I've been struck by skepticism

[daniel777]

This chair I'm sitting on. I see it, I touch it. Is that empirical data trustworthy? Does it tell me anything true about the actual chair?

the chair is either an illusion or real. leave the specificities of the chair behind for the moment.

if it is an illusion, then who's to say it isn't real? if it is real, then who's to say it isn't an illusion?

if you think it's real, then it's real so far as you believe it is. if you think it's an illusion than it isn't real so far as you believe it isn't.

the most important thing you're assuming here is that there is something "actual", and that "actual" really exists apart from what you decide. you're assuming that "actual" is real and that it is more real than "you" and everything else.

so, how do you bridge the gap between the chair and the "actual" chair?.... do they have to be similar? no, in fact in think they only have to be as similar as the "fake" chair and the "real" chair, and the only way i can think of finding a complete answer is by discovering what "actual" is. good luck.



basically, we don't really know whether or not we know anything "actual". however, it is possible to test how consistent something is with everything else, and i think that's the best we can really do.

 

[quatona]

When I say "I want a chair" I actually mean "I want something to sit on."
If I can sit on it it´s good enough a chair for me. I don´t care if it´s a "real chair" or an "actual chair", if its maker has intended it to be a chair, even if it has been purposely made at all, if it "exist" as a distinct object or not.
My mind organizes matter and energy in the way it needs it. A chair is a chair if, when and because I want there to be a chair.

 

[lutherangerman]

Maybe it helps to ask yourself, why are you questioning reality? IE, ask the question with a moral bent ... am I mistreating truth by considering it unfaithfully?

Personally, I've found that the question hinges on certainty, and certainty is a bit of a myth in everything. You will see that you need something more fuzzy there, you need a means to relate to reality, and that means, I really think, must be a faith. It can find certainty too, but that depends on your will to believe in belief.

I'm actually meaning that seriously. Scepticism in our age allows for mental peace, but I think the price for radical scepticism is too high. Of course, the sceptic would say, how do you know the price is too high? I just find that scepticism is like trying to build a human by individually piecing atoms together, only to say afterwards, now I know myself, now I can be sure that I exist. I think we plainly don't have the time for this.

 

[Greg1234]

Maybe you can't know anything. Truth itself cannot be obtained unless the truth, is known to be true. How do you reach that point? When you know for sure that you know that this is the truth. I think that this can only be obtained through pure awareness, not the five senses.

I mean you see a blue sky, your friend sees a blue sky. But based on a slightly different biological makeup both of you see a different blue. So does every body else. So who has the true blue? Can the true blue ever be known?

How then do you eliminate differing blues but to have a universal state of existence. The purest state, the first state, where there are no senses of sight smell sound taste and hearing, just awareness. I believe human consciousness and these senses were designed to emulate this awareness.

Outside of the body, of the senses, there may be no nose, or ears or eyes, but your consciousness being a part of everything sound, smell, sight, is made of and upon, therefore you are just aware of it. Your friend's blue would be identical to your blue since he is you, you are him/her, you are blue, blue is you. It sounds crazy yet seems like truth cannot be known, only experienced