>Go to philosophy class.
>"Today we are going to discuss Schitzgenbauer's theory of reality"
>"Schitzgenbauer believed reality was not real and that there was no way to know that it was not real"
>"This is contrasted to Dumpfstaffel's view that reality is not real but one can know (in the sense of not knowing) that reality is not real due to our subjective relationship with the nonexistent reality inside of our brains."
>Ask how do we know who is right?
>"There's no way to know."
>continental philosophy
Not even once
>>1383938
>supposing philosophies can be "right"
>>1383938
>I can't intuitively grasp what they're talking about so it must be sophistry, like me on twitter
>>1383938
So you didn't understand shiet, did you?
>>1383938
You can't "know" that the reality we perceive is real, but it's literally your only option. So tough shit. And besides if we did happen to find the "real" reality, what's stopping us from doubting that reality? It regresses.
>>1384146
Well said.
>>1383938
>not even trying to understand
how does it feel to live your life as a cow?
>Schitzgenbauer believed reality was not real and that there was no way to know that it was not real
Experiencing reality is evidence that reality exists.
>This is contrasted to Dumpfstaffel's view that reality is not real but one can know (in the sense of not knowing) that reality is not real due to our subjective relationship with the nonexistent reality inside of our brains.
Experiencing the reality that is the product of our senses and brain is evidence that reality exists.
Phenomenology is based in logic, and we waste our time with whatever it is that you're being taught? The most you need to learn about a Munchausen trilemma or any similar argument is that it's logically stillborn by presuming to know that you cannot know. Learn that and be done with it instead of checking out the opinions of 4-6 retards that couldn't escape the fallacy.
>>1385499
Reality he's speaking of is the what you see is what you get reality. This doesn't "exist" in the traditional sense. Qm/ and general physics have no explanation on what these reality that we experience are. Far as science can tell us, there bunch of particles moving together but these do not explain what we see as thoughts, a child on a swing, your self, etc.
So there is weight behind those crazy out of touch statements.
Also experience isn't confirming anything. Far as anyone is concerned this could all be a brain in a bar, in which case the experience is faked.
>>1385582
Brain in a bar can't be faked
>>1385582
You're thinking of science and reason beyond phenomenology. This is a common mistake people make when thinking about how you can derive knowledge from evidence. Within your first-person perspective of reality, you can obtain knowledge based on your experiences and observations from tangible evidence. Saying you cannot do this is like saying you cannot speak in a literal sense, you're contradicting yourself when you try to claim that you know you cannot produce knowledge through your experiences. Whether or not something exists in a "traditional sense" is entirely irrelevant because the traditional sense in question is inherently flawed, there's no reason to even consider it. It sees knowledge in an almost spiritual light, or at least the underlying logic has the same flaws as the logic that supports a spiritual belief.
You know where the food is when you're hungry, anon. That's phenomenological proof that knowledge exists. Experiencing reality in general is phenomenological proof that reality exists.
What someone may bring up is an insane person might experience a "false" version of reality. That's ridiculous, what other reality would they have to compare their perception of reality to? It's asinine to say their experiences are fake when they are having them.
>Oh my god! Are you seriously going to demand from me in which case everything I claim is completely wrong?
>What are you, some kind of scientisemist?
This is a real problem. It dovetails into the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis of language being the limits of reality, and the degree to which we can describe things being equal to the degree to which they exist. In that vain, it begins to become apparent that the question we must ask is how useful the metaphor is that we use to describe our experiences in this world. Even given the objective reality that the language of mathematics provides, one quickly runs into paradoxes that bespeak a larger system by which they can be resolved, and the infinite regress will rear its ugly head again. But then, mathematical description is just as well a metaphor. There is no bottom except the acceptance of our limitation, which, once accepted, allows us to step outside the closed system - but once there, we cannot talk about it. We cannot describe it, or sing or dance about it except by way of hints and whispers toward maybe perhaps connecting in an ineffable way with another who is already there. Perhaps in the end, we will all meet for the first and last time, and realize that we've always been together throughout everything.
