My experiences are quite the the contrary. The judge is making all kinds of ad hoc judgments (jury selections are wild and hilarious), the attorneys are all over the place, and somehow, among this all, a conclusion is reached. It is an amazing thing to watch. My girlfriend, had no idea what justice was all about until she got wrapped up in a lawsuit. Wow! What a learning experience.

Did you observe the O.J. Simpson trials? Both of them. THAT is life.

Rich

In fact, on the contrary, since in order to disagree about the truth, we have to assume there is a truth about which to disagree.

I love your logical deductions.
This would mean: In order to disagree about karma, we have to assume there is a karma about which to disagree.

I love your logical deductions.
This would mean: In order to disagree about karma, we have to assume there is a karma about which to disagree.

If you wanted to disagree with me that a tree grew apples, we would assume there is a tree with which to disagree upon.

If you wanted to disagree with me that the tree existed whatsoever, no assumption must be made.

In the case of Karma, one can disagree on it's existence without assuming it's existence, obviously. Of course, we are assuming the notion of Karma exists - but that should be self-evident. It's important we're on the same page definitionally, though, when speaking of metaphysical notions. Explanations can become convoluted fairly easily.

If you wanted to disagree with me that a tree grew apples, we would assume there is a tree with which to disagree upon.

If you wanted to disagree with me that the tree existed whatsoever, no assumption must be made.

In the case of Karma, one can disagree on it's existence without assuming it's existence, obviously. Of course, we are assuming the notion of Karma exists - but that should be self-evident. It's important we're on the same page definitionally, though, when speaking of metaphysical notions, as explanations can become convoluted fairly easily.

Not at all. THAT was an exception. What happens daily in the court rooms around the United States is as I described it. Two cases are really not what is called, a fair sample, and the fallacy of generalizing from an unfair sample is called, "the fallacy of hasty generalization". It is one of the inductive fallacies you can find in discussed in any elementary logic text, or indeed, on the Internet if you bother to Google it.

Thank You for this analysis.
However it was not necessary.
When i said:
"This would mean: In order to disagree about karma, we have to assume there is a karma to disagree upon."
this was no statement that i would make.
On the contrary it was meant as an example of how unlogical this deduction is.
So there was no need to confute this sentence, because it was obviously meant to be understood as unlogical to begin with.
And thank you kennethamy to agree with Zetherin's explanation of how this deduction doesn't make sense.

Descartes should have said: "I experience life, which I couldn't do if I were not reallly real. Therefore, I am really real!

Since he didn't say it, I will say it.

You see, it is better to be real than merely to exist.

I said it - and I'm glad!

.

Are we using "real" here within a social context meaning "sincere, genuine"?

If so, of course you can meet people that exist but aren't "real".

Otherwise, I don't know how else one would use "real" in application to humans. "He's really real" means nothing to me.

Well, I am not sure, but I always thought that to say of X that it is real, is to deny that it is imaginary. (Of course, that is not to deny the use you point out).

Assuming you've already deduced the person is not an imagined delusion, I don't know how else you'd apply "real".

If we are to assume that every human is potentially a delusion until proven otherwise, then we can go around labeling the people "real" that we've come to the conclusion actually exist.

Unless you're a schizophrenic, I'd consider this a waste of time.

I was not, I think supposing I had deduced anything. I was pointing out only that when, for example, we point to an oasis in the desert, and say, "that is real" we are just denying that it is a mirage (an illusion). Or, we say of people who are drunk and believe they see pink elephants, that the pink elephants are not real, meaning that they are imaginary. I certainly was not saying that "every person we think we see is potentially a delusion". Why would I say such a bizarre thing? No, I was saying that we say that delusions are not real because they are imaginary. Isn't that true?

I never said you said anything. I quoted you as if we were conversing, not as a rebuttal. It was simply a "Hey, let me share some thoughts also" kind of interaction.

And of course I agree with you. My saying about labeling every person you meet "real" was jocular in fashion. It's a ridiculous idea, yet that's the only way I can imagine applying "real" to humans (besides the social implication I noted earlier).

Well, as I said, if, for instance a child was telling me about her friends the Easter Bunny and his children, I might remind the child that that Easter Bunny is not real. Which is to say, I would be telling her that the Easter Bunny is imaginary. To say that someone, or something is real, is just, I think, to deny that it is imaginary (or an hallucination). As someone pointed out, it is the term, "not real" that is (contrary to appearances) that is the "positive" term, and not the term, "real". The term "real" just denies that what is said to be real is imaginary.

I don't think you're understanding me. I'm aware of how we generally use the word "real". "Real", using the notion you described, is a synonym for "not existing". "The Easter Bunny is not real" would be the equivalent to "The Easter Bunny doesn't exist".

However, deepthot was not using the word as such, as indicated by his quote, "You see, it is better to be real than merely to exist." He acknowledges a distinction between being real and existing.

All I'm trying to say is that I can't find any distinction; I can't find any other way we would use "real" in application to humans (or anything!) besides what you've already noted!

Point taken: One would say a mirage or dream "existed".

But that still doesn't answer my question, and that is, how is deepthot using "real" within his sentence?

How can a human exist but not be real (besides the social term for being sincere or genuine I noted earlier)? I know that a human can be imaginary, meaning the human is not real, but what is a "real human", akin to your "real diamond" example? In contrast, what is a "fake human"?