Reality as Construct

Quid est Veritas? said:

My argument has never been for Idealism as opposed to Realism. People are really misunderstanding me here. I sincerely apologise for that.

My argument is that even if the world exists, our perception of it, by what we have discovered, would remain in the form of abstracts. This is perhaps why so many philosophers supported some form of Idealism, and it is the de facto method how perception must occur, in some sense - whether what is perceived exists or not. This was why my OP went into so much neurophysiology, to explain this, and thereby to argue not for the primacy of the Idea, but that its validity requires external reality beyond the simply material, in some sense - either through a commonality of our perceptions of an actual reality, or from a shared one. Either way, if intersubjectivity exists, it suggests something up and beyond it, or otherwise solipsism or unverifiability. I hope I have cleared it up now.

Click to expand...

Quid est Veritas? said:

I am happy to accept people's definitions, but words are defined by how they are used. If the use of the word is at odds with its definition, then I shall call foul. If New Atheists say things like religion is debunked or fraud or such; this is markedly different from 'having insufficient evidence for', which is more defensible.

Click to expand...

apogee said:

himself

Click to expand...

Quid est Veritas? said:

I am happy to accept people's definitions, but words are defined by how they are used. If the use of the word is at odds with its definition, then I shall call foul.

Click to expand...

If New Atheists say things like religion is debunked or fraud or such; this is markedly different from 'having insufficient evidence for', which is more defensible.

Click to expand...

apogee said:

I was just referring to the general direction of the thread.



For what it's worth, I think unreasonable and cantankerous are pretty subjective words,

Click to expand...

that could equally be replaced with passionate and unyielding, it's almost entirely about perspective.

Click to expand...

I can't evaluate honesty on the basis of what I've read, only that I think there is sufficient potential for misunderstanding.

Click to expand...

Nihilist Virus said:

He said I was hostile and vitriolic. The subjective nature of those words does not act as a shield.

Click to expand...

Nihilist Virus said:

He said something that simply is not true.

Click to expand...

Nihilist Virus said:

Tell me what I am misunderstanding.

Click to expand...

apogee said:

I wasn't actually saying this to defend him but rather to defend you.

If I'm missing any intent to deceive I apologise in advance. Although I'm certainly not intentionally doing so. In general I tend to spend the larger part of my time, arguing with other Christians, occasionally alongside Atheists, with whom I generally have less to argue about, I don't find the labels that helpful.


I was actually thinking more potential for his misunderstanding you, rather than the opposite.

Click to expand...

Nihilist Virus said:

I don't see how you were defending me. You said he withdrew from the conversation due to my inane ramblings.

Click to expand...

apogee said:

You're absolutely right, I basically had a bit of a change of heart when I started to realise you weren't just trolling the thread, so apologies for that.

Click to expand...