The external world cannot be known for certain

[blase6]

By external world, I mean everything perceived. This includes everything perceived through bodily senses, as well as mental perception, such as thoughts and logical conclusions. (I will not say that thoughts are internal, because they can be imposed on us.)

Firstly, we cannot be certain that what we perceive through our physical senses is real. This is because situations can arise where we perceive a contradiction, for example, a mirage, where we see that an oasis exists, but do not feel that it exists. Therefore we have no guarantee that anything felt bodily is real other than an assumption.

Secondly, we may come to reasonable conclusions that something we do not immediately perceive is real. Such as seeing order in the world, and deriving from that that God exists. However, as with our bodily senses, we may come to a reasonable conclusion that contradicts our senses or internal perception, and thus we cannot be certain that our ability to reason can reveal the truth.

Therefore, one has no certainty of the truth of anything. However, since the concept of existence is the most basic idea, and one that a person is entirely incapable of acting without, then existence itself seems to be a certain truth. But beyond that, I cannot find any certainty.

 

[ChainBreaker]

We can be certain of existence, change, and teleology. But we cannot be certain of the particular kinds of things that exist externally to our senses.

 

[blase6]

We can be certain of existence, change, and teleology. But we cannot be certain of the particular kinds of things that exist externally to our senses.

I disagree for change and teleology. We can perceive change but that falls under perception. Teleology is very uncertain no matter what.

 

[ChainBreaker]

I disagree for change and teleology. We can perceive change but that falls under perception. Teleology is very uncertain no matter what.

Change does not simply fall under perception. In order for there to be an illusion of change there still has to be something changing. It cannot be an absolute illusion otherwise there would be nothing in existence to compare it to and thus it would not make sense for us to experience the illusion of change in the first place because we would have no concept or experience of real change. Out of nothing comes nothing.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

By external world, I mean everything perceived. This includes everything perceived through bodily senses, as well as mental perception, such as thoughts and logical conclusions. (I will not say that thoughts are internal, because they can be imposed on us.)

Firstly, we cannot be certain that what we perceive through our physical senses is real. This is because situations can arise where we perceive a contradiction, for example, a mirage, where we see that an oasis exists, but do not feel that it exists. Therefore we have no guarantee that anything felt bodily is real other than an assumption.

Secondly, we may come to reasonable conclusions that something we do not immediately perceive is real. Such as seeing order in the world, and deriving from that that God exists. However, as with our bodily senses, we may come to a reasonable conclusion that contradicts our senses or internal perception, and thus we cannot be certain that our ability to reason can reveal the truth.

Therefore, one has no certainty of the truth of anything. However, since the concept of existence is the most basic idea, and one that a person is entirely incapable of acting without, then existence itself seems to be a certain truth. But beyond that, I cannot find any certainty.

Of course this is all wrong. If you asked the same question of someone who had never heard of philosophy ( at least non-Thomist philosophies ), like ordinary people, they might laugh at you. They certainly believe the extra mental world is real and that they can know it objectively - except when they might be under sever mental, emotional, or physical stress. So judging from my own experience and the general experience of non-philosophical mankind, you have to be wrong. In other words, some philosophies can make you kinda mad, just like too much consumption of some foods or drink can destroy your body or make it susceptible to disease, or make it function poorly.

Secondly, one can hardly be a good Catholic if one doubts the objective reality of the external world or if one doubts one can know the truth about Divine Revelation and about all that implies about faith and morality.

So whatever is the source of these doubts, I would advise you to get away from it and never attend to them again.

Pax
Linus2nd

 

[blase6]

Change does not simply fall under perception. In order for there to be an illusion of change there still has to be something changing. It cannot be an absolute illusion otherwise there would be nothing in existence to compare it to and thus it would not make sense for us to experience the illusion of change in the first place because we would have no concept or experience of real change. Out of nothing comes nothing.

Having the concept does not mean that it really exists. Fantasy creatures and alternate realities are concepts without corresponding reality.

 

[blase6]

Of course this is all wrong. If you asked the same question of someone who had never heard of philosophy ( at least non-Thomist philosophies ), like ordinary people, they might laugh at you. They certainly believe the extra mental world is real and that they can know it objectively - except when they might be under sever mental, emotional, or physical stress. So judging from my own experience and the general experience of non-philosophical mankind, you have to be wrong. In other words, some philosophies can make you kinda mad, just like too much consumption of some foods or drink can destroy your body or make it susceptible to disease, or make it function poorly.

Secondly, one can hardly be a good Catholic if one doubts the objective reality of the external world or if one doubts one can know the truth about Divine Revelation and about all that implies about faith and morality.

So whatever is the source of these doubts, I would advise you to get away from it and never attend to them again.

Pax
Linus2nd

My faith is in living as if the teachings of the Church are correct. I realized a long time ago that faith and certainty are separate things. You need faith for everything, not just God. But that doesn’t change the fact that there is still the possibility one may be wrong.

 

[ChainBreaker]

Having the concept does not mean that it really exists. Fantasy creatures and alternate realities are concepts without corresponding reality.

Fiction is designed out of our experiences. We copy, we cut, we past. But if we had never experienced the world (or the sensory data) we would have no basis upon which to manufacture these fictional concepts, because the very basis on which they were formed do not exist in our experience (or sensory data). Like I said out of nothing comes nothing. Change is happening to you as you speak, as you type, as you respond. It is not something you can rationally doubt even if you have seen a motion picture (images appearing to move despite being still pictures) because motion pictures still need change in order for the illusion to work; your mind still needs to process information.

If you did not truly change including the information in your mind, you would have no experience of changing, not even of an illusion because such illusions have some type of change in their very function.

 

[GEddie]

The external world is all we can know directly, because it is all our human senses are set up to discover; which are our primary knowing mechanism.

ICXC NIKA.

 

[ChainBreaker]

The external world is all we can know directly, because it is all our human senses are set up to discover; which are our primary knowing mechanism.

ICXC NIKA.

These kinds of responses are not very helpful.

 

[ChainBreaker]

Of course this is all wrong. If you asked the same question of someone who had never heard of philosophy ( at least non-Thomist philosophies ), like ordinary people, they might laugh at you. They certainly believe the extra mental world is real and that they can know it objectively - except when they might be under sever mental, emotional, or physical stress. So judging from my own experience and the general experience of non-philosophical mankind, you have to be wrong. In other words, some philosophies can make you kinda mad, just like too much consumption of some foods or drink can destroy your body or make it susceptible to disease, or make it function poorly.

Secondly, one can hardly be a good Catholic if one doubts the objective reality of the external world or if one doubts one can know the truth about Divine Revelation and about all that implies about faith and morality.

So whatever is the source of these doubts, I would advise you to get away from it and never attend to them again.

Pax
Linus2nd

You accept the world to which you are presented. I don’t think that has anything to do with the moral standing of somebodies character; but it might show how threatened you are by philosophy.

 

[mdgspencer]

If think that, why did you type this message? The hand used to type with, the computer, the room you are in then may well not exist. There may be nothing besides yourself.
I don’t think it is really possible for someone with a Catholic faith to think this. Love your neighbor? When your neighbor may not exist. Serve and love God? Thinking this, God may not exist.
Perhaps, you don’t understand what you are saying. You ought to question what you are saying.
I recall coming across this idea many years ago when I was in college. I decided to dismiss this idea because then if it is true, it would no longer be possible to function, thinking there is nothing to function with.

 

[blase6]

If think that, why did you type this message? The hand used to type with, the computer, the room you are in then may well not exist. There may be nothing besides yourself.
I don’t think it is really possible for someone with a Catholic faith to think this. Love your neighbor? When your neighbor may not exist. Serve and love God? Thinking this, God may not exist.
Perhaps, you don’t understand what you are saying. You ought to question what you are saying.

Well sure, if I am perceiving all those things existing, then it is reasonable to believe they exist as I see them. But it is not certain. Almost everything people say is “certain” is because it is most reasonable. But reasonable is not enough for certain.

 

[ChainBreaker]

If think that, why did you type this message? The hand used to type with, the computer, the room you are in then may well not exist. There may be nothing besides yourself.
I don’t think it is really possible for someone with a Catholic faith to think this. Love your neighbor? When your neighbor may not exist. Serve and love God? Thinking this, God may not exist.
Perhaps, you don’t understand what you are saying. You ought to question what you are saying.

Moral truth exists regardless of whether human beings exist or not. In any case, it’s a valid philosophical question. He is clearly not arguing that the universe does not exist. He asking what are the epistemological limits of our senses.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

You accept the world to which you are presented. I don’t think that has anything to do with the moral standing of somebodies character; but it might show how threatened you are by philosophy.

?

Linus2nd

 

[tonyrey]

Well sure, if I am perceiving all those things existing, then it is reasonable to believe they exist as I see them. But it is not certain. Almost everything people say is “certain” is because it is most reasonable. But reasonable is not enough for certain.

An extremely high degree of probability is quite sufficient for the needs of a reasonable person. It is absurd to demand logical and mathematical certainty in an immensely complex universe in which there is an element of uncertainty.

 

[tonyrey]

My faith is in living as if the teachings of the Church are correct. I realized a long time ago that faith and certainty are separate things. You need faith for everything, not just God. But that doesn’t change the fact that there is still the possibility one may be wrong.

It is theoretically possible that we don’t exist but it is impossible to live as if we don’t exist!.. :whacky:

 

[blase6]

An extremely high degree of probability is quite sufficient for the needs of a reasonable person. It is absurd to demand logical and mathematical certainty in an immensely complex universe in which there is an element of uncertainty.

Are you certain that internal logic and mathematics correspond to external reality?

 

[Partinobodycula]

 

[StrawberryJam]

Are you certain that internal logic and mathematics correspond to external reality?

I for one am not certain.
It is a way to attempt to know things, but not a way to proclaim certainty.