4 ms·

Isn't this taking the 'axiomatic' path? > through acknowledging that the only thing real is experience This seems like the key axiom for idealists/empiricists

Isn't this taking the 'axiomatic' path? > through acknowledging that the only thing real is experience This seems like the key axiom for idealists/empiricists. Of course that leads you to many other details and questions (namely, which experiences?)

beaner 8y ago
It is an observed axiom, rather than an "accepted" axiom, which the article implies is the only kind.
- bryananderson 8y ago
  Why does observing something mean that something is true? If you keep asking questions, at some point you must get to either an accepted axiom, a circularity, or infinite regress.
  - beaner 8y ago
    There is no possible reality in which the observation of anything can be explained by absolute nothingness. We know that existence exists, and that within that existence is consciousness capable of perceiving it. These are self-evident axioms upon observing anything at all. I think it's fair to say that we don't know why reality exists, but we know that it is true that something exists at all.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
  - ethn 8y ago
    See my above comments but what else would "true" mean?
ethn 8y ago
No, Experience is forced upon you, it is neither an assumption or something discovered through reason. Additionally, words like "real", "exists" or "reality" only have meaning in this way, otherwise it would be impossible to understand them since understanding is only through terms of experience. However, it's important to note that idealists aren't naive realists, they acknowledge that what they see is created by their own sensory organs. That is, there is the not-object that cannot be discussed or learned about further than the knowledge obtained from the negative predicate of the object—hence why you can only see one side of a coin or why your experience can change through hallucinatory drugs. The not-object is also necessary for communication between individuals, where the inter-subjective experience must be mapped to do so.
- smallnamespace 8y ago
  > Experience is forced upon you, it is neither an assumption or something discovered through reason. Why? That claim must be justified by reference to other truths, or taken itself as an assumption. So doesn't the trilemma still apply, but at one more remove? Note that 'assumption' does not necessarily mean an arbitrary statement, but includes statements that we consider self-evident, e.g. 'something exists'.
  - omon 8y ago
    It doesn't have to be explained why, it is. The why would be a separate question requiring reasoning. Things can be true without an explanation as to why they happen. It's not an assumption as experience is not a choice, in fact experience is a prerequisite to then be able to assume (as well as to reason).

beaner 8y ago

It is an observed axiom, rather than an "accepted" axiom, which the article implies is the only kind.

bryananderson 8y ago
Why does observing something mean that something is true? If you keep asking questions, at some point you must get to either an accepted axiom, a circularity, or infinite regress.
- beaner 8y ago
  There is no possible reality in which the observation of anything can be explained by absolute nothingness. We know that existence exists, and that within that existence is consciousness capable of perceiving it. These are self-evident axioms upon observing anything at all. I think it's fair to say that we don't know why reality exists, but we know that it is true that something exists at all.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- ethn 8y ago
  See my above comments but what else would "true" mean?

ethn 8y ago

No, Experience is forced upon you, it is neither an assumption or something discovered through reason. Additionally, words like "real", "exists" or "reality" only have meaning in this way, otherwise it would be impossible to understand them since understanding is only through terms of experience. However, it's important to note that idealists aren't naive realists, they acknowledge that what they see is created by their own sensory organs. That is, there is the not-object that cannot be discussed or learned about further than the knowledge obtained from the negative predicate of the object—hence why you can only see one side of a coin or why your experience can change through hallucinatory drugs. The not-object is also necessary for communication between individuals, where the inter-subjective experience must be mapped to do so.

smallnamespace 8y ago
> Experience is forced upon you, it is neither an assumption or something discovered through reason. Why? That claim must be justified by reference to other truths, or taken itself as an assumption. So doesn't the trilemma still apply, but at one more remove? Note that 'assumption' does not necessarily mean an arbitrary statement, but includes statements that we consider self-evident, e.g. 'something exists'.
- omon 8y ago
  It doesn't have to be explained why, it is. The why would be a separate question requiring reasoning. Things can be true without an explanation as to why they happen. It's not an assumption as experience is not a choice, in fact experience is a prerequisite to then be able to assume (as well as to reason).