Philosophy Now Forum

size means the existance of something to the observer .but the observer looking at the innerself realises that the self that is looking has no size.and the object that is being veiwed has only relative size to other objects.

A_part_of_existence wrote:

HexHammer wrote:

A_part_of_existence wrote:So...everything is real and I shouldn't question what is real or not? That's ridiculous.

I should add that by "true reality" I mean "original reality". Dreams are real when we experience them but we cannot be certain that our dreams or even our waking experiences are not a simulation of some aspect of the original reality.

So in order to accuse my post of being ridiculous, you must prove it wrong istead of making a whiney emotional outburst, defeat me intellectually, not with nonsen and babble.

If you make an objection to the premises posted, then I might be able to respond. But I can't respond to the following which you wrote:

Total irrelevant questions!
Only if we have a mental problem then we should question what is real or not, else it a good waste of time to sit and navel gaze over this nonens topic.

It's all about cognitive abilities. If someone would make a big topic about if 2+2 was really 4, then he should have his face slapped excessivly and the topic deemed totally irrelevant.

HexHammer wrote:If someone would make a big topic about if 2+2 was really 4, then he should have his face slapped excessivly and the topic deemed totally irrelevant.

Is this an example of the sort of debating skills I lack?

uwot wrote:

HexHammer wrote:If someone would make a big topic about if 2+2 was really 4, then he should have his face slapped excessivly and the topic deemed totally irrelevant.

Is this an example of the sort of debating skills I lack?

This is something that most people lack, like 95% if not more.

This is excatly why I can win lawsuits even though I have no higher education, because most lawyers can only do parrotspeeches, and lacks basic rationallity.

HexHammer wrote:

uwot wrote:

HexHammer wrote:If someone would make a big topic about if 2+2 was really 4, then he should have his face slapped excessivly and the topic deemed totally irrelevant.

Is this an example of the sort of debating skills I lack?

This is something that most people lack, like 95% if not more.

This is excatly why I can win lawsuits even though I have no higher education, because most lawyers can only do parrotspeeches, and lacks basic rationallity.

I find it hard to believe that you win lawsuits by slapping faces excessively, but thanks for the tip; I'm sure one day it will save me a fortune.

jackles wrote:size means the existance of something to the observer .but the observer looking at the innerself realises that the self that is looking has no size.and the object that is being veiwed has only relative size to other objects.

I don't follow. Could you clarify? I get that size is relative, I don't get the second part.

uwot wrote:I find it hard to believe that you win lawsuits by slapping faces excessively, but thanks for the tip; I'm sure one day it will save me a fortune.

I'm not sure that you actually understood fully what you just read.

Hmm - i can't begin to separate all that. This question however i believe i can answer simply. There is one thing that is indubitably real - as you put it - reality. Anything said about it afterward is a result of our singular perception of it as a conscious being without ability to pass certain infinities of perception that belong to reality itself, that is why even though we can "know" vast amounts of things to be "real" we can never be sure because there is a limit to our ultimate perception and therefore always some kind of possibility that we cannot know.