Reality is Inaccessible

[Dontaskme]

To claim that it is a reality that 'reality is inaccessible' is, in and of itself, obviously, a contradiction. Just like claiming 'we do not directly perceive the outside world, as it is', is a contradiction, in and of itself.

Either claiming 'reality is inaccessible', is a reality in and of itself or it is not. You can NOT have it both ways. If it is a reality, itself, then, obviously, it, itself, is inaccessible. Or, if that claim is not reality, itself, then it is just fantasy anyway. So, which one is 'it'?

Now, to make the claim that "we do not directly perceive the outside world, 'as it is'," properly and correctly the one making that claim would have to already know the outside world, as it is, exactly. To be able to know the outside world, as it is, one would have to be able to perceive the outside world, directly. So, which way is 'it'?

Nothing, not-a thing, no thing is perceiving itself.

The perceiver cannot be perceived without turning itself into an object. But the act of perceiving NEVER really experiences itself as an object, simply because there is no division between the knower and the known. In the sense the knower is the known, and the known is the knower in the exact same instantaneous moment. Both knower and known, perceiver and perceived are inseparably one and the same reality.

A concept is known, but is never the knowers actual experience. No concept has ever been seen to exist, it's only known.


.

[attofishpi]

Age...please do not take the hook and be hauled upon the deck of irrational dumbness. Best just ignore.

[Dontaskme]

TS said: ''Someone who would believe that they're only experiencing representations and that the external world is inaccessible has zero justification for believing that there are objective/external things in the first place.''


_______

Response: Things are not external to the knower. Knower and known are one and the same knowing, in no place.

The knower is never in the object it knows. Any thing seen is known to that which can never be seen, but only known conceptually.

[Dontaskme]

Age...please do not take the hook and be hauled upon the deck of irrational dumbness. Best just ignore.

When you learn to stop being a spoilt little bratty manchild and grow up, then and only then will you be able to argue an argument, which is what true philosophy is all about. It's about being mature enough to argue the argument. Until you can engage in proper philosophical argument, you will be forever stuck in your own worn out ignorant irrational dumb groove that you are so certain is the absolute truth.

If you are so certain your God is the truth, then you wouldn't ever have to talk about it, explain it, or attempt to sell it to others, you'd just know with a capital K and never have to say another word about it.

The fact is, you do not know anything apart from what you personally want to believe, from the only knowledge you have available, which you have borrowed from others who came before you...you are just like everyone else, parroting the same old made-up believed fables.

Your arrogance proves you are incapable of presenting a decent argument with anyone else, instead you prefer to belittle other peoples ideas because you are so afraid you might just be wrong. How dare you present your truth and reject other truths. How dare you tell others they are dumb and ignorant and irrational.......who the hell are you to even doubt what others may or may not know...if you are here to sell your truth to others, then at least have the common decency to rationally argue it with your opposition, otherwise ask yourself what the fuck you are doing on this philosophy forum....a place for arguing the arguments.

.

[attofishpi]

We cannot be absolute certain that "Reality is what our consciousness perceives".

Er, yes we can. I don't care what a bunch of 'philosophers' that you hold in some regard on the matter have to say about it.

Reality ultimately is what we perceive consciously, and I ain't gonna budge on that.

If you are not going to budge without providing any objective justification that is merely a personal opinion. Philosophically there is nothing to rationalize with what is mere personal opinions.

What you refer to as 'mere personal opinion' are exactly the same as that massive list of so called 'philosophers' that you provided have.

If reality is NOT what we perceive conciously and is indeed, "INACCESIBLE" - then define Reality, because as it stand - in your account it DOES NOT EXIST.

[Dontaskme]

Er, yes we can. I don't care what a bunch of 'philosophers' that you hold in some regard on the matter have to say about it.

Reality ultimately is what we perceive consciously, and I ain't gonna budge on that.

If you are not going to budge without providing any objective justification that is merely a personal opinion. Philosophically there is nothing to rationalize with what is mere personal opinions.

What you refer to as 'mere personal opinion' are exactly the same as that massive list of so called 'philosophers' that you provided have.

If reality is NOT what we perceive conciously and is indeed, "INACCESIBLE" - then define Reality, because as it stand - in your account it DOES NOT EXIST.

But you have already claimed to know God.

So if that claim is true and correct, then you must already know all the answers to every question. So why are you still asking questions?

Does it ever occur to you that knowing God must truely be enough for you, or are you just like everyone else in the world, making shit up, and pretending that only your shit matters, and if anyone else dare make up shit, you have no other choice but to question it, in total fear that it may or may not be the same as your shit, the shit you are so absolutely sure of. The truth is, you can never be absolutely 100% be sure of anything can you, and is why you cannot shut up.



And that is why I am going to spend the rest of my life calling out your shit.

Until you present a proper philosophical argument with your opposition, anything you say is just your belief, with no actual proof or evidence to be anything other than just a made up story.

If you are absolutely sure God exists, then why are you here. What have you to defend, what have you to explain, what have you to be in opposition about, why would non-believers even matter to you one iota.

Why would you need to ignore other peoples viewpoints? if you were so certain that God exists.

You really are a hot mess aren't you.

[Age]

TP said: ''Someone who would believe that they're only experiencing representations and that the external world is inaccessible has zero justification for believing that there are objective/external things in the first place.''


_______

Response: Things are not external to the knower.

But who and/or what is the 'knower'?

If you were to say the 'knower' is "nothing, not-a thing, no thing, then it contradicts itself to say and claim, "things are not external to the knower". This is due to the fact that saying, " 'things' are not external to 'nothing, not-a-thing, no thing', is just completely and utterly absurd, illogical, ridiculous, and nonsensical.

Now, what you have been 'trying to' say, explain, and claim does make perfect sense. But, the words that you have been using so far, when looked into fully, do not make any actual real sense at all.

This is because of what the 'knower' actually is. See, although the 'knower' is not-a-physical-thing 'It' is still some thing, and therefore NOT 'no thing'. 'It' is just some thing, which can not be seen with the physical eyes.

Knower and known are one and the same knowing, in no place.

If "knower and known are one and the same", and if "there is no knower", then there is no known thing also. There is, however, one thing that can be irrefutably known.

See, although there is, in Reality, only One actual Thing, which is just continually changing in shape and form always, this Thing gets separated in concept only, and not by actuality, so there is an illusion formed by 'you', human beings. The human brain has the ability to distinguish, and more important here label. This ability, however, is just the natural progression of the one Thing evolving into being able to actually know thy Self.

But all of this becomes very clear and fully understood by more and more human beings as Life, Itself, continually evolves.

The knower is never in the object it knows.

Is the knower in Life, Itself?

Is 'Life', Itself, an object?

Any thing seen is known to that which can never be seen, but only known conceptually.

And, what 'that' is, which, you say, can never be seen, contrary to what you, conceptually believe is true, can be known.

By the way, the only thing that can be 'known', for sure, are the thoughts, within a human body. If, however, those thoughts are a proper, true, and accurate representation or not of what is external to thought, itself, is a whole another matter. Which, by the way, can also be resolved.

[Dontaskme]

But who and/or what is the 'knower'?

If you were to say the 'knower' is "nothing, not-a thing, no thing, then it contradicts itself to say and claim, "things are not external to the knower". This is due to the fact that saying, " 'things' are not external to 'nothing, not-a-thing, no thing', is just completely and utterly absurd, illogical, ridiculous, and nonsensical.

Response: A 'thing' is known, a 'known' implies a knower.

[Dontaskme]

The knower is never in the object it knows.

Is the knower in Life, Itself?

Is 'Life', Itself, an object?

Life' is a concept known. A known implies a knower.
So yes, the concept 'life' is an object known.

Any thing seen is known to that which can never be seen, but only known conceptually.

And, what 'that' is, which, you say, can never be seen, contrary to what you, conceptually believe is true, can be known.

What can be seen is the same as what can be known. So anything known implies a knower, aka the seer...even though this 'knowing' 'seeing' cannot itself see or know itself, because it's one without a second. It doesn't really have another one, because there is no other than one. And yes, that is the mother of all contradictions, aka the illusory nature of conceptual language known as knowledge.

[Dontaskme]

By the way, the only thing that can be 'known', for sure, are the thoughts, within a human body.

It's known that thoughts are inside a human body. It is also known that 'thoughts' are actually nowhere and everywhere.
Can a thought been SEEN ...? only as an object known. Any concept known / seen can never be your direct experience.

If, however, those thoughts are a proper, true, and accurate representation or not of what is external to thought, itself, is a whole another matter. Which, by the way, can also be resolved.

There is nothing external to thought, the whole idea of the external world is placed there by thought itself. Reality does not have a need to exist, in the same context a tree does not need the knowledge of itself to exist, it just exists without knowing, it has no knowledge of it's existence.

Therefore, conceptual knowledge is only ever pointing to it's ilusory nature, insofar as it can only be a fictional representation upon what is otherwise this not-knowing reality. REality is this immediate presentation, is never a representation, which is a fake conceptual overlay upon it..

[Age]

If you are not going to budge without providing any objective justification that is merely a personal opinion. Philosophically there is nothing to rationalize with what is mere personal opinions.

What you refer to as 'mere personal opinion' are exactly the same as that massive list of so called 'philosophers' that you provided have.

If reality is NOT what we perceive conciously and is indeed, "INACCESIBLE" - then define Reality, because as it stand - in your account it DOES NOT EXIST.

But you have already claimed to know God.

So if that claim is true and correct, then you must already know all the answers to every question.

I do not think "attofishpi" claims to know God, but instead claims to know that God exists. But I could be wrong and prepared to be corrected.

Also, for any human being to claim to know God in no way at all infers that that human being would or even could and must already know all the answers to every question. This is just due to the fact that any human being is obviously not God nor could ever know all the answers to every question.

So why are you still asking questions?

Does it ever occur to you that knowing God must truely be enough for you, or are you just like everyone else in the world, making shit up, and pretending that only your shit matters, and if anyone else dare make up shit, you have no other choice but to question it, in total fear that it may or may not be the same as your shit, the shit you are so absolutely sure of.

When you say "everyone" here does this also include the one known as "dontaskme" here?

The truth is, you can never be absolutely 100% be sure of anything can you, and is why you cannot shut up.

I will not ask the obvious, "Does this apply to 'you', "dontaskme", also?" but what I will ask is, 'If you can never be absolutely 100% sure of anything", then can you be absolutely 100% sure that, "you can never be absolutely 100% sure"?

By the way, there is one thing that can be absolutely 100% sure of. Again, that thing is the thoughts within.

And that is why I am going to spend the rest of my life calling out your shit.

Until you present a proper philosophical argument with your opposition, anything you say is just your belief, with no actual proof or evidence to be anything other than just a made up story.

If you are absolutely sure God exists, then why are you here. What have you to defend, what have you to explain, what have you to be in opposition about, why would non-believers even matter to you one iota.

Why would you need to ignore other peoples viewpoints? if you were so certain that God exists.

You really are a hot mess aren't you.

Has ANY one else yet noticed that 'the underlying message' that EVERY one, here in this forum, is individually 'trying to' express, and share with "others", is absolutely and irrefutably True, which fits in perfectly with EVERY one "else's" 'underlying message'.

For example, "dontaskme" are you yet aware that your 'underlying message' ,when combined with "attofishpi's" 'underlying message', helps in creating and forming a bigger and thus more whole picture of thee one and only actual Truth of things? In fact, your 'underlying message' here "dontaskme" backs up and supports "attofishpi's" 'underlying message' and vice versa. "attofishpi's" 'underlying message' backs up and supports your 'underlying message' "dontaskme".

[Age]

But who and/or what is the 'knower'?

If you were to say the 'knower' is "nothing, not-a thing, no thing, then it contradicts itself to say and claim, "things are not external to the knower". This is due to the fact that saying, " 'things' are not external to 'nothing, not-a-thing, no thing', is just completely and utterly absurd, illogical, ridiculous, and nonsensical.

Response: A 'thing' is known, a 'known' implies a knower.

The actual question I posed to you was; But who and/or what is the 'knower'?

[Dontaskme]

I do not think "attofishpi" claims to know God, but instead claims to know that God exists. But I could be wrong and prepared to be corrected.

I'm going to repeat this comment I made earlier because it's useful in response to your comment.


There is nothing external to thought, the whole idea of the external world is placed there by thought itself. Reality does not have a need to exist, in the same context a tree does not need the knowledge of itself to exist, it just exists without knowing, it has no knowledge of it's existence.

Therefore, conceptual knowledge is only ever pointing to it's illusory nature, insofar as it can only be a fictional representation upon what is otherwise this not-knowing reality. REality is this immediate presentation, is never a representation, which is a fake conceptual overlay upon it..

Atto claims to know God, he's already stated it many times. That's why I'm here, to counter his claim to know.

As far as I am aware, I do not know anything except what I believe to exist with the only knowledge available to me, the knowledge that I am, and that everything else known is what I make up. I have no knowledge of how I am or why I am, just that I am...the buck stops there with me. . anything else known is just imagination.

[Dontaskme]

But who and/or what is the 'knower'?

If you were to say the 'knower' is "nothing, not-a thing, no thing, then it contradicts itself to say and claim, "things are not external to the knower". This is due to the fact that saying, " 'things' are not external to 'nothing, not-a-thing, no thing', is just completely and utterly absurd, illogical, ridiculous, and nonsensical.

Response: A 'thing' is known, a 'known' implies a knower.

The actual question I posed to you was; But who and/or what is the 'knower'?

Age, the questioner is the only one who is able to answer. Else why would the question arise at all?

Do trees ask questions? No, they do not, so all you need to work out is who is asking the question, and when you have worked that out, there will be your answer. You do not need to ask anyone but yourself.



.

[Age]

The knower is never in the object it knows.

Is the knower in Life, Itself?

Is 'Life', Itself, an object?

Life' is a concept known. A known implies a knower.
So yes, the concept 'life' is an object known.

But I never asked any thing like what you are replying to here.

You just said here that the 'concept' (of some thing) is an object known, but what I actually asked you was;

Is 'Life', Itself, an object?

Any thing seen is known to that which can never be seen, but only known conceptually.

And, what 'that' is, which, you say, can never be seen, contrary to what you, conceptually believe is true, can be known.

What can be seen is the same as what can be known. So anything known implies a knower, aka the seer...even though this 'knowing' 'seeing' cannot itself see or know itself, because it's one without a second.[/quote]

What you are 'trying to' "argue" for here is the exact same as 'trying to' "argue" that a 'human being' cannot itself see nor know itself, which is obviously just false, wrong, and incorrect.

It doesn't really have another one, because there is no other than one.

I KNOW. I have AGREED with you on this. BUT, contrary to what you BELIEVE is true, who and what this One Thing IS, EXACTLY, can be KNOWN.

And yes, that is the mother of all contradictions, aka the illusory nature of conceptual language known as knowledge.

But, as I have been explaining to you, but which you insist could NOT even be a possibility let alone actually true, is that it is very possible to form words into a position or way where they do NOT oppose themselves and thus are consistent.