|
home archive writing pictures about me random quotes music links irc guestbook validated |
Reality September 20, 2000
The distinction that causes the most trouble in philosophy is the distinction between "appearance" and
"reality," between what things seem to be and what they are. The painter wants to know what things seem to be,
the practical man and the philosopher want to know what they are. . . . but if reality is not what appears,
have we any means of knowing whether there is any reality at all?
- Bertrand Russell, The Problems of Philosophy
In everyday life people distinguish between the real size of the sun and the size it appears to be, between the natural components of a cloud (a concentration of water droplets) and what the cloud seems to be (some fleecy substance?), and so on. However, when arguing of the reality of such things, how can any physical explanation be more real than what can be experienced in first person? Logical reasoning brings out many answers, but how real are they in comparison to the dreams and sensations our minds perceive? Does the universe exist as humans know and describe it, or is the universe just a false reality in which nothing really exists at all? This is all based on the presuppositions of knowledge, those "philosophical principles that lie at the foundations of virtually all of our knowledge and beliefs." Without them, we could believe nothing, know nothing, and think nothing else. The presupposition that the universe even exists is the fundamental belief that breathes air into the lungs of science. Although most people choose not to question the existence of themselves and the universe around them, the status of such principles is just as much in question as the status of any big philosophical questions. No matter how obvious the answers may seem to be, existence of any entity, physical or otherwise, is very difficult to prove, and by most popular standards, impossible. I believe, however, that existence is not provable through reason based on experience, but by that very experience. While many great [and amateur] philosophers argue that the life in its natural state is based on God, or science, or any of a great number of other things, I argue that life is merely based on consciousness. There is no proof of one's own existence but one's own consciousness, that very awareness of your being. Whether it is a false awareness or not is no matter. It is that awareness that makes life real to that individual. Arguments against this belief are easy to come by. Life can very easily be described in scientific means, but this does not mean that biology and physics are the basic building blocks that create what we know as life. Theology can very easily provide meaning for life, if that is chosen path, but this does not mean that theology is the key to all the doors beyond which all the answers lie. The single concept that constitutes the continuous spread of such ideas is consciousness itself. © III Enterprises & neotope.com |
nickd zone38 neotope sheepless spasticreb waferbaby hornygoat nealznuze slashdot IGN Games BetaNews kuro5hin baseball Fox News OpinionJournal WorldNetDaily |