Are we really here?

[Joseph1082]

Parm... believe me, you can write as much as you want... it is nice to have intelligent discourse. I would expect your views to be subjective, you are a priest after all. To let you know my background is protestant... it is my grandmother's dream for me to become a pastor, but she realizes as of yet I have not heard the calling.
I know the church has done way more good than harm, how I see it, the church itself, being an institution of prominence during post-roman european history, was as much political as religious, perhaps even more. While the low-level members of the church were out doing god's will... the upper levels were a bunch of politician, right down to being elected to office. In the Middle Ages, I'm sure one did not want to be Pope simply to do God's will... I'm sure being the most powerful man in Europe had nothing to do with it.

[Parmenides3]

Thanks for your generosity about my tendency toward high volume...

We all use it, but I've never been fond of the term "Middle Ages" and all the rhetoric that goes with it. It isn't clearly defined time, but it's called "Middle" or "Dark" as pejorative for "Christian." Despite wars and civil unrest, the writing and art of these years was rich, not dark.

Before you commit too firmly to gauging the motives of the clergy over the late medieval era, you might skim a few of their writings and life accomplishments. Some are edifying, others not. Priests having mistresses was a big problem into the 1200's, and the level of formation they received varied greatly. Many studied in schools, and many did not study at all. But through it all, the faith was vibrant, and the people were fairly well catechized; and this fact rests squarely on many mission-minded men and women religious, including many high-ranking officials.

The popes are especially well documented. The bad ones are fun to read about...their stories show how the Church survives the very worst that her own people can do to her. A definite low point was when pope Stephen VI held a bizarre trial for his deceased predecessor, pope Formosus. Yeah, it was gross. But the good popes are as impressive as the bad ones are disturbing.

The daily prayers of Catholic clergy often include excerpts from the writings of popes through the ages. I like Leo the Great's reflection on the passion. Leo took his life in his hands to meet with Attila the Hun and plead for the safety of Rome, having written about Jesus' deliberation "What should I say, Father, save me from this hour? It was for this hour that I came into the world." I like that. Peace. Parmenides3

[craigcully]

Hate to interrupt the discussion, but going back to the question... I like the idea that reality is based on sensory input, but our senses can be wrong, at least the way we interpret the senses can be, like with optical illusions or with hearing sound waves that reflect off of objects when there origins are from elsewhere. Considering that, perhaps there is a possibility that everything that we know to exist as we do now really doesn't exist like we thought. So in turn, assuming that we could eliminate all senses somehow without tampering with the function of our minds, would we still exist? I often wonder what it would be like to be born blind, would we still see mental images? All a born-blind man knows of an apple is what it feels, smells and tastes like, but take away taste, then all he knows is what what it smells and tastes like. Take away those too, and what is this man left with? What is an object that you cannot sense? And if you cannot sense it, does it still exist? To this individual, saying it did exist would be like one of us saying that some object exists that is floating around that we can't sense. Wouldn't we call someone making such a claim crazy, but is this theoretical man that can't sense the apple and says it doesn't exist any crazier? I guess all I can say is my existence as I see it is based on senses and assumptions based on those senses. I can't say what I have sensed is accurate though.

[Parmenides3]

Back to the topic of the thread...

So we sense and we reflect. Does our present experience suggest a relationship between sensory experience and the existence of things? Perhaps our senses and our other rational faculties are telling us more than Berkeley credited.

[Joseph1082]

Oh, I don't know if I mentioned this, but I think that we have to be here. If your existence was an illusion, it would be fooling YOU, to be fooled you need to exists, correct.

[Nettyesquivel]

wow

[Parmenides3]

OK, as the Dread Pirate asked in 'Princess Bride,' "What are our assets?"

(A little re-cap here.) Worse-case scenario, we know we exist. We know that if we are being fooled then the one fooling us must also exist. We know that whatever is necessary to effect the deception exists. We know that, even if what we perceive is false, our means of perceiving it are essentially truthful (otherwise we would not even be rational enough to be genuinely deceived).

I think this last point holds promise. There is a metaphysical principle to which the Scholastics would appeal, that "evil does not exist as a thing but as a privation within a (good) existing thing." In order for a lie to "exist," it woud have to be a corruption of something truthful. If all our experience is a lie, perhaps there are truthful things within the lie which we can recognize as true, based on their coherence. My more Kantian friends critique my epistemology as an assertion of correspondence to reality based on coherence. I'm OK with that, because I accept Aristotle's notion of objective intuition (his doctrine of abstraction). Real knowledge, moderated through the senses, can be summed up "the known is in the knower according to the mode of knowing." Parmenides3

PS-I'll probably have to excuse myself from AF for a while, because Holy Week is coming and things are really hopping here in the parish. Thanks for a fun and refreshing visit to the Platonic Academy!

[integra818]

If our minds create the world we see today, your mind would make your life seem happier and you would only hear music you like. I'm not sure if I made sense but you might figure it out.

[Joseph1082]

Nice quote about the street racing

[<is OMGWTFLOL!'D!]

Sure, our minds "distort" "reality" in order to suit its needs. Sure, everything around us may in fact not be "genuine."

But I don't think the reality of reality matters in the least. I might live in the Matrix, but I can learn, grow, offer insight, philosophize. I live in a web of interrelated beings. While I exist first and foremost as an "individual," and maybe it is true that I cannot ever step into another's shoes and connect to their existence, I can at least affect the lives of others. Even if it isn't in the way that I desire, my existence has ramifications on the universe. Regardless of the reality of reality.

BTW, sorry about the quotes. It's just that this sort of discussion tends to use hackneyed words.

[Joseph1082]

You have no proof you existence affects anything but yourself, that's the irony about it. The only sure thing you know of is your own mind... I have no way of knowing you are actually there or if you are a product of my mind.

[<is OMGWTFLOL!'D!]

I don't know, I'd say that even if I am just a product of your mind I affect you. In the most extreme sense, if I take out a gun and shoot you, wouldn't you feel pain? I wouldn't. So wouldn't you exist independently of me then?

[Joseph1082]

If YOU shoot me, how can you prove you really affect another actual person, all you have is what you have seen, heard, etc. Re-read my past posts in this thread and Berkeley... the only proof you have of the world is from your FIVE senses... if I can fake them a la matrix style, then one could perhaps be in a virtual world... so what makes that different from the REAL world. What you call the REAL world is meanly a collection of five different types of sensation, that is all.

[ac427cpe]

the point there is that "You have no proof you existence affects anything but yourself" also applies to YOU in refrence to everyone else. how do you know we aren't all figments of your imagination?

[<is OMGWTFLOL!'D!]

Goddamnit. I hate this question.

<Cries, then does a toilet>