Andrew, you’re a dick

APPEARANCE & REALITY

When is a lawn not a lawn but in reality a driveway? Andrew claimed that the lawn was really a driveway but P & I claimed it was just a lawn. How can the dilemma be resolved? Philosophy might have the answer.

The question reduces to that of the relationship between appearance and reality, of the correspondence, if any, between the subjective deliverances of our sensory apparatus on the one hand and an objective, mind-independent reality on the other. It is common knowledge that such correspondence is illusory. The man wandering in the desert dying of thirst sees what he takes to be a cool, tinkling g brook but he is wrong. It is an illusion. On what grounds then can we claim that all appearance is not likewise illusory? How can correspondence between appearance and reality be demonstrated?

The difficulty, of course, is that we do not have access to higher criteria in terms of which we might adjudicate correspondence between appearance and reality, between the deliverances of our sensory apparatus and an objective, mind-independent reality. We are unable to climb out of our skins, so to speak, in order to make the determination. In its absence we are condemned to an epistemological solipsism, trapped in the iron cage of our own subjective constructions. All appearances are irretrievably subjective. It is on this basis that P & I might contest Andrew’s claim that the lawn was in reality a driveway and so escape paying a ticket.

A pleasure as always,

Cheerio!

In case you were wondering, my reply above was to a deleted reply to my comment of 9:00AM. If someone would like to reply to this comment, that would make it a reply to a reply to a deleted reply to my comment of 900AM. If someone does reply, I shall reply making it a reply to a reply to a reply to a deleted reply to my comment of 9:00AM.