Joseph Polanik wrote:
Cayuse wrote:Firstly, you don't say how you are using the word "real", and so your proposition that "nothing unreal experiences" is rather murky. Secondly, your proposition says nothing about the experiential status of "real things" -- it leaves as unspecified whether *all* "real things" experience, or *no* "real thing" experiences, or *some* "real things" experience and some do not, so as it stands it isn't useful (unless its purpose is to confer "reality" upon "experiencers" by sleight of hand). And finally, you don't say how you justify your assertion that anything at all *experiences* -- a conviction that is without application anyway. Your step 2 isn't looking very secure.I've previously told you how I use 'real' and 'unreal': whatever is is real (in some sense); consequently, since there is nothing left over for 'unreal' to refer to, it is a word without a referent.
So your claim that "nothing unreal experiences" says even less than I was giving it credit for.
the principle 'nothing unreal experiences' doesn't make any statement about how many, if any, realities there are that experience. the only way to prove this proposition false is to show that there is something unreal that experiences. can you do that?
Why would I want to prove false a proposition that says nothing?
the conclusion drawn at step two, 'there is something that experiences', implies only that there is at least one such 'something'.
And that is the claim that you have so far failed to support. ========================================== Manage Your AMR subscription: //www.freelists.org/list/wittrsamr For all your Wittrs needs: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
