Philosophy Now Forum

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jan 10, 2022 5:14 am Note my explanation to Walker in the above post.
Rationally, what about the other 131,040,000,000,000 nano-second instances of real apples?

My point is one need to think and reflect hard and not jump to the conclusion there is a real apple out there that is independent of the human conditions as claimed in philosophical realism.

This is verbal dioroeah

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Mon Jan 10, 2022 8:03 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jan 10, 2022 7:39 am Your point is irrelevant to the OP.

Note 'real' in this sense.

Your OP is irrelevant to the question posited as > ''Which is the "Real" Apple?'' without including the one who would ask the question, which is a very important relevant and rational issue, when it comes to discussing real philosophical questions.

If you want to back away from answering my response to the OP, then your OP will just make absolutely no nonsense to the reader, whatsoever.

You cannot claim that an object could be REAL ...without first knowing what ''Real' looks like. That's just obvious philosophical sense and rationality.

If you do not want to answer the obvious question, with rationality and sense, then you will contine to seek answers for ever and ever and ever and ever....and that to me, is a stupid way to philosophize.

It's your call, you can refuse to abort this mission if you so wish, it's your never ending story after all.

Who is the one who is stupid to philosophize?
You stated,

There is no question as to whether an 'apple' is real, which would seem to imply the 'apple' could be something other than real.

That imply the OP is totally useless for a discussion.
Note I specifically linked what I meant by 'real'.
So there is something to philosophize in that context.

There are other contexts where there is no reality at all, e.g. the 'nothingness' [including no-self] in Buddhism and other contexts.
But this OP is related to the specific context laid down.

You don't seem to understand the fallacy of equivocation?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Jan 11, 2022 6:17 am Who is the one who is stupid to philosophize?

To even ask that question ''who is the one'' implies there is a not-knowing answer to the question, because if you knew the answer you wouldn't have to ask the question. So there is no point of philosophizing over a philosophical idea that doesn't have any understanding or answer. That's the only stupid right there.

I'm not just 'single outing' this one specific OP here ...As the same principle applies to all our assumed philosophical objective ideas to be real.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Jan 11, 2022 6:17 amYou stated,

There is no question as to whether an 'apple' is real, which would seem to imply the 'apple' could be something other than real.

That imply the OP is totally useless for a discussion.

Well yes of course it's useless, like i said if you have to ask the question in the first place as to which is the ''Real'' Apple...then that implies you do not know the answer, but then assume maybe other would know the answer. But when the other, namely, me gave an answer, you then said it was irrelavant to the OP, as if the answer given was not right, as though you already knew the answer already and was why you said my answer was irrelevant.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Jan 11, 2022 6:17 amNote I specifically linked what I meant by 'real'.
So there is something to philosophize in that context.

If you already know what you meant by 'real' then why are you asking the question ( Which is the "Real" Apple?) if you already know the meaning of ''Real''

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Jan 11, 2022 6:17 amThere are other contexts where there is no reality at all, e.g. the 'nothingness' [including no-self] in Buddhism and other contexts.
But this OP is related to the specific context laid down.

You don't seem to understand the fallacy of equivocation?

But there is no such thing as 'nothingness' that can be known or be experienced, so I do not see the relevance of making that comment, or that is has any connection to the question ''Which is the "Real" Apple?'' that you have already claimed to know the meaning of 'Real Apple''


All I am asking is what does REAL look like, only by knowing what real actually looks can the idea that an object is 'Real' be attested.

You don't seem to understand the fallacy of equivocation.

There is no Apple...except as an empty assertion in this conception.

That which can conceive an Apple is inconceivable. An Apple is simply an image of the imageless, and has about as much reality as a mirage.

How is this knowledge known, no one knows.

Another one bites the dust.