6 ms·
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
by 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 agoThank you for the conversation. Your style reminds me of "Theaetus" by Plato. Maybe you'd like it.
- pbhjpbhj 4y agoEven 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 agoNecessarily, 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.