English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

i dont get it. is it saying that there is truly a chance that reality might not exist?

or is it a self defeating idea and just a standpoint to show what can be truly known EMPERICALY?

2007-06-11 12:13:15 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Arts & Humanities Philosophy

9 answers

Descartes meditations are a good starting point- it's not that there's a CHANCE that what we call "reality" might not exist- it's quite simply that absolute certainty about the existence of ANYTHING other than ourselves is impossible.

Oh, and the movie is "What the Bleep do we know" :)

2007-06-11 12:45:49 · answer #1 · answered by C-Man 7 · 1 1

I believe this to be a common theme in sci-fi: technology taking over and eliminating the "human" experience. Each individual has their own reality on a certain level, but as a whole society -- world -- reality is collective and what we believe it to be. There is no finite definition of reality when you consider all of the word's connotations and all of reality itself's inflections. Think about it. The "real" world (aka, "reality") is completely different for, say, a schizophrenic than it is for a mentally healthy person.

Reality exists for you individually and for the human race collectively as we define it to be. Movies like The Matrix redefine reality within the plotline to be that of the technologically advanced non-humans (built by humans, the irony of that reality). Reality in that case is what the machines define it to be. I believe that the point to those movies is that human kind is self-destructive, even if it is not currently apparent. "I, Robot" (the movie) makes the same basic point: humans will self-destruct eventually.

With our current technology, no, we cannot take it seriously. However, it may just be possible in the future. It could be that the A.I. machines evolve and "learn" from the plotlines of our movies how to redefine reality and "procreate" most efficiently by our own ideas.

2007-06-11 19:31:01 · answer #2 · answered by ? 6 · 0 0

Solipsism is the concept that only oneself exists. Whilst an interesting intellectual argument, it is flawed by the fact that your subconscious could devise any reality that suited the argument.
Cartesian skepticism arose out of Descartes search for certainty. A search that continues to this very day. At this time we are only certain of 2 subjects: mathematics and logic. Descartes knew that our senses can be deceived and he extrapolated this fact to say that we can never trust our senses. Descartes arguments led to the idea that human beings are minds and what they expirience apart from themselves is matter. Never did he say that matter did not exist (the solipsist view).

2007-06-11 20:13:10 · answer #3 · answered by Malcolm D 7 · 1 0

Such ideas are to be taken seriously. When people began to accumulate knowledge, they also had schools of rhetoric, on how to convince others of your opinion. Their strategy was not mere better presentation, there were verbal tricks to make others fall for whatever manipulation. Out of the study of those verbal tricks began the skeptic school of knowledge. Of course, tricks that worked centuries ago would not work today, and not merely because of changed circumstances. We have grown wiser.

The study is still relevant. There are still verbal trickery used to manipulate, and study of epistemology can help you avoid such traps.

2007-06-11 19:31:17 · answer #4 · answered by epistemology 5 · 1 0

Solipsism, the branch of philosophy you are talking about, merely contends that there is limit to which we can believe our senses. In the extreme, is states that we cannot with absolute certainty say that what we say is reality is really and positively true. As for the matrix, it is pure fiction.

2007-06-11 19:25:25 · answer #5 · answered by Sophist 7 · 1 0

Read what Wittgenstein had to say about sollipsism-- you might find his refutation helpful.

Consider Jean Luc Marion's recent work "The Erotic Phenomenon" it has a devastating critique of Cartesian epistemology.

2007-06-11 19:21:37 · answer #6 · answered by Timaeus 6 · 2 1

i see one top Contributor recommends that you read
the modern sage wittgenstein.
I would recommend you dont-
for he is the modern result of ancient dialectic;that is,words
for their own sake,or the sake of the few disciples who have
learned impressive language,and precious little else.

2007-06-11 19:39:08 · answer #7 · answered by peter m 6 · 2 1

Watch the movie "What the bleep down the rabbit hole"

2007-06-11 19:44:09 · answer #8 · answered by BillyWink 1 · 0 1

We're not

2007-06-11 19:50:57 · answer #9 · answered by Don W 6 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers