Quote:
|
Originally Posted by AmbitusFerinus If a person speaks from a perspective point of view, then the tree which fell and had no witnesses has made no noise at all. You cannot hear what you cannot perceive. In that, I suppose it gets more complicated. Do we only perceive fact when it is there as solid evidence? If something were to fall in front of me, I know it will make a noise. However, if something were to fall while I was not present, there is no perception of the event and its effects, and as such to me there was no sound. Does this make fact and evidence themselves objects of perception, or subjects of perception? |
And that in itself is a very valid question. Perception has always been an argument that swings both ways for philosophers. I myself hate perception arguments, but cannot deny the validty that knowledge must start
a posteriori.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Bella Same with the unicorn, or god question. Both exist, because I take it as a fact. Both may be just a thought of mine, but what exactly is the meaning of the word Existence. Are there really other galaxies? I never saw them myself, never felt, nor touched them, but they are there. But would they exist if I could not in this moment be able to Think? |
You absurdist!