/lit/ - Literature

>>18293679
>>18293677

>claims of ground without ground

>>14258472
It is a conundrum, in my schizoid brain perhaps. I tend to do this amongst social circles, so 4chan is not exclusive to this. Maybe I will post it, since there truly is no consequence in doing so.

>whom, as much as I admire him, I do quibble with
cringe

>>12837027
That's not what a form of perception is, you fucking mongoloid. Simply because something is directly perceived, that doesn't make it "beyond the limits of perception." You may as well say that causality is a complete and baseless fraud (not what Hume said, by the way, regarding the baselessness), that extrapolating any past event is impossible because it isn't directly accessible by our sense organs. You may as well say that the computer you're currently posting from ceases to exist when you aren't directly perceiving it. That you do not perceive something does not make you "unable" to perceive it. And despite that a living thing will never witness the motion of these planets with its eyes, we have nevertheless already perceived many of them with the aid of measuring devices, and are perceiving more daily. And the ones we don't we still could, we aren't physically unable to perceive them just because we haven't. As long as it abides by space and time, we can perceive it with the senses.

I never said language "is" objective reality, that's a complete misunderstanding of my point. What does it mean to "have objective reality"? The thing exists in the physical world (objective), and demonstrably so (reality). That the physical world that humans perceive is subordinate to the human forms of perception does nothing to undercut objective reality; on the contrary, conformity to these forms is a guarantor of it. Objects must be situated in space and time in order to be properly called "objects," and in order to be called "real objects" the copula must be fully applied to them, i.e. one must be able to say with certainty "this object exists." To say that a thing can have objective reality and not be communicable in language is analogous to saying that something can have deductive certainty and be an invalid logical construction at the same time. Have you read a book of philosophy in your life? I'm astounded you even know how to use the internet.

>>12796136
>Has been suggested twice in this thread and is discussed every day on /lit/
>"It's fairly obscure"

>>8448462
>multivarious