Quote:
Originally Posted by sixxx(sic)six Also, what about empiricism? Empirical observations are perhaps the most prime example of a human flaw, and it's philosophical attributes. Why, that's not an orange circle hovering in the sky that seems to circle us . . . it's a big ball of burning gas that we orbit around! Now, empiricism and perception can be pretty decieving, does that mean that those things exist? Do mirages exist? Hallucinations? As an absurdist, I will say yes, but there's a key fundamental difference between physical existence (such as, it's just a door frame) and metaphysical existence (it looks like the house's skeleton [the door frame] because I'm on LSD). Both exist, but not in the same manner. |
The balance between empiricism, perception, and agreement among sentient beings (in our case, humans) is what can be deemed consensual reality.
Since empiricism and perceptions are flawed, then how do we know what is ever accurate? Not just on a personal level, but on a global level. Is accuracy dependent on the amount of people who agree that something is so? Or are we simply left to never truly know what is right in front of us since each one of us has flawed perceptions?
Perhaps all this time we've been deceived and that orange ball in the sky really
is floating around us. How many of us have had the chance to actually fly out into space and truly see the orbit of the earth around the sun? Or should we merely believe in the "discoveries" that scientists have made? You know, those scientists with flawed perceptions.
