what’s the point? do you plan on doing anything with it in the future? i think for me i’ve just always asked these sorts of questions and it’s nice knowing that people have been exploring it for centuries.
also i feel very smart when i read philosophy lol :)))
You’re going to have to give your position on Kant’s monadic dualism before we can make any definitive statements.
please tell me this is satirical…
Well I mean yes and no.
Monadic dualism (often synonymous with dualistic monism or dialectical monism) is an ontological framework where reality is a unified, singular whole, yet inherently structured by two complementary principles. It bridges traditional monism (one ultimate substance) and dualism (two distinct forces), viewing existence as an organic blend of polar opposites there you go :))
Yeah ok I said your position.
yeah no i don’t really agree it’s like i think there’s only monism like i dont get how there can be two and those two are one… yk???
Well I think your chatbot rather oversimplified the situation.
The question is about reality, and what can be known about it. There is Leibnezian, and there is Kantian dualistic monadism, and they both answer in a similar but different way.
So it’s not so much about two things that are one. It’s a question of whether reality can be represented directly, or whether a screen exists that we cannot bypass. If the second, the screen, by being real, would, by definition, require to be tied somehow to the unseen reality.
It’s not so much two things that are one, but about two things (unseen reality and screen) that are both reality. So I guess three things and two of them are both the third, but the real interesting question is how those two relate, in a given scenario where they are the case.
ok i sort of get it. though, im not really sure i have a position on the matter as i don’t even really know if there is an objective reality in the first place. what do you think about it though?
I think you are closer to the mark than Kant. Leibniz is a different story.
I also cannot agree that reality is not “objective,” not real, because that would be a contradiction in terms. If something is real, it by definition has to be real no matter who looks at it or how.
So this is why I think it’s a good question to get a feel for a person’a approach to philosophy.
If, let’s say, there is only the one plane, and then that plane, by definition, has to be the screen (because we know for sure the screen is there: it’s what we see), then we have to account for what the nature of the screen is, how it can both morph from person to person and objectively be true for every person, and how it can seem to give an endless chain of regression such as Aristotle thought to have solved by the First Principle, what many think of as God.
i suppose that by objective, i mean a reality that exists independent of one’s mind. the one that we don’t have direct access to.
also im not really sure this has anything to do with dualistic monadism, but it made me think because like imagine a word. take the word chair for instance. everyone knows the word chair so you could say that this is something that is shared in multiple people’s minds.
but the thing is the chair that i think of might be different than the chair you think of as while in some mind independent reality, the concept of a chair is one thing, to different minds, it might just be experienced differently.
but i was wondering, do you think the concept of a chair would be perceived differently by different minds because the minds are different or is it that the concept is the same in all minds? or do you think something completely different lol.
For me there is nothing more entertaining and enjoyable than studying the nature of reality or existence. It is something I enjoy very much.
This world, reality, universe, and cosmos has many mysteries to unlock like a puzzle box putting all the pieces of everything together.
Well, if all there is is what we have direct access to, then that which has direct access also has to be part of what we have direct access to. The chair thus cannot be two different things in each mind, because this would reintroduce dualism (mind v screen). So maybe both each chair in each mind plus each mind plus whatever ties the two chairs together has to exist, and it has to exist on the same accessible plain.
I never know if people do that because they don’t understand what I said, or they don’t like it, or what the thing is.
What exactly do you mean when you use the ‘philosophy’ word here?
If you would like to know, then let me know, and I will explain it for you.
What is the correct version of ‘the situation’?
What is ‘the question’ exactly?
If ‘the question’ is, ‘What is ‘reality’?’ Well, while you people keep waiting for ‘an answer’ to be ‘dropped in your laps’, as some would say, let us take a look at the proposal that an answer to that question is ‘that’, which we can create for ourselves, and then just have an open and honest, logically reasoned, discussion about it. (If anyone is interested, I have far more to say and present on this.)
As for, ‘What can be known about ‘reality’?’ The answer could be, with enough duration, everything.
Why do you only look at or only consider those two views, only, and consider them to be an answer?
They are obviously not ‘the answer’, which aligns perfectly with what is referred to as ‘reality’. Otherwise, everyone already could be in agreement and acceptance.
HOW there are two things, which are One, is explained fully, in WHAT the One and only Universe is made up of, exactly, at the fundamental level, and in HOW everything evolves into being created.
Once more, what is ‘the question’, exactly?
If, for example, ‘the question’ is, ‘Can ‘reality’ be represented directly?’ Then, what you will have to do first is provide ‘the definition’, which you have and are using here, for the ‘reality’ word. But this takes ‘us’ back to your statement and claim, " The question is about ‘reality’ ". So, you are just going in circles here instead of actually moving along and forwards.
I suggest you decide what ‘the definition’ is, exactly, for the word ‘reality’, first, before you even start considering things like this.
By the way, there is what could be called ‘a screen’ that does, which is of human beings’ own making, but which can be very easily and very simply bypassed, completely. As I have already explained on numerous occasions throughout these philosophy forums.
Correct me if I am wrong here, but you do not even know what ‘reality’ itself is, yet here you are worrying about if there is some imagined ‘screen’ or not between ‘you’ and whatever you call ‘reality’.
Coming to learn about, understand, and know what is actually Real and True, in Life, is ‘a process’, which starts at and with being open and honest about what particular words mean, or refer to, exactly, to each and everyone of ‘us’.
If ‘this’ is what it is ‘really’ about, then WHY, when I have spoken about these exact things, you posters here have shown no interest at all or very little interest only at the most?
Could you be more specific here?
Now, there is One Universe, which is eternal and infinite, existing always HERE-NOW.
This One Universe, at the fundamental level, is made up of two things; ‘space’ (the invisible) and ‘matter’ (the visible).
What has blocked, or ‘screened’, human beings from seeing this irrefutable Truth and Fact previously is just people “themselves” when they presume or believe they already know the truth, when, in fact, they have not already obtained the proof.
There is an objective reality, or an objective way of seeing ‘Reality’, Itself.
Firstly, there is no such thing as “one’s mind”. What people actually mean and are referring to when they mostly say and use the ‘mind’ word is something different.
Now, every human body does, in fact, have absolutely direct access to what some refer to as ‘reality’.
Through the five senses of the human body the human body has direct access to the very real visible and invisible world. And, the ‘information’ which is being fed into the brain/computer, via the senses of the body which has the direct access, is a perfect representation and picture of the Real world. However, and unfortunately, when that True and Right information enters, then, at this point, it gets ‘filtered’ by the already obtained and stored information within the brain/computer, which is known as knowledge and/or thoughts. If any previously obtained knowledge is presumed or believed to be true, right, accurate, and/or correct, when actual proof has not been obtained along with it, then those presumptions and beliefs ‘screen out’ the actual True and Right information coming in, if that information counters or opposes the ‘current’ beliefs and presumptions. Worse still, because of ‘confirmation bias’, which happens when one has beliefs or presumptions, ‘confirmation biases’ can make the ‘current’ beliefs and presumptions even strongly held onto. Wrong or False ‘confirmation biases’ only maintain the ‘current’ beliefs, presumptions, and even views, and thus can make them even more rigid and unchangeable.
And, the saddest part is people only presume or believe things to be true or right when they do NOT have the actual facts or proof. See, once one has received proof of something, then one does not have to believe nor presume it to be true or right but just knows, for sure, that it is True and/or Right.
The concept of all visible things can be easily ‘seen’ and therefore shared much more simply than concepts about invisible things that cannot be ‘seen’. However, concepts of things that can be felt, smelt, tasted, or heard yet remain invisible can also be shared more simply among multiple people.
The word ‘mind’ is used three times here, but observe what happens when I ask, ‘What even is the ‘mind’, exactly?’
Now, this question is asked for absolutely anyone here to answer.
Now, ‘see’ what definition/s are provided, if any.
The concept of ‘a chair’ is held within thought. And, all depending on what Previous Experiences individual human bodies have had, with those things known and labelled as ‘chairs’, this will affect what, exact, ‘concept of chair’ arises, from what exists in thought, or ‘in the brain’, if one prefers.
During ‘your studying of the nature of reality or existence’, have you been able to ascertain what the word ‘reality’ is referring to, exactly?
Either way, could you provide ‘your definition’ for the ‘reality’ word here, for us?
Are you aware that what some call “mysteries” are not to others, and that a crystal clear big and full Picture has already been obtained, that is; once all the pieces of the puzzle were put together perfectly?
Even the knowledge of HOW everyone can also find ‘the answers’ to all of the meaningful and/or philosophical questions in Life is also already NOT a mystery anymore.
Also, would you like to share, with us, some of the mysteries that remain, to you?
Here, ‘we’ can see how they talk about ‘the thing’, which has direct access, and how ‘that’ also has to be a part of what ‘we’ have direct access to, as though ‘the thing’ is not a part of ‘the we’, in other words ‘us’. And, the reason for this is, is partly explained in the term and label, ‘human being’.
There is the ‘human body’, which obviously has direct access to the Universe, Itself, and then is the ‘we’, the person or being.
The word ‘person’ does not and cannot relate to the human body. If, for example, a human body has arms or legs missing, then is ‘the person’ a ‘less of a person’?
If no, then the word ‘person’ relates to something else other than the human body. And, considering that the word ‘person’ is closer to the word ‘personality’, then who and/or what the word ‘personality’ is referring to, exactly, would be far closer to who and/or what ‘person’ is, exactly. (Which can also be explained and understood, fully. Again, that is, if anyone is truly interested here). Now, since personality, and thus people or a person, is within a human body, the label ‘human being’ can be broken up into two parts. Namely, the human body, which the ‘human’ word could refer to, exactly, and, the personality, person, or soul, if one prefers, within a human body, which the ‘being’ word could refer to, exactly.
So, to take words from the quote above, ’ ‘that’, which has direct access,’ is the human body, or the ‘human’ part of the ‘human being’ label, and, ‘that part’, which also has to be a part of what ‘we’, people and beings, have direct access to, is the ‘being’ part of the ‘human being’ label.
‘we’ human beings obviously are a part of the Universe and have direct access to It also obviously.
Now, and again, ‘we’, invisible people and beings, receive unfiltered information from the Universe, directly from and via any or all of the five senses of the visible human body.
As newborns, ‘we’ have absolute direct access, and thus receive the absolute True and Right information, directly. However, as each year passes and ‘we’ start believing or assuming things to be true, when they are actually not, the actual and irrefutable True information is ‘screened’, filtered, prevented, and even blocked out.
Again, the ‘mind’ word is used.
The adults in the days when this was being written would use words like ‘mind’ and ‘love’, for example, but when asked what do those words mean, let alone mean exactly, the one asked was ‘scoffed’ at, as though it was already obvious ‘no one knows’. Yet that never stopped them from using those words. Even so-called “experts in fields” would use words like ‘time’ or ‘space’, for example, and not discuss the fact that they did not even have an agreed definition for what those words meant, even though ‘those people’ were claimed to be “experts” about those two things.
Can ‘the mind’ be two different things to different people, or, how you put it, “in each mind”?
Do what, exactly?
haha lol fair enough. i suppose for me it’s just a fun way of saying “cool”