什么是真正的? 与朗高讨论.

太阳,,en,差距很大,,en,我看了一下你的总结,,en,这是我的评论,,en,绝对的现实,,en,曾经有,,en,我在上面提出的主要论点,,en,一个更多的是一个战术性的论点,另一个是基于关于这个概念的更深层次的问题,,en,第一个是造成我们感知的形式或事件的概念,,en,你称之为绝对真实,,en,不一样的康德的绝对现实,,en,叔本华与奥义书谈起,,en,本身就在我们看法的范围之内,,en,空间的概念,,en,时间和因果关系本身是由于我们对世界的代表,,en,叔本华写道,,en,世界是我的代表,,en,然后变得清楚,我不知道太阳和地球,,en,但只有一个看到太阳的眼睛,,en,一只感觉地球的手,,en, Jun 17, 2007 在 4:21 AM

After a lot gap, I took a look at your summary. Here are my comment…

Absolute Reality

There were 2 major arguments that I had put forth on the above: one was more of a tactical argument and another was based on a deeper question with regard to the notion of “Absolute Reality” itself.

The first one was that the notion of forms or events that cause our perception (that you call absolute reality, not the same Absolute Reality that Kant, Schopenhauer and the Upanishads talk about) are themselves within the purview of our perception. The notion of space, time and causality are themselves due to our representation of the world.

Schopenhauer wrote: “The world is my representation” It then becomes clear that I do not know a sun and an earth, but only an eye that sees a sun, a hand that feels the earth; 我周围的世界只是作为代表,,en,换句话说,只是提到另一件事情,,en,即代表那个,,en,那就是我自己,,en,如果任何事实都可以事先表达出来,,en,它是这个,,en,因为这是形式的陈述比所有其他形式更普遍,,en,比时间,,en,空间和因果关系,,en,因为所有这些预设了它,,en,有鉴于此,,en,试图将古典物理学或其他任何事物的绝对现实模型化,将它放回到我们的感知世界,,en,我没有说你不能也不应该猜测它,,en,你可以像远古以来的人一样,,en,我之前说过,人们可能有主观性,,en,见解,,en,根据Samadhi甚至Vishwaroopa Darshana的说法,这个现实可能是什么,,en, in other words only in reference to another thing, namely that which represents, and that is myself. If any truth can be expressed a prior, it is this; for it is the statement of the form that is more general than all others, than time, space and causality, for all these presuppose it.

With this in view, trying to model an absolute reality as following Classical Physics or anything else for that matter is putting it right back into our perceptual world. I did not say that you cannot and should not speculate on it. You could as people from time immemorial have done. I have said before that people may have subjective ?insights? into what this reality could be in terms of Samadhi or even Vishwaroopa Darshana, 但这仍然是形而上学的范畴,,en,神学或其他任何东西,,en,除了科学以外的其他事,,en,因为你正在尝试构建,,en,因为它是关于可验证性和可证伪性的定义,,en,卡尔波普尔,,en,因为科学的方法和结果再次在我们的感知和理智的范围内,,en,我的第二点是关于绝对现实可能的更深层次的问题,,en,伊曼纽尔康德是,,en,第一个将Noumenon这个词作为AR的词汇,,en,康德将客观现实称为“现实”,,en,本身就是事情,,en,这意味着存在于知觉者之外甚至在他不在的情况下的绝对现实,,en,叔本华质疑了这个过于简单的概念并取而代之,,en,后来发现他的概念与韦达经典和奥义书很惊人地相似,,en,引用他的书,,en, theology or whatever else; anything else but Science, as you are trying to frame, as it is defined with respect to verifiability and falsifiability (Karl Popper), because the methods and results of science are again within the sphere of our perception and intellect.

My second point is on the deeper question of what Absolute Reality could be. Immanuel Kant was, 事实上, the first to coin the term Noumenon as the AR . Kant called the objective reality as the “the thing in itself”, that means an absolute reality that exists beyond the perceiver and even in his absence. Schopenhauer questioned this simplistic notion and superseded it, and later found his concepts strikingly similar to the Vedas and Upanishads. To quote his book: ?韦丹塔学派的根本宗旨不是否认物质的存在,,en,坚实,,en,不可入性,,en,和扩展的数字,,en,而是纠正这种流行的观念,,en,并争辩说它没有独立于精神感知的本质,,en,存在性和可感知性是可转换条款,,en,我不想在这里重复他的工作,,en,但这里的主要观点是对象和主题深深交织在一起,,en,没有另一个就不能存在,,en,引起因果关系概念的主客关系,,en,因此我们的感性世界的空间和时间在他的开创性着作中得到了精彩的描述,,en,作为意志的世界和代表,,en,我敦促你阅读这本书,,en,有了更深入的了解,,en, 就是说, of solidity, impenetrability, and extended figure, but in correcting the popular notion of it, and in contending that it has no essence independent of mental perception; that existence and perceptibility are convertible terms. I would not want to repeat his work here, but the main point here was that the object and the subject are deeply intertwined, and one cannot exist without the other. The subject-object relation that brings about the notion of causality, and hence space and time in our perceptual world are wonderfully painted in his seminal book “The World as Will and Representation” (I urge you to read this book). With this deeper understanding, 我不会再为你的虚荣建模一个绝对的现实,,en,我看到你提出的建议是出于对绝对现实及其含义的误解,,en,这必须认真对待,,en,一想到“什么是真实的”,,en,与Ranga讨论。,,en.

I see that what you propose arises out of a misunderstanding of the notion of absolute reality and its implications, and this has to be seriously looked at.

评论

One thought on “What is Real? Discussions with Ranga.”

评论被关闭.