Reality

[EyeOfTheBeholder]

...All is appearance, and no appearance, or any combination of these, is the same as reality... -Francis Herbert Bradley Book II- Reality "chapter XXVI: The Absolute and its apperances"

Now I'm a philosophy nut, and I'm hoping someone else out there is...so here goes. What ol' Francis is saying is that by the appearance of something or the lack of appearance makes up reality. Which means one can say (if only for the sake of arguement) "Werewolves don't exist!" that is until you see a werewolf...then one must say "Well...One werewolf exists". Does anyone else see this as dangerous thinking?

[Darth Cluich]

...All is appearance, and no appearance, or any combination of these, is the same as reality... -Francis Herbert Bradley Book II- Reality "chapter XXVI: The Absolute and its apperances"

Now I'm a philosophy nut, and I'm hoping someone else out there is...so here goes. What ol' Francis is saying is that by the appearance of something or the lack of appearance makes up reality. Which means one can say (if only for the sake of arguement) "Werewolves don't exist!" that is until you see a werewolf...then one must say "Well...One werewolf exists". Does anyone else see this as dangerous thinking?

(in his best Eric Cartman voice) That's what I say!

Ahem...seriously, though, no, this isn't dangerous at all. It's simple logic.

[EyeOfTheBeholder]

I dunno, I mean it doesn't seem logical to assume that only one werewolf exists if you find one. I mean it would have to come from somewhere...I something can't just "Poof" and exist, perhaps it has a werewolf mommy and daddy?



(in his best Eric Cartman voice) That's what I say!

Ahem...seriously, though, no, this isn't dangerous at all. It's simple logic.

[Darth Cluich]

I dunno, I mean it doesn't seem logical to assume that only one werewolf exists if you find one. I mean it would have to come from somewhere...I something can't just "Poof" and exist, perhaps it has a werewolf mommy and daddy?

You're making an assumption, though, if you go beyond the existence of just the one you saw. You only have proof of that one's existence.

[EyeOfTheBeholder]

Hmm, I see your logic. :)

[Darth Cluich]

I'm a simple guy. What can I say? ;)

[LV426]

However from the proven existence of one werewolf could arise many theories that it would be fun to try and prove. Unfortunately those damn werewolves don't like to ... Sit....Still... long enough...to run.. tests on.


Damnit. Cluich he got away, release the ducks to bring him back will you?

[Darth Cluich]

Ducks released! We should have him back soon. Prepare the containment chamber.

[Oracle]

To be completely honest, that is how the human mind works. If something exceeds the boundaries of logic, it is dismissed as not being real. in fact reality is all a manner of perspective. What is real to one person is absolute nonsense to anaother. The only way human beings would truely believe in us is if we exposed ourselves regularly to them in public. But still even then, there would be doubt. Most human beings simply will not accept the idea that 'supernatural' beings exsist. Think of all the time and effort they put into proving aliens do not exsist.

[EyeOfTheBeholder]

Perhaps the human mind is perspective based, but reality is beyond perspective. Example: One could think an orange to be purple. But the orange is indeed...orange.




To be completely honest, that is how the human mind works. If something exceeds the boundaries of logic, it is dismissed as not being real. in fact reality is all a manner of perspective. What is real to one person is absolute nonsense to anaother. The only way human beings would truely believe in us is if we exposed ourselves regularly to them in public. But still even then, there would be doubt. Most human beings simply will not accept the idea that 'supernatural' beings exsist. Think of all the time and effort they put into proving aliens do not exsist.

[Rainstorm]

...All is appearance, and no appearance, or any combination of these, is the same as reality... -Francis Herbert Bradley Book II- Reality "chapter XXVI: The Absolute and its apperances"

Now I'm a philosophy nut, and I'm hoping someone else out there is...so here goes. What ol' Francis is saying is that by the appearance of something or the lack of appearance makes up reality. Which means one can say (if only for the sake of arguement) "Werewolves don't exist!" that is until you see a werewolf...then one must say "Well...One werewolf exists". Does anyone else see this as dangerous thinking?


Well, everyone's individual reality is defined by personal observation, in the beginning. That's where faith drops its hat into the ring. The human mind does not function solely on logic. It's not built that way. Even with personal observation comes the faith that you are seeing these things the way that they truly are...that your senses and mind are processing the information correctly, that your logic is true. And appearance doesn't necessarily mean physical appearance. It could be the way that a certain idea or question presents itself. It may have the appearance of being valid or complete hogwash, depending on the argument presented.
In a werewolf's case, sure, if you take the literal translation of appearances you could say that werewolves do not exist, because you have never seen one, or that at least one exists because you have seen it. Of course, you could make the argument that werewolves do exist due to certain climactic conditions that have no other explanation than for evolving a creature over millenia into a werewolf for survival. Not that I have ever seen proof of such conditions. Reality is defined by how the brain sees the connections between a and b and its result. Therefore, any given argument could be given that has the appearance of being true or false. We could argue this for days and prove in certain terms that the clouds are made of doughnuts. That's the wonderful thing about philosophy...it's called paradox. :)
I can see it as dangerous, in the "Dear god I've been circling this argument for 3 days and my head is going to break open and little pixies will come out and shove straws up my nose" kinda way, but I also see the possibility for people with the most literal interpretation of that particular reality object to decide that things never happened, because they have never seen it. The holocaust? Before my time, so it obviously didnt happen. Someone got murdered? Didn't happen. I didn't see it. There's an animal going extinct? Didn't happen. I've never seen it so it obviously didn't exist. There's a hole in the ozone? I've never seen it. Let's go burn some styrofoam.
Sure there's danger in it, but so it goes when anyone is close minded. The trick is to not take everything so literally. Free your mind, as they say.

[Darth Cluich]

The only way human beings would truely believe in us is if we exposed ourselves regularly to them in public.

"Us"? You're not a werewolf. Get over yourself. And please don't expose yourself to us.

[DarkWolf]

Think of all the time and effort they put into proving aliens do not exsist.Yes, all that time and effort of doing nothing... Sorry but nobody has been trying to disprove aliens. Some abduction cases were disproved but that's disproving those abductions. Some UFO sightings have been disproved and there are of course the conspiracy theories. But none of this is saying "aliens don't exist". That has yet to be proved or disproved and until we scour every part of the entire universe we won't fully know.

That's the wonderful thing about philosophy...it's called paradoxHow? Philosophy is about the pursuit of wisdom by intellectual means or a system of values by which a person lives. How is it a paradox? Philosophy isn't just opinions - discussion on trying to prove a cloud is made of doughtnuts isn't philosophy and unless you can provide undeniable evidence behind your claims it's only opinion anyway and not proof that doughnuts make up clouds. There's no paradox to it. Opinions aren't true or false - can't be associated with a paradox and facts are what are true and rarely, if ever, overlap on subjects. That wouldn't make philosophy a paradox either - your discussion subject might be but philosophy as a concept or term isn't the paradox.

The whole "didn't see it so it didn't happen" isn't always how closeminded people think. Closeminded only means they are not willing to accept other people's opinions or what is illogical to them as true. I have never seen the Eiffel Tower, but the most logical conclusion is that it is there so I can believe it is there without being closeminded or openminded. If somebody was like that "didn't see it so it didn't happen" then that person's world is limited to only sitting in a room. We base our logic on our own perceptions as well as the perceptions of those around us to find a general concensus on which we base our view of what is and is not reality.

[Rainstorm]

Perhaps the human mind is perspective based, but reality is beyond perspective. Example: One could think an orange to be purple. But the orange is indeed...orange.
But who is to say that orange is really orange? Who came up with the idea of orange? It's like in the matrix when they talk about the machines making everything taste like chicken.

[Rainstorm]

What I meant, DW, is that with philosophy you can argue yourself into a circle and back again. It's wonderful.

[EyeOfTheBeholder]

Actually back on the topic of reality. It seems to be apparent that there are things which are absolutely unarguably true. Such as the fact that you right now exist and believe that you are reading this very moment. Sure this could be the trickery of some demon, you could be in a coma, this could be the matrix, or this could be a dream. But the fact is, when you read these words they appear to exist. And anyone else who is able to read these words believe them (the thing in itself, not what the words are saying) to exist as well. Do they exist? I can't prove without a better definition of existence, but do I think they exist? You sure bet.

"That's sure a noodle scratcher." -Ned Flanders.

[Lycan_bites]

I don't believe anything is real, not even that orange...
I don't neccessary think that "seeing is believing" is dangerous as such, but it is true that without some basic leap of faith you'll probably end up hurt (or if it's the werewolves you're talking about, then dead... probably).

[EyeOfTheBeholder]

You do have a valid point but to say something "does exist" without any proof of it existing is what starts wars, religion works much the same way. To have faith in something that you cannot touch or prove is very dangerous, because you cannot prove it to someone who cannot see what you do. And as we are human after a while of screaming about who's god has the bigger hat, we end up fighting or killing one another.

[War Wolf]

Reality is. That's a fact. All that is, could be, will be, and was, whether we perceve it or not, is still a part of Reality. Our perception of Reality may not be as important as our understanding of Reality. Reality encompasess all including Infinity. Where Infinity stops, Reality continues. What we perceve is reality, whether it is in part or the whole of Reality. No matter how strange, odd, or incomprehensible something may be, it still is part of Reality. Fact, faith, logic, love, and hope are all part of Existense. If we try to deny something that is in fact true, than we deny reality and the Truth. It isn't as if philosophy is inconsequential or unimportant. Quite the opposite! All attempts we make to understand existence in whatever form we use is always an important and, overall, good idea. Our curiosity is what will help us to evolve and become more than we currently are. I truly hope we never lose that.

[Lycan_bites]

Yeah, I can see why it's so dangerous now...
But without faith then people are hopeless, and what is a world without hope? There are always 2 sides to everything I reckon.

[LV426]

Why do people need faith in order to keep from being hopeless? Why can't they believe in the things that they perceive as reality and simply stop taking the intangible as fact?

[blueeyes]

Because, if you don't have faith in something like a god or force, you have to find a way to believe in a future.
Otherwise, you're stuck with today's life, today's problems. And, without being willing to see the intangible possiblities, you can't improve on anything. Without the choice to see the intangible forces that shape our minds, you can't lead people.

If you can believe in the future, fine. But it takes a hero to do that. For those of us closer to our id or ego, we'll stick with the forces that give us a chance.

[DarkWolf]

A rather narrow minded way of looking at it BE.

if you don't have faith in something like a god or force, you have to find a way to believe in a future.That's beyond easy. You don't need a god/force faith to believe in having a future. If you work toward it, and stay alive, it'll probably happen with enough patience. I know people who are successful, happy and leading full lives with strong belief in the future: and are athiest of all things remotely supernatural.

Belief in future and faith in god/force are mutally exclusive.

Otherwise, you're stuck with today's life, today's problemsYou still are no matter what your faith is. Those problems don't just go away on their own. What faith teaches you to neglect everything and just sit there doing nothing? None. Even the zen and buddha practices which focus on enlightement and freedom of material needs: still requires you to get food (a problem: no food = death), do cleaning chores (same problem here: it is called housework) and more. You will always have today's problems because you live in today. You are not a time-traveller or omniscient so you're stuck no matter what. As for hoping for the future and using today to work towards a better future: that doesn't require faith in intangible things. It just means you use today for planning for tomorrow. Anybody can do that with or without faith.

And, without being willing to see the intangible possiblities, you can't improve on anything.Wrong again. Believing in a future and working towards it is, for example, a tangible possibility. This is normally achieved by improving yourself (learning, developing new skills, controlling attitude for those crucial meetings and overcoming any problems with emotion etc to do what you need to). This is by far the most narrow minded thing you have ever said, BE. People overcome fears without religion, they handle tense situations and prove something of themselves without religion, they overcome many trials of character without religion and they can help themselves to be better (worker, parent, person, whatever) without religion. By religion I am also implying the faith in intangible things that cannot be proved either way. There are more people who achieve these things without religion then there are of those who do.

Without the choice to see the intangible forces that shape our minds, you can't lead people.Why not? Leading skills require knowing the people you are leading, making good judgements on their behalf, respecting them, aiming for better places and caring for them while encouraging them. All of this can be done, easily, without belief in any intangible thing.

I must wonder why you think you need such belief in all these things and why your view must, of course, be true for the majority despite not knowing the majority?

I also wonder if you understand what we mean by "intangible possibilities". I don't think it implies an event that is possible to happen but probably never will. We mean things, such as God or other divine force, that while are a possibility: they cannot be proven or known to any degree at all until your death or perhaps not even then.

For example:

Scenario A: Jim is sixteen and has yet to use a computer but dreams of owning his own computer games software company.

Scenario B: Bob is sceptic about his religion and dreams of knowing all truths of his religion before death.

Scenario A is tangible - Jim can develop computer skills and with a lot of effort and ideas he can make his own games software. He can start sellings these games off and as he earns money develops a smalltime business. With more hard work he can build this business more, get some other programmers in, more games more money, buy better equipment which increases productivity and all the while keeping his eyes peeled for business oppotunities in his field to eventually work his way up to his own successful company. It may seem out of his reach: but there is a logical and already proven possibility he can do it.

Scenario B is intangible: You can not work to knowing the truth before death. You cannot climb to the heavens prematurely and gain the knowledge and the chances of God/Force/Deity/Whatever taking time to see you specifically out of the billions of sceptics/religious are slim to none and those chances cannot be improved by any means available to any living creature. While the absence of evidence is not proof of fiction - it doesn't bode well as truth either and further lowers your chances of knowing the truth undeniably before death.

--

So you are wrong in every degree of that post.

And thanks for this compliment:

If you can believe in the future, fine. But it takes a hero to do that. I'll be sure to tell: all my friends, my entire family, most of my entire bloodline, most of my mother's friends, all of my father's, most of my brother's and most of my brother's girlfriend's family.. That they are all heroes - Each and every one has improved themselves (it's part of human life, also if you want to be technical: learning and becoming an adult to any degree means you improved yourself beyond the mature mental state of a small child as this is not a requisite of animal growth and is only considered a human one out of social demands) by overcoming obstacles and getting past traumas and improving who they are and how they treat others. They also all work towards a better future for themselves and for their families. And they do all this as athiests or agnostics.

Sorry BE but the whole "believe religions or you're doomed" scenario you're selling isn't being bought.

[blueeyes]

Tangible - (http://hyperdictionary.com/search.aspx?define=t angible)
1 [adj] possible to be treated as fact; "tangible evidence"; "his brief time as Prime Minister brought few real benefits to the poor"
2 [adj] having substance or material existence; perceptible to the senses; "a physical manifestation"; "surrounded by tangible objects"
3 [adj] capable of being perceived by the senses or the mind; especially capable of being handled or touched or felt; "a barely palpable dust"; "felt sudden anger in a palpable wave"; "the air was warm and close--palpable as cotton"
4 [adj] perceptible by the senses especially the sense of touch; "skin with a tangible roughness"
5 [adj] (of especially business assets) having physical substance and intrinsic monetary value ; "tangible property like real estate"; "tangible assets such as machinery"

Is it possible to touch the chance that Joe Blow could become a good computer programmer? Is it possible to measure it, percieve it with touch or smell? How about hearing? Can you give it a single dollar value? I'd be quite impressed if you could.
Because how do you know you could succeed? It's certainly not something you can just pluck out of the air. What if Joe Blow just can't make a successful game? What if industry events end up making it impossible for him to get work? There's things in this world that change our futures every day.
And you call that a tangible future, something taken on only substance and not on faith?

Religious fiend or agnostic or athiest, we all believe in intangible things and rely on them. Most of us just take a belief in things we don't even notice. But you can't touch them, you can't put a dollar sign on them, and you can never, ever, treat them as fact. It isn't always religion or some impossible to define force. But the things that drive you and your family, DW, still can't be found with a GPS, can they? Even LH, atheist to the max, still finds force in her own godhood, doesn't she?

Why is it, everytime someone says that a religion helps them, it's assumed to be a "believe religion or you're doomed" scenario. First of all, I actually said, right up above, that there are other choices, although equally intangible ones, that can be made. The futures that you somehow claim can be visually confirmed and given a distinct monetary value are one, that's one thing I mentioned.
There's also just distinct belief in human forces, although I'd assume they're even harder to give a distinct shape to.
Religions can be an easy drive for people who have no reason to act differently. They can teach law, they can educate on ethics, and they can give a bit of possiblity and hope. It's possible to believe in other intangible things, your own dormant abilities and even the dormant possible futures. But just because some people can shave without the mirror, doesn't mean that those who need a pane of glass coated with silver should be retrained.

I didn't say believe in religions or you're doomed.
All I said is that people who refuse to think of anything intangible or take any such things as fact don't tend to be the good guys.