Skip to main content

If reality is only what our brain perceives, how can we prove anything is truly real?

 Reality cannot be only what our brain perceives because the finitude of all our claims demonstrates the opposite.

Is ‘true for me’ true? If it were, it would not conflict with another truth claim. If it is said there is no conflict because ‘true for me’ is true, then there is conflict. If I say ‘this is sweet’ is true for me, and ‘this is sour’ is true for another, and there is no conflict between the two claims, it should be asked whether true for me means the same as true or not. If it doesn’t, then that implies true-for-me and truth are not identical; if it does, then there are two contradictory truth claims, and that means ‘true-for-me’ and truth are not identical. What is real is also objective - applicable across subjective perspectives.

If I run into a thief who believes it is right to murder me for money, and if I think I should not die, but if I also believe that he is right from his perspective to think so, then I am going to die. Can I, however, think that I am right to defend myself, and he is right to try to kill me, and so I am entitled to defend myself? Can both perspectives be equally true? The fact that I defend myself shows that I limit or oppose the actions of the thief, which I cannot do if I think he is right to do what he is doing. Even if I say both perspectives are valid, my actions would betray me because I have resisted his perspective against mine.

To live in a shared world is to live in a shared reality, and this reality allows me to exist and flourish as a finite human being while also limiting me vis-à-vis others so that I do not and cannot trespass my finitude.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Ramanuja and Nimbarka

  The primary question for any Vedanta philosophy is what is the relation between Brahman and the world and Brahman and the individual souls. Nimbarka takes this relation to be one of identity and difference. He gives the analogy of a coiled snake and of sun and its rays. Brahman is both immanent and transcendent; the souls and matter are really just the different manifest states of the one Brahman. The concern with such a philosophy is to show that the immanence of Brahman does not compromise its unity and the impurities that accrue to the soul and matter do not thereby affect Brahman. Ramanuja believes that this is not possible in the Bheda-Abheda system (his criticisms of Bhaskara would with certain modifications apply also to Nimbarka). The reason is identity and difference cannot be affirmed simultaneously of the same object. Identity is an absolute relation or in the logical terminology of Nyaya it is a locus pervading relation. In terms of Modern Logic identity is a reflexiv...
Post a Comment
Read more

Why does the world exist? What purpose does it serve? An Indian Perspective

  When we talk about purpose we mean an activity that has a beginning and an end and a finite number of steps in between in and through which a task can be accomplished. So when we ask about the purpose or reason for the existence of the world we mean to inquire about why the world began to exist and when and how that purpose can be fulfilled which would be the end of history or the universe as such. There cannot be such a thing as an eternal task which we can see in Sisyphus’s story would render all activity pointless. There is also another sense of purpose in the sense of an immanent end which is not incompatible with eternity of the world. I shall elaborate that both these senses of purposefulness are rejected by Indian philosophers and then I shall explain in what sense liberation (moksha) is the purpose of our existence and the ultimate human good. Advaita Vedanta believes that the world is an appearance of the true ultimate reality Brahman. We have been trapped in the univers...
Post a Comment
Read more

The Difference Between Advaita Vedanta And Madhyamika Buddhism

  For Advaita Vedanta but not for Madhyamika, everything except Brahman is unreal. Why is it unreal? Because they lack a self or an essence. What lacks an essence has no genuine identity, because what is dependent on another cannot also be identical with itself. A chariot, for instance, is nothing over and above its parts arranged in a certain way. It has no essence, no existence that is not dependent on the parts. It has no existence outside of human conventions that treat these myriad parts as a single entity. These conventions have no foundation in reality, and everything is a conglomeration of parts to which we ascribe an essence. For Advaita Vedanta, everything different from the self or anything that is or can be an object of the self is unreal. The Self is something that necessarily exists and is unnegatable, while the existence of the world is transitory and is negated in Brahman-realization, like dreams are sublated upon waking up. Why does the world appear to us if it is ...
Post a Comment
Read more