" of excluded middle is not a truth. This "law" is merely one out of many ways to interpret truth. Fuzzy logic and many systems of non-classical logic do not utilize the "law" of excluded middle.
One in the same thing can both exist and not exist. A unicorn, for example, may exist mentally but not physically.
You asked whether thought precedes existence or vice versa. Implying that you existed before your thoughts is as paradoxal as implying your thoughts existed before you. Existence is dependant on thought, and thought is dependent on existence. Implying either or is simply succumbing to the false dichotomy
I'm not sure what you're implying with that Descartes quote
Implying that there is an internal and an external reality insists upon a paradox, a false dichotomy, a duality in nature (which is always impossible). Your "external reality" is, in reality, conceived internally. It does not transcend your existence because it is your existence.
i think, therefore i am
The concept of "Truth" needs to be seperated here into objective and subjective truth. Subjective truth is in fact a made up concept. Subjective truth is essentially "facts" we surmise by observation, experimentation, etc... So we can say: "the first law of thermodynamics is true" and refer to subjective truth since we may yet find out that it is false. Objective truth however, uncontroversially requires mind-independence, at least in the sense of being true independently of what anyone knows or believes. That is, if a proposition is to be “objectively” true, then it must be possible for it to be true without anyone knowing or believing that it is. This is perhaps best explained through logical principles such as the law of excluded middle (for every proposition p, either p or its negation, not-p, is true, there being no “middle” true proposition between them).
If we talk about the simplest truth, i.e. existence vs non-existence, we have to say that things either exist or they don't. You exist or you don't, regardless of your ability to conceptualize existence vs non-existence. Since you contend that "truth pertains to human consciousness" then you must agree that the mind either exist or it doesn't exist independent of the thought that it exist. In other words, does our thinking beget existence or does our existence beget thinking? the latter is nonsensical as thought cannot precede existence so we must exist before we think we exist.
We discover truth, we do not create it.
There is an external reality that sets truths. Our internal reality guesses until it knows them well enough to function. Science guesses until it knows them perfectly.
We label the truths we discover with language, but those labels don't create the truth, they simply help us communicate the observations we've made of external reality.
The word "conceive" literally means to create. If you see a unicorn in the clouds, was that unicorn always there? or did you imagine it in the soup of molecules you call "atmosphere?" Did "molecules" exist before they were conceived? Or were they simply imagined in this physical fabric of energy?
How can truth be a static and absolute thing to "discover" when truth has always been, and always will be, contingent and changing? Your concept of "truth" relies on a false and imagined dichotomy between the human concepts of "true" and "apparent."
As I explained in another post, nature is not dualistic. Truth does not pertain to nature. Truth pertains to human consciousness.
A concept is just a way of naming something that already existed before. The concept of truth is just a way of naming what is really the truth, which already existed before
Is truth not a concept? You contradict yourself in saying that it transcends your own perception. How can creations "only" apply to concepts but not truth, despite truth falling under that same category?
Line A is still a concept. You act as if it is a basis for reality when it clearly exists as finite and divisible.
it is the concepts that are created, not the truths.
If there is a line called line A, I can create a concept called line B defined as "half of line A". Line A has always been made up of two halves, that is, line B has always existed, only the concept did not exist.
Imagine an infinite line. Now draw two divides at any length. Label the distance between the two divides. Name it something unique. Now make another divide twice as long and name it something else. Were these concepts or lengths existing before you conceived of them or did you imagine the divides? Is a constellation really there or do we simply imagine the shapes? Are two ocean waves really there or are we simply imagining a divide in the same soup of molecules?
Created by who? Things already exist and we only discovered them.