INTJ "Intelligent" Myth

[SillySapienne]

truth is perceived Reality

Truth = Reality

 

[Lex Talionis]

I agree with everything you wrote, here.

Seriously.

Well, if you agree, it shows that you are more reasonable than I first gave you credit.

 

[Zarathustra]

Btw people, all of this thinking can best be viewed through the lens of Aristotle's four causes...

So, remember that our ancestors were pretty brilliant people.

 

[Zarathustra]

Isn't that kind of at odds with what you and Z were saying earlier in the thread about discerning perception vs. absolute truth?

Maybe you should try reading Heidegger.

Check out the essay "On the Essence of Truth".

Not easy reading, but it's illuminating.

 

[simulatedworld]

truth is perceived Reality

Truth = Reality

Yes, but since we cannot know anything about reality except via perception, how can we know anything about real truth or non-perceived reality?

 

[SillySapienne]

But everything is, all perceptions exist.

Does the existence of somthing make it real?

Yes.

Are dreams real?

Oh dear, determinism and reductionistic reasoning make my mind go mushy-gushy

 

[Zarathustra]

Well, if you agree, it shows that you are more reasonable than I first gave you credit.

Yeah, Lex, as plenty of people are.

Once you get off your fucking obsessive need to put yourself on a high horse.

 

[Zarathustra]

Yes, but since we cannot know anything about reality except via perception, how can we know anything about real truth or non-perceived reality?

Once again:

I used to think I knew everything; then I thought I knew everything when I thought no one knew anything; now I think that I know something since I know that no one knows whether they know anything, even if they know something.

- Zarathustra, Myspace profile

 

[Zarathustra]

Alright, I've thoroughly enjoyed this discussion, but I really must be leaving.

Peace out, nuckas!

 

[SillySapienne]

Yes, but since we cannot know anything about reality except via perception, how can we know anything about real truth or non-perceived reality?

Are you a solipsist?




hahahaha, oy vey, good points, good points, this conversation needs to happen in a comfy room, with beverages and ambient music in the background.

 

[Zarathustra]

Are you a solipsist?




hahahaha, oy vey, good points, good points, this conversation needs to happen in a comfy room, with beverages and ambient music in the background.

true that...

 

[simulatedworld]

But everything is, all perceptions exist.

Does the existence of somthing make it real?

Yes.

You're playing with different shades of the meaning of the word "real" here. It kind of reminds me of St. Anselm's ontological argument and the way it just plays with different meanings of the word "great" in order to establish a faulty conclusion about the existence of God.

And as part of that argument states, there is a difference between objective existence in the external world and subjective existence purely in the mind.

All perceptions exist subjectively in the mind, but such perceptions do not guarantee objective existence in the external world.

Therefore, the existence of something purely in the mind does not make it "real" in the sense that it exists objectively in the external world.

Are you a solipsist?

No, but I do agree with the proposition that my own mind is the only thing I can know for sure exists. I do consider it highly probable that other things outside my mind also exist, but I cannot know this for certain.

Unfortunately, this lack of certainty prevents me from knowing any absolute truth beyond the facts that:
A) My consciousness exists, and
B) There are many things I do not and cannot know.

 

[Zarathustra]

Third time:

I used to think I knew everything; then I thought I knew everything when I thought no one knew anything; now I think that I know something since I know that no one knows whether they know anything, even if they know something.

- Zarathustra, Myspace profile

 

[simulatedworld]

Third time:

I used to think I knew everything; then I thought I knew everything when I thought no one knew anything; now I think that I know something since I know that no one knows whether they know anything, even if they know something.

- Zarathustra, Myspace profile

Is your point in repeatedly quoting this that you can know with absolute certainty that no one can be absolutely certain of anything (other than this one piece of knowledge)?

 

[Zarathustra]

Unfortunately, this lack of certainty prevents me from knowing any absolute truth beyond the facts that:
A) My consciousness exists, and
B) There are many things I do not and cannot know.

That all depends on your definition of "absolute".

Read about Aristotle's four causes, and then read that Heidegger essay I recommended.

Or the other way around, maybe...

 

[Zarathustra]

Is your point in repeatedly quoting this that you can know with absolute certainty that no one can be absolutely certain of anything (other than this one piece of knowledge)?

That, and that at the same time they indeed might know things.

 

[Zarathustra]

Which should lead me to prompt you to read Wittgenstein's "On Certainty".

 

[simulatedworld]

That, and that at the same time they indeed might know things.

And by that, do you mean that some things people believe may actually constitute absolute truth, but that there is no way those people could know for sure whether or not their beliefs constitute absolute truth?

 

[Zarathustra]

And by that, do you mean that some things people believe may actually constitute absolute truth, but that there is no way those people could know for sure whether or not their beliefs constitute absolute truth?

Precisely.

How'd you know that?!?

 

[Zarathustra]

p.s. This whole issue of "absolute" truth vs other kinds of truth is, imo, well observed through Aristotle's four causes.

And that Heidegger essay.

Check em out.