It happens to be factual. And it applies to you too. You can argue from adverse consequences, but that happens to be the truth. The trick is not to blind yourself with fallacies but to grasp what is in fact the case.Karpel Tunnel wrote: ↑July 21st, 2018, 6:07 amI don't think that first sentence makes much sense, it would undermine your position, for example.
Maybe you are just making a childish objection here?If you are not experiencing the real, then how could you possibly draw conclusions (about what other people are experiencing, for example.). I am not even sure what it means to say one is not experiencing the real. One's perceptions are part of reality.
The only "reality" you can have is the one you are continually constructing inside your head. I'm not pretending there is not an external world. I'm simply saying we cannot have direct access to that noumenal reality. We only have the world of phenomena that sensation provides us.
If you think otherwise you are just fooling yourself - but not to worry most people do that simply because they are naive enough to never have thought it through.
It's like believing that the the sun rises.
Most people who encounter philosophy know that its the world turning that makes the sun appear to rise.
That sum just keeps on rising every morning, eh?
I do understand that you are probably focusing on things like 'when we look at a tree we are actually experiencing interpretatins of the brain based on sensory impressions, and what we see is not direct experiencing' etc. subject perception object type stuff.
But experience is real or the word real has no meaning. It just may not be the real we think it is.