Thamior, yes, I agree with you. ‘Subjective’ experiences cannot yield ‘objective’ truths.ThamiorTheThinker wrote:Do any of you agree with Nietzsche? Do any of you think that the nature of consciousness, physical stimuli and our senses are not actually sufficient to inform us about reality? I, for one, think that he was onto something in his writings. Of course our intellect appears to be clever and reflective of reality - of course our science and philosophy seem to be capable of progressing us toward truth. However, it could be the case that senses do nothing but create "images" of reality, and those "images" or "forms", as he put it, are what we speak of and are referring to when we speak of the universe.
We can only perceive ‘perceptions’, …not the ‘objects’ themselves that supposedly cause these perceptions. These objects (that cause the perceptions that we perceive) exist only as 'imaginations', ..and therefore can only be known through imagination, and pure speculation, ...and not with any certainty, or truth at all.
Since we are limited by (i.e. cannot perceive beyond) our perceptions/subjective experiences, we can never know if the object that we imagine, is actually real, or is a mirage, an illusion, a hallucination, a dream, or even exists at all. Therefore we cannot rely, nor trust, our subjective experiences to tell us the objective truths!
So, the real question should be, …is there a means of knowing truth ‘without’ the use of, and independent of, our non-trustworthy subjective experiences? In other words, can something be known as truth (i.e. with certainty)?ThamiorTheThinker wrote:His writing actually reminds me a bit of Plato's Allegory of the Cave, to the degree that it doubts our very capacity to even know what truth is.
I think YES. ...what say you?