Objective reality: How do we know it exists ?

Enmos said:
... If not the self, who or what is in control ? And wouldn't this something be an outside to the self ?
Click to expand...
Berkeley had a greater spirit (god). God gave or guided his experiences and made them appear to be following what we would call a time evolving universe of related experiences governed by the natural laws, usually, so when God wanted to he/she could violate these laws - i.e. so god could make miracles, which are by definition violations of the natural laws. (The natural laws are not always the known laws of physics and biology so it is hard to be sure if they have been violated.)

To wise acre: I am not well versed in philosophy but do not make much of a distinction between solipsism and phenomenalism. I.e. I tend to call the experiences of solipsism experiences but think they are phenomena, also existing in and of themselves alone. Sort of Solipsism is the continuing string in time of phenomena.

Can you straighten me out as to what is not standard with this POV? For example stubbing my non-existent toe on nonexistent rock is a phenomenon and so is the pain that follows and collectively these phenomena are solipsism’s "time line."
 
glaucon said:
Do try and do your own research in the future.

But for now: Frankenstein's Monster (FM) enjoys a particular kind of ontological status that differs from that of paper.
Click to expand...

whatever

do try though to understand that you can not survive without oxygen ( or any label you care to place on this object ) period

Frankenstein is a thought by ?? hmmm... by a Human who breaths oxygen

and really so are you , a Human , that breaths , needs 02

and hence you write ( perhaps if you closed your mouth for 5 minutes the reality would become more clear , although I hope you don't try this )
 
thinking said:
whatever

do try though to understand that you can not survive without oxygen ( or any label you care to place on this object ) period

Frankenstein is a thought by ?? hmmm... by a Human who breaths oxygen

and really so are you , a Human , that breaths , needs 02

and hence you write ( perhaps if you closed your mouth for 5 minutes the reality would become more clear , although I hope you don't try this )
Click to expand...

Two points:

1) I never asserted that I can survive without oxygen. Thus, my direction to you to read more carefully.

2) Feel free to respond to my last post some time.


Mod hat:

You were asked to do your own research to make a point:
the purpose of this forum is not to explain philosophical concepts. If you are unclear with respect to particular philosophical terminology, concepts or schools of thought, it is up to you to resolve this difficulty yourself.
 
glaucon said:
Two points:
1) I never asserted that I can survive without oxygen. Thus, my direction to you to read more carefully.
Click to expand...

know you didn't , I did

and I did because this was my point of an objective reality

2) Feel free to respond to my last post some time.


Mod hat:

You were asked to do your own research to make a point:
the purpose of this forum is not to explain philosophical concepts. If you are unclear with respect to particular philosophical terminology, concepts or schools of thought, it is up to you to resolve this difficulty yourself.
Click to expand...

is science always necessary to prove the absolute reality of the objective reality ?

no , obviously not

just common sense really
Click to expand...
 
thinking said:
is science always necessary to prove the absolute reality of the objective reality ?

no , obviously not

just common sense really
Click to expand...

Again you miss the point.
Science does not prove the 'absolute reality of the objective reality'.

And common sense is just that...

Of no use.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top