Irony

Originally posted by dottewell
Thanks.

The problem as I see it is that both you (and several of the systems you mention) see "truth" as some metaphysical entity lurking behind what we perceive. That is a very old-fashioned conception of truth. I imagine very few people today, for example, see themselves as empiricists (in the tradition of Hume, for example) or rationalists (here yo ...[text shortened]... atements mean, I know what they mean, I also know they are accurate. Why over-complicate things?

What do we perceive? And how is it that we can both understand the statement "there is no tiger in my lounge at the moment"? And understanding does not entail believing. But knowledge does entail believing and understanding. We work with the assumption of "knowledge" every day - we make assumptions daily about our perceptions. But our perceptions can not explain how it is that you and I can both understand the statement "there is no tiger in my lounge at the moment".

Most people don't bother with thinking about "old-fashioned" ideas about truth and world-views. Their philosophy is "why ask why?". But then, these people are in no position to make any judgments against anyone else's views.

The fact that most people do not see themselves as empiricists or rationalist does not change the fact that they are operating on the basis of presuppositions - even if these are irrational. I hold that rational thought demonstrates how we are created in God's image. So avoiding irrationalism to me part of being spiritual. The second part of being spiritual is knowing the truth. Therefore it is imperative to examine the assumption I make, and examine those others make when that make any claims or criticisms.

Why do I do it? - to defend world-view when anyone asserts that being a Christian is irrational. Anyone who thinks that my world-view is irrational had better be ready to examine their own world-view and learn a few things about the assumptions they are making. They will learn two things - Christianity is more than rational - and it is likely they their world-view is based on fatally flawed assumptions.

Originally posted by Coletti
Why do I do it? - to defend world-view when anyone asserts that being a Christian is irrational. Anyone who thinks that my world-view is irrational had better be ready to examine their own world-view and learn a few things about the assumptions they are making. They will learn two things - Christianity is more than rational - and it is likely they their world-view is based on fatally flawed assumptions.

Would you consider my "world-view" that Christianity is wholly constructed by man, and that Jesus is a syncretic creation representational of the Sun and based on previous mythological characters, irrational?

Originally posted by David C
Would you consider my "world-view" that Christianity is wholly constructed by man, and that Jesus is a syncretic creation representational of the Sun and based on previous mythological characters, irrational?

That's not a world-view. At best that is what you have concluded based on your world-view, if even that. It may just be one huge guess on your part with not rational defense.

Originally posted by Coletti
What do we perceive? And how is it that we can both understand the statement "there is no tiger in my lounge at the moment"? And understanding does not entail believing. But knowledge does entail believing and understanding. We work with the assumption of "knowledge" every day - we make assumptions daily about our perceptions. But our perceptions ca ...[text shortened]... e than rational - and it is likely they their world-view is based on fatally flawed assumptions.

We perceive the world. We both understand the statement because we have a shared language, and we can apply its rules.

We can hold wrong beliefs, but these have to be disproved; we have criteria for saying a belief has been disproved.

It is not a matter of asking "Why ask why?" It is that some questions simply cannot be meaningfully asked, such as "what lies behind perception". That is not how perception works. Those "old fashioned" questions are not asked because philosophy has moved on.

It does not make sense to ask what "presuppositions" people are making. They are not making any. The world is as it is. Our language is as it is. That is all.

Originally posted by dottewell
We perceive the world. We both understand the statement because we have a shared language, and we can apply its rules.

We can hold wrong beliefs, but these have to be disproved; we have criteria for saying a belief has been disproved.

It is not a matter of asking "Why ask why?" It is that some questions simply cannot be meaningfully asked, such as ...[text shortened]... e making. They are not making any. The world is as it is. Our language is as it is. That is all.

"The world is as it is." - the is meaningless - or it leads to nothing else.

What are perceptions?

Originally posted by Coletti
That's not a world-view. At best that is what you have concluded based on your world-view, if even that. It may just be one huge guess on your part with not rational defense.

So, that's a "yes", then. I suggest you take your own advice, and re-examine your assumptions.

Originally posted by David C
So, that's a "yes", then. I suggest you take your own advice, and re-examine your assumptions.

Tell what is your world-view. I can't even begin to consider it otherwise.

Originally posted by Coletti
"The world is as it is." - the is meaningless - or it leads to nothing else.

What are perceptions?

Exact;y, it leads to nothing else.

Perceptions are our experiences of the world.

Originally posted by dottewell
Exact;y, it leads to nothing else.

Perceptions are our experiences of the world.

"Perceptions are our experiences of the world."

What are experiences? Perceptions?

Originally posted by Coletti
"Perceptions are our experiences of the world."

What are experiences? Perceptions?

You are trying to reify perceptions and experiences as "things". They are not, not in the sense you mean.

Originally posted by dottewell
You are trying to reify perceptions and experiences as "things". They are not, not in the sense you mean.

I'm asking you to explain perceptions.

Originally posted by Coletti
I'm asking you to explain perceptions.

There is no more to say about them other than that they are our direct experiences of the world. I could give you examples?

But what of your view, that they are things? Are you saying they are an intermediary thing between our brains and the world? That they could exist without the world? That they could exist without our brains? Or what? What is the relationship between the three things?

Originally posted by dottewell
There is no more to say about them other than that they are our direct experiences of the world. I could give you examples?

But what of your view, that they are things? Are you saying they are an intermediary thing between our brains and the world? That they could exist without the world? That they could exist without our brains? Or what? What is the relationship between the three things?

So perceptions are experiences and experience is perception. Is that it?

Originally posted by Coletti
So perceptions are experiences and experience is perception. Is that it?

Where did I say "experience is perception"?

You didn't answer my questions.

Originally posted by dottewell
Where did I say "experience is perception"?

You didn't answer my questions.

You haven't explained perceptions except to repeat they are experiences. So what are perceptions really? And what do you do with them? And how do you do it?