Is reality a construct therefore relative?

[d.]

Now don't take this personal but, the idea of relative reality reminds me of of a cliche used for really pompous people that goes "They think the sun doesn't rise until they get up".

then why mention it?

Now what you call an "idea", I am calling an objective fact.

yes, that's where we differ. but my point is that objective reality is not required to make statements as those in the OP, but the idea of objective reality.

if you would use the same logic for scientific theories such as the Darwin theory,

that it is the best working theory we have of the origin of the species? yes. but i don't think about it much since i'm no biologist - there might be better theories, i wouldn't know.

No matter how it is put, when one makes statements such as this, they are attempting to make nominal claims about what they claim is phenomena. But how can that be true if it is phenominal?

do you use these terms in a kant-ian sense, "noumenon/phenomenon'? in that case, my view is that the dichotomy is pointless : the 'ding-an-sich' is something we can't know, can't talk about, so what's the point? why ask questions that cannot be answered? maybe the question is mis-worded?

in short, it isn't meaningful to investigate the 'ding-an-sich' or 'metaphysics'. the dichotomy between perceived reality and objective reality isn't meaningful, since objective reality cannot be observed or experienced.

or, if this is the 'saying there's no absolute truth is an absolute statement' argument again, i believe i've answered this one before.

 

[SoliDeoGloria]

then why mention it?

Because I felt it related to the subject matter.

that it is the best working theory we have of the origin of the species? yes. but i don't think about it much since i'm no biologist - there might be better theories, i wouldn't know.

What species? Is there even a species that exists? Who knows, since reality doesn't exist, what are you even talking about, if you're even talking. Then again, in true Pantheism, we're just the same being talking to itself, being as how individuality doesn't exist. If reality doesn't exist and is only subjective, then why are you raining on my subjective parade. Why even put the effort foward to prove what? Everything is subjective, right?

do you use these terms in a kant-ian sense, "noumenon/phenomenon'?

I didn't know Immanuel Kant came up with the dictionary definions for the words. Just for clarification, While I know of Mr. Kant, I do not agree with his philosophy. Being as how were starting the syntax game again, I might as well bust out the ole Dictionary again: Taken from
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/noumenon
noumenon (plural: noumena)

1. Something independent of the mind
2. An object as it is
3. A thing-in-itself

phenomenon (Plural: phenomena)

1. an appearance or occurrence, usually one evoking curiosity

my view is that the dichotomy is pointless

I agree!!! There is no such thing as "subjective reality". A better word for what you are attempting so hard to describe is "imagination".

the 'ding-an-sich' is something we can't know, can't talk about, so what's the point?

And yet you have given it a word with a definition and make absolute claims about it. Truly amazing!!! Are you sure you are not omniscient?

in short, it isn't meaningful to investigate the 'ding-an-sich' or 'metaphysics'.

Who brought up metaphysics? Can we please stick to objective reality verses subjective reality? But being as how you have brought it up, I am curious as to what the point is to investigating the "per say" or metaphysics with the presupposition that all reality subjective. There could never be a logical objective conclusion despite that fact that you keep trying to make one.

the dichotomy between perceived reality and objective reality isn't meaningful, since objective reality cannot be observed or experienced.

And you know this how? There you go again making noumenal statements about what you claim is phenomena.

Sincerely,
SoliDeogloria

 

[d.]

What species? Is there even a species that exists? Who knows, since reality doesn't exist, what are you even talking about, if you're even talking.

ok, now i understand why so many of your replies seem to have little relation to the post you respond to - you don't understand, or don't want to understand, my argument.

i suggest you read this post again :

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/religious-debates/28960-reality-construct-therefore-relative-post374645.html

we're talking about truth outside of our perception here. which doesn't mean i can't use the words 'truth' or 'reality' - it just means i define them in a different way. i do assume that the sun rises every morning if i'm not there to witness it. i don't say 'reality doesn't exist'. it's a pointless statement.

Then again, in true Pantheism, we're just the same being talking to itself, being as how individuality doesn't exist.

please don't make ludicrous assumptions about my religion. i'm not a follower of what you call 'true' pantheism, if that is how you define it.

If reality doesn't exist and is only subjective, then why are you raining on my subjective parade.

well, mainly because i was under the impression that this was a discussion forum.

I didn't know Immanuel Kant came up with the dictionary definions for the words.

he didn't. but judging by the dictionary references you posted, you roughly use them in a kant-ian sense, i.e. noumenon - the thing in itself, independent of the mind/phenomenon - the experienced, perceived. glad we(?) worked that out.

Being as how were starting the syntax game again,

since there are several ways you can use these concepts, it's just helpful to clarify how you're using them. i don't want to start a 'syntax battle'. i'm not interested. i'm just asking a question.

And yet you have given it a word with a definition and make absolute claims about it. Truly amazing!!! Are you sure you are not omniscient?

this is the core of the misunderstanding it seems. i am not making absolute claims. that's the whole point.

Who brought up metaphysics?
Can we please stick to objective reality verses subjective reality?

the study of 'reality' outside of perception falls within the realm of metaphysics.

But being as how you have brought it up, I am curious as to what the point is to investigating the "per say" or metaphysics with the presupposition that all reality subjective.

i've already told you, i don't find it meaningful.

And you know this how?

well then, give me an example of something that we can observe outside of consciousness. how can we step outside of ourselves?

 

[SoliDeoGloria]

ok, now i understand why so many of your replies seem to have little relation to the post you respond to - you don't understand, or don't want to understand, my argument.

Boy, was that a convenient statement to make. You not only have managed to reach out and emprically observe another's congnition and objectively claim that they have not the ability or the want to understand your arguement but have carried on a conversation for six posts with this person. Wow, your talents just keep amazing me. BTW, with your use of the words "so many", I am curious as to exactly how many of my over 200 posts you have observed and how many fit this criteria of yours.

we're talking about truth outside of our perception here. which doesn't mean i can't use the words 'truth' or 'reality' - it just means i define them in a different way.

Sure, in a way that is not consistant with an english dictionary. It must be nice to be able to just define words any way you want to. Maybe that is why I am having such problems understanding so many posts. It must be my bad for assuming that we are using words as they are defined in an english dictionary. But, let's just take this linguistic conventionalism to it's logical conclusion. If that is the case, then how do you know that I don't just agree with you and I am just defining words differently?

i do assume that the sun rises every morning if i'm not there to witness it.

I am truly curious as to how you do this with strictly empirical observation and an acknowledgement that reality is subjective. BTW, thanks for taking my prerequisite of "Now don't take this personal". Maybe you thought I was practicing linguistic conventionalism and I actually wanted you to take it personal.

i don't say 'reality doesn't exist'. it's a pointless statement.

Sure, you just state that reality is subjective or an idea which is anonymical to the very nature of the definition of the word "reality" so my concusion stands:
*** The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48 ***
Reality \Re*al"i*ty\ (r[-e]*[a^]l"[i^]*t[y^]), n.; pl.
{Realities} (-t[i^]z). [Cf. F. r['e]alit['e], LL. realitas.
See 3d {Real}, and cf. 2d {Realty}.]
1. The state or quality of being real; actual being or
existence of anything, in distinction from mere
appearance; fact.
[1913 Webster]

please don't make ludicrous assumptions about my religion. i'm not a follower of what you call 'true' pantheism, if that is how you define it

Just because you define words conventionally doesn't mean I do. I had to, once again, look up a description of Pantheism from what I vainly hoped was a unbiased refference just to make sure that I hadn't forgotten what I had read before. Now, at http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pantheism/ it states, "Monists, like pantheists, believe that Reality, or an aspect of it, is "One" or unified.", which is what I was getting, but then it plays linguistic conventional syntax games to conclude that "Whatever similarities there are in this regard, there is insufficient reason for attributing pantheism to monists". So you say potato and I'll say potato.

well, mainly because i was under the impression that this was a discussion forum.

Nice dodge. I amlost didn't catch that one. What I meant by stating "If reality doesn't exist and is only subjective, then why are you raining on my subjective parade." was, if reality is subjective, then why are you disagreeing with your subjective observation of my subjective observation that reality is objective? Is it just me or is that self defeating?

but judging by the dictionary references you posted, you roughly use them in a kant-ian sense...since there are several ways you can use these concepts

Sure, we can use words as they are defined in a dictionary or we can define words any way we like to fit our philosophy. Why can't we just assume that we are using english words here? The only similarity to Kant's usage of the words "Noumenon & Phenomenon" in this thread is your attempt at sepparating the two by claiming that one does not exist.

this is the core of the misunderstanding it seems. i am not making absolute claims.

Sure, you are just making claims and then calling them what you want.

the study of 'reality' outside of perception falls within the realm of metaphysics.

O.K., but that doesn't mean that we have to automatically include metaphysics into the mix here. How's about, lets just act like nobody has made any metaphysical calims yet, especially since nobody has yet outside of you, and establish whether or not reality is subjective/an idea or objective.

i've already told you, i don't find it meaningful.

Then why do you keep discussing it as if you have investigated it despite your claims that it is meaningless? Or are you making claims that reality is subjective unbased. To be able to know whether or not reality is subjective would have to require some sort of study of at least your own "per say" don't you think?

well then, give me an example of something that we can observe outside of consciousness. how can we step outside of ourselves?

Answer how you can assume that the sun rises every morning if you're not there to witness it with a presupposition that reality is subjective and I'll bet you'll answer your own question. I'll bet you won't even have to "step outside" of yourself to do it.

Sincerely,
SolideoGloria