Radical philosophical noodle-scratcher

DadaKopf

There is no pure "Reality", only what is practised.

Discuss.*




* To the mods: I'm stating a position and posing a question.

Playboy

Are you getting at Metaphysical subjectivism? The idea that perception creates reality to an extent and no true reality exists outside of our perception?

Daavid

Well, the fact that it IS practiced, in no matter how "impure" a form, is the only "Reality" available for study and therefore is the purest form.

DadaKopf

Playboy wrote:

Are you getting at Metaphysical subjectivism? The idea that perception creates reality to an extent and no true reality exists outside of our perception?

I'm not positing a form of dualism.

Well, the fact that it IS practiced, in no matter how "impure" a form, is the only "Reality" available for study and therefore is the purest form.

I'm neither saying that things in the world "are in themselves" nor subjectively constructed.

I'm saying the world is because it's practised and isn't when it's not practised. There's no purity.

transperson

There is no pure "Reality", only what is practised

Read in one way are you not simply crossing out Kants pure thing-in-itself, the noumena, the "pure" reality.
and affirming that reality as we are consious of it, our processes of perception and action as experienced in consiousness, the phenomena, is reality's totality.

if so there is no justification for doing this, the whole point is that you cannot know,
to use the example of the Gold fish from another thread, you are the gold fish in the bowl who cannot know anything outside it who then decides that all that exists is him and his bowl.

you cannot know what may be beyond "practice" if all you know is practice.

all in all, practice is a strange word, what do you mean by it?
it is possible to construe anything from the word, language activity, perceptional activity, activity of any energy that moves in certain ways,
but i suppose it does contain an idea of intentionality,
so you may mean reality is intentional, or rather consiousness is intentional and reality IS consiousness???

Daavid

I think this could be open to different interpretations. The "fact" (if it is a fact) that the world IS because it's practiced and IS NOT when its not practiced is not a definition of "reality"'s purity. Merely different states OF the one pure Reality.

muesli_offire

Could this be a question of ideology?
If reality is 'practised', is it socially constructed?
What kind of practices compose reality, the self, whatever?
Work? Speech? Violence? Education? Laughter? Gnomes?
I have absolutely no idea.