Is Reality an Illusion ?

Hmmm. It's a general issue in life and even more at different Philosophers. Different definitions of terms and hence another 'system'...

I think it's rather about definition of terms and their logical and systemic relation which is THEN predetermined.
One should say Sein according to Hegel is....

For instance you can determine that the process from nonbeing to being is becoming.
The question is if there is a nonbeing / being dualism at all. It is a construct of human thoughts.
From the perspective of consciousness as whole both are the same.


If being 'still' lacks of the S/O dualism then there is 'nobody' who has become yet.

To me being has no S/O dualism. It also includes the time/space dualism. You are...'there' when you are in deep-sleep. You are aware of it in meditation! There is no S/O dualism. No idea of human or dream identity yet.

From Sein to Dasein (being here) is becoming. Becoming is the birth of the S/O dualism.

This is the way I use the terms..


Either way...what I miss at Kant, Hegel etc. are the practical approaches. We are encountering different 'states' in life ..for instance what about sein and werden in deep-sleep?
Researching there would have lead to more benefit for humankind than an abstract and academical Philosophy.

 

I would not say it is a waste of time.
I think one has to consider what can be achieved. Studying Philosophers / western Philosophy gives one access to their Philosophy, 'system'. When 2 people then have got it they have a common 'base' of terms and a debate is reasoned on this 'base'. This is good for a proper communication, generally.
Anyway I would leave that at the pros, one like you.

I myself have found a place at organic Chemistry. And I read from time to time the sources that have been posted (here) out of curiosity.
My 'pro' job is to apply what I have studied and to teach what I know at the company where I work.

When it comes to the thread’s topic I rely on that what I know and what I experience. I try to illustrate and when doing that I can only rely on that what I currently know. I have another 'tool box' so to say just like other people have their own.
There are famous scientists and philosophers who are pointing on illusions. (also found some and posted at this thread).

I think it is important to find out how they appear at one's own life and how they are perceived. Studying philosophy for myself would help concerning a proper debate, but for 'my own' I go for practical ways using 'my own toolbox'.

-Hunting for the 'substance' as described by Schrödinger....when you compare the 'space' between atoms to the places of a mass.... matter consists of 99.9% of empty space, anyway matter appears as solid objects. When hunting the trace is lost.
-Hunting for the place/location of an 'I'. When doing that the trace gets lost....nobody can point to a location of an 'I'....
-Space/time continuum, time is relative...time is part of a dualism.
-Timelessness of the Now...consciousness as whole timeless, space-less. The objects in there then let us relate. From A to B there is 'then' space relative to 'us' and appearances are changing, perceived as time....
-Kant figured out...phenomena we encounter (facts) may not be in dispute but the way we order/interlink them (our thinking behind it all) is the real difference.

The interrelation of dualisms. Including and transcending. From many to less.
The Reality seems to be like a cinema screen, the movie on it playing is its own appearance, personal reality.
The movie 'changes' the screen remains unchanged, though.
..many more...


What's a waste, though is to study matters inconsequently I have to agree.

 

Yes you are right. When saying that I referred to what I know about both and that is not very much I have to admit. (And I posted that before you've posted the link so I could read after my statement)...
One 'issue' is also here....how the German terms are used and translated.

An example of a paper http://kantwesley.com/Kant/CritiqueOfPracticalReason.pdf

I actually do have an advantage being native German.
Anschauung is not easy to translate without to lose something of the meaning. Intuition is a part of it, but when translating it with intuition the 'other ways' of Anschauung are lost.
Some English terms are relatively crude compared to some German terms.

It is funny the author is struggling with the same terms, Erkenntnis, Schein, Willkür, Erscheinung.

Triebfeder.

I used driving force BTW.

Not easy are terms like Bewusstsein, Bewusstheit, Sein, Dasein, Werden, Geist, Gegenwärtigkeit, Verstand, Vernunft. Also Echtheit / Wirklichkeit...wirklich / echt...
One has to be very familiar with Kant and Hegel to get how they are using them.

With 'missing' of practical approaches I rather meant experiences of their own life, human 'states' such like dream state ('who' is dreaming and what about when one wakes up) or practical eastern meditation. Also practical introspection like when the subject is hunting for itself it always meets objects.
Also time and with it its absence at the 'Now' and the character of a retrospective and future of the Now. (The Now compared to thoughts. 2 ways of consciousness. Seinsbewusstein und der Denker.)
One could say Einstein was later....but other people already said: The greatest obstacle to Reality is the time...
Maybe they did not consider that time is part of a dualism and they considered time as an absolute.

Anyway I think the driving force of humans to Reality does not require a special studied matter...unnatural being causes suffer and suffer is a general driving force for a change.

 

I'll read that entirely as soon as I have got more time.

Anyway when 'ego' interests come to such matters they lose the natural purpose.
You can find things like that:



And all the flavoured comments.
The categorizing mind does his job..and you find a lot of comments on such processes which can be made as retrospective only.
Some are amazed or amused and with that there comes the idea and will to understand it, to question it, to prove it.

Finally it is about to exercise to get another perspective of awareness of the Now. The 'common' process of human perception includes a sequence of categorizing thoughts/ learned patterns. These 'steps' are usually not perceived as such, but as an entire complete sequence.
But there is perception 'before'. Consciousness as a whole does not (yet) differentiate observer and objects of observation. It is perceived as unity of all what IS without any determination. And debates about that lead to spirituality 'principle of god'...and with that to logical conflicts.

Anyway it is human. And most people do experience that at such mental 'conditions'. Others at meditation and others have integrated that into common life already.

The 'instance' that classifies is already a derivation of it and hence not competent anymore. It results to endless debates. One knows it by experiencing. What’s 'later' only I want to answer with Bohr from your link: "You are not thinking you are merely being logical"...'thinking' in that relation requires the mentioned exercises...

It is a huge disappointment for the 'instance' that wants proof, evidence, to know it intellectually...because it is a question about some-thing without the dualism of some-thing and anything else.