How can a metaphysical solipsist...
Moderators: Spinozasgalt, reddix
Re: Re: How can a metaphysical solipsist...
#141 
by GrahamH » Jan 22, 2012 11:19 am
jamest wrote:GrahamH wrote:James, the world its i'm our heads, and our heads are of the world. No "beaming"its required, only growth in fertile "ground".jamest wrote:That last comment made me laugh.
Anyway, you don't seem to understand my position. I actually agree that we learn from experience, but I contend that knowledge of the world is something that we construct/create, using each level of construction as the basis for further construction/creativity. You, on the other hand, appear to think that 'knowledge of the world' is something that is beamed straight into our heads, by the world.
The key to understanding this its to realise that "we are the world".
What? That's like something I might say.
If you said such a thing then the meaning would be entirely opposite, since you don't believe heads and worlds actually exist or have any causal relationship. I literally mean our heads are worldly things, and that abstractions of the patterns of the world literally grow into our brains. Where you think "beaming" of ideas would be required is precisely because you imagine a gulf between mind and world. You might as well suppose that the meanderings of a river must be "beamed" to the water and mud, so that they all fit together and flow on that path. A conceptual meander in a separated "mind" is entirely superfluous. The relationship between the parts that defines the river is in and of itself. So too with meaning and world and head.
If it is something you are likely to say I eagerly look forward to you coming to your senses.
Last edited by GrahamH on Jan 22, 2012 1:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Why do you think that?
- GrahamH
- Posts: 4487
Re: How can a metaphysical solipsist...
#142 by SpeedOfSound » Jan 22, 2012 1:06 pm
jamest wrote:SpeedOfSound wrote:jamest wrote:The key to understanding this is to acknowledge that we do not see the world as it is. By now, this is well established in these parts (the observation of a thing is not that thing itself).
Excellent. Say it often enough and you 'establish' it. Gotta love the modern apes.
It's just fuckin' basic philosophy, dear Sir. The existence of X is not contingent upon it being observed by Y; otherwise X would be Y, not X.
... In otherwise words, the reality of X itself lies beyond the observation of it, by Y.
This is not difficult to understand, really. It's a basic notion which was understood several hundred years before even Christ presumably existed, by the caveman known as Plato. It's time to shuffle your head, dude. Mix up those thoughts of yours and see the light.
If you have the balls start a thread with this simple, and I do mean SIMPLE, idea and see if you can support it.
Lycan- "I will not claim, here or ever, to 'explain consciousness'. For that would be to explain each of any number of different things, a set of Herculean empirical and philosophical tasks." SoS-"Woosie!!"
-
SpeedOfSound - RS Donator
- Posts: 13296
- Age: 61
Re: How can a metaphysical solipsist...
#143 by Positron » Jan 25, 2012 7:38 pm
jamest wrote:I don't need to know what Kant had for breakfast on Wednesdays to know that he distinguished between experience (phenomena) and reality (noumena).
No, Kant did not distinguish between experience and reality, he would not have made such a careless mistake.
According to Kant the phenomenon is something known via experience and the noumenon is something cogitated by the understanding alone - thus they are epistemic categories and not ontological categories.
- Positron
- Posts: 217
Who is online
Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest