- #36
Jimmy Snyder
- 1,127
- 20
This discussion is going on too long. I hope you people figure out whether I exist or not before Congress decides whether the US economy exists or not.
DaveC426913 said:There is nothing to prove wrong here. You've merely expressed an opinion with no defense.
Opinion: "I believe this. I give no defense, and thus expect no one else to believe it."
"How nice for you."
I really was interested in how it was that you saw no value in the question, because it would help define where the question was lacking, but your responses simply reiterate the same content-free - and increasingly sarcastic - assertion. Without elaboration, I'm afraid your assertion is a dead-end, and it's now distracting from the discussion.
DaveC426913 said:Plato too had something to say on the subject in his Cave allegory. What you perceive is your reality. It is real, again, regardless of what scaffolding it might be built on.
The question then becomes one of 'is there an objective reality?'
Char. Limit said:I just drew a triangle. It's very nice, has three sides and all. I think it's scalene. But it definitely exists.
Now the ideal circle, I don't believe that exists in real life. I do believe simple ideal polygons (like the triangle and the quadrangle) exist.
Triangles do not have to have perfectly straight or infinitely thin lines.CJames said:Why is that? Do you believe in perfectly straight lines? Do you believe in lines that are infinitely thin? I don't, therefore I don't believe triangles really exist, although they help me understand reality.
No, but I expect it is possible to have a discussion about it, a part of which would involve attempting to define it.wuliheron said:You expect people to determine whether reality is objective or not without so much as definition of the word...
DaveC426913 said:I'll respond to the parts of your posts that are attempts to have a dialogue. I think that's fair.
No, but I expect it is possible to have a discussion about it, a part of which would involve attempting to define it.
wuliheron said:Again, I hear no one attempting to define the word.
How does that follow? If we don't know X now, then we will never know X, and there's no point in studying it?wuliheron said:If you cannot provide a definition, nobody here is willing to provide a definition, and even the philosophers you have cited failed to agree on a definition then I seriously doubt it will ever lead anywhere.
I'm lost, what have you defined?DaveC426913 said:Then go back and read some of the posts where people are attempting to define it.
I grant that attempting to define it is a long way from actually defining it such that everyone agrees, but that's what discussion is about.
...attempting to define...Evo said:I'm lost, what have you defined?
And are you agreeing that things that are *real* per the definition exist, or the counterpoint that nothing exists?DaveC426913 said:...attempting to define...
One working definition is that reality is what you perceive with your senses (as opposed to what you interpret with your mind). It is definitely flawed, but it's a talking point.
Evo said:And are you agreeing that things that are *real* per the definition exist, or the counterpoint that nothing exists?
I just don't see a discussion of real vs not real here. Not that there would be any value in such a discussion, it's nothing more than spewing personal opinions. And if you think you're not real, then what is there to argue about? You're not real, right?DaveC426913 said:At the moment, I'm simply refuting the claim that no one is attempting to work on a definition. wuliheron seems to be basing his arguments on that falsehood and on argument fallacies, such as: since philosophers haven't agreed on it, it can't be done.
It is a shame that I have been unable to prevent this discussion from devolving into argument and derisive sarcasm. While it may have led somewhere, it's been soiled badly. Perhaps it should be closed.