lsayre wrote:Plato did not believe that reality was real. He believed that real reality existed in some heavenly realm of "forms", and that what we perceive are only defective shadow or mirror images of the "real" forms of things. For example, a supreme entity or something akin to that concept perceived of a "real" and perfect form called a "chair", and all of our earthly chairs in all of their myriads of derivations are merely defective and ultimately illusionary figments (mirror images or shadows) of the "real" and perfect godly chair.
Quite nearly all of philosophy (and certainly all of religion) is built upon an acceptance that the world as we humans perceive it is not ultimately what is real. It's down right hard in fact to find a university anywhere on earth that teaches a philosophy that believes reality is real. Therefore it is not hard at all for anyone to find that they are in quite good company if they believe that there is no ultimate reality here on earth. Kant, Hegel, Voltaire, Descartes, Kierkegaard, Sartre, etc... Name your world famous philosopher and you are almost certainly naming someone who does not believe that reality is real. And if nothing is ultimately real as we perceive it there can be no absolutes. Everything is therefore subjective. There is no objective reality.
"I think therefore I am." : Descartes. An objective realist might state this as "I am (a human), therefore I think." In the first, thought holds the ultimate reality, and in the second reality must exist first in order for there to be thought. What came first, matter or mind? Can there be mind over matter?
I implied that Plato was wrong and all the rest of the named philosophers are wrong also. They preceded Darwin and were appallingly ignorant of both animals and man. Clever and tortured logic they had though.
There is no absolute chair. An acceptance that the world as we perceive it is ultimately not what is real is correct. That does not deny reality, it just makes it harder to perceive. Doesn't Buddhism teach that enlightenment confers perception of reality? And how is that perception reached? Isn't it a matter of just not seeing things through our emotions? Something very difficult to do. The scientific method is also an attempt to screen out emotion. Pretty unsuccessfully in some of our sciences.Philosophers I would name are Schopenhauer, Goethe, Emerson. Matter would have to precede mind and as far as mind over matter we see it all around us as houses, bridges, etc.
Remember it was you I felt was using absolutes to detect good from evil. All this thinking is getting painful.