How would one go about combining them?

At the very least, am I making some sense?

So, in conclusion, humans can never refer to actual things.

This is your belief. Am I correct?

They can refer, but not directly...they all possess a valid concept (perspective)
...this perspective can be "gravitationally" closer or further away, but as I said, is always valid...once the Nominous is valid...(something rather then nothing)

How would one go about combining them?

At the very least, am I making some sense?

Yes, I believe your question is. And that's why it was discarded.

We should strive to talk about something, not nothing. Nothing gets us nowhere.

Your confusion may lie in thinking that a philosophical question is one that must appear profound, difficult to answer, and vague. I'm trying to help you here.

Perhaps you are having cognitive dissonance. You are holding two contradictory beliefs. You believe that the moon exists, and you also believe the moon doesn't exist. And you're rationalizing your contradictory beliefs by saying you're thinking on two different levels.

You are merely labeling your opposition. This is an empty argument.

I don't see why just because an argument is profound to you that you need to viciously attack it

You are not setting a good example for others on the forum Zetherin

Scotty has already explained himself in a philosophically coherent manner earlier in this thread. He is someone who we should look up to as an example of the philosophical spirit.

I'm not confused. There is no substantial argument from you in any event. I don't see why just because an argument is profound to you that you need to viciously attack it. You are not setting a good example for others on the forum Zetherin. Can't some arguments, such as metaphysical arguments, be profound?

--

---------- Post added 02-25-2010 at 02:43 PM ----------





-

Perhaps you are having cognitive dissonance. You are holding two contradictory beliefs. You believe that the moon exists, and you also believe the moon doesn't exist. And you're rationalizing your contradictory beliefs by saying you're thinking on two different levels.

I am not claiming the Moon does not exist, I am claiming that I should not hold an idea of the Moon at the metaphysical level, because that goes above my ability to experience.

Oh, well, you can hold an idea of the moon wherever you please, but just realize that that idea is not the moon.

The metaphysical "trumps" the empirical. If it were true that idealism or solipsism was correct, then the Moon would not exist. However, I still hold an experience of something I call the Moon at the empirical level, and that something that I call the Moon still exists (to be repetitive, with 99.9999% confidence).

You call an experience "the Moon"? What do you call the Earth's satellite? Also "the Moon". I would not call my experience of the Moon, "the Moon". I would call it something like, "seeing the Moon". You don't think that seeing the Moon is the Moon do you?

By the way, Berkeley, the father of idealism, is classified as an empiricist. In fact, Berkeley held that he was the only "True" empiricist, since only he held that everything consists of sense-perception. He attacked representative realism as not being empiricist enough because it postulates entities that are not reducible to sense-perception. Idealism is not incompatible with empiricism. What is incompatible with empiricism is rationalism. Materialism is incompatible with idealism.

You call an experience "the Moon"? What do you call the Earth's satellite? Also "the Moon". I would not call my experience of the Moon, "the Moon". I would call it something like, "seeing the Moon". You don't think that seeing the Moon is the Moon do you?

By the way, Berkeley, the father of idealism, is classified as an empiricist. In fact, Berkeley held that he was the only "True" empiricist, since only he held that everything consists of sense-perception. He attacked representative realism as not being empiricist enough because it postulates entities that are not reducible to sense-perception. Idealism is not incompatible with empiricism. What is incompatible with empiricism is rationalism. Materialism is incompatible with idealism.

Oh, well, you can hold an idea of the moon wherever you please, but just realize that that idea is not the moon.

We've not talking about the concept of the moon, we're talking about the moon. Do you know what the difference is?

You call an experience "the Moon"? What do you call the Earth's satellite? Also "the Moon". I would not call my experience of the Moon, "the Moon". I would call it something like, "seeing the Moon". You don't think that seeing the Moon is the Moon do you?

By the way, Berkeley, the father of idealism, is classified as an empiricist. In fact, Berkeley held that he was the only "True" empiricist, since only he held that everything consists of sense-perception. He attacked representative realism as not being empiricist enough because it postulates entities that are not reducible to sense-perception. Idealism is not incompatible with empiricism. What is incompatible with empiricism is rationalism. Materialism is incompatible with idealism.

Scotty, I want to say thanks a lot for all of your input in this thread. You obviously have some sound knowledge of philosophy. I think I will save this thread to my back up drive because I thought that you jeeprs and Reconstructo made some briliiant points.

Berkeley held that to exist is to be perceived and he held that the only reason that things like the moon continued to exist when we were not perceiving them is because God himself was perceiving them.

Only the divine can possess full knowledge of things as they exist in themselves.

They may have an eternal truth value, but I am not one to claim that. I will claim empirical truth value, semantic truth value, etc... but we have been discussing the metaphysical, and I refuse to claim I hold an eternal truth concerning that.