Quote:
Originally Posted by JackPat
No. It means you cannot know with certainty. I could really dive deep down into eastern philosophy when regarding this subject, but (being lazy) I don't see a huge point in it. You can think about it, but I don't feel up to getting into a debate about it. You seem to be a follower of western philosophy so I think it would get really complicated (not to say there's anything wrong with western philosophy - I love Plato).
|
The truth is not dependent on what one
knows, but if we cannot agree upon that a statement can be either true or untrue and nothing else, then there's no point in discussing that alright.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ProggyMan
No, but I highly doubt that you are actually seeing the stone without something (Or nothing) else. I can't really 'prove' you wrong here so I'll just ask you to look at your mental image of the stone again, and ask yourself, 'am I really seeing this stone and nothing but this stone? Then read some Taoist philosophy.
|
I've nudged the subject of taoism but I don't see the point of it in here. I can imagine a stone and nothing but that stone, and you'll just have to take that. I believe you can too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ProggyMan
No, that's the thing, I'm just saying that the way we classify things as objects is fairly arbitrary and is used simply because it was the most evolutionarily advantageous thing.
|
Yes, that I agree upon. In other words, we are obviously discussing the mental concepts here and not the actual objects to which they apply.