Is it possible for the human mind to access reality?

Use this philosophy forum to discuss and debate general philosophy topics that don't fit into one of the other categories.

This forum is NOT for factual, informational or scientific questions about philosophy (e.g. "What year was Socrates born?"). Those kind of questions can be asked in the off-topic section.
Alias
Posts: 3119
Joined: November 26th, 2011, 8:10 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Terry Pratchett

Re: Is it possible for the human mind to access reality?

Post by Alias »

Hereandnow wrote:Alias:
Every living thing has access to reality. No organism can comprehend reality.
Unless you take reality to be an interpretative entity.
I suppose you could do that, but it would only land you in a paradox: If reality needs to be interpreted, how did anything evolve to the point of being able to interpret? If nothing was real before evolution reached conceptual consciousness, then reality must have come into existence at the moment of interpretation. Then, everything that's older than conscious life forms either became real at that moment, or continues to be unreal. The latter situation would be bad news for anyone standing on a planet, moon or asteroid.
And if you are trying use the word 'reality' to refer to something outside these, then your reference refers to nothing at all.
Or everything.
In either case, you can only have access to a teeny-tiny little smidgeon of it. Sad.
Those who can induce you to believe absurdities can induce you to commit atrocities. - Voltaire
User avatar
Hereandnow
Posts: 2837
Joined: July 11th, 2012, 9:16 pm
Favorite Philosopher: the moon and the stars

Re: Is it possible for the human mind to access reality?

Post by Hereandnow »

Alias:
I suppose you could do that, but it would only land you in a paradox: If reality needs to be interpreted, how did anything evolve to the point of being able to interpret? If nothing was real before evolution reached conceptual consciousness, then reality must have come into existence at the moment of interpretation. Then, everything that's older than conscious life forms either became real at that moment, or continues to be unreal. The latter situation would be bad news for anyone standing on a planet, moon or asteroid.
No, I mean it strictly as I said it: IF you take reality as an interpretative entity, then yes, there was nothing real prior to evolution. Indeed, it makes no sense to speak of any condition in which there is no speech at all. It's like talking about rock formations at the moment at the big bang: there were none.
User avatar
Burning ghost
Posts: 3065
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: Is it possible for the human mind to access reality?

Post by Burning ghost »

And my friend this is the very point where phenomenology squeezes in to fill the paradox.

The "reality" of any "object" it taken as "real". The Jabberwocky is real, it exists. Where the confusion in philosophy lies is due to physical sciences holding sway over "objects" and remaining necessarily ignorant of the "object" as a "thought" and resting only on the ideal of substance, which is but a thought.

People often say if it quacks like a duck and looks like a duck then it is a duck. This is the purposeful framing of the scientific view. If X does Y and Z I will call "duck". Only science takes things on witjh the use of infinite measure.

Of course if you take these steps too far you'll end up falling prey to mysticism and believing the illusion you reveal as the reality, rather than a stage of reality. The illusion is merely a scientific item we reveal by investigation. Illusion is always a real illusion, it is a reality if illusion not an illusion of an illusion of an illusion ... that is merely mysticism getting caught up in language.

Reality is that which I experience "as". There is no "beyond" and language may offer up the delusion of there being "otherness" by way of over extension of terms. The overextension is also necessary for knowing because the "unknown" is precisely the knowable, meaning we can only frame that which is recognized as partly intangible.

To attempt a danagerous analogy, as all analogies are, we can attempt to measure space or time, this is merely a procedure of scientific investigation. It is no more or less an illusion of anything else. We imagine an item of difference and make it "unknown" because the "difference" in "unknown". Often the complexity of these proposed "differences" lead to misapplication. I cannot measure empty space, nor silence without items of difference (in these cases objects and sounds - which are essential just objects of "difference" themselves. A sound is no less an "object" than a "stone" is. "Object" is not, as yet, measured on a scale of "How much objectness", there is no unit of "object".)

Is it possible for the human mind to access reality?

My reply is simply to say in what way is this question supposed to make enough sense for me to answer? To which I have attempted above in regards the the rest of the OP and the replies given to date.

-- Updated July 24th, 2017, 4:41 am to add the following --

The problems of ambiguity:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6cake3bwnY
AKA badgerjelly
User avatar
Hereandnow
Posts: 2837
Joined: July 11th, 2012, 9:16 pm
Favorite Philosopher: the moon and the stars

Re: Is it possible for the human mind to access reality?

Post by Hereandnow »

Burning Ghost:
Of course if you take these steps too far you'll end up falling prey to mysticism and believing the illusion you reveal as the reality, rather than a stage of reality. The illusion is merely a scientific item we reveal by investigation. Illusion is always a real illusion, it is a reality if illusion not an illusion of an illusion of an illusion ... that is merely mysticism getting caught up in language.
Then you said:

Reality is that which I experience "as". There is no "beyond" and language may offer up the delusion of there being "otherness" by way of over extension of terms. The overextension is also necessary for knowing because the "unknown" is precisely the knowable, meaning we can only frame that which is recognized as partly intangible.
Please read these for me closely and tell me how to make sense of it. Looks like contradictions afoot. Are you a mystic?
Alias
Posts: 3119
Joined: November 26th, 2011, 8:10 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Terry Pratchett

Re: Is it possible for the human mind to access reality?

Post by Alias »

Hereandnow wrote: IF you take reality as an interpretative entity, then yes, there was nothing real prior to evolution.
Which, obviously I do not, because it would be silly. I'm okay with words as they are, with definitions.
Those who can induce you to believe absurdities can induce you to commit atrocities. - Voltaire
User avatar
Hereandnow
Posts: 2837
Joined: July 11th, 2012, 9:16 pm
Favorite Philosopher: the moon and the stars

Re: Is it possible for the human mind to access reality?

Post by Hereandnow »

Not as silly as it sounds. Hard not to go into this at length, but you would have step completely out of assumptions that comprise your thinking on this. How about this: If you can't explain AT ALL how something is the case, then where is the warrant for believing it? Where, in all of your thoughts about the world does belief apply so loosely? Nowhere.

Tell me, and if you don't take it seriously, then just walk away, but otherwise, tell me, how does anything out there get in here? You think you know the world "out there", so by all means lay out this, the simplest expression of the way this works.
User avatar
Burning ghost
Posts: 3065
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: Is it possible for the human mind to access reality?

Post by Burning ghost »

Hereandnow -

Not mysticism, more or less a pedant! :P

Paradox and contradiction is quite often a simple misapplication of language.

In simpler terms my experience as it is now is immanent. This is my reality and the only possible reality there is for me. To say this is contrary in and of itself because it is framing my real experience now "as if" there are "other" possibilities when I am saying that there are no other "possibles" and I am only able to experience as I am now.

In a vague colloquial way it makes perfect sense to say my experience of reality is the only reality I can experience, but to look deeper and to understand the "only" in terming of meaning, we know the meaning of "only" ONLY in contrast to other items. It is a very hard thing to come to terms with. What I am saying is that we cannot help but fall under the spell of "language", and that language is the only thing that possesses "meaning".

I promise you, I am not a mystic ... well on occasion I may be for certain purposes of exploration and creativity (usually in regard to art, play and freeing up possibly rigid thoughts!)

We can do many different semantic dances. I was referring to "illusion" as having meaning by way of contrasting subjective experiences to "see" beyond the representation given to sensibility. I "see" a rainbow over there and it is a real experience. Yet I also come to understand this experience as being an "illusion". Illusion or not the experience is one I experience quite obviously. What mystics do is overextend this principle and frame ALL experience as "illusionary" thus dissolving the meaning of "reality".

The difficulty you see in my stumbling words is simply due to the very fact that I am attempting to say something about language with language. It is necessarily not going to be able to frame itself and so I am left making clumsy analogies and metaphors to express the general thought.

Surely you can see the ridiculousness of the OP title? I experience what I call "reality" all the time. If not then I am assuming that what I experience is not reality and that reality is beyond my capacities, and if so what the hell am I actually talking about if not NOTHING at all? It is a non-question. Much like if I said to you take one banana and add three fish and you'll get half-past two in the morning. The structure may possess all the hallmarks of containing meaning and definitions, but it does not. The person of a more mystical nature would approach such a formula as possessing all the truths of the universe and dig out any fantasy they could muster (which is kind of useful as an investigation of creativity as I have already described, but no real "meaning" is present.)

To look at your own creativity you can quite easily "make up" a great number of different things. How you would go about such a task is worth looking at I think. The issue is falling prey to believing it as something other than a mystical exploration of creativity.

We encounter a great many contradictions in philosophical investigations because they are necessarily contrary. We have ideas of physicalism, materialism and such. These are merely frames of language with which to explore experience, and they are experiences because we give them itemization (we "name" them as X or Y.)

I guess in more physicalistic terms (which today is the standard norm) all we experience is in our heads. The "external" experience does not exist it is merely represented through appearances "as". We then suffer the issue of trying to frame this with "ifs" and "buts" such as "But ... surely if you believe that then you are viewing the world as if it does not exist, and taking up solipsism?" What I am clumsily trying to say is not that we should take up solipsism, but that it may be worth understanding the idea of solipsism as being framed in language rather than in experience. It is a necessary illusion to explore, but unfortunately not an illusion we can frame with the idea of physicalism. We can readily explore the illusion of a rainbow and how it appears to be "there", but we have no "position" from which to explore the appearance of either solipsism or physicalism. Instead we revert to playing language games and creating different concepts to better console ourselves with a sense of understanding and meaning.

Items like pragmatism and objectivity are merely facets cleaved apart to assemble a certain perspective of reality, a reality ever presently immediate not extraneously "other". Through rational means we accept the existence of each other, even though we can question the reality of the experience of other people it is still "reality" we are questioning, not non-reality. We cannot question what we cannot question. It is no "what" I simply don't question because there is no item to attach a question to. The question must necessarily frame an item. No item framed means no question to attach to anything.

The over running point is that language is tricksy! :)
AKA badgerjelly
User avatar
Hereandnow
Posts: 2837
Joined: July 11th, 2012, 9:16 pm
Favorite Philosopher: the moon and the stars

Re: Is it possible for the human mind to access reality?

Post by Hereandnow »

Burning Ghost:
In a vague colloquial way it makes perfect sense to say my experience of reality is the only reality I can experience, but to look deeper and to understand the "only" in terming of meaning, we know the meaning of "only" ONLY in contrast to other items. It is a very hard thing to come to terms with. What I am saying is that we cannot help but fall under the spell of "language", and that language is the only thing that possesses "meaning".
So far, you are not being a mere pedant at ll. I don't know what you've read, and i do not want to just drop names, but if this is the direction of your thinking, you are deep in deconstruction. This is what they do: undo pervasive priorities by revealing their dependence on their lessors. Men are not stand alone better than anyone because nothing is stand alone meaningful. I am guessing you've read Derrida? I have read some, but mostly Rorty. Here and there of others. But these guys owe their thoughts to Heidegger and Wittgenstein.



We can do many different semantic dances. I was referring to "illusion" as having meaning by way of contrasting subjective experiences to "see" beyond the representation given to sensibility. I "see" a rainbow over there and it is a real experience. Yet I also come to understand this experience as being an "illusion". Illusion or not the experience is one I experience quite obviously. What mystics do is overextend this principle and frame ALL experience as "illusionary" thus dissolving the meaning of "reality".
Mystics really should keep their mouths shut, unless they can discipline their thoughts better. The best I ever read on the subject of mysticism (not the history of mysticism) is Anthony Steinboch's Phenomenology and Mysticism.

The difficulty you see in my stumbling words is simply due to the very fact that I am attempting to say something about language with language. It is necessarily not going to be able to frame itself and so I am left making clumsy analogies and metaphors to express the general thought.
Then you are in Wittgenstein's world. What yo call clumsy, he called nonsense. It is a way to "show the fly the wy out of the fly bottle. His Tractatus is not unlike an extended Zen koan. I take issue with this. See next comments.

Surely you can see the ridiculousness of the OP title? I experience what I call "reality" all the time. If not then I am assuming that what I experience is not reality and that reality is beyond my capacities, and if so what the hell am I actually talking about if not NOTHING at all? It is a non-question. Much like if I said to you take one banana and add three fish and you'll get half-past two in the morning. The structure may possess all the hallmarks of containing meaning and definitions, but it does not. The person of a more mystical nature would approach such a formula as possessing all the truths of the universe and dig out any fantasy they could muster (which is kind of useful as an investigation of creativity as I have already described, but no real "meaning" is present.)
I think it is foolish to say you are not experiencing reality. An oxymoron, as you say (experience IS reality). But what the question should ask is: is it possible for a proposition that has a component of absoluteness to have its meanings confirmed in a individual's reality? Ethical statements, for example, I hold are both absolute, or have at their basis a component of absoluteness, and contingently embedded. What i mean by this is that "One should not cause suffering," for example, both has a finite situation but also is grounded outside of this situation.


I guess in more physicalistic terms (which today is the standard norm) all we experience is in our heads. The "external" experience does not exist it is merely represented through appearances "as". We then suffer the issue of trying to frame this with "ifs" and "buts" such as "But ... surely if you believe that then you are viewing the world as if it does not exist, and taking up solipsism?" What I am clumsily trying to say is not that we should take up solipsism, but that it may be worth understanding the idea of solipsism as being framed in language rather than in experience. It is a necessary illusion to explore, but unfortunately not an illusion we can frame with the idea of physicalism. We can readily explore the illusion of a rainbow and how it appears to be "there", but we have no "position" from which to explore the appearance of either solipsism or physicalism. Instead we revert to playing language games and creating different concepts to better console ourselves with a sense of understanding and meaning.
I essentially agree with this, though not in so many words. Idealists don't hold that confirmation of what is real only extends are far as the self, the egoic center. That is a foolish proposition.
Items like pragmatism and objectivity are merely facets cleaved apart to assemble a certain perspective of reality, a reality ever presently immediate not extraneously "other". Through rational means we accept the existence of each other, even though we can question the reality of the experience of other people it is still "reality" we are questioning, not non-reality. We cannot question what we cannot question. It is no "what" I simply don't question because there is no item to attach a question to. The question must necessarily frame an item. No item framed means no question to attach to anything.
Actually, pragmatists would agree, though it is not to say that there is nothing to philosophical ontology. Put aside Rorty; if you want to know what he is about, and it is right up your alley, read Contingency, Irony and Solidarity, which was my bible for a while; then the Mirror of Nature. I, for one, don't usually read what others tell me to read, but you would like this. For all I know you've read it.

On the other hand: I take Emanuel Levinas very seriously. He taught me that since we are bound to, if you will, the sentential structures of finitude, the meanings that language only can actually produce, then you have to face the "extraneous other" as you put it. For in, and not to be too poetical on this, the horizon of you local possibilities, you have to acknowledge the other, the difference of what is presence and what is language (and culture and whatever comprises the dynamics of knowing). If would be a far different world if our understanding permitted no intimations of Otherness. But it does. This is NOT a stand alone world (my terms in play here). The world, your world, is not stand alone.
User avatar
Atreyu
Posts: 1737
Joined: June 17th, 2014, 3:11 am
Favorite Philosopher: P.D. Ouspensky
Location: Orlando, FL

Re: Is it possible for the human mind to access reality?

Post by Atreyu »

Obviously, to answer the question we have to define 'reality'. And it's clear that we imagine an 'objective reality' - the world as it actually is irrespective of the human experience - and 'subjective reality' - the world as it is experienced and cognized by the human mind.

And the answer is that, by definition, the human mind can only access 'subjective reality'. It cannot experience the world as it would exist if it did not....
User avatar
Hereandnow
Posts: 2837
Joined: July 11th, 2012, 9:16 pm
Favorite Philosopher: the moon and the stars

Re: Is it possible for the human mind to access reality?

Post by Hereandnow »

Gertie:
Well you raised the issue of atheism/theology, and in the religion forum, so I've been trying to address the concept of 'objective morality' from that angle, to show the problems associated with the claim I understood you to be making, that 'objective morality' relies on the existence of some kind of god. (Tho you still haven't defined what kind of god, or what you mean by 'objective'? Which would be helpful).
I don't think about god until I know what underlies the belief that is meaningful, substantive. Why is there a call for god to be there at all? Go here and you begin inquiry at a point that is deserving of attention. So forget god, look rather at the world. This is what science does. Certainly the most salient feature of the world is value. I argue this all over these posts and it's a kind of missionary need I have to bring this idea center stage: What does it mean to care about things? I do believe this is fundamental to one's "access to reality" (must respect the OP, and I hope to go into this).
If you simply want to discuss the nature of suffering, then as I say it's an understood part of the human reward system. The mystery lies with conscious experience itself, in all its forms, dramatic and mundane. Conscious experience encompasses suffering, well-being, memory, reason, hunger, colour, sound, every experience you have. The evolved role of the human reward system as a function of consciousness (ouch fire hurts, I won't stick my hand in a bunsen burner again, it feels bad!) isn't a mystery, the mystery is consciousness itself. All of it, from love to hate to the taste of a tomato sandwich.
I beg to differ. The mystery lies with Heidegger, I'm afraid. Sorry for name dropping, but it is a matter what he calls presence at hand. When I refer to suffering apart from the contexts that it be found in, I am pointing to presence in the world,and presence is not wht we know at all. It's like a physicist's inability to say what a force is. Can't do it because science is clueless on this. Force is a presence: it's just there, at hand, if you will, and it is not to be part of any scientist's reduction. It is intuitively there, like the the orangeness of this orange, apart from the language we put to it.
Thus, the nature of suffering is not to be understood,like a force or material substance is not to be understood. Fitting suffering into context, as playing a role in a reward/deterrence system, is only to talk about something else entirely, like talking about earth's escape velocity puts force into context. All of the world's "givens" are mysteries.
But you're picking out one aspect of conscious experience as special (and something to do with god it seems), looking at it in an unnecessarily abstracted way when we have much better empirical approaches which I've outlined, and coming to the conclusion, somehow, that morality is objective.
I want to put attention on this dimension of experience called value, yes; and examine it to reveal its nature as such. First, it makes the world a moral place, value does. If atms could not get together and make valuative experiences this world would not be a moral place. It would be a pointless nil, and no one would care, and people would be no more important that the sulfuric slim that sits at the bottom of some bog. Value is the game changer for world ontology. It makes stuff into value.
How about if I have no feeling in my arm, owing to a fault in my nervous system, is sticking my arm in fire no longer bad?

Or what about the taste of a tomato sandwich? It is qualiatively different from the taste of a cheese sandwich, or remembering the taste, or feeling hungry, or seeing a tomato and wanting to eat it, etc. Why aren't you equally puzzled about that? How about if I loathe the taste of a tomato sandwich? Is the taste of a tomato sandwich an 'absolute moral bad'?
I am puzzled about all value, which is the point. But it is a puzzling that is about the bare givens of the world. To see my position you probably have to put aside your knowledge of science and any hierarchy of values and the way all that works. Again, we did not invent value. It's a given.
Evolution explains this stuff, it makes sense that we are the way we are, that pain feels bad.
Evolution explains how it got here, but cannot begin to say what it is, any more than a physicist can say what the color yellow is.

And maybe it's me, but you seem to have shifted from god-reliant objective morality, and I'm struggling to make out what you're actually claiming.

Perhaps you could just lay out exactly what your claim is, define your terms, and show your argument, as clearly as you can? Then we'll know we're all talking about the same thing.
It is that value is the foundation of religion: This world is not morally defensible AS SUCH, as the world, because it causes, or IS suffering. Evolutionists simply assume suffering and fit in into theory. They do not take on the matter of what it is doing here at all.

As to access to reality: value in Being IS reality. It is the most salient component of our Being here, and therefore of Being in the world. we need to put aside fictions like material substance which are simply free of meaning and pin our thoughts about reality on it.
User avatar
Burning ghost
Posts: 3065
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: Is it possible for the human mind to access reality?

Post by Burning ghost »

Hereandnow -

I was referring mainly to the "ONLY" of the sentence. Only assumes otherness in its absence. This is an interesting facet of language and antonyms. Different antonyms exist and often we confuse them in speech. "Wife" only means something relative to "husband", yet we use other antonyms differently such as with "rich" and "poor" (where absence of one does not assume the other), or with "hot" and "cold" differing from "left and right" because there are degrees of heat but not degrees of leftness or rightness.

If we then look at the concept of "reality" I am understanding it to mean a number of different things given the context it is framed in. The OP seems to be using a very "objective" or "physical" ideology to frame the question in.

On top of this we have a whole cultural tradition regarding "truth". The reality (let us just say we mean "experience" by this term for now) is held up to scrutiny. That is how I define "reality". It is that which I possess in a field of questioning, an item of investigation. What I am guessing the OP is trying to reveal is that there is a "reality" behind the questioning. If there is then we cannot bring it into question because as soon as we do we reveal only its presupposed shadow. The appearance (or more technically, the phenomenon) is all we have as reality. From such items of investigation we can come to understand the world and relate certain structures to other structures.

I guess Heidegger was clumsily attempting to address the "proposition" of self as "dasein". When I first read B&T I kind of regarded the whole thing as an attempt to frame the concept of "dasein". I had a vague understanding of it back then. When I returned to it after reading other stuff I simply could see any attempt to define "dasein". Like both Derrida and Wittgenstein I generally view them as taking the principles of Husserlian phenomenology and using it almost purely in terms of linguistics. I have not read much of Derrida at all, just a few chapters here and there.

I am more interested in "subjectivity" so Husserl tends to be the one I look to for terms to better frame my ideas. Heidegger has been useful too but his terms are merely parallel to Husserls and don't really vary a great deal from Husserl other than to be more specifically driven toward something where Husserl was necessarily "vague" and wary of "conclusions". Of course like everyone I am applying my own bias and view to Husserl and the above because I cannot really help it. This subjective quality of humans is precisely what intrigues me.

To then take this further and look more closely at the concept of "subjectivity" and antonyms we reveal another problem. For the "reality" (as I defined above) is wholly incompatible with antonyms. Foolish we may say "non-reality" but that is a mere delusion much like saying "non-temperature".

"reality" is the all pervading arena of everything where temperature is a term applied merely to all pervading heat ... and if we take in further still and apply physics then we are talking about entropy in regard to the history of all physical phenomenon. In the objective sense of viewing the world the reality is "entropy" and in the subjective sense of viewing the world, which necessarily contains the physical "view", "reality" is as meaningful as "entropy".

By this I am simply saying the term "reality" is only understood as a fragmented idea. There are different kind of reality to refer to by which we essentially mean different perspectives, different heuristics, different languages and even different experiences. We cannot bring all of these into one objective understanding and so bounce them off each other until they make a good enough pattern to establish an agreed upon "law" or "rule" with which to explore experience further.

You are right, I could use less words. This is something Kant pointed out quite nicely in his Critic of Pure Reason. To paraphrase, "in trying to be precise we often end up being exact opposite". I guess the balance for the reader varies given their understanding of the delicacy of the English language, and of language in general.

The best thing I got from Heidegger was the realization that a lot of what I wrote at the time was a whole lot more solid than the gibberish he wrote! haha! I could barely believe what I was reading and often found myself at the end of a chapter and finding I could have saved 30 minutes by skipping the whole chapter and simply reading the last paragraph!! Since then I understand he was simply attempting to make sure the reader was not going astray ... sadly I am not sure he succeeded in doing anything but lead the reader further astray!! Of course I may be wrong, and a great number of people may have found his writing style just right for them. THAT is what interests me.

As for Derrida I found it hysterical to read his 30+ pages of analysis of Husserl's essay on "The Origin of Geometry", which was, although vague, a lot more precise than Derrida's mostly pointless "rant". It is extremely hard to find the Goldilocks point of being precise enough and vague enough. It is the art of the mystic to take the reader into ambiguity and leave them feeling filled with knowledge, and they may just open the reader to some unique idea (this is why I appreciate mysticism to a degree), and in the opposite way the utterly precise and rigid definition could lead, quite obviously, to dogmatism (something I accused a scientist of once and quite ironically they refused to believe the term "dogmatic" could be applied to a scientist! This is an example of the unwillingness ... haha! ... of some people to accept a colloquial term being brought up on a very particular technical use of language.)

I don't think I've ever read anything of Rorty? I have seen his name flung around before though.

I generally don't advocate people defending other philosophers or trying to interpret their words to fit their means. I much prefer people to say what they think as best they can and to use the language and terminology of other philosophers by making it clear how they understand this or that term. I think there are enough terms in philosophical jargon that allow us to understand each other enough in a vaguely universal way. As for the term "Dasein", if Heidegger himself couldn't be bothered to precisely define "dasein" I simply won't give it any gravitas until someone explains it better to me and show me where he said it meant X. From my reading of Heidegger seems to have purposely been as evasive as possible. Speaking German would probably help and I can get the idea of irony from saying "being-there" in reference to the "self" "thrown" into "the world". But still, I am not that taken with his work other than in its use in revealing with good examples what Husserl was talking about in terms of "object". The dog barking is not a sound, it is the sound "of something". Wittgenstein then goes onto say pretty much the same thing only at "distanced" in lingual terms, and from there Derrida dug deeper into more anthropological ideas regarding humanity and its use of pictograms and symbolism.
AKA badgerjelly
User avatar
-1-
Posts: 878
Joined: December 1st, 2016, 2:23 am

Re: Is it possible for the human mind to access reality?

Post by -1- »

Synthesis wrote:I would like to suggest that it is not possible for the human mind to access reality
I believe in the tri-partheid model of man's ability to accurately know reality.

We either access reality or we don't, and our minds are sensing it or not; but there is no assurance of either, and the mind has no tools to test its model's approximation to the true reality.

IN other words, we live in our own little worlds, and it is a model by our minds; it may or may not have been influenced by reality in its development of the model; but we have a sense that it is a reflection or direct sensing of reality. Whether we sense reality or not, is a question we can't decide. But it does not exclude the possibility that what we sense is actually the actual reality.

-- Updated 2017 July 26th, 4:14 am to add the following --
Burning ghost wrote:You are right, I could use less words. This is something Kant pointed out quite nicely in his Critic of Pure Reason.
Wow! to have been alluded to personally by Kant himself!! Ya da man, BG!

I have only been named and commented on by Hypheon, Ampersandameter and Quotationmarcus.
This search engine is powered by Hunger, Thirst, and a desperate need to Mate.
User avatar
Burning ghost
Posts: 3065
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: Is it possible for the human mind to access reality?

Post by Burning ghost »

HAHA!! XD

I did notice that once I writ it, but left it unchanged. Glad you saw the humour in it like I did!
AKA badgerjelly
User avatar
-1-
Posts: 878
Joined: December 1st, 2016, 2:23 am

Re: Is it possible for the human mind to access reality?

Post by -1- »

Burning ghost wrote:HAHA!! XD

I did notice that once I writ it, but left it unchanged. Glad you saw the humour in it like I did!
"Humour is the absolute truth", wrote Frigyes Karinthy. It is actually a false proposition; in my opinion (not to force it on others) humour is the best form of entertainment; and the best form to serve up truth in. If someone can tell me a joke that has weight and truth and wisdom in it, I value it much higher than a joke without weight, or a truth or expression of wisdom without being humorous.

The example above is just plain splitting hairs; I don't think my joke carried any weight or wisdom.
This search engine is powered by Hunger, Thirst, and a desperate need to Mate.
User avatar
Burning ghost
Posts: 3065
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: Is it possible for the human mind to access reality?

Post by Burning ghost »

Says he who doesn't read? (Self mockery is also a lot of fun ... although that is even more of an obscure and self-mocking joke than it needs to be!)

At least I am smiling at my own pretentious nonsense! If others wish to scowl so be it haha!!
AKA badgerjelly
Post Reply

Return to “General Philosophy”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021