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

SCHOOLS OF INDIAN THOUGHT – PART 1 – RAMANUJA’S VISHISTHADVAITA VEDANTA

  SCHOOLS OF INDIAN THOUGHT – PART 1 – RAMANUJA’S VISHISTHADVAITA VEDANTA APRITHAKSIDDHI : The central concept of VisishtAdvaita Philosophy is that Brahman alone is organically related to the soul (chit) and matter (achit) and is the ultimate reality. Chit and Achit are absolutely different and yet inseparable from Brahman. Though these two entities draw their very existence from Brahman. Brahman is independent of them just as the soul is independent from the body but remains the inner controller of both chit and achit. This relationship of inseparability is called Aprithaksiddhi. Empirically we find that a substance and an attribute though different yet are related to each other inseparably. Take for example a blue jar. The jar is different from the colour blue but both are referred to in the judgment, “This is a blue jar”. Perception reveals them to be identical but yet they cannot be identical, for jar is certainly different from the blue colour and not all jars are blue nor...
Post a Comment
Read more

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

Tattva in Indian Philosophy

  Reality or Tattva is an abstract noun formed by adding the inflection –ness to the demonstrative ‘that’ which we use to point out to something. So that-ness means something that is capable of being referred to as a that or in other words something that has a certain character or svabhava. Nagarjuna believes that svabhava is really a prajnapti sat or merely a conventional existent like say a chariot, the chariot is neither in the parts nor a whole apart from the parts nor a configuration of the parts, it is merely a name. Depending on certain factors or collocations something is conferred with a name and mind takes it to be an independent existing reality. So there are then two ways to refer to reality, one from an ordinary standpoint where the name has a practical significance in worldly transactions. The sage does not upset conventional truths. Another standpoint is the transcendental standpoint where reality is referred to as essentially ni-svabhava, taking it to have a svabhav...
Post a Comment
Read more