In a philosophical spin here.....

[nuova1]

I think this statement can be solved but I have not met anyone at all who agrees with me. The philosophical statement in question is 'Nothing unreal exists'........Can we discuss this please, I have pages and pages of notes and very close to the answer but also very close to brain bursting point.

[treaclefight]

so where are you starting your argument, 'if something is real then it does exist', this is not necessarily true, you can mention the buddhist type philosophies here which concentrate on the inherent emptiness of everything. then you could play with the defintion of unreal, is an unreal thing something that was previously real and has ceased to be so, can it ever be real, both these aspects suggest existence at some point. other definitions of unreal may be things that have no form, such as thoughts, but the fact you are having thoughts suggests that they have some existence too. the very fact that we have recognised an object and described it, as unreal, means that it has some existence for us, even if it is completely intangible. from this you know your going to have to tackle the definiton of existence and you're notes should be able to provide you with two opposing theories there, leading nicely to the conclusion that unreal things must exist or we wouldnt be arguing about them coz we would never have realised they were there. :-D

[nuova1]

Thanks for the answer........The crux of my problem is based upon your observation which you described as "the very fact that we have recognised an object and described it, as unreal, means that it has some existence for us, even if it is completely intangible"......completely intangible is the biggy here. I am basing my hypothesis on the fact that the way 'Nothing unreal exists' is interpreted is seemingly independent of our perception of reality'.our ontology. Is reality independent of the perceiver? Or is reality determined by the perceiver? ha ha...... I uphold your point Treaclefight re existence and intend to link this with the term reality. Reality is different for each person and almost all through Objectivist literature the word reality should be replaced by the word existence so that is probably where my introduction will focus'' I maintain that reality is that which exists and the two words can be used interchangeably. The fact that one's perception can be flawed means that if what you perceive does not exist, then it is not real, but in such a case, surely it is not reality that is flawed, it is your consciousness that is flawed. Oh I think I need to go now and down a very large drink of something particularly alcoholic. Thanks again........

[Quizmonster]

Click http://www.philosophyforums.com/essays/links/detai
l/4 for a Philosophy Forum website which discusses the differences between existence and reality. Some ideas there might help.

[incitatus]

congratulations, you have run up against godels incompleteness theorem. This is a mathematical axiom which states that any defined mathematical system ( and by inference paradigm or language) will contain concepts that cannot be described using that system. See http://www.miskatonic.org/godel.html for a breif description

[nuova1]

Many thanks for that incitatus.....I shall study this with pleasure in the hope that some semblance of clarity suddenly bursts forth in a 'eurika' type experience.......

[Pinotage]

If the definition of something that is 'real' is that it exists, then the statement 'Nothing unreal exists' is true. Sorted.

[treaclefight]

prove it pinotage, thats the problem. i have dug out my old philosphy degree stuff, i got an A for this, but i really cant remember what i wrote so not much help really beyond what i said above. i remember that the whole course could be summed up with the phrase "we dont know". its a subject for the sort of people who want mental exercise but arent worried about getting any results.

[Pinotage]

Because if it did exist it would be real.

[nuova1]

You see Pinotage, thats the whole crux of the matter..it's not as easy as it sounds to just say that because something is 'real' it necessarily 'exists'...... ??? And philosophical statements, like in mathematics require 'proof'........we cannot just say "oooh it's sorted" and leave it at that.......

[treaclefight]

pinotage is allowed to the dismiss the question. we can indeed say its sorted and not worry, but if man had always done that then we'd still be living in caves. we dont all have to be philosphers (god forbid) but someone has to be. as long as someone gets to the real implications of these questions, the rest of the world can do things like making sure the trains run late and that x amount of parking tickets are issued every day and pop idol contestants get voted for etc etc. :-D

[Pinotage]

In that case you need to define what you mean by 'exist' 'real' and 'unreal'. Using the standard definitions the statement is true.

.

And I think if cavemen wasted their time hung up on this then we'd still be in caves.

[incitatus]

so what are these standard defintions, pino? what is reality? how do we cavemen define it?

[smudge]

My sentiments entirely Pinotage! What a load of unnecessary drivel. Some people really go into overdrive & you can think what you like from that!

[incitatus]

the thing is pino and smudge, that questioning the nature of reality and the nature of logic is the foundation of science. Assume that we got as far as newton without too much deviance from the kind of logical positivism you are using here. anything beyond him ( einstein, bohr etc) becomes fundamentally impossible without asking questions tha lie outside the paradigm. so no electronics, no rockets, no accurate timekeeping.....

[smudge]

Well incitus, p'raps the reason nuova1 has not yet met anyone that agrees with him/her, is that they got bored with listening to the question! Anyway I thought him/her knew everything anyway! :-|

[nuova1]

Ooooh Smudge are we being somewhat tetchy????

[nuova1]

Perhaps you have a problem with grammar etc..........

[nuova1]

Thank you incitatus..........

[coggles]

One thinks that someone who knows so much should be standing on a box......

[Pinotage]

Oh dear - nuova1 asks for a discussion then incitatus leaps on me for taking part. I think I'll leave you playing happily in your world where nothing means anything.

.

And saying nothing beyond Newson is impossible without pondering what is reality is utter nonsense. Accurate time keeping, for instance, solved by John Harrison, a contemporary of Newton, rockets invented by the Chinese centuries before Newton.