xKylex

You all over look the fact that Zeno made the paradox because he wanted the Greeks to re-evaluate there definitions. Zeno knew that his statements were not true, but that was the point. Zeno knew that there was an answer to every paradox he presented, but on the surface each one is right. Thats what makes them a paradox. Zeno wasn't preaching that motion is impossible, he just wanted to show that by the words we use we can manipulate logic and reality. Thus, no answer to the paradox is necessary, they're rhetorical.

Also, David, what about how you see the apple.I see the apple but it may appear red to me and green to you , because what i see as red, you may see as green, we have just been trained to see it the same way. Confusing Iknow, but like dyslexics, they see a "p" as a "q" but that doesn't change the fact that it is a "p" and with training they can recognize the fantasy "q" as the reality "p" and successfully communicate.I don't know, just a thought.

David, I get what you're saying, but it's not exactly what I'm talking about. While reality is partially tangible (i.e apples and shadows) it is largely intangible (i.e. emotion,thought). You're absolutely right in saying I can't infer that there is an apple in my hand, but intangible goes infinitely deeper. In fact emotion can be as deep or shallow as I choose it to be. With enough effort I can put a check on the emotion, and feel nothing if I wish. But this works both ways. I can go as deep into emotion as I wish, there is no bottom line. Thus, I am able to infer as much as I want to. With each inference I delve deeper and deeper into that facet of intangible reality. Now when discussing the intangible part of reality internal and external variables come into play.Furthermore, the internal can be greatly manipulated by the external. Now, where I get my borderline polylogistic point (I still hold it is not polylogistic, but I can understand the inference) is that the external is controlled basically by institutions of authority. Lacan points out in his contribution to the Psychoanalytic theory that any "Master" (in my case American authority (e.g. the government or the media) is intrested in sustaining their power and and reasons for it. Thus, they will do anything in there power to justify it. Politicians and journalists will use a very powerful tool to achieve this, propaganda. Propaganda works because people try to define Reality (the intangible part) with words (which are inherently tangible). This obviously falls short and we are left with a gap. As Michel Foucault points out, "We do not like not knowing, so we pretend that we do." Lacan calls this a fantasy. Ok, we have the fantasy, and we have the authority, and most importantly the reality. The reality, as we all know is a constant that in some facets is infinitely deep, which is why we create fantasy. Now since the authorities in different cultures differ (no two people are alike thus no two institutions are alike) the means of creating a fantasy in which a particular culture is submerged is different, even if that difference is very small.Thus, there should be a trend in the cultural view of reality (which is actully a fantasy) because the fantasies will differ. As a realist, I know that unfortunately we are stuck with this. No person can make an impact on anyone but themselves. But, I can present the information, and hopefully people will accept it. Ultimately what I am trying to prove is: we need to accept Reality as it is,even if that requires blind acceptance without understanding (which I know is technically faith and against the objectivist ideaology... but I feel it is justified because the objective authority would understand reality and everyone would accept it instead of living in subjectivism) because the true reality, even when painful, is better than a happy fantasy. Ok revised request: I would like to know how the American fantasy differs from reality. Any insights, again are much appreciated. Thanks, xKylex P.S. Thank you all for the crash course in objectivism. If nothing else, I have gained some insight into a philosophy, that is not necessarily mine, but I would love to learn more about and maybe one day even believe in.Thanks.

Thanks Hal and Matthew.

Ok, since most of you seem to be fundamentalists (ones who interpret things literally, just to avoid misunderstanding) here, I will re-word: American INTERPRETATION of reality OR their worldview/philosophy... Thank You. Thanks David.

Hi... I hate to "use people," but I'm doing some research on what Americans percieve as reality, and how it differs from other nationalities and philosophies. Any thoughts are appreciated. Oh, if you could please specify your nationality, religion and possibly a short description of your worldview (most likely just objectivist). Thank you soooo much. xKylex P.S. A member recently tried to tell me this was polylogism, but its not. I am not denying that there is only one reality, I am simply saying that different cultures have different perceptions of the one reality. You can't deny the existence subjective opinions. Thus, when you have a group of these subjective opinions that coincide you have what I call a subjective "truth." You can't deny this, having different world religions prove it. What I was curious to see if you could help me with was, how do Americans PERCIEVE Reality?