Quote:
|
Originally Posted by truncated
To get a bit abstract, take the concept of time - time in and of itself does not exist, but is an organizational tool imposed by the human mind. It is a construct of the sentient mind that divides up the infinite for purposes of convenience and functionality. Time DOES NOT EXIST outside of the human brain.
|
ok, put down the kant and think about it. time is a measurement of change, right? and the ability to change is a property of things as they are in the world independent of our perception, right? (this premise it seems you would deny, but i shall argue for it later.) thus time is merely a measurement of certain capacities of elements of objective reality. now the measurements THEMSELVES (e.g., seconds, hours, millennia) may be products of our own imagination, but that does not negate the objective existence of time. think about this: you (hopefully, if you have any sense at all) would not say that because it is a matter of convenience that we divide up extended objects into inches, miles, and light-years, that nothing is extended and that space does not exist outside the human brain. (of course, if you're an idealist or kantian you would say just that.) let's go to further extremes: if i threw you naked into the chicago river at midnight on new year's day, would you deny the objective existence of temperature even though it was causing you excruciatingly real physiological detriment?
as for the idea that things exist independent of our perception, i shall use an adductive argument so as to best persuade you, but in actuality the idea REQUIRES no justification, as it is the foundation upon which all our knowledge, indeed much of our very existence, rests. hopefully you accept the validity of the senses (as above, any attempt to argue against the senses' validity shall employ the senses); all our (valid) sensory-perceptual evidence points to the existence of an objective reality. furthermore, the best explanation for this sensory-perceptual data is that what we perceive actually exists -- our minds simply are not intricate enough to create entire realities of their own. also, the idealist cannot account for similarities in the perceptual experiences of myriad people (berkeley tried to by asserting that this is possible because god perceives everything, but this is patently absurd). finally, the idealist may well be caught in a paradox: is the mind a product of the mind as well? how can the mind create itself?