Truth is a complete fiction( So is reality).

[sketchtrack]

Maybe there is a thing called reality. I just don t think we need it, or have any connection with it. The question " What is reality?" seems to me to be just a bad thing to ask.

If I can make the agreement that I exist, then I can believe that I am part of reality because reality is the collection of all things that exist.

 

[sketchtrack]

I think therefore I exist, I exist therefore there is a reality, I am part of that reality therefore what I think must be of that reality.

 

[ImmanuelKant]

If I can make the agreement that I exist, then I can believe that I am part of reality because reality is the collection of all things that exist.

The fact that you exist does not imply you can see, or there is something "outside" of you.
All you have are thoughts of reality outside yourself created in your imagination by being embedded in a culture where the word "reality" makes any sense.

 

[sketchtrack]

If I exist, then there is at least a reality that only includes me. If I am the only object of existence then I am reality, and my thought comes from me. Whether or not there is metaphysical proof of truth of knowledge is another issue to me.

 

[ImmanuelKant]

If I exist, then there is at least a reality that only includes me. If I am the only object of existence then I am reality, and my thought comes from me. Whether or not there is metaphysical proof of truth of knowledge is another issue to me.

This is not really related to the topic, but here it goes.

The is a general issue of personal identity in philosophy. It is generally agreed upon that you don t know you exist until you know language. You come to interpret your sensations, and form the notion of personal identity.


secondly, if you know you exist, and that you infer you are the only reality. This "reality" would not be mind-indepentent, and objective. This is not the conception of reality i am againist. It is unrelate to my thread.

 

[sketchtrack]

So you are more rationalist than empiricist, but you don't believe in truth which means you aren't a rationalist either. Rationalist think the truth can be found through deductive reasoning inside your mind. Empiricism says that all knowledge comes from outside, and you just have a bank of statistics of what's out there. You are saying that all we have are those statistics, but the statistics aren't real, and they only exist in our heads which is the source, so we have like self created statistics about a fictional world that we make agreements about.

 

[sketchtrack]

This is not really related to the topic, but here it goes.

The is a general issue of personal identity in philosophy. It is generally agreed upon that you don t know you exist until you know language. You come to interpret your sensations, and form the notion of personal identity.
.

I disagree with that, and I don't think it is generally agreed in the world of philosophy. For one, language cannot be had before thought as language is only an expression of thought. All words come from thought therefore, you can rule out the idea that language created self awareness.

 

[sketchtrack]

A symbol is only a tool used as an attempt to communicate thought. Once such effective tools are in place in a community, then thoughts can be more efficiently communicated person to person, and knowledge can be shared. If there is no communication then there is no reason for agreement, but surely communication is not limited to words. Awareness was not invented by words, rather I think it was only a very difficult sharade before word.

 

[ImmanuelKant]

So you are more rationalist than empiricist, but you don't believe in truth which means you aren't a rationalist either. Rationalist think the truth can be found through deductive reasoning inside your mind. Empiricism says that all knowledge comes from outside, and you just have a bank of statistics of what's out there. You are saying that all we have are those statistics, but the statistics aren't real, and they only exist in our heads which is the source, so we have like self created statistics about a fictional world that we make agreements about


I am nore in the tradition of kant , quine , rorty and wittgenstein.

 

[ImmanuelKant]

I disagree with that, and I don't think it is generally agreed in the world of philosophy. For one, language cannot be had before thought as language is only an expression of thought. All words come from thought therefore, you can rule out the idea that language created self awareness.

How do you interpret your sensation?

 

[ImmanuelKant]

A symbol is only a tool used as an attempt to communicate thought. Once such effective tools are in place in a community, then thoughts can be more efficiently communicated person to person, and knowledge can be shared. If there is no communication then there is no reason for agreement, but surely communication is not limited to words. Awareness was not invented by words, rather I think it was only a very difficult sharade before word.

See the work of latter wittgenstein, and W Quine.

 

[sketchtrack]

How do you interpret your sensation?

Your organs that sense things are mechanical in ways. Your eyes do nothing much other that focus light as to provide as information nothing much other than images of light. The same for all other senses. Your senses only give you truth to work with.

 

[Crosson]

My conclusion is that notions like truth and reality are really complete fictions.

What about sense impressions? Are they fictitious?

They are undefined primitive that we know in our gut, but don t know why.

But this does not show that truth and reality are fictions, since 'game' is, for example, an undefined primitive that we know in our gut (we know a game when we see one) but we cannot say why any particular example is a game.

The best explanation i can come up with is that these undefined primitive is there because it is useful to think they are there for our ancient ancestors, and by extention us.

There is no need to give a pseudo-evolutionist explanation, since primitive reactions are the ground level of knowledge (it is a mistake to ask 'why do we have this primitive reaction?').