Reconstructo,

Exactly what truth have these philosophers gotten close to? I am not familiar with any that have discovered or proven the origin of creation or life. There are many suppositions and opinions, but no absolutes.

ummmm ..... maybe the perception as a mistake is as real as a perception as not a mistake. To ask therefore which is more real is to ask of the meta object of real perception (which we don't need to know) instead of just recognising that the perception of a person as a male compared to someone who perceives them as a female, are both equally real. This should be enough? Asking of the reality of whether the person is male or female is impertinent objective impertinence! Both are equally real if they occur.

How can they be anything but equally real? Falsehood is as real as truth. Authenticity is thus meaningless in terms of the reality of an experience ..... from whatever perspective.

so is justice an objective reality? Or is it an endless theoretical discourse?

silence then, in the face of injustice.

..... very zen. all is impermanence.

whats wrong with the need for something in the first place? After all, is that not the basis of all spirituality?

According to Ortega's philosophy, a person, the "subject," experiences various types of phenomena and these phenomena are the "objects" of the experience. In the case of visual phenomena, the person experiencing them is the "subject" and the visual phenomena they experiece are the "objects." At that moment, the visual phenomena are part of their reality.

Now while experiencing the visual phenomena, the person may have thoughts about the visual phenomena, and these thoughts are also, at that moment, a part of the person's reality. The thoughts are also "objects" that "appear" or occur to the person, or "subject."

Regarding "objectivity," again the sciences have brainwashed people into thinking that only science can determine what "reality" is. But science starts with "hypotheses," which are really only the thoughts of a scientist, and which are then tested against the phenomena that people experience to see if there is any correspondence between the thoughts and the phenomena.

To use pathfinder's example, as a person, I may experience a visual phenomenon that triggers a hypothesis that I am looking at the back of a woman, and I may even believe at that moment that my hypothesis is correct. But as a scientist I would want to collect more "data", that is have additional visual experiences to confirm or reject my hypothesis.

By the way, I've had several experiences of mistaking the gender of a person myself based on the visual phenomena of the type pathfinder describes, so I know that the hypotheses that occur to me are not always correct. However, both the visual phenomena and the hypotheses that occurred to me were part of my reality at the moment.

:flowers:

...True and False are objects of one pan-object in the Meta-object...:smartass::deep-thought::Cara_2:

I disagree,

True is what actually exists. False is what does not exist.

True is what actually happened. False is the distortion of that event.

The man is a male human no matter how many people mistaken see him as a woman. The truth is that he is a male whether or not you are mistaken about his gender. What you call 'your truth' and your perception may be what youi believe to be true, but you are still believing ga falsehood which in no way alters the gender of that man.

...That hypothesis that you thought through was correct given the data and perspective you had at the time...this perspective was allowed by the pan-object in the first place, given is Time\Space position in relation to the Whole, and specifically to yourself...it was but a function in the set of possible functions for the geometrical frame of any and all possible observations by other variables (things) or\and Subjects (Complex sub-System) in the Meta-System...

...an object reality (a function in the possible set of functions) multiplies as information of its condition travels in all directions through time and space, thus developing more perspective possibilities...its a pan-object...

...if a pan-object enters the mind of someone thus meeting a certain frame of need, its multi purpose information will be conditioned and restrained to the construction of a conceptual object who fits its owner frame of being and personnel circumstance of needing it in a given way...yet another possible appearance of the Meta-Object...

I have no idea what you are talking about or how it relates to my post or to the thread, so I'm out of here.

:flowers:

I disagree,

True is what actually exists. False is what does not exist.

True is what actually happened. False is the distortion of that event.

The man is a male human no matter how many people mistaken see him as a woman. The truth is that he is a male whether or not you are mistaken about his gender. What you call 'your truth' and your perception may be what youi believe to be true, but you are still believing ga falsehood which in no way alters the gender of that man.

I would add that we have an ability to reason which is not trapped within the contingent conceptions of everyday empirical circumstances, but precisely transcends them, and attempts to view the world as it is in itself, freed from our self-created, circumstantial contradictions.

Philosophy is a search for the true reality. We need a method that will enable us to advance to a point of view outside that of common sense and scientific inference. The picture that it provides must be self-consistent, and it must enable us to see the world in its completeness.

It will therefore lead us to a conception of the whole of things, the ultimate totalilty.

If you cannot view the world as a whole, then you cannot really know your own place in it and thus cannot prove that you really do see and conceive things as they truly are.

The search for an ultimate conception of reality would give us a view on the world as a whole, which would be a view from outside the first-person perspective, showing the structure of reality as it is in itself, from no particular point of view. If we cannot obtain this, then we remain locked within our own point of view, unable either to transcend or truly to understand its limits. In which case, how can we assert that the way we conceive the world is the way it really is?

the subjective mind cannot view anything from no particular view point because only things with a view point can view anything. a view point helps alot when viewing lol. our view point is our eyes. our eyes see our brain interprets.

Philosophers have never proved the non-existence of the thing-in-itself, they have only said that such a subject is not worth discussion. And that is a prejudice not a philosophical argument.

--