This topic recently came up in my philosophy of mind class. Ironically, this question was posed by a Hindu psychology student.
Anyway, do you think that this is true? Personally, I think that its possible. There are only two logical options:
Nothing is an illusion
Some things are illusions, others are not
It seems to me it makes no sense to say that everything is an illusion. If it is the case that everything is an illusion, then there must be a way to conclude that there is something that is NOT an illusion. But wait a minute…how can that be so if EVERYTHING is an illusion? Is this claim just a tautology? I think that it is. If there is no way to falsify that all of reality is an illusion, then there is no way to verify it. If I am correct, then this conception that all of reality is an illusion is similar to the claim of psychological egoism. Effecitvely, they are both tautologies.
Well, that’s my elementary observation. What do you folks think about this topic?
Please define “illusion”. It is easy to propose ways in which reality is not as it seems, however if we live in an illusion, then is that not our reality? Saying that reality is only partially understood is not actually a very controversial thing to be saying. What is the meaning of illusion in this context?
The problem with that statement is, what is thought? what is a thinking being? Isn’t saying I am a thinking being because I am a thinking being self-referential?
A stone does not have any thought, does it exist?
This is what I’m trying to probe. Any existence simple is reality. What is the difference between what I call reality, and what your colleague calls illusion? What are the properties of the world around us that would make it “real” rather than “illusory” and vice versa. Imagine I don’t understand the definition of either “reality” or “illusion”. Talking about the world around us, can you explain how we might conclude that what we see is “real” as opposed to “illusory”?
Say we’re living in the Matrix. Well, the matrix exists. It’s real. It has rules, etc. We are still living in reality.
What is the nature of the illusion that your colleague says we are living in?
A stone “exists” on a time scale that dwarfs ours as humans. How do you know that stones don’t think? How do you know that they don’t possess consciousness?
Human perspective is limited, and our arrogance is quite disproportional.
It’s not surprising that this idea was put forward by a Hindu student. In very broad terms (sweeping generalsiation, I know) the difference between Western and Eastern philosophy is that in the West we believe that Matter comes first while in the East they believe that Mind comes first.
In the Western, Matter first philosophy, Matter exists whether Mind is perceving it or not and Mind is just a product of matter (an emergent product perhaps).
In the Eastern, Mind first philosophy, Mind comes first and exists independently of Matter, Matter is just an illusion of Mind.
Whether you accept Mind first or Matter first, your philsophy is based on an assumption. or belief. Both these views are tenable and can be defended. However, both are extreme points of view.
Pehrhaps you would like to accept a third possibility - that that there is a mid-point between these two extremse where neither Mind nor Matter comes forst - but both arise togther, being mutually dependent on each other.
Everything is an illusion may be considered contradictory because in saying everything is an illusion you are actually saying “Nothing exists in reality the way you percieve it does”. So, in that case the ideas you think up are just illusions, including the idea that everything is an illusion. It’s kind of self-refuting. It’s true some things are illusion, we know that from outer-experience, but saying that everything is an illusion you are saying that the statement “everything is an illusion” is just an illusion. You just can’t have it…it’s like relative truth; it just isn’t coherent with itself.
The problem with that statement is, what is thought? what is a thinking being? Isn’t saying I am a thinking being because I am a thinking being self-referential?quote]
Descartes isn’t talking about any materially instantiated being in the Cogito argument. He is just saying there must be some Existential Existence which is “I” if “I” can doubt my own existence.
a tautology may not provide a valid means of arguement, but that does not mean to say that it can’t be true.
what if we say NOTHING is an illusion. everything exists as we percieve it. this would also seem to be a tautology in the sense that as an arguement it is self-supporting but you will find no shortage of people who believe it as a fact.
something does not have to be argueable to be possible.
what i always got from ‘i think therefore i am’ was that descartes was saying that because he thougt he knew he existed because he must exist in order to think.
therefore that that was all that he could know for sure.
not to say that a stone doesn’t exist, but just that descartes being himself, he could only refer to one thing as true knowledge… that being ‘cogito ergo sum’
I feel that the Cartesian argument (Cogito ergo sum) is pretty much irrefutable. What it fails so miserably to answer is the question:
“I know that ‘I’ am, but what exactly, am ‘I’?”. Reality is not an illusion. If it is, it sure is one darn convincing one. But, either way, we would not know if where are being deluded by the illusion or not. We are trapped in reality whether it be truly ‘reality’ or whther it be just an illusion.
Is that so? Does reality and illusion exist in this world? I’m thinking that the reality that we meant does not the reality that exist. Both, reality or illusion which is thinkable by us does not exist in this world.
Reality is the ‘I’!! But who am ‘I’? That’s the real one and ‘I’ is reality, but who knows ‘I’ 's existing? That’s goal in our life to find out who am ‘I’ (the real one)!!!
However, We are living in both of it (real and illusion) - with reality and illusion at the same time.
Herty:
Life is great as there is no exact starting and ending point.
