See not, is not.

[dybo]

Don't even believe that! Try eating an apple and an onion with your nose plugged: they taste the same. Take a look at my nice, stationary circles:
. Ever heard a perfect 1st and 5th in a chord? No, because you hear the 3rd as well. Ever expirienced "burning cold"? All senses can be fooled.  

[mrs_chester_bennington]

27x

My Biology teacher has something called the Black Box project. He brought out a black wooden box with a funnel on top, and a little whole in the bottom. He would pour a certian ammount of clear water into the box, and the water that came out of the hole in the bottom was a different colour. Every once in a while it would be a different colour than the first one, alternating between four colours. At the end of it, he says," Hmm, I wonder if turning this funnel to the left or right will change the colour, " It was an obvious clue to help us figure out how the box worked.

The assignment was we had to figure out, not how the box worked directly, but to figure out a plausable means for the box to do what it was doing. If our idea didn't work, or it had some unexplained idea, "Well there are different chambers, and they all go down this tube(he would have us draw our idea) and a different color comes out every time.How would the box decide what color would come out. What stops the colors from all mixing together?I didn't figure that out." then we would get only half of the points for the assignment. If our idea actually would work, and all the factors could be proven, then we would get all but ten points(I'll explain the ten point difference soon).


I was the only one who got the forty points(the maximum was fifty, but as I said, the ten points thing)with my idea, "The funnel has a little plastic shute attatched to it. On each side of the wall, is a marker of a different color. Whenever somone turns the funnel to one side of the box, the shute pours the water ontop of the marker, which will give it a distinct color."

This was not only plausable, but from his reaction, I am sure that I was dead on.

What he said next surprised me though, "When people can't observe something the way they need to to unerstand it, they can only make theories, and a theory is only good untill somone comes up with a better one. It's easy for us to say that an atom exists with protons, neutrons, and electrons, but once someone observes an atom directly, or comes up with a better theory, we'll have to accept that. We can't just believe in one theory forever, because without being able to observe it, we may be wrong."

It's easy to cower behind all the PhDs who are sure as hell that the atomic theory is correct, and noone will ever disprove it, and if somone does you can be sure as hell that the majority of people will reject it for no good reason at all. All I can say is, don't believe everything that you don't see, hear, feel, touch, smell, or taste.

That's a really interesting assignment, because it was a lesson on one of the most fundamental things on which science is based - the important concept of "scientific theory;" that science accepts that it is a continuous set of theories which try to define the nature of the universe and everything in it, and that the theories must never take up absolute authority for as soon as a better theory replaces them, and it is assumed that one will, they will no longer be accepted or believed in.

As a sceptic I often have trouble understanding how anyone can ever claim to 'know' anything no matter how much science proves it, for every true scientist should also know that the theory is only waiting to be disproved and replaced. But then the only thing that annoys me more than that about science, however, is if people argue a scientific theory to be an absolute truth, when really their faith in empircal perceptions on which science is based are no more reliable in my opinion than the word of a dusty old bible.
Not that I think either are foolish, I just think that absolute knowledge probably doesn't exist because you can't know anything without some faith. For instance, there is always the possibility that nothing is as it seems. But I probably shouldn't go into that for the sake of keeping to the topic...  

[27x]

Well an interesting thing about knowledge is this.

If somone says to you, "You could be wrong," then we are expected to believe we don't know it.

As normal people, we simply come to know what we percieve, and the concepts that we learn.

It's also natural to question that knowledge, but just becaues you know something doesn't mean you have to prove that it's true to be able to speak your mind.  

[Smartteaser192]

Niniva

What you are speaking of is much like Plato's cave. But your thinking is flawed. Surely there is no one in the world who quite literally thinks that if they were to simply turn around and plug their ears the things behind them would cease to exist in a litteral sense. That is obsurd.

So you must then be refering to the epistemic "existence" in the sense that if I can't percieve it then it doesn't 'exist to me'.

As a Metaphysician myself I fail to see a problem with existance as a whole as I am not one who particularly cares at all if there is a thing there to percieve something else's existance. There are things which truely metaphysically exist around us all the time which are quite impossible to percieve and yet they are there doing their metaphysical as always.

What you have suggested seems not at all a problem if you consider the world to be objective. Existance doesn't depend at all on an observer and so to say something stops existing when there is no thing there to percieve it is much like saying existance itself, in a literal sense, depends wholely on the senses. If that is true then not only are there things that are metaphysically there that we cannot percieve (atoms, electrons, photons, Quarks...ect) but there are many things that 'exist' because you percieve them even though they aren't literally there.

The senses can be decieved quite easily (May I cite the mirrage arguement here), but those things are not truely there are they? Not metaphysically they aren't. You may think they are but what you think about the way the world is has no real bearing on the actual way the world is. To think so is obsurd.

What you are talking here is similar to the philosophies of Soren Kiekegaard. That is, Absurdity and Existentialism.

I will not put this into a metaphysical nor a epistemological context but a existential or an ontological context.

Individuality- Becoming aware of our true self is our true task and endeavor in life—it is an ethical imperative, as well as preparatory to a true religious understanding. Individuals can exist at a level that is less than true selfhood. We can live, for example, simply in terms of our pleasures—our immediate satisfaction of desires, propensities, or distractions. In this way, we glide through life without direction or purpose. To have a direction, we must have a purpose that defines for us the meaning of our lives.

Authenticity- the conscious self is seen as coming to terms with being in a material world and with encountering external forces, pressures and influences which are very different from, and other than, itself.
-is the degree to which one is true to one's own personality, spirit, or character, despite these pressures.
1. Authentic Existence- Freewill. (Existential praxis)
2. Inauthentic Existence- Dictated by system.

We see ourselves following a leap of faith. BTW, Niniva, do you think this could be applied in the other thread about reality? Yes I believe so.

b. Leap of Faith- is the act of believing in something without, or in spite of, available empirical evidence. Jump to something unknown and to believe in something that is absurd.

So, therefore in short, Kiekegaard was a Empiricist.

According to Jean-Paul Sartre that Existence precedes Essence.

“Existence precedes essence”- it means that humanity may exist, but humanity's existence does not mean anything at least at the beginning. The value and meaning of this existence—or essence—is created only later. It directly and strongly rejects many traditional beliefs including religious beliefs that humankind is given a knowable purpose by its creator or other deity. Did not cause himself to exist, he exist and once existing felt that he was thrown into the world.

Empricism VS. Rationalism, which of the 2 are you in favor and pls. explain or elaborate.

BTW, Is everyone in this guild a philosophy major? Including you Niniva? Me, Nope, I am still a psychology student.  

[Smartteaser192]

dybo

Don't even believe that! Try eating an apple and an onion with your nose plugged: they taste the same. Take a look at my nice, stationary circles:
. Ever heard a perfect 1st and 5th in a chord? No, because you hear the 3rd as well. Ever expirienced "burning cold"? All senses can be fooled.

"Burning Cold" is a oxymoron which is a figure of speech.

The picture above is a static optical illusion. Meaning it looks like its moving but it is not. This is how our perceptions are easily deceived.  

[Smartteaser192]

27x

Well an interesting thing about knowledge is this.

If somone says to you, "You could be wrong," then we are expected to believe we don't know it.

As normal people, we simply come to know what we percieve, and the concepts that we learn.

It's also natural to question that knowledge, but just becaues you know something doesn't mean you have to prove that it's true to be able to speak your mind.

Ane what we do not know is a way to accept true knowledge.

A collective acquistion of false Knowledge is an eradication of ignorance.

True knowledge is autonomous. That is wisdom.

Socrates said "Know Thyself" and "Knowledge is a Virtue"

The highest knowledge is possessed by that individual who truly knows himself. This knowledge constitutes ultimate wisdom. It enables man to act in a virtuous manner at all times, because he knows what will bring him true happiness.  

[Niniva]

Quote:

"Burning Cold" is a oxymoron which is a figure of speech.

No it isn't, if you'd studied a little in the medical world you'd know that you can be so cold that it literally burns the skin.

But it also feel hot. But that is due to damaged nerves. I'm not sure burning cold is applicable here.

Quote:

Me, Nope, I am still a psychology student.

I wouldn't admit this out loud any longer if I were you.

Everything you've stated above is someone elses ideas and I'll be honest...I'm having a really hard time seeing how it pertains to the metaphysical or true existence of "things".

Quote:

Leap of Faith- is the act of believing in something without, or in spite of, available empirical evidence. Jump to something unknown and to believe in something that is absurd.

This definition is almost certainly wrong. Faith requires something else here besides that I just simply lack the evidence. It requires that there is no evidence whatsoever to be gained. In other words, beyond our reasoning faculties I COULD NOT EVER POSSIBLY PROVE this thing that I have faith in to be true.

Just not being without evidence does not mean there is no evidence to be had, what you have done is recite the English definition for the word Belief but that is an odd word and very troublesome.

In any case, I am not an empiricist I am a logician and a metaphysician. Your empirical evidence is useful but not the end all be all.