Perhaps this can be resolved by requiring clear definitions of what exactly it is that we mean by a 'waking state' and a 'dream state'. If an empirical criterion is all we have to go by in defining the terms, the objection that we cannot distinguish between them dies out. Unless the skeptic can provide definitions that are independent of experience, which doesn't seem likely. Very nicely written paper by the way, I envy your clinical style of prose.
Well, that was sort of what I was arguing. Even if we define our waking-states it remains possible that we could wake up from what we believed to be the waking-state and, hence, we would have to reformulate our definition. You are right, however, that all we have to go by are empirical criteria and, as such, we cannot demand absolute certainty.
I find such an examination almost pedantic, because I haven't seen any philosophy where the subject of dream versus reality takes actual center stage (i.e. this topic doesn't go to the main point of anything).
Second of all, it is not the main issue- far from it. It's more in the line of "I wonder why the stars are there and I see the sky is blue" type of comment instead of a serious inquiry. You have taken it completely out of context.
Straight from the page: "Is there a Reality, or is everything a mirage, an illusion that is dangled in front of each of us? Is it all just a dream from which we can only be awakened by our passing?"
"This is not the central concern in the essay but questions were raised because of it"
Finally, to address what you've said in the first paragraph in your response. I don't see its importance. The long and short of it.
Well, first off this question is of great important in epistemology and the theory of knowledge. It has been since at least Descartes, who made it one of his possible hypotheses on his way to the cogito, and was worked out by following philosophers such as Kant and others to the present day. It is a simple yet important inquiry into what constitutes knowledge and how far our human faculties can be aware of such things.
Moreover, you even used this in your own philosophy of counterconstructionism. The second sentence of "True Reality" reads as follows: "Is it all just a dream from which we can only be awakened by our passing?" In addition, you footnoted this sentence with a paragraph or two at the bottom analyzing this concept.
So, basically, even you by your own philosophy would have to admit it has importance.
Another Source for your perusalex_cubetoo915February 18 2003, 05:15:51 UTC
I'm not really interested in this topic, but I do know that Nietzsche made some remarks about the logic of dreams. If it helps or stimulates interest, great. If not, disregard
( ... )
Re: Another Source for your perusal 2ex_cubetoo915February 18 2003, 05:16:15 UTC
A related occurrence when we are awake can be viewed as a virtual gate and antechamber to the dream. If we close our eyes, the brain produces a multitude of impressions of light and colors, probably as a kind of postlude and echo to all those effects of light which penetrate it by day. Now, however, our reason (in league with imagination) immediately works these plays of color, formless in themselves, into definite figures, forms, landscapes, moving groups. Once again, the actual process is a kind of conclusion from the effect to the cause; as the mind inquires about the origin of these light impressions and colors, it assumes those figures and shapes to be the cause. They seem to be the occasion of those colors and lights, because the mind is used to finding an occasioning cause for every color and every light impression it receives by day, with eyes open. Here, then, the imagination keeps pushing images upon the mind, using in their production the visual impressions of the day‑and this is precisely what dream imagination does. That
( ... )
Greetings. I'm posting here for a personal audience with yourself, the creator of real_philosophy. I'm the Maintainer for the abstractthought and other communities, one of which i created in response to a growing problem in your community. I have been refused a fair response or hearing for my requests to advertise in your community. This is indicative or symptomatic of a greater problem there. As i can see some of that controversy with a couple of your Mod/Maintainers there has spilled into your latest public entry. I can assure you it has not ceased to be the case on real_philosophy since then.
Both Mendaciloquent and Apperception seem to be abusing their powers in your community for some odd reasons... a strong one of which i believe to be a form of elitism. They are flame-baiting and generally behaving arrogantly or just plain ignorantly. It seems to be a purposeful personal agenda of some kind. It is stifling the debating of some posts and deterring many more members into silence
( ... )
Comments 9
Reply
Reply
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Second of all, it is not the main issue- far from it. It's more in the line of "I wonder why the stars are there and I see the sky is blue" type of comment instead of a serious inquiry. You have taken it completely out of context.
Straight from the page:
"Is there a Reality, or is everything a mirage, an illusion that is dangled in front of each of us? Is it all just a dream from which we can only be awakened by our passing?"
"This is not the central concern in the essay but questions were raised because of it"
Finally, to address what you've said in the first paragraph in your response. I don't see its importance. The long and short of it.
Reply
Moreover, you even used this in your own philosophy of counterconstructionism. The second sentence of "True Reality" reads as follows: "Is it all just a dream from which we can only be awakened by our passing?" In addition, you footnoted this sentence with a paragraph or two at the bottom analyzing this concept.
So, basically, even you by your own philosophy would have to admit it has importance.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Both Mendaciloquent and Apperception seem to be abusing their powers in your community for some odd reasons... a strong one of which i believe to be a form of elitism. They are flame-baiting and generally behaving arrogantly or just plain ignorantly. It seems to be a purposeful personal agenda of some kind. It is stifling the debating of some posts and deterring many more members into silence ( ... )
Reply
Leave a comment