• 0 Posts
  • 10 Comments
Joined 11 months ago
cake
Cake day: December 20th, 2023

help-circle








  • beardown@lemm.eetoMemes@lemmy.mlzodiac sign
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    9 months ago

    It’s one thing to say that constellations of stars don’t exist. It’s another thing to say that the constellation “Leo” doesn’t exist because it isn’t a lion and our perception of the spatial relationship of those stars has nothing to do with lions, or with mystical astrological significance.

    Those stars are present in space in a certain way. And we can perceive them in our sky in a certain way. But whether those stars are “connected” in any meaningful way, or whether they contain any inherent Lion relevance is purely a creation of human imagination derived from real observable objective phenomena. We could just as easily have said that Leo was Orion, and Orion was Leo, and have been equally correct. It’s subjective. Which doesn’t mean it’s meaningless for us, otherwise art would be meaningless. But it does mean that it isn’t “real” in the same way that gravity or the sun are real. Anything whose continued existence is conditioned on belief isn’t “real” in an objective sense.

    Belief can certainly will unreal things into meaningful reality though. But, absent that belief, those things will not exist.

    Really this is a discussion centered around the inadequacy of the English word “real.” Perhaps other languages have specific words that would more clearly demonstrate this distinction. Because clearly gravity and Pisces are not both “real” in the same way. The former is objectively real and the latter is subjectively real. And we’re talking past each other by not simply having seperate words that distinguish between those concepts


  • beardown@lemm.eetoMemes@lemmy.mlzodiac sign
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    No it’s like saying a person-shaped cloud doesn’t exist.

    To describe it as person-shaped is subjective and another viewer may describe the same cloud as butterfly-shaped. Because it’s a subjective interpretation of a static objective object. Like abstract art.

    People/animals exist and are “real” in that all of us have agency and a sense of self that is not conditionally dependent on the identical perception of others.

    A person-shaped cloud is only “person-shaped” if viewers claim it is. An arrangement of viewable disparate stars is only “Orion” because the Greeks, and now us, decided it was. But I am me and you are you regardless of what anyone else thinks, and always will be.

    We aren’t a collection of particles, we are more than the sum of our parts. We have agency and a mind and self-identity. A cloud or a star constellation has none of those things. They are inanimate unfeeling objects that only gain meaning, (astrological, imaginative, or otherwise) when humans/sentient beings ascribe that meaning to them. Human beings, and all living things, have inherent meaning because of their sentience and inherent uniqueness. Which is why genocide is a greater loss than the destruction of a rock - it’s the permanent death of unique living beings.