Ok, this is getting repetetive. Not by my fault tho. You can't seem to get (or don't want to) the difference between reality and our views/perceptions of reality. Also, you seem to be in the state of refusal to use words in their proper meaning when in an attempt to refute my arguments, but are willing to use them when in need to back up your point. You demonstrated this in your very first sentence:
"What is reality itself?"
How do you expect me to answer that if you refuse to accept words? How am I supposed to communicate? Screams and roars? Words are a necessary standard that enables us to communicate. Going against that standard renders us unable to have any sort of discussion as is the case here. The debate has been frozen in place as you constantly reject the actual meaning of the words on the ground of being universally agreed on (as if that renders their worth inferior to the definitions you propose) while imposing your own. There is no truth and Truth. There is only truth. You capitalizing the first letter only gives the effect of putting emphasis on something (in best case), even tho that something is unwarranted and already falls into the line of the basic definition of truth.
If you insist on rejecting the very standard that is required for us to sucessfully communicate, then you are basically refusing to communicate properly. There is absolutely no reason for me to flush the dictionary down the toilet in order to adapt to you non-sencial definitions that are invented for the sole sake of detracting from the problem of your worldview.
If however you don't and actually decide to answer the simple question that has been asked from you then please do so. If you still insist on dodging the problem and rejecting that which is necessarry for any form of discussion, then there is no point in replying.
Having said this I'll go through your post and tackle each paragraph, explaining in detail the points above as there is a chance you misunderstood them.
What is reality itself? How do you know what reality even is to assume that it does nothing for Reality?
Do you want me to grab a dictionary and spell it out? Our perceptions don't have any effect on reality. I know this from simple observation and basic logic. If I were to pretend that the world is a flat board, the world wouldn't suddenly become a flat board. Therefore, no matter what I choose to delude myself with reality will stay how it is. Therefore, the fact stays that the world is not a flat board. No amount of subjective opinions will change this. (The only thing that will is somehow flattening the Earth so that it actually becomes a flat board, but then again that would be our actions doing the job, not our perceptions.)
So, you basically accept that yours and their reality is limited?
Read again.
"... their reality is the same,
my perception of them, however,
is limited "
Things that add up and form my perception with my knowledge being the most crucial and determining, if limited, will render my perception of them limited as well. If I didn't know someone was a pro-wrestler that wouldn't make them any less of a pro-wrestler. I simply wouldn't know about it. My perception would thus be limited, but the reality still stays as a fact that they are a pro-wrestler.
It isn't about meaningfulness, but perceptions and how it adds up into the "scope of reality" as a whole, or an aggregate. How many ants do you observe? We again go back to the same loop; how do you know what exists and what doesn't? Without any direct observation, it's just numbers. How does that make it an absolute Truth? The term absolute stands in opposition to "relativity." If I start calling them something else, the term ants ceases to exist. Where does the "absolute truth" factor in then?
Not only that, their existence is finite and ever-changing. Their so-called existence is determined in relation to something else; an offspring, an egg, their time in life etc. That alone removes them from the notion of "absolute" as it is antithetical to "relativism." Does it make their existence true? It does. Does it make it an "absolute Truth" (with a capital T)? No.
Without direct observation I would indeed be unable to know. However, having direct observation I'd be able to do so. In the example of ants, I absolutely know ants exist as I'm looking at them right here, everyone else can confirm their existence and therefore, we have a fact that they exist. Even if one day the number of ants alive changes or they all die out, the fact stays that now, currently, as I'm making this observation they exist.
That's a fact. Similar to say, I'm arguing with Shelke. This is indeed true because we're witnessing it right now. I'm arguing with you. You know this too, as does everyone else here. Therefore with enough knowledge we can state it as a fact that we're arguing right now. This is a fact.
Of course, it is all wordplay as it's a debatable concept. Call it external Reality, aggregate Reality, True Reality, Objective Reality ... it all boils down to the same thing. The second you add relativity to reality, it ceases to remain Reality (the capital R) and loses its "absolute notion".
More non-existent concepts I see. Unless you can give me proof that there are multiple realities you'll have to stop passing it off as a fact (even tho facts are what your worldview is against). We only observe one reality, therefore we only know one reality to exist. Until we are able to confirm there is more than one reality in existence we can conclude there is only one.
You are confusing reality with Reality and Truth with truth. All of these are different. You are discussing about absolutes. I am sorry, but there won't be any agreement here, as the relative notion of subjectivity hinders this argument from going there; anything relative cannot be absolute. All of my examples talk about that absolute. When you add absolute into the notion, the entire point of existence becomes pointless, as it is so completely and tediously subjective and relative.
Maybe, maybe I am confusing an actual word with known definition and meaning to one that is nowhere in the dictionaries and isn't a part of standard communication between humans. I've already explained my stance with twisting definitions in the beginning of the post so I won't repeat myself here.
@bold: And what exactly do you have to back this statement up? Seems like gibberish to me.
Occurrence? Not necessarily, as it's a "state" of dying. I am going to be simple here. That is all what death is. Of course, it does have everything to do with it if it is categorized as an experience of reality. At one end you call it an event and then you claim it has nothing to do with observation? Without anyone's knowledge, it was never witnessed, hence can never become an occurrence or an event. How can an event be "undeniable" when only few witnessed it?
Even the undeniable can be denied. The thing that makes this not a contradiction lies in the question wether this said denial is justified or not. If the denial is based only one's lack of presence, despite the reality (lack of existence of the deceased) pointing to a different direction, then that denial is unjustified.
The term "undeniable" doesn't deal with wether we are physically able to pronounce our denial. Ofcourse we can. Humans say things that aren't true all the time. What matters is wether the undeniable thing is a fact or not.
That is a different debate. I don't want to get into the debate on the "sense" of the words, as it's a longstanding debate amongst the scholars that deal with this branch. It is a tiring debate, and I don't have time for it. But, I would say this: there is a reason why words such as Truth, reality, philosophy, ideology, belief etc. have no real meaning. It's an established fact that they don't, as they are not agreed upon notions. What you have in the dictionary, is a vague idea of the terms. Which is why they are incorporated in a different manner in different fields. You should look into this, you'll be surprised.
It's hard not to get involved into such a debate when your whole point is riding on it. It's funny how you mention established facts again. You're constantly proving not to believe the very worldview which you claim to believe. Theory and practice contradict each other in your case.
Can you give me an example of two opposing meanings of truth? Words can have multiple meanings. That is a fact. The only thing the sense of the words debate deals with is when to choose the appropriate meaning (which would depend on the context).
All the words I'm aware of have a universally agreed meaning. (Except for the select few) Therefore, we have a standard for communication. Without this standard communication would be hard to impossible. As is the case here. I say one thing, you act like I said somethin else and vice versa. Stick to the dictionary if you want to have a conversation rather than selectively using the defintions you like while discarding those you don't.
But, we again come back to language. You don't have any other tool left at your disposal. Your reality is molded and shaped by language in a way. You are associtaing his act with stealing on three grounds: linguistic, moral and cultural, add social and religious as well, but then it would make five. Which one of these "exists" independent of people to call it an objective source?
No, ofcourse I don't. How else am I going to communicate on such complex manners. ._.
@bold: No. Reality
is that my ability to communicate is molded by language. Language is a subject of reality. Not vice versa.
About the theft deal, no the words used, the moral background, cultural or religious context are completely irrelevant here. Theft is always defined (in one wording or the other) as taking something from its owner without being allowed to do so, by the owner of the thing.
Regardless of wether you or your culture think it's illegal and immoral or not, the act still falls into the description of stealing or theft. Wether I use the word "ajdmsd" instead of "theft" doesn't matter. The point of words is the meaning they hold, not the arrangement of letters they possess.
Fooling myself in what manner? Right and left are human-created concepts. They don't exist. Why can't I call my right hand left and left hand right? Does it change their anatomy? They cease to be hands? They wouldn't work properly? Will the world title on its axis if right was called left and vice versa? The universe doesn't hinge upon what we manufacture; it is done so for our own facility. It has nothing to do with the scope of reality.
No. ._. Right and left are words. They, however, describe different directions so by switching the names you won't really get any effect on the world. Say I choose that south pole is where the north pole is and vice versa. The locations that are the south and north pole won't suddenly swap. Only our terms will. The only thing switching south and north or left and right would do is confuse people, as the locations they're pointing to would stay in place.
Why are morals any different? And what "has to be the merit" here? You are simply suggesting to me that we should widen the scope and slap "absolute" on its face, then thinking that doesn't simply make it so. Just because you have been led to belief that a merit exists to concepts, doesn't make it "absolute." There is a world beyond concepts that tend to die with people anyway. Then they are replaced by new ones. Why should I give them the luxury of merit then?
I already said it. I'm not talking about morals. We left that topic way in the previous post. Now we're at the question of how you can believe there are no facts or truths when the very notion presents itself as a fact or truth.
Because it provokes thought that is why I tend to delve into such things. Dude, what is true? I don't even understand this discussion anymore. Truth doesn't exist. It's created in opposition to falsehood, which is ... again created. You cannot be serious here?
You're again asking me to tell you a definition, which you again won't accept on the basis of it being man-made. (As if it could be any different.) As I said already, truth is simply what we call that which is real or which is a fact. The only thing you're asking here is what is real, in which case you make little sense.
Why would a sentence be false or true? You are constantly falling into the trap of manufactured tools. Let me throw a curve ball at you: "A cat may have eaten the bread." Is it true or is it false? The fact that this sentence has ambiguity removes true and false from the equation altogether. Morals and existence are no different. Simply knowing things via value doesn't make it true nor does it make it completely false.
Because there is no third option. The sentence you propose is no different. It is undeniably true. Here's why, the sentence pretty much means the same thing if we were to phrase it like this:
"The cat either ate the bread or it didn't."
You either do something or you don't. There is no third option. This has been confirmed by our prior knowledge and simple logic. What you're trying to invoke here is the Schrodinger's cat, but even that one has a confirmed state which depends on the moment in which you ask the question.
You have not proved to me why morals would be real; the original point of contention. Whether I go by in life on a whim or not doesn't cocnern anyone here. I do believe in relativism to an extreme degree and that is my observation and mine alone, and I have given the slightest amount of damn over agreements; they are over-rated. Also, simply suggesting that no one has done so and so, and fall back in line ... well, you only proved me right: it's all relative!
The original point of contention, as I said multiple times, has been discarded and we are currently off-topic, discussing the contradictive nature of absolutely relativistic stances (an oxymoron btw).
And you misunderstood the question. I didn't ask you why you choose to believe in the sense of going to your personal life. Not only does that not concern me, but I haven't the slightest interest in it. What I asked is what warrants your belief? What makes accepting a worldview that doesn't allow there to be truth as true when doing so would instantly compromise it. I've asked you for a resolution to this contradiction, but so far all I got is refusal to cooperate in communication and undermining our knowledge and reasoning as insufficient despite the fact that (if it is as such) you cannot claim the very stance as your own.
You also misunderstood the last part. I didn't say that you should drop your view because noone before was able to defend it. I am saying you should drop it because it cannot be defended which has been demonstrated in the fact that none of the great thinkers that came before, all with intellect surpassing our own, were not able to solve the problem relativism to such an extreme degree poses.
There is a possibility that you are a greater mind than all of them, but seeing how you cannot find an argument to resolve the problem, without completely rejecting the idea that we actually know anything (which would again compromise your stance of there not being any definitive notions) I find it safe to say you're not. If a worldview is completely incompatible with all our knowledge and all our accumulated understanding of the world and is contradictory by its very structure the worldview is unwarranted and thus there is no reason for anyone to accept it as true (even on a personal level) as it is simply not.
That was the sole point of my past few posts.
