The Instigator
buhbuhbogie
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
philochristos
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points

The human concept of reality is not true reality

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
philochristos
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/24/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 814 times Debate No: 53279
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (3)

 

buhbuhbogie

Pro

The human concept of reality is limited therefore it is not a universally true concept.
Reality is define as the facts of existence, but what does that mean? What are the facts of existence?
I look forward to discussing
philochristos

Con

Pro's point of view is self-refuting. I'm assuming Pro is a human. Reality is the way things are, what is actually so, etc. Pro is attempting to tell us the way things are. So what pro is telling us is his own human concept of reality. And he's saying the human concept of reality isn't true. So pro is denying his own point of view. That makes his point of view self-refuting.


Debate Round No. 1
buhbuhbogie

Pro

Hmm.
My argument is that the human concept of reality is not the ultimate true concept of "reality".
I think the human concept of reality is limited by our senses.
Here is Aristotle's summary of perception: http://faculty.washington.edu...
Can humans see the whole spectrum of light?
Can humans hear whole range of frequencies known as sound?
That is what I am saying. Our definition of reality rests on our perception of the world through our senses, which are limited.
Our senses cause our concept of reality to be define, or placed in a box. But what about the outside of that box?
philochristos

Con

Words are defined by common use. "Reality" is what is so, how things really are, etc. That's the way pretty much all of us use the word.

Pro is attempting to tell us how things really are. He has a point of view that he is attempting to defend in this debate. His point of view is what he takes things to really be like. The point of view he is expressing is his own concept of reality--how things really are. Since Pro is a human, he is giving us a human concept of reality. The resolution is that the "human concept of reality" is not true reality. If the resolution is true, then Pro's own point of view is "not true reality." In other words, his point of view is false. But his point of view IS the resolution. So his whole point of view is about as plainly self-refuting as you can get.

Whether humans know everything there is not know is irrelevant to the resolution. The resolution does not say, "The things humans know about reality does not exhaust everything that is true about reality." If that were the resolution, then I'd be on Pro's side. So pointing out the limits of human knowledge does not support the resolution.

Debate Round No. 2
buhbuhbogie

Pro

I think I see the confusion.
I am merely stating that the human view/concept of reality is limited, therefore fallible. I am not saying I know the answer, nor am I defining reality, rather I advocate the ponderance of the possibilities of the concept of reality.
philochristos

Con

If reality is "the way things really are," and if "the human concept of reality" is "not true reality," then that means the human concept of reality does not correspond to the way things really are. In other words, the human concept of reality would not merely be inexhaustive, but it would, in fact, be false.

Since your point of view is a human concept of reality, it would follow that your point of view is false. It would mean your own point of view "is not true reality."

So there's no escaping the self-refuting nature of the resolution, and there's no way to defend it without engaging in self-refutation.

The claim that human knowledge is limited is not equivalent to saying human knowledge is not true. After all, we may know some things but not know others. If everything we believe is false, then your point of view is false since you believe it. But if not everything we believe is false, then the resolution is false since some human concepts of reality ARE true reality. So no matter how you look at it, the resolution is self-refuting and therefore false.
Debate Round No. 3
buhbuhbogie

Pro

I am saying that it COULD be false (in the scope of universal truth) because the concept has been defined and there are massive disputes on the nature of "reality" on a quantum level, which is impossible to discover with naked senses. I am saying no one can define reality. That is what I am saying. I am not saying "this is reality" or "that is reality". "Reality seems to be an unscientific concept. Simulation theory and other theories embody my point exactly, that reality is ineffable and undefinable. Thanks for provoking though kind sir.
philochristos

Con

In this final round, Pro says, "I am saying it [the human concept of reality] COULD be false," but the resolution says the human concept of reality "is not true reality." I think we should hold Pro to the resolution he set out to defend in the first place. To say that the human concept of reality is not true reality is to say that our concepts of reality do not match reality. Truth is correspondence with reality, so if our concepts don't correspond to reality, then they are false.

Now, Pro has made made claims in this debate that he apparently thinks are true and that accurately represent the way things really are. He says, "I am saying no one can define reality." That's the way Pro thinks things really are, so that is his concept of reality. He obviously thinks it's an accurate view of reality or he probably wouldn't have said it.

Everything else Pro said in defense of his view were statements the he thinks correspond to reality--the way things really are. Since Pro is a human, these statements of his are human concepts of reality, i.e. the concepts a human has about the way things really are. Since the resolution states that "The human concept of reality is NOT true reality," then the resolution negates every claim pro has made.

In fact, the resolution refutes itself. The resolution is a claim about reality. It's a human concept of reality. If the human concept of reality is not true, then the resolution is not true. The resolution refutes itself. Not only is the resolution false, but it's necessarily false because it refutes itself.

Pro claims that reality is ineffable and undefinable. But if reality were ineffable and undefinable, then nobody would be able to say anything that corresponded to reality. Yet Pro has made many claims that he thinks correspond to reality. He thinks the claim that "reality is ineffable" is a true statement about reality. So the claim that reality is ineffable is also a self-refuting claim.

What pro has offered us in this debate is an incoherent concept of reality. It's one that nobody should adopt because it's mired in self-contradiction.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by mendel 3 years ago
mendel
I cannot vote because i'm new but i would have to go with the instigator. By way of illustration let us say that you fought a war or battle and at the end found out that you've bin duped by your commander and the whole time you've bin fighting for the enemy wouldn't you say that your concept of reality had bin totally false when you thought you were doing one thing you were really doing another, when you thought you were seeing one thing you totally misunderstood what you were seeing. This can be expanded on but i'll be brief the instigator made a brilliant point if one accepts as an axiom that our reality was created a certain way but essentially we could have bin made with thousands of more senses and and infinite more notes in music etc(in other words such a reality is out there) we have no way of relating to such a reality similar to the way a blind man can't relate to sight. If this is indeed the case then we are in an extremely small box indeed and our concept of beauty or music would be analogous to a man who grew up in a filthy pit hundreds of feet beneath the surface of the earth and hes convinced that this it and he thinks certain things constitute beauty when in reality from an objective standpoint he's completely out of touch with reality. My personal opinion is that we are pieces in this universe we were given a very limited arena in which to live our lives, our sphere of influence, what we know etc we were put here to play our role but there is a master of the universe g-d who is infinite and what you view as reality is a total misunderstanding of whats really going on and not the real reality
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by emospongebob527 3 years ago
emospongebob527
buhbuhbogiephilochristosTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: From the beginning, Pro set out to prove a self-refuting resolution. Con pointed this out, Con wins. Arguments to Con for pointing out the contradictory nature of Pro's position and Conduct to Con because Pro set up a self-refuting resolution.
Vote Placed by InquireTruth 3 years ago
InquireTruth
buhbuhbogiephilochristosTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: I knew from the title where this one could go and was subsequently not surprised when philo took it that route. Obvious victory. Resolution was clearly self-refuting.
Vote Placed by Mhykiel 3 years ago
Mhykiel
buhbuhbogiephilochristosTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro should have said he was an angel or robot. Badly phrased resolution was the down fall. Con presented arguments that could have supported pro. But pro didn't take advantage of them, in wavering with saying "could" they lacked confidence in their own resolution