 |
Duration: 08:01 minutes Upload Time: 2007-12-02 19:29:51 User: pyrrho314 :::: Favorites :::: Top Videos of Day |
|
Description: applying objectivity to objectivity, tracing the source, and admitting reality. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States License |
|
Comments | |
| pyrrho314 ::: Favorites 2007-12-17 14:45:30 you are making a load of assumptions. How can you possibly tell me something you have never perceived still exists? You will of course have no evidence for that, right? To have evidence you will have perceived either it... or percieved someone else being affect by it (i.e. reporting that THEY have pervieved it). If there is NO perception of it, you cannot say it exists anyway. iow, you are assuming a particular nature of existence you can't demonstrate. __________________________________________________ | |
| JustJoelyouassclown ::: Favorites 2007-12-15 09:47:07 An object may exist outside of our perception, and a perceived object may not exist. There is no 'might as well not exist' - Physical objects exist or they don't. If one is blind and has no perception of trees whatsoever, trees still exist. __________________________________________________ | |
| pyrrho314 ::: Favorites 2007-12-14 18:38:06 excuse me but "an object does not have to be theorized" is itself a theory. If you have no perceptions, ever, of an object, nor indirectly perceopts of other object being affected by it... then for you, that object might as well not exist... to say it exists in principle is only to say there is someone it will interact with that could also interact with me. __________________________________________________ | |
| JustJoelyouassclown ::: Favorites 2007-12-14 15:13:47 Theorizing about a ball or about the sun, may justify the existence of these objects to the individual, but an object does not have to be theorized to exist. The sun, fire ball, chariot of fire do not create the object. They are merely our observed appearances/qualities of the object. __________________________________________________ | |
| pyrrho314 ::: Favorites 2007-12-12 16:24:34 It's like a theory that the Sun is a fire chariot... when we give up that theory, the Sun still exists, and needs another theory to explain it. "Physical" is a categorization of perceptions, specifically, "valid" "sense" perceptions. We have perceptions of a ball, we categorize them as "of a ball" and theories there "is" a ball. If the existence of those perceptions is what we mean by "is", fine, but if we want to pretend our PERCEPTIONS are "qualities" of the ball... error. __________________________________________________ | |
| pyrrho314 ::: Favorites 2007-12-12 16:24:24 NOTE: If we are only dreaming... then we still exist, AS dreams. __________________________________________________ | |
| pyrrho314 ::: Favorites 2007-12-12 16:22:03 It doesn't matter what you choose to believe, it matters what the facts are. These dillemas are only dillemas in the objective epistemology which requires us to have knowledge we can't obtain. In any subjectivism... I exist by defition, those things that interact with me exist by definition. All that interacts with me directly is perception, the rest... is theorizing as to what the perceptions mean and how they can be predicted or even controlled. __________________________________________________ | |
| JustJoelyouassclown ::: Favorites 2007-12-12 09:17:13 I can't help but notice a squirrel climbing up the tree in front of my window; can I not objectively claim that I witnessed a squirrel climbing up a tree? If I believe that cars are not real, and I truly 100% believe they do not exist, can I still be hit by one? Parmenides believed nothing moved, & Bishop Berkeley held there were no physical objects, even though Parmenides did travel around Greece and southern Italy and Berkeley himself was a physical object. __________________________________________________ | |
| pyrrho314 ::: Favorites 2007-12-11 14:01:50 yes, a measure taken from outside these "objects", not the essence of what it is in itself. __________________________________________________ | |
| JustJoelyouassclown ::: Favorites 2007-12-11 13:07:27 Something about this method of objective theory reminds me of the grue principle. That for it to be objective it must take all factors at all times. So we cannot call a sapphire a sapphire objectively because after a time, encased in rock, sapphires turn green and become emeralds. Objectivity seems more like a skeleton; the basic structure of physical reality. __________________________________________________ | |
| pyrrho314 ::: Favorites 2007-12-08 16:46:19 missed this before... math I place this way, it is not a priori knowledge, nothing is... math is abstracted from sense perceptions involved in counting in numerical maths and spacial perceptions in the case of geometrical maths. __________________________________________________ | |
| sabot96 ::: Favorites 2007-12-05 01:44:29 I think I will dedicate my life to the improvement of the theory. Nice overview of objectivity. __________________________________________________ | |
| pyrrho314 ::: Favorites 2007-12-03 17:08:58 denying objectivity is all fine when one means that ultimately, we use subjective means to theorize about it, thus, it's a subset of subjective theory... but it is NOT fine when it's really an excuse to deny reality, which is a different thing altogether. __________________________________________________ | |
| jogayot ::: Favorites 2007-12-03 15:41:55 uhm... so how about math? i guess you'd place it in unimaginary/consistent because we have to write/draw/symbolize/commuicte proofs somehow. but you know, when desperate they'll use math to try to show god, and it's "only" an iceberg top of them other "social science-isms" finding "consistency" amongst people beliving them. problem is one can draw perceptions from supposed objective/material ideas and also draw perceptions from objectless/materialess (oh mercy ;) "idols". __________________________________________________ | |
| ReverendInfidel ::: Favorites 2007-12-03 15:17:58 sheesh, now i AM sure i don't understand these philosophies.. but that sounded about like how i see things, with different words. our perception of "reality" is by definition subjective which makes "objectivism" sound odd to me; but when people deny objective reality yet still believe in evolution or even harder science or still wont let me try to break their jaw because they REALLY DO have FAITH in objectivity and know what will happen, well that sounds odd to me too. i'm confused :| __________________________________________________ | |
No comments:
Post a Comment