Awesome personal ad written by a Craigslist poster

[Francisco d'Anconia]

No, REALITY is a measurable objective event which exists (or existed) in front of your eyes. Your PERCEPTION is what happens behind your eyes.

Where does the measurement happen? Unless you're an alien with cognitive faculties outside of your body it happens behind your eyes.

 

[Mr. Me]

The way I understand it, "Reality" is the actual event/circumstances. In and of itself, it's neither good nor bad until we perceive it to be one or the other. "Perception" is the value judgment we place on it.

Someone kills himself. That's the reality, neither good nor bad. If it's our child who took his life, we feel it was a tragedy. If it was Adolf Hitler, we'd feel it was a good thing.

Perception is why we can live in the same community, experience pretty much the same parameter of social, economic, cultural and societal circumstances, i.e. "reality" - and yet - one person is miserable and their neighbor is a happy dude.

 

[AgonyUncle]

Anger often leads to change. I was no different at one stage. Lets be honest though. One of the hardest things to accept is that power (I include money in that) and status are the two biggest drivers for women. All that bull**** we were fed about being soft hearted doormats is a crock.

I think half the job is done when you actually begin to understand and view the situation for what it really is. How you deal with it after that is the next step.

 

[jophil28]

Where does the measurement happen? Unless you're an alien with cognitive faculties outside of your body it happens behind your eyes.

Reality is an external entity,it exists outside us and it is repeatable,testable , measureable and observable. . As humans, all we can do is assess our objective world and evalute our sensory data ,and from this, we form the basis of our personal perceptions . Each of us will gather and evalute the data differently and this difference explains the variation in perceptions from person to person.

There is no such thing as personal reality . The notion is absurd. Perhaps the relativists are confused once again between reality and perception.

THis agrument was raging twenty five years ago between the humanities folk and the physical scientists.

I still roll my eyes whenever it bubbles up for air.

 

[jophil28]

The way I understand it, "Reality" is the actual event/circumstances. In and of itself, it's neither good nor bad until we perceive it to be one or the other. "Perception" is the value judgment we place on it.

Someone kills himself. That's the reality, neither good nor bad. If it's our child who took his life, we feel it was a tragedy. If it was Adolf Hitler, we'd feel it was a good thing.

Perception is why we can live in the same community, experience pretty much the same parameter of social, economic, cultural and societal circumstances, i.e. "reality" - and yet - one person is miserable and their neighbor is a happy dude.

That is a pretty good explanation . At least Mr ME understands that reality and perceptions are different phenomena.

 

[seth]

Is this shyte still dominant in academia?

And how. You have no ideea...

 

[jophil28]

And how. You have no ideea...

So the beliefs in " personal truths" and "parallel realities " have not not been flushed yet?
How about my alltime fav piece of self-delusion " WE choose our feelings "
Surely that old crock is dead or at least wounded ?

I guess that faddishness in the humanities is perennial.

 

[Francisco d'Anconia]

...There is no such thing as personal reality . The notion is absurd. Perhaps the relativists are confused once again between reality and perception. ...

This statement alone proves that there people live in their perception of reality. The simple fact that your idea of reality is no where near my own yet you believe that people perceive things the exact same way. It's you personal attempt to make sense of what you see. Why you feel that the way you measure these (a cognitive process) things takes place outside your head (brain) is... Well let's just say that I'm quite happy that my perception of reality is in no way synonymous with yours.

 

[Colossus]

No, REALITY is a measurable objective event which exists (or existed) in front of your eyes. Your PERCEPTION is what happens behind your eyes.

It seems that the old warm and fiuzzy left wing thinking that says that there is no truth only interpretations is still around . Is this shyte still dominant in academia?
IT was around when I was an undergrad in the late 70's. IT was promoted by third rate academics who walked the halls clutching the same dusty lecture notes for the entire 25 years of their tenure.

The great Winston Churchill said ," The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, IGNORANCE may deride it, but in the end ,there it is."

NIcely put, Winnie.

There is no such thing as personal reality . The notion is absurd. Perhaps the relativists are confused once again between reality and perception.

I agree and disagree with you, Jophil.

Interpretive truth is utter rubbish. That's a hazy new age cop-out that some people promote to make everything in their reality subjective and ambiguous.

If i drop a bowling ball from the top of a 100 ft. tall building, it will fall to the earth at approximately 9.8 m/s and collide with the pavement, likely doing damage to both the bowling ball and the pavement it collides with. It's an elastic collision.

That is a physical truth. Do it one million times, you'll get the same result.

If you smoke cigarettes for any considerable period of time, you will most likely get cancer, or be at a significantly greater risk of getting cancer. That is another physical truth. It has been proven ad nauseum.

If a man cheats on his wife there will almost certainly be negative consequences. For most men this is truth. Just because consequences dont occur right away or there is a possibility it may go unknown forever does not make it an 'un-truth'.

Ol' Winston was no slump in the cerebral department. Some things just are what they are. No amount of subjective interpretation, academic bush-dancing, or dodgery is going to change that.


Personal reality, on the other hand, does exist. Truth is not synonymous with reality, because by definition reality is subject to interpretation. Truth is what it is, whether you choose to accept it or not. Truth is no respecter of persons or beliefs.

You may not believe that Christ was the son of God. I do. Do either of our beliefs make it truth or un-truth? No. Can either of us prove the other wrong? No. Matters like this come down to faith and personal belief. I can say "i believe this to be true", but i cant prove it like the bowling ball analogy. It is not my job to try and prove or disprove a matter of faith. I can prove physical matters through repeated experimentation and cross-verification, and then i can call it truth and provide evidence that it is indeed true. I realize the difference between a proveable truth and a personal belief.

Another example:

In one man's reality, women could be evil, manipulative creatures who only bring him grief.

In another's, women could be people of varying character who generally bring him joy and sexual fulfillment.

Two different realities, but what IS still IS. Women, as a sex, arent fundamentally different for either of these men. Only the individual women they interact with, the basis of their interactions, and their interpretation of said interactions differ. THAT is personal reality.

 

[MatureDJ]

If i drop a bowling ball from the top of a 100 ft. tall building, it will fall to the earth at approximately 9.8 m/s and collide with the pavement, likely doing damage to both the bowling ball and the pavement it collides with. It's an elastic collision.

That is a physical truth. Do it one million times, you'll get the same result.

Technically, a perfectly elastic collision would result in the bowling ball bouncing up at the speed at which it had impacted. An inelastic collision would result in damage to the two bodies.

But the philosophy behind the anecdote was good.

 

[Colossus]

Technically, a perfectly elastic collision would result in the bowling ball bouncing up at the speed at which it had impacted. An inelastic collision would result in damage to the two bodies.

But the philosophy behind the anecdote was good.

Well you would expect the ball to bounce somewhat, so it wouldnt be a perfect elastic collision. But then again the ball could embed itself directly into the ground, in which case it would be inelastic like you said.

Now if I only had bowling ball... Dropping things off buildings is just good clean fun.

 

[ketostix]

So the beliefs in " personal truths" and "parallel realities " have not not been flushed yet?
How about my alltime fav piece of self-delusion " WE choose our feelimgs "
Surely that old crock is dead or at least wounded ?

I guess that faddishness in the hunaities is perennial.

Yeah it's all about individual perceptions with those types, until your perception is counter to their liberal and female-centric viewpoint. Then they demonize and even try to criminlize your perception.

I agree that how someone feels about a situation goes to perception, but just having a positive perception doesn't make it a more accurate or useful perception. How many people have confidently even naively march ahead to their detriment?

Also I think most men (and women) naturally, instinctively can sense fairness/unfairness. That is until they throw out any and all native and learned "roadmap" to fairness. Now, why do you think some people don't want standards?

 

[jophil28]

Also I think most men (and women) naturally, instinctively can sense fairness/unfairness. That is until they throw out any and all native and learned "roadmap" to fairness. Now, why do you think some people don't want standards?

Excellent point Keto. I am not completely sure of the answer to your last question, BUT i have observed that those folk who deride "standards" and "rules" are usually the same folk who want the freedom to do exactly as they please to others without any ethical or legal consequences.
Their position is driven purely by permissive self-interest.
These are the fakers who promote the notion that there are no "rights and wrong " - life to them SHOULD be a endless convenient experience in which they can pull their stunts on others and then sneer at their victims that "your feelings are your responsibilty ".

 

[ketostix]

BUT i have observed that those folk who deride "standards" and "rules" are usually the same folk who want the freedom to do exactly as they please to others without any ethical or legal consequences.
Their position is driven purely by permissive self-interest.
These are the fakers who promote the notion that there are no "rights and wrong " - life to them SHOULD be a endless convenient experience in which they can pull their stunts on others and then sneer at their victims that "your feelings are your responsibilty ".

I think you pretty much nailed it. And when their position is so unfair to be untenable, they argue for the "relative perception" card to easily and simply dismiss their opponent's viewpoint. Then when their opponent tries to advance a position for the opponent's benefit they argue against the use of "relative perception" card. They try to argue it both ways, because like you said it's all about self-interest. Some people, especially women, want a win-lose situation instead of a win-win. They're almost more preoccupied with you losing as they are with themselves winning anything tangible. That's when it goes beyond self-interest.

 

[jophil28]

. And when their position is so unfair to be untenable, they argue for the "relative perception" card to easily and simply dismiss their opponent's viewpoint.

Ah, the "relative perception" defensive tactic (which is really an attack loaded with contempt ) This is the SOP of ethical cowards and intellectual third raters .. Unfortunately they huddle and hide out in the " helping professions" , academia and all tiers of the civil service.

 

[Last Man Standing]

Truth is what it is and reality is defined as being in sync with truth!! It is not your truth or your reality - truth is not personal - it exists without your existence - it always was, it is, and it will always be!! Relativism was "created" to take away personal responsibility from one's actions - no one has the right to judge the action of another because relativists think truth is relative and personal - so no one is right or wrong. This was propagated by the controllers of the matrix - the same devils pushing the homo/hor agenda!!

Good points Colossus, and Jophil!

 

[reset]

You can have standards in my reality.

 

[jophil28]

Relativism was "created" to take away personal responsibility from one's actions - no one has the right to judge the action of another because relativists think truth is relative and personal - so no one is right or wrong. This was propagated by the controllers of the matrix - the same devils pushing the homo/hor agenda!!

Good points Colossus, and Jophil!

Ahh! LMS you are right on the money. Relativism is intellectual bankrupcy which was invented to justify permissiveness without accountablilty.
It is a cruel hoax which has infected academic thinking.

 

[Bonhomme]

No.

Relativism, properly understood, entails absolute responsibility for one's actions and judgment. Much more than following some blind code that cannot possibly take into account all the factors in play when making an ethical decision.

 

[iqqi]

No.

Relativism, properly understood, entails absolute responsibility for one's actions and judgment. Much more than following some blind code that cannot possibly take into account all the factors in play when making an ethical decision.

Bonhomme is the SH!T, and should post more often.