4 ms·

Thank you for your reply. In most ways I agree, in all ways actually. But my point is that the term "real" doesn't mean strictly material. The picture I'm paint

by Frummy 4y ago

Thank you for your reply. In most ways I agree, in all ways actually. But my point is that the term "real" doesn't mean strictly material. The picture I'm painting is to bring away "reality" from strictly material and external. I do this to argue with the point above your original reply, saying that the scientific method is incompatible with these things. We're in philosophical territory and I won't pretend to be an expert but I think we will have plenty of tools to bring the scientific method even to our most personal experiences.

fluoridation 4y ago
Which is why I originally asked what was meant by "real". From a consensus-realistic perspective, things that are purely subjective and non-material things are definitely less real or at least less-obviously real. From a solipsistic perspective the only real thing is one's subjective experience, and everything else is in doubt. But most people are not capable of consistently maintaining a solipsistic perspective, so I didn't assume that's what was meant.
- Frummy 4y ago
  Thank you for the conversation. Your style reminds me of "Theaetus" by Plato. Maybe you'd like it.
- pbhjpbhj 4y ago
  Even the solipsistic must surely realise that there are simulacrum of external reality that can be dismissed as, say, 'it was just a shiver' rather than being a 'real' part of one's subjective experience. Reflecting, I guess I'm questioning if the solipsist really believes all that which is put before their minds is really "experience", per se. As sure as anything, Pyrrhonism is where it's at!
  - fluoridation 4y ago
    Necessarily, that which is experienced is experienced. The belief that one merely thinks is experiencing something but is actually mistaken is untenable. The question is whether the feeling of these keys under what I think are my fingers is caused by something that exists more or less as I perceive it, rather than some contrived hallucination or an illusion. But I'm not able to doubt that I am in fact feeling what I feel. Besides mathematical truths, it's all I can be certain of.

by Frummy 4y ago

fluoridation 4y ago

Which is why I originally asked what was meant by "real". From a consensus-realistic perspective, things that are purely subjective and non-material things are definitely less real or at least less-obviously real. From a solipsistic perspective the only real thing is one's subjective experience, and everything else is in doubt. But most people are not capable of consistently maintaining a solipsistic perspective, so I didn't assume that's what was meant.

Frummy 4y ago
Thank you for the conversation. Your style reminds me of "Theaetus" by Plato. Maybe you'd like it.
pbhjpbhj 4y ago
Even the solipsistic must surely realise that there are simulacrum of external reality that can be dismissed as, say, 'it was just a shiver' rather than being a 'real' part of one's subjective experience. Reflecting, I guess I'm questioning if the solipsist really believes all that which is put before their minds is really "experience", per se. As sure as anything, Pyrrhonism is where it's at!
- fluoridation 4y ago
  Necessarily, that which is experienced is experienced. The belief that one merely thinks is experiencing something but is actually mistaken is untenable. The question is whether the feeling of these keys under what I think are my fingers is caused by something that exists more or less as I perceive it, rather than some contrived hallucination or an illusion. But I'm not able to doubt that I am in fact feeling what I feel. Besides mathematical truths, it's all I can be certain of.