the argument for illusion is what?
that reality is not all its cracked up to be -
may or may not be - real?
heaven forbid
or is it rather that the perceiver may not perceive - correctly?
so again
reality (here I include the perceiver) is not all it's cracked up to be - but the problem
can be isolated to the perceiver -
still though - it is however you work it -
that reality - and I am speaking sub species aeternitatis here - is not - what?
stable?
it can be real
it can be illusory
at this point real looses its universality
real - if real is to mean anything must include - veridical perception and illusory
perception -
and then the question
what are we to say of real?
one answer is - we don't know
so illusion is what?
perceptually -
reason to question the deliverances of the senses
the key to the sceptical door
epistemologically?
the argument of difference
without a clear uncontraversial theory of what is real - what is reality
(and this is not possible)
there is no argument for illusion
there is no illusion - only difference
the sceptical response to difference is to acknowledge it - accept it - embrace it
it is to understand there is no uncontraversial view of reality
that in fact there is no uncontraversial reality
metaphysical
epistemological
political
ethical
the argument of positive skepticism is diversity and tolerance
