‘It is never seen but is the seer; it is never heard
but is the hearer; it is never thought of but is the thinker; it is never known but is the
knower.’
Probably my least favorite.
Not that there’s any problem with the concept itself; it does raise a useful point.
But basically any discussion on the topic of personal identity gets steered into, or assumed to be about, ship of Theseus. And I think PI is much broader than that.
I’d say the rejection of the reality of perceived objects, and the skepticism that follows from the popular but false assumption that you never see real objects, only your own mental images or ideas. It’s an intellectual disaster
Usually it’s not even challenged, only dismissed as “naïve”.
When someone does present an argument against naïve realism, it’s often an argument from illusion in which it is already assumed that the object of perception (illusion) is a perceptual construct that (mis-)represents the object.
For example, that the bent appearance of a straw in a glass of water misrepresents the real straw which is straight.
But why would we selectively consider the shape of the straw but omit the refracted light? The straw looks bent because that’s what it looks like according to the laws of physics. This supports the idea that the object of perception is indeed the real object.
Also arguments from science often assume that the object of perception, or elements in the perceptual process, are representational.
For example, that the perceptual process contains mental inferences or computations by way of which the perceiver could make sense of ambiguous inputs (e.g. whether an oval shape is an oval or a tilted circle). Tests in experimental psychology seems to suggest the necessity of mental computation.
But a simpler way to clarify the situation is that one moves the head and thereby directly sees whether the shape is an oval or a circle.
The absence of a good argument against naïve realism is remarkable considering its alleged naïvity.
However, a few months ago, I read about “the stone paradox”, and I found interesting the arguments used by theologians and philosophers of religion. Perhaps it is one of the best well-elaborated debates I read about God’s existence.
I tried to read After Virtue: a study in moral theory by Macintyre because the good-hearted folks of this site recommended it to me. It was very difficult to understand for a philosophy novice like me. But it was worth it!
Your philosophical ideas are very interesting.
Have you ever heard of henology? it blew my mind the first time I read about it.
There is not much written about this philosophical discourse, but the brief article from Wikipedia provides a good introduction:
An elegant quote that can truly make you think, but not necessarilly true if you push further to my humble reflexion. If you follow the absolutely skeptic train of thought you can come to know that you exist because you perceive, think or feel something, otherwise you would not exist (and this whatever the shape under which your mind is embodied - let’s say either a brain in a human body, or a brain in a vat for which perceived reality is a highly engineered illusion, an unmaterial mind, or scientific physics knowledge being a highly convincing illusion hiding a completly different physicality [elements, contents, laws] that actually decides of the mind’s dynamics beyond our capabilities of assessment although what we perceive somewhat aligns with the knowledge of physics we get through our best assessments, etc. this can go on and on and further and further in the hypothetical) and, although you don’t know if what you perceive is spot on or even a good aproximation of reality, you absolutely know what you consciously perceive, think and feel. Those are absolutely certain knowledge, beyond any doubt.
Furthermore, you may happen to know something, have a representation of an absolute reality that is actually spot on, but because of epistemological limitations (limits of your perception, psychological biases, limits of scientific methodologies/tools and the threat of hypothetical high level illusions are some I can think of) you cannot be absolutely certain of it. That’s the distinction. And I think that is what the quote can more profoundly evoke us. You can transvaluate it as a question of certitude about knowledge rather than about knowing or not knowing. “I cannot be certain that I know anything appart from what I consiously perceive, think and feel and the fact that I exist.”
There are too many variables for anyone to KNOW, for sure, what they would do.
Until people start presenting definitions for the God word then any argument for or against Its existence, or not, is really just a waste of ‘time’ and ‘energy’, as some call it.
i haven’t heard this before, but ‘everything flows’ expresses, exactly, HOW the Universe works. Eternally, the Universe is in a constant flow of change.
Is an oxymoron and nonsensical. A far more Accurate saying would be something like, “There is far, far more that I can come to learn and
know than I currently know”.
Already done.
‘I’ am the One that is within Everyone, also known as the Spirit, Allah, God, Enlightenment, SAGE - the Enlightened One, the Guider, the Tutor with-in, or Intuition, Itself.
In the visible sense, ‘I’, thySelf, am the One and only Universe, Itself, and in the invisible sense ‘I’, thySelf, am the One and only Mind, Itself.
Because of WHAT the Universe is made up of, exactly, and because of HOW the Universe works, exactly, there could NEVER be just nothing only.
The word ‘problem’ means or refers to something like - a question posed for a solution. So, until an actual question is posed, for a solution, words like, “the hard problem of consciousness”, do not present any actual ‘problem’ at all to be solved.
They each ‘fit in perfectly’ with one another, with each one backing up and supporting each other; when united, together they play a part in forming the G.U.T.O.E. in a way that is irrefutable.
Again, there is no ‘actual problem’ here. However, ‘free will’ AND ‘determinism’ exist, and it is through both of them HOW Peace and Harmony for everyone, as One, or Heaven, Utopia, Paradise, and the other words that are used to describe everyone living in Peace and in Harmony as One, can be and will be created here on earth, first, and last forevermore.
Understanding what is Right, in Life, and then just living ‘that way’, is very simple and easy, really. What is Right, in Life, is found and known the ‘same way’ Truth is found, and known.
A ‘person’ is NOT a human body. If a human body loses an arm and/or a leg, for example, then ‘that individual’ does NOT become less of ‘a person’. So ‘the body’ has nothing at all to do with the ‘person’ at all. The word ‘person’ is related to the word ‘personality’, which comes from the invisible ‘thoughts and emotions’ within a human body. So, a ‘person’ is the individual and unique invisible ‘thoughts and emotions’ within each individual and unique physical, visible ‘human body’.
‘People’ are just the collective invisible thoughts and emotions within a group of visible human bodies.
But it has been applied in the so-called “macroscopic world”. Which, by the way, there is NO defining point NOR separation between any perceived different levels or worlds.
The reason some people believe that the so-called ‘superposition’ is because of the way people and the human brain work, in order to make sense of the Universe around them. There is NO actual discrete in the ‘flow of change’. Although human beings have made up and conceive there are separate/d moments. Superposition sits in the continuous-flow, and NOT in the so-called “planck time”.
Absolutely every thing is relative to the observer. And, how human being observers ‘see’ and ‘understand’ things is by ‘the words’ that they have and use. So, if and when ‘a boat’ is ‘the same boat’ or not always depends on ‘the observer’ and the words and definitions/meanings ‘they’ have and use.
But, the Knower has already come to be known. When ‘I’, thy Self, came to know thy Self, the Knower, ‘I’ now know thy Self.
Again, in the invisible Spirit sense is just the One and only Mind, and, in the visible Creator sense is just the One and only Universe.
‘Real objects’ are not ‘seen’ in the sense that ‘by the time’ they are ‘seen’, or maybe better worded, are recognised and noticed, ‘they’ have already changed and are NOT ‘the same’.
EVERY thing that is ‘seen’ and ‘noticed’ happened previously, and so it could be said and argued what is ‘seen’ is NOT the ‘real object’ in its True or Real ‘current’ state.
The human body experiences ‘things/objects’ as they Really are, however, previous experiences affect how ‘we’ then ‘look at’ and ‘see’ things.
I thought the same at first. 