Re: OT: Reality (was: Re: Atlantean)

Quoting Christophe Grandsire <christophe.grandsire@...>:

> En réponse à Andreas Johansson :
>
>
> >Speaking of defintions, we apparently have differing ones of "the real
> world".
> >To me, that's whatever exists, and so I'm forced to believe it does exist,
> >because otherwise I'm doubting my own existence again.
>
> Except that by this definition "real world" just means "ego", since it's
> the *only* thing you can ever be forced to believe it does exist
> (everything else can be doubted away). A rather useless definition of "real
> world" it is...
Eh, no. It doesn't say anything about what other things there may be in
the "real world" - the ego _could_ make up the entirety of it, but there's
nothing saying it does.

Not I claimed it's a useful definition - it's merely the one I figure it
should have, given the normal usages of the words "real" and "world".

What's your definition?

                                                        Andreas

Reply