How do we know what is and isn't real?

How do we know what is and isn't real?

we don't.

everything we think we know is inside our head.

every time we stub our toe though,
we are reminded that what we think we know,
can never be all of what is.

 

I know what; it's the last part. The existentialists deny for an existential experience that we can know that we know about each other. But knowing ourselves, each one of us, is to know from a standpoint of the Other-per-existing-consciousness. His body exists first: than mine had an existence.

Believing comes next. How was that, that understood me caused to the other's perception. In fact, the causes are at denial again just to prove that our senses are for 'Real'. Time exists without cause.

 

Interesting, your head then is not real? We know to the extent we care to, however this moments knowing can become the next moments prejudice. There is always something more to learn and we but waste time if we do not move on from what we know to what is yet to learn.

 

That's true. Though I think some people here still wrestle with what do we know? How do we know it?

How do you know that what you know is real and that you actually know it for its true self (or true form). It's hard to move on when we can't be sure of this knowledge. If this basic knowledge makes up the foundation of what we know, if it were not "real" or "true" then everything (further knowledge of the world) we pile on top will be at risk of toppling for it won't be built on concrete ideas.

 

The word knowledge comes from the old English meaning, "practice". Confusion is inconsistent practice. What we know is always demonstrated by our state of being.

 

Oh wow. I didn't know that. Sure clears things up.

 

This is all being formulated under the Platonic assumption that there is some external "pure" world that is real and tangible, and that we only know what is real when we are in contact with that thing.
I believe there is no that thing, at least, not in the metaphysical sense.

 

That metaphysical world wouldn't be tangible.

 

Not necessarily true.

 

If it lies outside of the physical world, how could it be that it too is physical?

 

First of all, the prefix "meta" doesn't mean "outside".

Secondly:

 

It didn't take long for this discussion to degenerate into semantics.
Firstly, you are pigeon-holing the term by seemingly strictly defining it by only one of it's key words (adjacent). "After" and "beyond" and "with" are much more appropriate. They are meant to be considered together to give an over-all feel of the word, which still doesn't equate to "outside".
That simply isn't what it means.

 

I didn't at all say it had to exist in that, or any, sense. I made a completely objective post, defining two terms that had to do with what we were discussing. I gave not my opinion, nor did I "pigeon-hole" it by saying it can only exist adjacent to the physical world. You read only what you wanted to hear, and perceived an opinion that isn't there. I didn't state any belief that it exists in any of those senses aside from;

Again, an objective question.

You seem awfully eager to 'prove' me wrong.

 

There are specific definitions for the word "metaphysic".
met·a·phys·ics [mèttə fízziks]
n
1. philosophy of being: the branch of philosophy concerned with the study of the nature of being and beings, existence, time and space, and causality (takes a singular verb)
2. underlying principles: the ultimate underlying principles or theories that form the basis of a particular field of knowledge (takes a plural verb)
Symmetry is part of the metaphysics of quantum mechanics.

3. abstract thinking: abstract discussion or thinking (takes a singular verb)

 

You drew up a list of synonyms, then exclusively defined only one of them in order to bridge the gap between it and your original assertion of "outside".
It was a three step process during which the essence of the prefix was "lost in translation".
That isn't objectivity.

I'm not out to "prove" you wrong, and I'm certainly not eager about it, don't be so defensive.
I think we both know that the conclusion of this discussion isn't going to result in anything being proven. It's just a game.

About your objective question - look at my image again.

 

Are we looking at an inner and outer circle?

 

Same diff.

 

Could you expound on your point for the sake of my failure to comprehend how it is a statement regarding objectivity?

 

I don't explain things well verbally, but I'll try.
It isn't a statement regarding objectivity, that word was brought up in relation to lunarverse's question, and not by me.
My image was an attempt to answer this:

The meaning of it is that the "metaphysical" (according to many traditions both Eastern and Western) does not lie "outside" of the physical world, but that it is the physical world, and that it also is not.
Just like how concentric circles encompass each other. Each successive circle transcends and includes the previous level.
The concentric circles themselves are not representative of the truly metaphysical though. It's turtles all the way down.
The metaphysical is the empty space surrounding all of the levels, or maybe, it is actually the real world beyond the boundaries of the image itself.