SR 39: Where Every Post Is Oozing Happiness

Ah yes, a classic staple of the American diet.

What's funny is that epistemology is the one philosophy that is most closely associated with my feelings. Well, it is on a certain level. The key is to draw a difference between knowledge and fact. What is a known? Well, to have a known is to require a mind capable of retaining information. What is a fact? Is it a universal truth? Is there a difference between a personal truth and a universal truth? The sun exists. You believe the sun does not exist. It is your personal truth that the sun does not exist, though it is the universal truth that the sun does, in fact, exist. Here it becomes, not a matter of philosophy, rather, a matter of lexicon. 

I try not to think about philosophy.

Alitare wrote: What's funny is that epistemology is the one philosophy that is most closely associated with my feelings. Well, it is on a certain level. The key is to draw a difference between knowledge and fact. What is a known? Well, to have a known is to require a mind capable of retaining information. What is a fact? Is it a universal truth? Is there a difference between a personal truth and a universal truth? The sun exists. You believe the sun does not exist. It is your personal truth that the sun does not exist, though it is the universal truth that the sun does, in fact, exist. Here it becomes, not a matter of philosophy, rather, a matter of lexicon.  If it's not true, can we call it a truth? Here lately I've encountered a massive surge in the 'to me' line of reality. There's been a swelling in the 'my reality, my truths, my beliefs' department. My reality becomes construed as THE reality. I ask: If a dog is intrinsically and infallibly blue, does your perception of the dog as being green alter the physical manifestation of the dog in the least? It could only do so indirectly - by affecting the manner in which you react to said dog. In this situation, on a universal magnitude, does your personal belief have a direct effect on reality (i.e. one not filtered through or by your actions). What I mean to say is: where has this notion come about that we can control the atomic structure of the universe with our minds? I have a friend who stated recently that all reality is an opinion. Doesn't this seem a tad erroneous - from a purely objective perspective, I mean? If that held due certitude, then surely the entirety of existence would be focused solely on creatures with the mental capacity for establishing opinions. This would imply that if all sentient life were to be extinguished, then so goes with it the entire universe.   But I digress - it seems to me that the primary cause for most philosophical conflict lies within the realms of mis-communication. Many folks confuse 'how I see the world' with 'the world', or 'how I feel' with 'how things are'. At it's core, philosophy is very much tied to language. These ideas aren't made up of matter in the strictest sense. We're basically trying to describe something that doesn't exist with something we made up (language). Try describing a creature that doesn't exist without using words that have meaning. That's the simplest premise behind (non-secular) ideological digression - getting one's message across with the totality one desires. When I say 'Rush sucks a big dick', I really mean 'There is no such thing as better or worse, objectively, and I simply don't emotionally prefer to listen to Rush as compared to the select artists I do quite enjoy'. Anyway, this is just a tired ramble.

I don't place much emphasis in universality. That is the last bastion of the lost and the raving. No, there appears to be only one universality, and that is death. However, since one cannot experience death without losing all function of perception, universality is but speculation, and subsequently no longer universal. Ergo, in my opinion everything is relative and objectified (no I'm not a Randian Objectivist) based upon the complexity of individual perception. Therefore, the conscious decision to separate knowledge from fact can only be filtered through the experiences and innate logic of perception. You cannot separate them. Personal truths cannot, and do not intersect with universal truths, because even in death, it is simply not possible to surmise what accounts to universality.

For me, there is only one true question which an individual must answer. To live, or to die. If one chooses the latter, then you entrust your entire being into a reality from which you cannot decipher, and will never relate. If one choses life, then your universal truth lies in the temporary rejection of the void. Alas, while the search for universal truths will always be constrianed by perception, the living being will always at least have the opportunity to situate themselves within the milleu of existence, as temporary as that is. The true essence of my reality is that it is not your reality, and only in my rejection or embrace of externalites can I constitute a semblance of rebellion towards the infinite relativity of life.

Or something.

Alitare wrote: You say 'my reality' and 'your reality', but by reality do you mean to say 'perspective'? This line of thought leads me to assume there are people that think our minds create the universe, and that there's no such thing as fact. They hide behind their 'nothing is real' stipulation. Are we humans/sentient beings really the center of the universe so much so that we control what exists with our minds? If this were the case, why don't we, as a collective people, abolish all pain? Obviously atoms, physical matter, and fact are not subject to intrinsic alteration directly by a person's opinion. Surely there must be a separation between what a man sees and what is. A dog is made of matter. Let's say I see the dog, but believe it's a cat. Does my perspective directly alter the dog's atomic make-up?

Reality and perspective are the same thing, in my opinion. If the mind sees only reality, then it excludes falsities. If the mind sees only falsities, then it excludes reality. Of which of those is true?

One can only answer that question from an individual perspective, either is possible.

You're touching into solipsism here, and while I've played around with the concept that one can only be sure as to the existence of one's own perceptions, I would argue that you can take it a step further. If one perceives that nothing exists outside of the milieu of the mind, how can one be sure that the mind has a complete and intrinsic perception? Could we say that the mind's perception of itself will forever be bound by the knowledge it holds? Well to answer that would suppose that the mind is capable of augmenting reality. And what if it is? Does it matter that nothing may be real? The cat you see may indeed be a dog, but what does that matter if the mind has no alternative?

My short response is; absolute reality exists, but no person is capable of grasping it without at some point, ascribing detail which is extraneous to 'reality'. You can argue obviously that such objective realities do exist, and that individuals will ascribe their own meaning and perception. I'm just throwing out there that no person is capable of synthesizing a truth, which others can grasp. This doesn't suppose that nothing is real, rather that the knowledge of reality cannot be intrinsically held between individuals.

By the way, I'm not really a solipsist, I just love this argument though. And I need dinner.

IT'S THE METAPHYSICS POWER HOUR WITH DUSTIN AND BEN

Any Colour You Like wrote: My short response is; absolute reality exists, but no person is capable of grasping it without at some point, ascribing detail which is extraneous to 'reality'. You can argue obviously that such objective realities do exist, and that individuals will ascribe their own meaning and perception. I'm just throwing out there that no person is capable of synthesizing a truth, which others can grasp. This doesn't suppose that nothing is real, rather that the knowledge of reality cannot be intrinsically held between individuals. By the way, I'm not really a solipsist, I just love this argument though. And I need dinner.

Psychotic Waltz sez: EVERYTHING IS NOTHING!

Are you saying philosophy shaves its legs?