During my time casually browsing the fields of philosophy and science there's been a recurring theme of stating "X is an illusion" wherein X is some massive thing that defines how humans interpret the world. I've seen it all, I've seen serious heavyweights in the field say things from time itself (a few quantum theories), reality (ala the Matrix, Descartes) to movement (Zeno) to consciousness, to free will (determinism), to the concept of the "self", to morality (Stirner and friends), to basically everything (solipsism)
Honestly, looking at it all as a whole, its kind of fucking absurd. Why not just throw our hands up and say "lol everything is an illusion I guess nothing is real". That being said, what is /his/ convinced is in fact an illusion and that humans have it all wrong?
>>392854
Those are just a few of the things off the top of my head, too. I've even seen claims that causality itself is an illusion.
View philosophy for what it is; professional shitposting.
>>392854
"X is an illusion" is an illusion.
>>392854
>waaah how can people be skeptical
Look, if it isn't constructive enough, think about it this way: you need to identify the illusions in order to get a clear perspective on what is real.
objective history is an illusion. every perspective is inherently limited from the second an event is observed. so even if you remixed all perspectives, you wouldnt get closer to "truth". croce was right, history is closer to art than to science.
>>393070
Furthermore, objective history is not only impossible, it is not desirable. Objective history is an attempt to describe the human experience in inhuman terms.
>>392854
>Honestly, looking at it all as a whole, its kind of fucking absurd. Why not just throw our hands up and say "lol everything is an illusion I guess nothing is real".
Just because you get frustrated due to repeated exposure to an idea, doesn't make that idea wrong. Epistemology is a big part of philosophy, so of course many examples of philosophy are going to say popular notions are untrue. Your response seems more like a knee jerk reaction than anything.
My opinion is that this kind of thing is mostly useless masturbation.
>>392854
But then who was 4chan
>>393084
I have a hard time believing in anything that essentially boils down to "nothing reals, this sentence doesn't real, you don't real, habloo habloo"
I'm pretty sure any perspective has to be grounded in the idea that SOMETHING is real.
>>393128
Sure thing, but do you just want to assume that this or that thing is real, just so your sentences become true? That's actually called lying, or at least dishonesty. The only way to avoid this is, unfortunately, dispelling the illusions, and hoping that something will be left.
>>393140
All knowledge is built on at least a few assumptions, otherwise we'd all just be solipsists, which is literally baby-tier.
>>393140
but that's traditional virtue turning on itself and choosing a certain nothing instead of an uncertain something.
>>393140
>dispelling the illusions
You are so heroic amirite
>>393144
If your knowledge is based on assumptions, it isn't knowledge.
Also, you just said that you consider solipsism the most honest position (which is bullshit btw), and that you cannot accept it because it's unpractical and childish. So do you admit that you can only function on the basis of bullshitting yourself?
>>393163
I assume, at this moment, that my sensory input is correct and that I am in fact sitting in a chair right now.
I assume that the words I'm typing carry meaning that can be deciphered by another similar to me.
I assume that those words will actually reach that person and I'm not just typing this to myself.
I assume that there is a real world outside of my own perception because otherwise why would I do anything
Tell me friendo, do you just assume nothing?
>>393170
>because otherwise why would I do anything
Why do you NEED to be doing anything? (This is a socratic question, not a rethorical one.)
>Tell me friendo, do you just assume nothing?
Of course I do, but I'm eager not to confuse that with knowledge.
>>393183
>Why do you NEED to be doing anything?
Two can play that game.
Why do I NEED to explain anything I do to you?
>>393188
You don't, simple as that. I'm trying to help, if you're not interested, don't bother.
>>393202
You have an extremely strange concept of "helping".
>>393140
Most of the times, it is not dispelling illusions, but rather arguing for the sake of arguing against something that is likely true.
>>393228
You're doing a very poor job at convincing anyone that you're doing anything beyond intellectual masturbation.
>>393235
>intellectual masturbation
Now what exactly do you mean by that? As far as I am concerned, understanding is an end in itself.
>>393169
>not catching the point
I was pointing out your bias my friend
And sometimes, this kind of thing can be counter productive. I think that was the case in Ethics.
>>393258
What bias? Certainty over uncertainty may bring its own set of problems, namely the possibility of ending empty-handed, but it is pretty much the opposite of a bias.
>>393261
Consider the alternative though, not questioning your morals, does it not carry the much greater risk of unwittingly doing evil?
>>393278
What are the results of moral nihilism in our society?
>>393278
If you believe there are no moral values, you will be more likely to do evil.
>>393294
If there are no moral values, there is no evil, so you will be more likely to do nothing. This is confirmed by the fact that most moral nihilists are shitposting NEETs on 4chan.
>>393282
I for one don't believe that moral nihilism as a factor in society stems from too much philosophical inquiry, but rather from traditions getting swept away once they get in the way of capital accumilation. Your average guy-or-gal-who-don't-give-a-fuck aren't that way because they read too much relativist/nihilist philosophy, but because our social relations are arranged in a way so tat giving a fuck will make certain consumer demograpics miserable.
Also, don't you see how this is counterbalanced by its equally depressing opposite, prefab engagement, meme crusades, petty outrage?
>>393305
>If there are no moral values
"If you believe there are no moral values" is different from "If there are no moral values".
>>393294
False moral values carry the very same risk, so that's no argument against moral skepticism.
>>393311
I think it is a factor.
At least for all the #yolo idiocy.
>>393311
Also at this point, nihilism IS the moral default.
You ever try to get a freshman to take the notion of a teleos seriously?
>>393345
Nah, those kids can't even read. You're putting the blame for social ills on one of their remedies, as if thinking less would make the world a better place.
>>393349
>at this point, nihilism IS the moral default
Not in my experience. The moral default seems to be enragement at things one doesn't comprehend, be it that you consider them bigoted, degenerate, harmful for the environment, or in general unfair to you.
If the archetypal freshman is as you describe, then I have given you a description of the sophomore.
>what is /his/ convinced is in fact an illusion and that humans have it all wrong?
I'm convinced free will is an illusion, but not that humans have it wrong. Humans have it wrong when they focus on causation due to bias, while otherwise focused on the topically immediate. But the concept of free will is in itself a causative force that contributes to society in what could be called 'artificial compatibilism'. And so you could argue that, pragmatically, free will exists, but just not in the theoretical model most people think of.
Pragmatism can fix the same issues with the big spooky 'reality is an illusion' thing. In that even if 'reality' isn't 'reality', it may as well be called 'reality' in practical terms, even if there's one hypothetical lynchpin that seems to make it not 'reality'.
At any rate, there's no need to discount different perspectives, which are effectively all those arguments are. Unless they have a solid grounding in evidence, they're fairly necessarily perspectival, and relatively subjective.
>>393353
Those kids can't read, but the people that influence them can.
The obvious example being promiscuity, whose results we are seeing.
Take a look at this, for example:
http://nymag.com/thecut/2015/10/why-consensual-sex-can-still-be-bad.html
People are taking a "legal" view on what is right and wrong. "If I have the legal right to do it, it is right. Who can say what I'm doing is wrong?". Which ends harming them in the long run.
>>393362
I don't think these things are inconsistent.
I don't mean that these people are principled egoists, the way like Stirner is.
While they're full of enragement at things they don't comprehend, this dovetails nicely with nihilism, which tells them these things are incomprehensible, or that there's nothing to comprehend.
They imagine their inability to actually come up with a hard, positive principle about how the world works means that they're able to handle 'complexity' and 'nuance', and the idea that moral law actually is significantly more complex then their feelings is fundamentally alien to them.
>>393282
Absolutely fucking nothing.
>>393389
>the people that influence them
Who's that, though, the jews?
Seriously, you can't influence illiterate kids with philosophy.
And laws exist to prevent harm, so taking them as a foundation for your rules lf conduct is better than no rules at all. Also, the legal view is invariably based on an ethical view.
>>393409
>I don't mean that these people are principled egoists
Then you can't blame their nihilism on philosophical nihilism, can you?
>They imagine their inability to actually come up with a hard, positive principle about how the world works means that they're able to handle 'complexity' and 'nuance', and the idea that moral law actually is significantly more complex then their feelings is fundamentally alien to them.
You got it, but isn't this narcissism disguised as philosophy, rather than philosophical misguidance?
>>393430
No, of course not. Their professors, the media... Don't you think people are influenced by them?
>And laws exist to prevent harm, so taking them as a foundation for your rules lf conduct is better than no rules at all. Also, the legal view is invariably based on an ethical view.
Yes, it is better than not following rules at all. But should it be the only guide on what is right?
>>393451
>You got it, but isn't this narcissism disguised as philosophy, rather than philosophical misguidance?
Yes, that's exactly my point though. Narcissism disguised as philosophy is the dominant thought patter of any society. The language the illiterate and unexamined mind uses today though, is of nihilism.
So we don't have to spend too much time mucking about with ethics classes to get them exposed to Nihilism. Nihilism is the default, assumed language. The same way in the 19th century, an ignorant asshole would simply talk about a natural order coincidentally justifying his petty feelings, now it's switched to a rejection that anything can say his petty feelings are wrong.
>>393456
>Their professors, the media... Don't you think people are influenced by them?
Well, professors can hardly influence the closed-minded, and the media, I don't believe it reproduces ideology from a perspective of intellectual conviction, but from a perspective of marketability.
>But should it be the only guide on what is right?
Tell you the truth, I'll take a legal positivist over a moral crusader any day. Anyway, do you even have a practical plan for teaching the inhabitants of our society as it is now any moral values, particularly those inhabitants that do not care for that?
>>392854
ghosts "spooks" aren't illusions, you've just not dialectically gone behind them to see their true nature.
The state is as real as it is to you. That's not saying "it's an illusion". Stirner is actually sort of an ideal realist.
>>393477
>Nihilism is the default, assumed language
I'm not denying this. I am denying that this can in any way be blamed on on philosophers who where skeptical about moral claims; if anything, they just lucidly expressed a social tendency that has now become universal and isn't put to serious scrutiny. Scrutiny that remains, contrary to OP's polemics, highly imperative.
I really want /philosophy/ to become a different board. To most /his/, /phil/ is cringeworthy to say the least, while to /phil/, /his/ is uninteresting.
>>393506
Most threads, be they /his/ or /phil/, are bad. I'm here for the good side of both.
>>393509
Yeah, but there's not much overlapping tbch.
I am /his/, so studying facts and shit. So whenever some /phil/ dude starts explaining some famous philosophers' train of thought I keep getting reminded of that annoying chick/dude in hihschool who thought she/he knew all the answers. To me, almost all philosophy is 3deep5u cringe, pretentious useless shit. I doubt most students of philosophy care much about the conquests of Timur either.
Pic unrelated, I just like Mel
>>393526
>To me, almost all philosophy is 3deep5u cringe
It's essentially discussing the basics of life.
You sound too insecure if you think discussing the basics of life is being pretentious.
Look into Science brah, it gives objective facts rather than continental bullshit like philosophy. The only philosopher I can respect is Rand as she actually believes in objectivity.
>>393526
Since I studied both history and philosophy, I guess I don't exactly fit your assessment. One problem that prevents an overlap is probably a long-standing resentment against the philosophy of history, otherwise this could be Hegel: the board.
>>393537
No, I just don't care and to me it sounds like pretentious bullshit. Like the War of the League of Cambrai sounds like some forgotten relic of the past to you I bet.
>>393502
I entirely agree. I'm simply pointing out that "Ethical scrutiny is bad because it leads to nihilism" isn't a compelling argument for many reasons, one of which is that a lack of ethical scrutiny at least leads to parroting nihilistic phrases.
>>393526
>Not doing based intellectual history
You're missing out my man.
>>393553
How to get into Hegel please.
It's not that his work intimidates me, it's that he can't write for shit.
>>393554
>No, I just don't care
uhuh sure, that's why your assessment of it is
> 3deep5u cringe, pretentious useless shit
>Like the War of the League of Cambrai sounds like some forgotten relic of the past to you I bet.
haha no because I actually love philosophy and early modern history because I'm not some retard that goes 'i don't like all of x because the people who do it seem pretentious' because that's dumb as fuck
>>393261
dont pretend that it's choice or conspiracy
>>393572
Look m8erson, I tried to read Schopenhauer, Nietzsche and Hegel. Not my cup of tea, I cringed, don't care.
>>393526
Honestly it's because most people are just very very pretentious as soon as given the chance.
People will go on about big questions like "what is a just society" instead of doing as they do in the analytical tradition, corner it down and chop it up until it isn't as fucking pretentious and all over the place.
That and most people not know more than the 3 philosophers they're constantly namedropping.
>>393549
>Look into Science brah, it gives objective facts
/sci/ pls, you're drunk again, go home.
>>393589
>corner it down and chop it up
where's the OC though? seems like they depend on others to provide philosophical OC and then create their meta-analysis like fucking accountants.
>>393582
>not starting with the greeks
you only have yourself to blame, start again.
unless you are seriously, comprehensively satisfied with your current perceptions of being, which you shouldn't be, because that would make you naive and complacent, because fallibility means you should be perpetually challenging or dubious of your own core beliefs to at least some degree.
>>393589
>corner it down and chop it up until it isn't as fucking pretentious and all over the place
More like, corner it down and chop it up until the problem becomes unrecognizable and you can proclaim to have solved it by showing that 1+1=2.
>>393610
>>not starting with the greeks
> Starting with the Greeks
> Not with a proper introduction in logic, rationality and proper reasoning
There's a reason why no university worth the name university give students the greeks first or even bother with them unless they're taking a course in cultural history or the like.
>>393610
>implying a reasonable man needs ancient or modern texts to understand his place in the world
>implying you need philosophy to reevaluate your position and reasoning on a constant basis
Call me a pleb, I don't give a fuck. I may be wrong on a shitload of things, but I'm not using a crotch built by another man to reason or think.
Cynicism is an illusion that serves power desu
>>393621
>> Not with a proper introduction in logic, rationality and proper reasoning
you can reasonably intertwine both. the greeks entail too many fundamentals not to start with.
>There's a reason why no university worth the name university give students the greeks first
actually, phil 101-102 usually starts with gimmicky bullshit to keep students attention, so that means 'big questions', greeks, and ethics.
>worth the name
>implying you know the introductory phil unit schedules for all universities worth the name, let alone a handful
>>393629
> I'm drowning in shit but I'll take pride in not having to take swimming lessons to do it
ok m8
>>393621
>our concepts of logic, rationality and proper reasoning are based on the greeks
>these results are needed in order to understand the process that produced them
You're either a master of dialectics, or a complete retard.
>>393629
so by your own incredible powers of deduction, you don't need the experts and renaissance men who have pained not only over mathematics and science as well as philosophy, because you can sort out every quandary on your own?
definitely naive and complacent, just an excuse to maintain your 'le philosophy is so pretentious' garbage.
>>393639
OK, you hooked me. Explain to me how reading Nietzsche would make me reassess my position in life. Simple terms, I am a pleb
>>393649
>incredible powers of deduction
>experts and renaissance men
>naive and complacent
So when I called you a pretentious cocksucker I was completely right. Goes to show that I am a good judge of character.
>>393650
That quite strongly depends on what your shitload of misconceptions may be about, and how strong your attachment to them is. Nietzsche is quite good for removing misconceptions about morality, and generally lowering your clinginess towards your beliefs.
>>393128
>"nothing reals, this sentence doesn't real, you don't real, habloo habloo"
just because something is illusory doesn't make it not real. It just means you took something real and have become decoupled from reality somewhere along the line. Sometimes it's way back at the beginning of a concept or idea or whatever, sometimes it was beliefs you established from something that happened 5 minutes ago.
>>393600
I'm actually the same person you link to in both replies.
I'm honestly asking. And I'm entirely serious when I say Hegel can't write for shit, and I won't take that back. It's not 2deep4me, and I think the charges of him being deliberately obscure are way off the mark. It's that he has an incredibly roundabout way of constructing sentences. It's a problem common to German writers, but holy shit, does Hegel take it to new levels.
I really want to get into Hegel. I think the fact that I haven't yet is my biggest intellectual failure. But goddamn he makes me go crosseyed.
>>393662
>lol faget u use big words
I bet you're here for the
>wat's your fave empire?
type threads.
>>393662
>durr dat word too confusing u pretentious
>>393667
Not him, but I'm supposed to listen to a guy who says nothing is real. Like when I say Nietzsche was a mustached German philosopher, I am wrong. I am sorry, can't be bothered.
>>393650
Reading Nietzsche, especially with your attitude, isn't guaranteed to make you reassess your life.
But his entire commentary of morality, like a history of it, is very compelling. Regardless of its philosophical implications, it's compelling. His suspicion, his contrasting of Greek and Christian virtue, is interesting.
>>393662
you fucking retard. you realize some of the most famous philosophers are polymaths, right?
>>393684
Nah, I'm just here for the maymays. And occasional shitposting. And pointers to good books on subjects I'm interested in. Isn't that what this Maori Woodcarving Board is for?
>>393697
Of course I do you inbred faggot. But I'd rather read about mathematics not "HURR I KNO ABOUT EZISTENZ HURR". I don't give a flying fuck what some genius 300 years ago thought about the nature of reality, when I can read about how he came up with a theorem that pushed human knowledge towards a better future.
>>393650
Nietzsche wouldn't.
But Greek philosophy could. I think most people would probably be happier if they had some knowledge of Greek Philosophy.
>>393673
Ok, one main problem would be that when he asserts a thing, it probably won't stay true for long, he'll probably reach the opposite conclusion by the next chapter, or even at the bottom of the same page. His method isn't so much to erect a stable system of concepts that support each other and are useful for explaining stuff, quite the opposite, he takes one concept and basically beats the shit out of it until it breaks and becomes its opposite, then he beats that one up until the process loops back, but instead of going in a circle indefinitely, recognizes both opposing concepts as moments of a greater concept. With which he repeats the process.
Knowing this should make him a bit more readable.
Here's an explanation in greater detail:
https://www.academia.edu/8061445/The_Concept_in_Hegel_s_Logic
>>393723
The fact that many of those famous mathematicians were compelled to write philosophically too should shed some light on why its retarded to exclude it because you don't like da big words it uses.
>>393688
Man, you sound like skepticism stole your gf.
>>393739
Newton was also an alchemist.
>>393709
Does your bitching about philosophy qualify as shitposting, or is it a maymay?
>>393747
Momentarily it's shitposting. If I have my way, it will be moymoy soon.
>>393743
Yes, and alchemy and its emblematic imagery is still compelling today too. Seriously though, likening philosophy to alchemy shows how your lack of value for it is due to a lack of awareness.
>>393738
>Ok, one main problem would be that when he asserts a thing, it probably won't stay true for long, he'll probably reach the opposite conclusion by the next chapter, or even at the bottom of the same page. His method isn't so much to erect a stable system of concepts that support each other and are useful for explaining stuff, quite the opposite, he takes one concept and basically beats the shit out of it until it breaks and becomes its opposite, then he beats that one up until the process loops back, but instead of going in a circle indefinitely, recognizes both opposing concepts as moments of a greater concept. With which he repeats the process.
>Knowing this should make him a bit more readable.
That actually helps tremendously, thank you. I've been trying to read him where each sentence supports the next one, and it just felt like this guy couldn't stick to a logical ordering.
>>393753
>alchemy is compelling
Aleister Crawley pls
>>393771
more like Adam McLean but whateva
>>393759
No problem man, that's what 4chan is for, friendly people helping each other.
>>393795
Completely agree
Holy shit anons, did that faggot shitpost so hard it got you all to shut up? That's legitimately scary.
>>393832
thread just kinda died to be honest.
>>393838
Better off. Was he from /b/ though? /pol/tards usually get butthurt easy and revert to buzzwords but he just sort of had this fucking method to it.
>>393738
aka: the father the son and the holy spook. christian dialectics disguised as philosophy, absolutely disgusting.
>>393877
>holy
>trinity
>>393795
Oh, one other question: Where should I start with Hegel?
If I want to make another go at this what's the core text? Because I started with Philosophy of History last time.
>>393877
Ok Saint Max, now you're just trying to b8. The only possible spook in there would be the concept, but I don't think Stirner had a proper critique of that. Also, he clearly was influenced by that method himself.
>>393891
I've started with the Phenomenology, while others will recommend the Logic as a point of entry, but most people would recommend The Difference Between Fichte's and Schelling's Systems of Philosophy, so maybe start there.
>>7444442
hegel does not understand empiricism, stoicism, buddhism and calls himself the new aristotle.
>>393349
How can moral nihilism be default for a species the instincts of which encourage community success as a result of being pack animals for millions of years or more?
>>393526
Too bad you don't matter and nobody cares, otherwise we'd have to stop.
>>394190
Not that anon, but
>I need to be doing something because one can learn from experiences.
>When one learns, they gain what they need to better themselves and their understanding of their reality.
There are at least four non verified assumption. You look like a teenager who just read Plato's Gorgia tbqh
>>394282
It was Republic if you must know and I didn't even finish it. I just wanted to prove that I know nothing be answering questions poorly. Of course I shouldn't have assumed one could discover truth or falsity on 4chan.
>type thing
>"You're dumb and wrong for so many reasons which I refuse to directly identify [acronym] [insult]"
>>394336
Never said you are dumb and wrong mate
Just wanted to help you in your search
>>394363
But experiences do teach. Like if I get stung by a bee, I learn that bees sting. This improves my knowledge of my reality because I'll know bees can fuck me up if I go near them. Moreover, I will better myself (assuming that "good" is freedom from pain) by avoiding getting rekt by bees.
You didn't help at all, because I can't identify other assumptions I've made. Nor have you helped dispel the verity of my aforementioned unconfirmed assumptions concerning insects which can inflict what my brain perceives as pain.
More assumptions: teenagers are dumb and having assumptions leads very often to being wrong
>>394415
>one can learn
>one can learn through experience
>learning betters yourself
>you need to better yourself
>you can learn
Can we? Or are we just allowed to memorize phenomenons?
>you can learn through experience
Who said that every bee's that stings you will hurt you?
>learning betters yourself
What does this mean, precisely? Can you better yourself at all?
Note that Plato said that a philosopher is half demon.
>you need to better yourself
Do you need to do?
>>394488
We can learn skills. Though perhaps are skills are memorization of various phenomena.
Induction fallacy?
If one learns more, one can do more. Honestly, more abilities adds to the amount of "bad" (yes I know that's another can of worms) things one can do as well. For instance, a soldier may learn the mathematics he needs to build things, but he also learns how to kill. Furthermore, he can build things which are used for nefarious purposes. In this example, when one learns, they gain more ability to do bad than to do good. So one who knows nothing can do no good, but one who knows something is more able to do good than bad.
If true freedom is not found in becoming more able, no one needs not better oneself.
>>394618
Bad than good*
>>393582
Cringeee haha!
>>394618
>Induction fallacy?
Basically, yes
>So one who knows nothing can do no good,
If you mean intentionally, yes, because he doesn't know what's good and what's bad. An hypothetical person who knows nothing doesn't know that he knows nothing, therefore can still act.
>If true freedom is not found in becoming more able, no one needs not better oneself.
I think that what you are saying is that knowledge allows us to act free of external interferences (correct me if I'm wrong). Now this depends if you want to classificate experience as one of them or not.
>>394747
That's basically what I mean: that knowledge enables us to do things (Like with skills or understanding of a location). And yes I think experience counts. For instance with some low-skill jobs, one "learns by doing." If someone who has never cooked says they know not how, sometimes they will learn through experience of an attempt snd thereafter may claim they know how to cook.
>>392854
Descartes argument ends with him concluding that we behold basic beliefs that are infallible, and he knows this because he believes in God, and god is all good, so therefore he would never deceive Descartes. Descartes Dreaming Argument simply states that we can not trust anything we perceive on the basis of perception about the EXTERNAL world.
To understand the Skeptic is very simple. They simply argue that in order for someone to actually have real knowledge about the thing they claim to have knowledge about they must rule out all possibilities that would prove their claim does not obtain, such as "i am not dreaming."
The anti-skeptic responds by stating such requirements on claims to knowledge is not only impossible but absurd. It is primarily absurd in the social sense. For example, if I was a bird watcher who competed in a bird identifying competition , and I claimed I knew what type of bird I saw was, (and we are assuming I am damn skilled and damn good at identifying and distinguishing birds), only to have the panel of judges reject my claim on the basis that I don't know if I am dreaming or not is simply absurd. How and why would the judges think that would be a limitation to my knowledge? It's just fucking weird for them to say.
>>393070
So "X is an illusion" doesn't mean "X doesn't exist/isn't real", it means "X exists, it just doesn't work the way we think it does"?
>>395355
Sounds 'bout right to me.
If you'd like you could think of things as paintings. None of those paintings are actually the things they depict, but the paintings themselves still exist and tell us something.
Pretty much everything we can experience, if not literally everything we can experience, is an illusion. But these illusions are what we have to work with, and they stem from something.
>>392854
I guess we have to assume the external world exists, for practical reasons. I could make a point it doesn't and you guys are just a product of my imagination but that wouldn't lead to anywhere. So reality is what we say it is because we say so and it works for us.
Now our understanding of it doesn't necessarily have to be comprehensive of the thing itself as we are limited by perception and our own phisical limits. If our brain works with windows vista it will proccess data in this format, not in ms-dos or linux format, but nevermind because the data is still there.
>morality
You only think it's normal because you grew up with it. The point of philosophy is to challenge you, something that you seem resistant to. In other words philosophy is for intellectuals and you are a proud idiot
>Descartes, questioning reality
Aka the birth of modern science. Something else you seem to hate
>Zeno, movement is impossible
And if you actually payed attention you would realize that his arguement makes perfect sense. Movement, under Aristotlian and earlier models, IS WRONG. It wasn't until Einstein showed up that we could actually could resolve Zeno's paradox with the radical idea that motion is relative and not absolute. But you've already told us you are against questioning anything within your cultural norms, so you probably think Einstein was a mistake too.
It's overwhelming clear philosophy is not for you. I suggest you find something else to do with your time.
