Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Dec 30, 2020 4:27 pm
Atla wrote: ↑Wed Dec 30, 2020 3:39 pm
False dichotomies are Veritas's superpower. For example he divides all philosophy into two categories: realism = the world is totally independent of humans, anti-realism = the world is totally human-dependent.
It is a very odd experience to have someone telling me what my perception is with
complete certainty while saying that all perception, which includes his, is hallucination.
You have also misunderstood my views in many ways.
You still have a lot of philosophical knowledge to discover.
In the above you have generalized all hallucinations.
Note you need to differentiate between meta-hallucination and typical hallucination within their specific perspective.
Meta-Hallucination versus 'General' Hallucinations.
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=31536
I have never asserted my views with
complete certainty.
Now a Hindu could manage something like that, being a kind of Rationalist and thinking of what we call the world as Maya. But he's an empiricist. An empiricist who believes all perception is hallucination.
Now he does think that science taught us how to infer. But it should strike as very odd how well dolphins, in their pre-scientific cro-magnon phase of evolution manage to hunt fish so effectively in teams, with only hallucinations to go by.
To Hindus [advaita vedantists] Maya is a meta-hallucination and they are also empiricists.
All perceptions are meta-hallucination in an overall perspective, but at the empirical perspective they are real, i.e. relative objective reality.
In an encompassing perspective, dolphins would be acting within a meta-hallucination world, but their catching of fish would be empirically real via sonar or eye-sight.
He then will acknowledge that perception can guide you to right action, which might make him a pragmatist, but then he draws a very sharp distinction between what is useful and what is true. There is no overlap between these, let alone the more likely pragmatist either blackboxing that issue or conflating the two.
I given the example where illusions can be very useful for human survival, but they are not true in the real sense.
But he goes ever further beyond all the epistemological contradicitons by then saying that there is no objective reality. Yet, he goes on and on telling us what is going on in our perception. He doesn't seem to realize that we are not him. We are part of external reality. Unless he is a solipsist. Otherwise he is telling us what we are like, what we can and cannot perceive, what the world is like, since his arguments are based on how the world and brains are like (as someone astutely asked him 'what is a brain?')
I stated there is relative objective reality but no absolute objective reality.
I stated we are part and parcel of reality all-there-is, thus we are part of external reality and the whole of reality.
It's as bad as when a radical skeptic tells me I (and presumably he or she) can't know anything because the world is like X. How the hell would he or she know? they forget how they arrived at their position and fruit of the poison tree and all that. And that the rules they are saying apply to them also.
Everyone knows that defined this way, both those categories are extreme, irrational, crazy. But apparently it's impossible to make him understand something.
I think people are often in love with how something is on paper and forget that it applies to them also. It has to make sense they can draw the conclusions that are there is what is on the paper is true. If pure anti-realism is the case, and you believe it, it's an odd activity telling people about themselves. It's like your aren't listening to the implications of your own ideas.
Where did I state the rules or whatever [of this discussion] is on paper do not apply to me?
I know I am existing within a meta-hallucinating reality.
I understand there are various hallucinations within meta-hallucination.
Philosophical anti-realism is realistic as opposed to philosophical realism which is not realistic.
Philosophical realism believes humans are independent of reality out there which I claim is not realistic.
Philosophical anti-realism [mine = empirical realism] believes reality is all-there-is; thus logically, humans are part and parcel of reality all-there-is.
There is no way humans, being part and parcel of reality as all-there-is, can be independent from all-there-is.
Suggest you reflect on the above more deeply else you would be ignorant of one critical and essential aspect of reality.
As I had stated elsewhere, resistance to the above is due to primal psychology inherent in all humans and active in the majority.