Total Posts:60|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Is Reality Real?

TheMatt
Posts: 52
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2014 10:18:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I think Reality is real, although, some of our experiences can be slightly illusory if we're not careful
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2014 10:21:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/21/2014 10:18:21 PM, TheMatt wrote:
I think Reality is real, although, some of our experiences can be slightly illusory if we're not careful

"A dream you dream alone is only a dream. A dream you dream together is reality." - John Lennon
TheMatt
Posts: 52
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2014 10:23:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/21/2014 10:21:03 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 8/21/2014 10:18:21 PM, TheMatt wrote:
I think Reality is real, although, some of our experiences can be slightly illusory if we're not careful

"A dream you dream alone is only a dream. A dream you dream together is reality." - John Lennon

I completely agree:)
sdavio
Posts: 1,801
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2014 4:30:58 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/21/2014 10:18:21 PM, TheMatt wrote:
I think Reality is real, although, some of our experiences can be slightly illusory if we're not careful

The difference between the two is analog and not binary.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2014 11:41:55 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/21/2014 10:21:03 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 8/21/2014 10:18:21 PM, TheMatt wrote:
I think Reality is real, although, some of our experiences can be slightly illusory if we're not careful

"A dream you dream alone is only a dream. A dream you dream together is reality." - John Lennon

Although you, as an Idealist, probably take this quote a bit more literally than most people.
Nolite Timere
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2014 11:42:42 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Isn't asking whether reality is real contradictory?

I mean reality essentially means to be real; obviously if reality is not real then it isn't reality at all.
Nolite Timere
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2014 12:18:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/23/2014 11:41:55 AM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 8/21/2014 10:21:03 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 8/21/2014 10:18:21 PM, TheMatt wrote:
I think Reality is real, although, some of our experiences can be slightly illusory if we're not careful

"A dream you dream alone is only a dream. A dream you dream together is reality." - John Lennon

Although you, as an Idealist, probably take this quote a bit more literally than most people.

How else would you take it exactly?
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2014 12:25:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/23/2014 12:18:19 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 8/23/2014 11:41:55 AM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 8/21/2014 10:21:03 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 8/21/2014 10:18:21 PM, TheMatt wrote:
I think Reality is real, although, some of our experiences can be slightly illusory if we're not careful

"A dream you dream alone is only a dream. A dream you dream together is reality." - John Lennon

Although you, as an Idealist, probably take this quote a bit more literally than most people.

How else would you take it exactly?

In the sense that the only reason reality is reality is because we all experience it similarly.
Nolite Timere
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2014 12:29:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/24/2014 12:25:46 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 8/23/2014 12:18:19 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 8/23/2014 11:41:55 AM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 8/21/2014 10:21:03 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 8/21/2014 10:18:21 PM, TheMatt wrote:
I think Reality is real, although, some of our experiences can be slightly illusory if we're not careful

"A dream you dream alone is only a dream. A dream you dream together is reality." - John Lennon

Although you, as an Idealist, probably take this quote a bit more literally than most people.

How else would you take it exactly?

In the sense that the only reason reality is reality is because we all experience it similarly.

That's exactly how I take it :)
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2014 12:30:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/24/2014 12:29:18 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 8/24/2014 12:25:46 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 8/23/2014 12:18:19 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 8/23/2014 11:41:55 AM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 8/21/2014 10:21:03 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 8/21/2014 10:18:21 PM, TheMatt wrote:
I think Reality is real, although, some of our experiences can be slightly illusory if we're not careful

"A dream you dream alone is only a dream. A dream you dream together is reality." - John Lennon

Although you, as an Idealist, probably take this quote a bit more literally than most people.

How else would you take it exactly?

In the sense that the only reason reality is reality is because we all experience it similarly.

That's exactly how I take it :)

Well you believe everything is mental, whereas the latter position does not take any metaphysical position.
Nolite Timere
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2014 12:35:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Since reality is by definition everything that exists, if anything exists, reality exists. If nothing existed, then neither would the truth of such a statement. Therefore, reality is real, because any alternative leads to contradictions.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2014 12:42:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/24/2014 12:30:01 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 8/24/2014 12:29:18 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 8/24/2014 12:25:46 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 8/23/2014 12:18:19 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 8/23/2014 11:41:55 AM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 8/21/2014 10:21:03 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 8/21/2014 10:18:21 PM, TheMatt wrote:
I think Reality is real, although, some of our experiences can be slightly illusory if we're not careful

"A dream you dream alone is only a dream. A dream you dream together is reality." - John Lennon

Although you, as an Idealist, probably take this quote a bit more literally than most people.

How else would you take it exactly?

In the sense that the only reason reality is reality is because we all experience it similarly.

That's exactly how I take it :)

Well you believe everything is mental, whereas the latter position does not take any metaphysical position.

Well, if reality wasn't mental, then it would be reality regardless of our conscious experience. If only our conscious experience of a world make it "real" then that sounds pretty Idealistic to me. Either way, the quote said "dream" (which is mental). To get a non-mental interpretation of that quote you have to do it in an ad hoc way.
sdavio
Posts: 1,801
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2014 1:21:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/24/2014 12:35:45 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Since reality is by definition everything that exists, if anything exists, reality exists. If nothing existed, then neither would the truth of such a statement. Therefore, reality is real, because any alternative leads to contradictions.

How is nothing existing self contradictory? You're assuming the conclusion.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2014 1:23:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/24/2014 1:21:01 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 8/24/2014 12:35:45 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Since reality is by definition everything that exists, if anything exists, reality exists. If nothing existed, then neither would the truth of such a statement. Therefore, reality is real, because any alternative leads to contradictions.

How is nothing existing self contradictory? You're assuming the conclusion.

"Nothing existing" is self-contradictory because if it is true that nothing exists, then truth has to exist (in order for it to be true that nothing exists). However, truth is not nothing. Ergo, it could never be true that nothing exists.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2014 1:24:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/24/2014 1:21:01 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 8/24/2014 12:35:45 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Since reality is by definition everything that exists, if anything exists, reality exists. If nothing existed, then neither would the truth of such a statement. Therefore, reality is real, because any alternative leads to contradictions.

How is nothing existing self contradictory? You're assuming the conclusion.

The truth of the statement "nothing exists" is predicated on the existence of informational constraint i.e. on the truth of the statement. What is the statement true of? Reality is the answer to that question.
sdavio
Posts: 1,801
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2014 1:30:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/24/2014 1:24:12 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 8/24/2014 1:21:01 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 8/24/2014 12:35:45 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Since reality is by definition everything that exists, if anything exists, reality exists. If nothing existed, then neither would the truth of such a statement. Therefore, reality is real, because any alternative leads to contradictions.

How is nothing existing self contradictory? You're assuming the conclusion.

The truth of the statement "nothing exists" is predicated on the existence of informational constraint i.e. on the truth of the statement. What is the statement true of? Reality is the answer to that question.

What if I frame it this way; absolute truth and ontology are delusions, and by stating 'nothing exists' I am not stating something to be true but engaging in an act with the intention of convincing others or bringing their attention to the delusory nature of those concepts. And by 'delusory' I don't mean 'not absolute truth' or 'not referring to existing objects' but rather, actions which contribute to their own destruction - are based on self-detonating principles. For instance, that the concept of an existing object entails the existence of empty space.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2014 1:35:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/24/2014 1:30:57 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 8/24/2014 1:24:12 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 8/24/2014 1:21:01 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 8/24/2014 12:35:45 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Since reality is by definition everything that exists, if anything exists, reality exists. If nothing existed, then neither would the truth of such a statement. Therefore, reality is real, because any alternative leads to contradictions.

How is nothing existing self contradictory? You're assuming the conclusion.

The truth of the statement "nothing exists" is predicated on the existence of informational constraint i.e. on the truth of the statement. What is the statement true of? Reality is the answer to that question.

What if I frame it this way; absolute truth and ontology are delusions, and by stating 'nothing exists' I am not stating something to be true but engaging in an act with the intention of convincing others or bringing their attention to the delusory nature of those concepts. And by 'delusory' I don't mean 'not absolute truth' or 'not referring to existing objects' but rather, actions which contribute to their own destruction - are based on self-detonating principles. For instance, that the concept of an existing object entails the existence of empty space.

Then I would say your conclusion is contradictory, and based solely on your own cognitive limitations.
sdavio
Posts: 1,801
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2014 1:35:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/24/2014 1:23:58 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 8/24/2014 1:21:01 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 8/24/2014 12:35:45 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Since reality is by definition everything that exists, if anything exists, reality exists. If nothing existed, then neither would the truth of such a statement. Therefore, reality is real, because any alternative leads to contradictions.

How is nothing existing self contradictory? You're assuming the conclusion.

"Nothing existing" is self-contradictory because if it is true that nothing exists, then truth has to exist (in order for it to be true that nothing exists). However, truth is not nothing. Ergo, it could never be true that nothing exists.

If no absolute truths exist, then my belief in no absolute truths would not be a positive belief that that statement is absolutely true, but a principle in actions of abstaining from believing in absolute truth.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2014 1:37:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/24/2014 1:35:35 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 8/24/2014 1:23:58 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 8/24/2014 1:21:01 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 8/24/2014 12:35:45 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Since reality is by definition everything that exists, if anything exists, reality exists. If nothing existed, then neither would the truth of such a statement. Therefore, reality is real, because any alternative leads to contradictions.

How is nothing existing self contradictory? You're assuming the conclusion.

"Nothing existing" is self-contradictory because if it is true that nothing exists, then truth has to exist (in order for it to be true that nothing exists). However, truth is not nothing. Ergo, it could never be true that nothing exists.

If no absolute truths exist, then my belief in no absolute truths would not be a positive belief that that statement is absolutely true, but a principle in actions of abstaining from believing in absolute truth.

What is your point?
sdavio
Posts: 1,801
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2014 1:38:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/24/2014 1:35:09 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 8/24/2014 1:30:57 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 8/24/2014 1:24:12 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 8/24/2014 1:21:01 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 8/24/2014 12:35:45 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Since reality is by definition everything that exists, if anything exists, reality exists. If nothing existed, then neither would the truth of such a statement. Therefore, reality is real, because any alternative leads to contradictions.

How is nothing existing self contradictory? You're assuming the conclusion.

The truth of the statement "nothing exists" is predicated on the existence of informational constraint i.e. on the truth of the statement. What is the statement true of? Reality is the answer to that question.

What if I frame it this way; absolute truth and ontology are delusions, and by stating 'nothing exists' I am not stating something to be true but engaging in an act with the intention of convincing others or bringing their attention to the delusory nature of those concepts. And by 'delusory' I don't mean 'not absolute truth' or 'not referring to existing objects' but rather, actions which contribute to their own destruction - are based on self-detonating principles. For instance, that the concept of an existing object entails the existence of empty space.

Then I would say your conclusion is contradictory, and based solely on your own cognitive limitations.

How is it contradictory? It doesn't imply any absolute truth, it is just an action of not believing in it, and trying to make others not believe in it either. Hence it is not asserting anything ontologically.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
sdavio
Posts: 1,801
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2014 1:39:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/24/2014 1:37:52 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 8/24/2014 1:35:35 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 8/24/2014 1:23:58 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 8/24/2014 1:21:01 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 8/24/2014 12:35:45 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Since reality is by definition everything that exists, if anything exists, reality exists. If nothing existed, then neither would the truth of such a statement. Therefore, reality is real, because any alternative leads to contradictions.

How is nothing existing self contradictory? You're assuming the conclusion.

"Nothing existing" is self-contradictory because if it is true that nothing exists, then truth has to exist (in order for it to be true that nothing exists). However, truth is not nothing. Ergo, it could never be true that nothing exists.

If no absolute truths exist, then my belief in no absolute truths would not be a positive belief that that statement is absolutely true, but a principle in actions of abstaining from believing in absolute truth.

What is your point?

That I can hold the position 'nothing exists' without self-contradiction.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2014 1:42:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/24/2014 1:38:50 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 8/24/2014 1:35:09 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 8/24/2014 1:30:57 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 8/24/2014 1:24:12 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 8/24/2014 1:21:01 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 8/24/2014 12:35:45 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Since reality is by definition everything that exists, if anything exists, reality exists. If nothing existed, then neither would the truth of such a statement. Therefore, reality is real, because any alternative leads to contradictions.

How is nothing existing self contradictory? You're assuming the conclusion.

The truth of the statement "nothing exists" is predicated on the existence of informational constraint i.e. on the truth of the statement. What is the statement true of? Reality is the answer to that question.

What if I frame it this way; absolute truth and ontology are delusions, and by stating 'nothing exists' I am not stating something to be true but engaging in an act with the intention of convincing others or bringing their attention to the delusory nature of those concepts. And by 'delusory' I don't mean 'not absolute truth' or 'not referring to existing objects' but rather, actions which contribute to their own destruction - are based on self-detonating principles. For instance, that the concept of an existing object entails the existence of empty space.

Then I would say your conclusion is contradictory, and based solely on your own cognitive limitations.

How is it contradictory? It doesn't imply any absolute truth, it is just an action of not believing in it, and trying to make others not believe in it either. Hence it is not asserting anything ontologically.

It's contradictory if it's to be taken as true, and not just as meaningless scribbles. It implies absolute truth in its absolute rejection of absolute truth's absoluteness.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2014 1:44:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/24/2014 1:39:39 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 8/24/2014 1:37:52 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 8/24/2014 1:35:35 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 8/24/2014 1:23:58 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 8/24/2014 1:21:01 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 8/24/2014 12:35:45 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Since reality is by definition everything that exists, if anything exists, reality exists. If nothing existed, then neither would the truth of such a statement. Therefore, reality is real, because any alternative leads to contradictions.

How is nothing existing self contradictory? You're assuming the conclusion.

"Nothing existing" is self-contradictory because if it is true that nothing exists, then truth has to exist (in order for it to be true that nothing exists). However, truth is not nothing. Ergo, it could never be true that nothing exists.

If no absolute truths exist, then my belief in no absolute truths would not be a positive belief that that statement is absolutely true, but a principle in actions of abstaining from believing in absolute truth.

What is your point?

That I can hold the position 'nothing exists' without self-contradiction.

Then your argument is a non-sequitur. The conclusion that you can hold "nothing exists" without a self-contradiction does not follow from your previous post.
sdavio
Posts: 1,801
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2014 1:47:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/24/2014 1:42:29 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 8/24/2014 1:38:50 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 8/24/2014 1:35:09 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 8/24/2014 1:30:57 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 8/24/2014 1:24:12 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 8/24/2014 1:21:01 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 8/24/2014 12:35:45 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Since reality is by definition everything that exists, if anything exists, reality exists. If nothing existed, then neither would the truth of such a statement. Therefore, reality is real, because any alternative leads to contradictions.

How is nothing existing self contradictory? You're assuming the conclusion.

The truth of the statement "nothing exists" is predicated on the existence of informational constraint i.e. on the truth of the statement. What is the statement true of? Reality is the answer to that question.

What if I frame it this way; absolute truth and ontology are delusions, and by stating 'nothing exists' I am not stating something to be true but engaging in an act with the intention of convincing others or bringing their attention to the delusory nature of those concepts. And by 'delusory' I don't mean 'not absolute truth' or 'not referring to existing objects' but rather, actions which contribute to their own destruction - are based on self-detonating principles. For instance, that the concept of an existing object entails the existence of empty space.

Then I would say your conclusion is contradictory, and based solely on your own cognitive limitations.

How is it contradictory? It doesn't imply any absolute truth, it is just an action of not believing in it, and trying to make others not believe in it either. Hence it is not asserting anything ontologically.

It's contradictory if it's to be taken as true, and not just as meaningless scribbles. It implies absolute truth in its absolute rejection of absolute truth's absoluteness.

You're assuming that by stating something I'm implying it is absolutely true, which I am not. I am simply acting in a manner to have a certain effect on the other person.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
sdavio
Posts: 1,801
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2014 1:49:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/24/2014 1:44:21 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 8/24/2014 1:39:39 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 8/24/2014 1:37:52 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 8/24/2014 1:35:35 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 8/24/2014 1:23:58 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 8/24/2014 1:21:01 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 8/24/2014 12:35:45 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Since reality is by definition everything that exists, if anything exists, reality exists. If nothing existed, then neither would the truth of such a statement. Therefore, reality is real, because any alternative leads to contradictions.

How is nothing existing self contradictory? You're assuming the conclusion.

"Nothing existing" is self-contradictory because if it is true that nothing exists, then truth has to exist (in order for it to be true that nothing exists). However, truth is not nothing. Ergo, it could never be true that nothing exists.

If no absolute truths exist, then my belief in no absolute truths would not be a positive belief that that statement is absolutely true, but a principle in actions of abstaining from believing in absolute truth.

What is your point?

That I can hold the position 'nothing exists' without self-contradiction.

Then your argument is a non-sequitur. The conclusion that you can hold "nothing exists" without a self-contradiction does not follow from your previous post.

An argument that saying absolute truth doesn't exist does not imply absolute truth is non sequitur from whether the statement is self-contradictory?
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2014 1:54:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/24/2014 1:49:05 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 8/24/2014 1:44:21 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 8/24/2014 1:39:39 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 8/24/2014 1:37:52 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 8/24/2014 1:35:35 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 8/24/2014 1:23:58 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 8/24/2014 1:21:01 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 8/24/2014 12:35:45 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Since reality is by definition everything that exists, if anything exists, reality exists. If nothing existed, then neither would the truth of such a statement. Therefore, reality is real, because any alternative leads to contradictions.

How is nothing existing self contradictory? You're assuming the conclusion.

"Nothing existing" is self-contradictory because if it is true that nothing exists, then truth has to exist (in order for it to be true that nothing exists). However, truth is not nothing. Ergo, it could never be true that nothing exists.

If no absolute truths exist, then my belief in no absolute truths would not be a positive belief that that statement is absolutely true, but a principle in actions of abstaining from believing in absolute truth.

What is your point?

That I can hold the position 'nothing exists' without self-contradiction.

Then your argument is a non-sequitur. The conclusion that you can hold "nothing exists" without a self-contradiction does not follow from your previous post.

An argument that saying absolute truth doesn't exist does not imply absolute truth is non sequitur from whether the statement is self-contradictory?

Arguing against truth is self-contradictory, as you have to presuppose the conclusion of your argument is true in order to make that argument in the first place.
sdavio
Posts: 1,801
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2014 2:01:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/24/2014 1:54:39 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 8/24/2014 1:49:05 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 8/24/2014 1:44:21 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 8/24/2014 1:39:39 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 8/24/2014 1:37:52 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 8/24/2014 1:35:35 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 8/24/2014 1:23:58 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 8/24/2014 1:21:01 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 8/24/2014 12:35:45 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Since reality is by definition everything that exists, if anything exists, reality exists. If nothing existed, then neither would the truth of such a statement. Therefore, reality is real, because any alternative leads to contradictions.

How is nothing existing self contradictory? You're assuming the conclusion.

"Nothing existing" is self-contradictory because if it is true that nothing exists, then truth has to exist (in order for it to be true that nothing exists). However, truth is not nothing. Ergo, it could never be true that nothing exists.

If no absolute truths exist, then my belief in no absolute truths would not be a positive belief that that statement is absolutely true, but a principle in actions of abstaining from believing in absolute truth.

What is your point?

That I can hold the position 'nothing exists' without self-contradiction.

Then your argument is a non-sequitur. The conclusion that you can hold "nothing exists" without a self-contradiction does not follow from your previous post.

An argument that saying absolute truth doesn't exist does not imply absolute truth is non sequitur from whether the statement is self-contradictory?

Arguing against truth is self-contradictory, as you have to presuppose the conclusion of your argument is true in order to make that argument in the first place.

Not at all. I simply argue to convince you. Also, your argument is demonstrably false because anyone can easily argue a position they disagree with, such as a devil's advocate argument.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2014 2:05:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/24/2014 2:01:38 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 8/24/2014 1:54:39 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 8/24/2014 1:49:05 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 8/24/2014 1:44:21 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 8/24/2014 1:39:39 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 8/24/2014 1:37:52 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 8/24/2014 1:35:35 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 8/24/2014 1:23:58 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 8/24/2014 1:21:01 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 8/24/2014 12:35:45 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Since reality is by definition everything that exists, if anything exists, reality exists. If nothing existed, then neither would the truth of such a statement. Therefore, reality is real, because any alternative leads to contradictions.

How is nothing existing self contradictory? You're assuming the conclusion.

"Nothing existing" is self-contradictory because if it is true that nothing exists, then truth has to exist (in order for it to be true that nothing exists). However, truth is not nothing. Ergo, it could never be true that nothing exists.

If no absolute truths exist, then my belief in no absolute truths would not be a positive belief that that statement is absolutely true, but a principle in actions of abstaining from believing in absolute truth.

What is your point?

That I can hold the position 'nothing exists' without self-contradiction.

Then your argument is a non-sequitur. The conclusion that you can hold "nothing exists" without a self-contradiction does not follow from your previous post.

An argument that saying absolute truth doesn't exist does not imply absolute truth is non sequitur from whether the statement is self-contradictory?

Arguing against truth is self-contradictory, as you have to presuppose the conclusion of your argument is true in order to make that argument in the first place.

Not at all. I simply argue to convince you.

Well, I am not convinced of conclusions that cannot be true. Neither is any other rational person. So, since you admit there is no real truth to your conclusion... Good luck convincing people!

Also, your argument is demonstrably false because anyone can easily argue a position they disagree with, such as a devil's advocate argument.

Another non-sequitur. If you can argue against a position you disagree with, it doesn't follow that my position is demonstrably false. Also, you contradicted yourself. You said it was true that my position was false, but you don't believe in truth. Ergo, your position is demonstrably false as it is contradictory.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2014 2:48:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/24/2014 1:47:14 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 8/24/2014 1:42:29 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 8/24/2014 1:38:50 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 8/24/2014 1:35:09 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 8/24/2014 1:30:57 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 8/24/2014 1:24:12 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 8/24/2014 1:21:01 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 8/24/2014 12:35:45 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Since reality is by definition everything that exists, if anything exists, reality exists. If nothing existed, then neither would the truth of such a statement. Therefore, reality is real, because any alternative leads to contradictions.

How is nothing existing self contradictory? You're assuming the conclusion.

The truth of the statement "nothing exists" is predicated on the existence of informational constraint i.e. on the truth of the statement. What is the statement true of? Reality is the answer to that question.

What if I frame it this way; absolute truth and ontology are delusions, and by stating 'nothing exists' I am not stating something to be true but engaging in an act with the intention of convincing others or bringing their attention to the delusory nature of those concepts. And by 'delusory' I don't mean 'not absolute truth' or 'not referring to existing objects' but rather, actions which contribute to their own destruction - are based on self-detonating principles. For instance, that the concept of an existing object entails the existence of empty space.

Then I would say your conclusion is contradictory, and based solely on your own cognitive limitations.

How is it contradictory? It doesn't imply any absolute truth, it is just an action of not believing in it, and trying to make others not believe in it either. Hence it is not asserting anything ontologically.

It's contradictory if it's to be taken as true, and not just as meaningless scribbles. It implies absolute truth in its absolute rejection of absolute truth's absoluteness.

You're assuming that by stating something I'm implying it is absolutely true, which I am not. I am simply acting in a manner to have a certain effect on the other person.

Well which is it - are you or aren't you? You're contradicting yourself again.