- Joined
- Nov 8, 2008
- Messages
- 8,468
- Reaction score
- 1,575
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
That is obviously because I'm trying to play on what I perceive as a certain narrowness in the way those like you are approaching the issue.All i am saying is that you do NOT make a distinction between objects, feelings, experiences, ideas, etc... when you use the term "real". If you made it clear what you were talking about rather than leaving it ambiguous then there probably wouldn't be much disagreement.
Have you ever thought it is ambiguous because the neat, rationalistic, discursive precision of analytical philosophy, and much of modern thought, is limited in its use? After all a discursive description, like the theory of gravity in a textbook, is always distinct from the thing itself, being about deducing cause from effect and putting it into human language and expression. We learn about the thing, like the theory of gravity, by drawing out what the textbook tell us, but we do not learn all of thing, in its essence, and never could in this way. It is always separate from us and our knowledge. Why can't poetry tell us things which are true, but in a different way to the more discursive nature of scientific description?This is precisely the word-play and ambiguity I mentioned previously. Thank you for demonstrating it so succinctly.
Last edited: