The Order Of Nature Refutes Realism

  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » General Discussion
  3. » The Order Of Nature Refutes Realism

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Reply Wed 31 Mar, 2010 05:14 am
If, as philosophical realism suggests, that physical objects posess absolute existence independent of consciousness and knowledge, then how can there be a necessary relationship between the human subject and physical objects?

I say that there exists an underlying order of nature which encompasses both human subjects and so-called external physical objects. There exists definitive relations between subjects and objects such that they are both appearances in the natural world. The qualities posessed by human minds can not be reducible to the status of physical objects - human minds are nature's representations because we emanate from the natural world and abide within it. The mental ability to reason must, therefore, be a representation of natural intelligence.

To deny this relationship, as philosophical realists do, is to deny the logical priority of human minds and to place human minds in a physical continuum along with all other physical objects without any "law" or order to connect them. Philosophical realism entails the rejection of all such natural connections.

For philosophical realism, there can be no particular connection between subject and object. My question is, how can there be any natural relationship between subject and object when the subject is taken to be just another object?

Because if we are all independently existing objects then the order of nature has no intrinsic meaning, and I can see no difference between philosophical realism and pure meaningless chaos. If the mind itself is just another external object it can not be an organizing form of intelligence.

There are simply too many orderly connections between subjects and objects to admit that any one of them can exist independently from any other.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Wed 31 Mar, 2010 07:16 am
@Pythagorean,
Pythagorean;146593 wrote:
If, as philosophical realism suggests, that physical objects posess absolute existence independent of consciousness and knowledge, then how can there be a necessary relationship between the human subject and physical objects?



I suppose the answer is that there is no such necessary relationship. And we know that because we know that before there were human beings there were objects like the Moon and the stars.
 
Pythagorean
 
Reply Wed 31 Mar, 2010 08:24 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;146616 wrote:
I suppose the answer is that there is no such necessary relationship. And we know that because we know that before there were human beings there were objects like the Moon and the stars.


If you are going to assert that some particular thing posesses independent existence then aren't you denying the natural processes that are logically necessary for their coming-to-be?

Isn't the moon obviously connected in time by a natural process that points beyond it? a necessary connection between it and the other natural objects?

It seems the moon can't have independent existence if we are to here identify it as a natural object. It must rest upon a prior natural process. And this process will ever be the very same natural process that the development of human minds also depends upon.

The question is, how do we prove that our knowledge is certain - ?

Because you are guilty of maintaining an unnatural independence of objects, one from another, you are much further away from fulfilling the criteria for certitude.

The moon didn't spring forth at once out of the infinities of time and space; and the very potential for the creation of human minds did not likewise spring out of an infinity of chaos. The natural potential for the creation of human minds is not purely accidental but must be related to the same natural processes as those that formed the moon. How could you distinguish between the two?
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Wed 31 Mar, 2010 08:32 am
@Pythagorean,
Pythagorean;146657 wrote:
If you are going to assert that some particular thing posesses independent existence then aren't you denying the natural processes that are logically necessary for their coming-to-be?

Isn't the moon obviously connected in time by a natural process that points beyond it? a necessary connection between it and the other natural objects?

It seems the moon can't have independent existence if we are to here identify it as a natural object. It must rest upon a prior natural process. And this process will ever be the very same natural process that the development of human minds also depends upon.

The question is, how do we prove that our knowledge is certain - ?

Because you are guilty of maintaining an unnatural independence of objects, one from another, you are much further away from fulfilling the criteria for certitude.

The moon didn't spring forth at once out of the infinities of time and space; and the very potential for the creation of human minds did not likewise spring out of an infinity of chaos. The natural potential for the creation of human minds is not purely accidental but must be related to the same natural processes as those that formed the moon. How could you distinguish between the two?


But isn't it true that the Moon existed before human beings existed? So, doesn't it follow that the existence of human beings is not necessary for the Moon to exist?
 
ughaibu
 
Reply Wed 31 Mar, 2010 08:34 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;146662 wrote:
But isn't it true that the Moon existed before human beings existed?
Even Abraham Lincoln?
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Wed 31 Mar, 2010 08:38 am
@ughaibu,
ughaibu;146664 wrote:
Even Abraham Lincoln?


Abraham Lincoln was not alive before human being existed, if that is what you mean. It was also true, even before human beings existed that Abraham Lincoln exists in 1860. What else are you asking?
 
ughaibu
 
Reply Wed 31 Mar, 2010 08:46 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;146668 wrote:
Abraham Lincoln was not alive before human being existed, if that is what you mean. It was also true, even before human beings existed that Abraham Lincoln exists in 1860. What else are you asking?
1) did Lincoln exist before there were any living humans?
2) does Lincoln exist now?
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Wed 31 Mar, 2010 08:54 am
@ughaibu,
ughaibu;146677 wrote:
1) did Lincoln exist before there were any living humans?
2) does Lincoln exist now?


(A) The proposition that Lincoln exist is true before there were any human beings.
(B) The statement that Lincoln is alive in 2010 is false. But the statement that Lincoln exists in 1860 is true in 2010 is, of course, true.

I am not sure whether you are asking (A) or (B) but in either case, there are my answers.
 
Arjuna
 
Reply Wed 31 Mar, 2010 08:58 am
@Pythagorean,
Pythagorean;146593 wrote:

For philosophical realism, there can be no particular connection between subject and object. My question is, how can there be any natural relationship between subject and object when the subject is taken to be just another object?

I just recently noticed something that might be related to what you're saying. If you listen to an atheist, it might seem we're hearing something in the background, so to speak: there's something missing from his or her picture of reality: namely himself, or herself.... the self of the speaker... the one making the comments. Has the self been equated with nothing?

You can do all sorts of shenanigans with the self... you can break it down into ego, id, superego... make it some multidimensional intuition translator.. you can say it's an illusion... a lie is still something. If you equate the self with nothing, though... it would appear there's a little problem. Who just stated that equation?

So maybe less analysis of the painting and more noticing that we're trying to establish a vantage point on a painting that we're in?
 
Pythagorean
 
Reply Wed 31 Mar, 2010 09:00 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;146662 wrote:
But isn't it true that the Moon existed before human beings existed? So, doesn't it follow that the existence of human beings is not necessary for the Moon to exist?



You are leaving out that which is necessary for the moon to exist. You are implying that the moon is an independent object, which it clearly is not. Furthermore, how could it matter to the analysis of nature at what point in time humans came to exist?

Since we are forced to be realists when it comes to nature we cannot therefore grant an independent status to her objects without implicit contradiction. To say the moon exists independently in nature would be to endow it with a metaphysical/universal status. The moon does not apply across the board but is the result of natural processes which are logically prior to its existence.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Wed 31 Mar, 2010 09:01 am
@Arjuna,
Arjuna;146683 wrote:
I just recently noticed something that might be related to what you're saying. If you listen to an atheist, it might seem we're hearing something in the background, so to speak: there's something missing from his or her picture of reality: namely himself, or herself.... the self of the speaker... the one making the comments. Has the self been equated with nothing?

You can do all sorts of shenanigans with the self... you can break it down into ego, id, superego... make it some multidimensional intuition translator.. you can say it's an illusion... a lie is still something. If you equate the self with nothing, though... it would appear there's a little problem. Who just stated that equation?

So maybe less analysis of the painting and more noticing that we're trying to establish a vantage point on a painting that we're in?


What has any of this to do with atheism?
 
ughaibu
 
Reply Wed 31 Mar, 2010 09:04 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;146681 wrote:
I am not sure whether you are asking (A) or (B)
Neither. My questions are absolutely clear:
1) did Lincoln exist before any human beings were alive?
2) does Lincoln exist now?
 
Arjuna
 
Reply Wed 31 Mar, 2010 09:35 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;146686 wrote:
What has any of this to do with atheism?
It would seem that for a thing to be known, there must be a knower.

There are many examples of perspectives that ignore that. Atheism is the one I happened to be thinking about.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Wed 31 Mar, 2010 09:40 am
@Arjuna,
Arjuna;146704 wrote:
It would seem that for a thing to be known, there must be a knower.

There are many examples of perspectives that ignore that. Atheism is the one I happened to be thinking about.



I still do not understand why atheism says there is no knower (of what?). You are very mysterious. Why not just say what you mean? Whether or not God exists, people know many things including that the Moon existed before there were people.
 
Arjuna
 
Reply Wed 31 Mar, 2010 10:10 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;146707 wrote:
I still do not understand why atheism says there is no knower (of what?). You are very mysterious. Why not just say what you mean? Whether or not God exists, people know many things including that the Moon existed before there were people.
Atheists tend to treat consciousness as an explainable factor... somebody's in a lab working on that.

Big assumptions are being made regarding what exactly science has accomplished thus far... how much they actually have wrapped up and pinned down. But these assumptions usually are accompanied by strong emotional bias. There's no torpedo of logic that will penetrate it.

So my thought is: fortresses exist for a reason. Let it be.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Wed 31 Mar, 2010 10:17 am
@Arjuna,
Arjuna;146719 wrote:
Atheists tend to treat consciousness as an explainable factor... somebody's in a lab working on that.

Big assumptions are being made regarding what exactly science has accomplished thus far... how much they actually have wrapped up and pinned down. But these assumptions usually are accompanied by strong emotional bias. There's no torpedo of logic that will penetrate it.

So my thought is: fortresses exist for a reason. Let it be.


You don't think that scientist believe that the Moon antedated human beings, and therefore, human consciousness? Or do you have some reason for thinking they are mistaken? You are still being very mysterious. I have no idea what that last sentence of yours is supposed to mean. Why do you write in riddles?
 
Pythagorean
 
Reply Wed 31 Mar, 2010 10:24 am
@Arjuna,
Arjuna;146719 wrote:
Atheists tend to treat consciousness as an explainable factor... somebody's in a lab working on that.

Big assumptions are being made regarding what exactly science has accomplished thus far... how much they actually have wrapped up and pinned down. But these assumptions usually are accompanied by strong emotional bias. There's no torpedo of logic that will penetrate it.

So my thought is: fortresses exist for a reason. Let it be.


There's no torpedo of logic. That is correct. G.E. Moore and the original logical positivists, it is widely known, were raging atheists. You have got it exactly right Arjuna, this is not a reasonable philosophical debate. They are dogmatists.
 
fast
 
Reply Wed 31 Mar, 2010 10:29 am
@Pythagorean,
Pythagorean;146685 wrote:
You are leaving out that which is necessary for the moon to exist. You are implying that the moon is an independent object, which it clearly is not. Furthermore, how could it matter to the analysis of nature at what point in time humans came to exist?

The moon is an independent object. Why would you think otherwise?
 
wayne
 
Reply Wed 31 Mar, 2010 10:52 am
@fast,
fast;146728 wrote:
The moon is an independent object. Why would you think otherwise?


The moon could be an independent object, but it is not .
No man is an island, this is the order of nature.
 
Pythagorean
 
Reply Wed 31 Mar, 2010 11:27 am
@fast,
fast;146728 wrote:
The moon is an independent object. Why would you think otherwise?




The moon is a part of nature, is it not? The moon is a dependent object, it is dependent at the very least, on the earth's gravity. It is also dependent upon the sun's gravity as it, like the earth, moves within the general atmosphere of the sun. It is also dependent upon the general laws of physics.

Maybe to a naive caveman the moon is an independent object, but not in the eyes of science.

The physical sciences have proved long ago that physical objects posess an underlying unity. Without this interdependence science as we know it would be an impossibility.
 
 

 
  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » General Discussion
  3. » The Order Of Nature Refutes Realism
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 08/14/2020 at 05:22:41