I don't mind stealing bread

[boston1993]

<p>The reason I numbered my response was because I wrote it up in Microsoft Word and it’s easier to keep track of what quote I was responding to if I numbered it. I’m off to bed after I post this, btw. I’ll respond to everything else tomorrow, err, later today. </p>

<p>

@Sithis

It seems very likely that this is true. You, however, are arguing that reality exists outside of human perception in exactly the same way that it exists within human perception.

1. That’s because reality is what it is. It doesn’t mysteriously change forms and become something else just because I look at it. What I’m arguing is that reality exists outside of our consciousness. It doesn’t exist in some other form “inside” our perception - we perceive it as it is.</p>

<p>

Never said that it would.

2. The implication is there as soon as you make the argument that there might be some kind of reality that we don’t perceive.</p>

<p>

No, I am not. This paragraph doesn’t really make sense; I feel like you are just making things up and attributing them to me.

3. You keep saying “human perception” and the like, which denotes that there’s some other form of perception out there which changes existence in some unknown way - unless, of course, you’re willing to recant the argument concerning our “subjective perception” of reality.</p>

<p>

Oh, so the law of identity DOES depend on human perception now? I am saying that we believe in it because it is pragmatic within the context of the human experience to believe that my TV is a TV and not a pile of leaves.

4. I don’t really think you understand what I’m saying. The law of identity isn’t like God. We don’t “believe in it” because we think it makes things better to believe that it’s true. Our identification of it is a product of perception. The truth of it isn’t. Something is what it is, even if we don’t identify it as such. The reason that we “believe in” the law of identity is because, if we refuse to accept that something is what it is, has a specific nature and properties, etc, then we die. If we treat man as plant, rather than as man, we die. Plants can sit in one spot and absorb nutrients from the soil. I dare you to stop “believing in” the law of identity, and to try being a plant for a few days.</p>

<p>

Nah, I’m not that adventurous of a person. Still, that was rather rude. My point is that human perception is what we have, so it would not be pragmatic for me to ignore that gravity exists and jump off a building. You however, presume to talk about things and phenomena existing outside of human perception in terms of absolute certainty.

5.a I wish you’d stop using the term “pragmatic”, first of all. To say that one lives “pragmatically” implies that one only lives for the range of the moment, with no concept whatsoever at the future. Pragmatists are the sort who say it’s ethical to violate someone’s rights if you really, REALLY need to do it in order to survive (such as the example of bending ethical rules by stealing bread).</p>

<p>5.b. Saying that our perception is “what we have” implies that there’s some greater level of perception out there which could do a better job of identifying reality. You argue earlier that I’m misrepresenting you, while later confirming my arguments. That’s impressive.</p>

<p>5.c. I do speak in absolute certainty. I have no reason whatsoever to believe that some super-being decided to tweak my consciousness when I was born so that everything I know of reality is only a distorted shadow of what really exists.</p>

<p>

Explain this. Explain how asking people to explain their beliefs is a logical fallacy.

6. Asking for explanation is one thing - regressing infinitely through “how do you know that…” doesn’t help you.
   “How do you know that there are rights?”
   “But how do you know that reality exists as it exists?”
   “But how do you know that you can know anything?”
   There’s a logical conclusion to what you’re arguing. You simply refuse to acknowledge it, claiming that I’m putting words in your mouth. I would say that your claim is valid, because I’ve debated this exact issue countless times before, and I know precisely where this chain of thought ends. Any words that I put into your mouth are those which would end up there anyway.</p>