How then would objects exist as objects in time?


-

To say that something is real is to say that it exists independently of what anyone believes, it is mind independent.

Isn't it clear to you that before there were people or animals who were conscious, that there were objects like the Sun, the Moon, and the Stars, as well as the planet Earth? And that therefore, there were things that exist independently of human thought or consciousness?

We usually mean by saying that X is real, that X is mind-independent. So that no one need believe that X exists, or see or hear (etc.) X, for X to exist. The American poet, Peter Viereck once said, "real is what remains when you stop believing in it". I think that is a pretty good definition.

In English, what is real is what is mind-independent. That is, it would exist even if there were no minds.

In any case, numbers, for instance, can be identified, but how could they be identified empirically? We cannot observe numbers. But aren't numbers real?

The question of whether something is real might be an epistemological question, but the question of what it is for something to be real is, of course, a metaphysical question.

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?

My question is, how can there be any natural relationship between subject and object when the subject is taken to be just another object?

object (n.) late 14c., "tangible thing, something perceived or presented to the senses," from M.L. objectum "thing put before" (the mind or sight), neut. of L. objectus, pp. of obicere "to present, oppose, cast in the way of," from ob "against" + jacere "to throw" (see jet). Sense of "thing aimed at" is late 14c. No object "not a thing regarded as important" is from 1782. Object lesson "instruction conveyed by examination of a material object" is from 1831.
subject (n.) early 14c., "person under control or dominion of another," from O.Fr. suget, subget "a subject person or thing" (12c.), from L. subjectus, noun use of pp. of subicere "to place under," from sub "under" + combining form of jacere "to throw." In 14c., sugges, sogetis, subgit, sugette; form re-Latinized in Eng. 16c. Meaning "person or thing that may be acted upon" is recorded from 1590s. Meaning "subject matter of an art or science" is attested from 1540s, probably short for subject matter (late 14c.), which is from M.L. subjecta materia, a loan translation of Gk. hypokeimene hyle (Aristotle), lit. "that which lies beneath." Likewise some specific uses in logic and philosophy are borrowed directly from L. subjectum "foundation or subject of a proposition," a loan-translation of Aristotle's to hypokeimenon. Grammatical sense is recorded from 1630s. The adj. is attested from early 14c.

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?

(This final note is for a certain bore out there who likes to cry etymological fallacy every time an etymology is presented to paint in some background. Don't bother. It is boring and I will never see it.

On the one hand, you frequently say:









But on the other hand:



So what I say is that numbers are indeed real - but they are not mind-independent.

They are independent of any particular mind - that it, they are not the product of an individual intelligence - but, on the other hand, they cannot be said to exist if there is nobody capable of counting them. As you have said, there is nowhere they exist in the world.

But the same can be said of many essential attributes of human existence, such as beauty, justice, and truth. These too are real, but they are not real in the sense of being 'mind-independent'. They are only real when they are realized. And in this context, this is what 'realization' means: to make something real.

I think what is at issue here is a conflation of the sense of 'objectivity' as being the 'criterion of reality', on the one hand, with the traditional philosophical idea of 'truth' on the other. In a scientific age, truth is a scientific question. Within the framework of scientific secularism, 'truth' is either an attribute of propositions which correspond to some state of affairs, or something which is gradually disclosed by the laborious process of scientific research and discovery.

Whereas, what we are seeking to understand, and what I believe was the quest of traditional philosophy, is a type of truth which is neither objective nor subjective but transcendent. Which is to say, it is not subjective, but neither is it mind-independent.

What you seem to be arguing is that abstract objects (like numbers) are real, but that they are not mind-independent. So "real" does not mean, "mind-independent". And, your reason for saying that numbers are real but not mind-independent, is that numbers do not exist unless they can be counted by someone.

By the way, I don't think that to "realize" something means "to make it real". When I say that I just realized that it is time for lunch, I am only saying that it has come to my notice that it is time for lunch. I am not saying that I have made it time for lunch.

You often ask, did the moon exist before people? Now I am asking, did math exist before people? I think the answer is 'no'. So math is mind-dependent, but it is not subjective. Number is being used here as an example, but I think the same principle applies to a whole range of abstract qualities.




'Realize' has several meanings. One is to work something out, as you say. The other is to 'make real' - 'after much work the architect's vision was realized'. This second meaning is the one being referred to.

No, obviously, math did not exist before people, and neither did chess. I think it was you who mentioned the term "subjective". "Subjective" has two meaning; one of them is mind-dependent, the other is "pertains to the individual". Math and chess are subjective in the first sense, so far as I can see. I am not clear what it is you mean by saying that math is not subjective. (Or is subjective, for that matter).

Yes, you are right about "realize". But I don't see how what you say applies to the issue.

But, aside from all of this, don't you agree that when someone asks whether, for example, ghosts are real, he is asking whether ghosts are mind-independent; whether they exist even if no one believes they exist. And the same (say) for God? Now, I am not sure what anyone would mean by asking whether justice was real, but I imagine that he would be asking whether even if no one believed justice had been done in some instance, that justice had been done. Wouldn't you?

I think you are trying to get metaphysical mileage when there really is none to be gotten.

So really I am supporting the OP here. I believe that reality is a representation or a construction. Of what? will come the question. And the whole point is perhaps to recognise that it is a question.

So really I am supporting the OP here. I believe that reality is a representation or a construction. Of what? will come the question. And the whole point is perhaps to recognise that it is a question.

This makes me think of an episode where I was selling little sculptures at an open market. One of the most popular was a two inch sculpture that looked like the skull of a longhorn cow.

Over time, I was amazed at how many people picked up the sculpture and asked the same question: "Is this real?"

In my mind I would joke.. no, I'm selling figments of imagination. But I knew what they meant: does this come from a cow with a two-inch long head? (Complete with horns?)

My point is, it was a multitude of all ages asking the same question. They all understood the object to be real in the sense of being a finite object in time and space. Obviously, they were using the word real to mean something else. Real vs representation? I think they were asking about truth.

does this come from a cow with a two-inch long head? (Complete with horns)?

What does that mean? I have no idea.

They were asking if the object was a real skull... as opposed to a fake skull.

The object was a fake skull.

They weren't asking if the object in question has an existence independent of the mind. They were looking for the truth.

What's your definition of truth?

There is, of course, a difference between asking whether something is a real X, and asking whether that X is real. To ask the first is to ask whether X is a standard instance of the kind, X. (For example, "Is that a real diamond?" is to ask whether that stone is a standard kind of diamond or whether it is artificial or a zircon that only looks like a diamond. But to ask whether the diamond is real, is to ask whether it is independent of mind, or whether, maybe, it is an hallucination, or a figment of the imagination. It really depends on whether the adjective, "real" is placed before or placed after, the noun.

To say of X that it is a "real X" is not, in fact, to say anything positive about X. Rather, is is to say something negative about it, because it is to say about it that it is not a deviant X, for example, as you said about the skull, that it is not a fake X. A real X is, after all, only a standard normal X. In other words, just an X. And to say it a real X is just to deny that it is not a standard, normal X.

As Aristotle said, "To say that something it is true is to say of what is, that it is, and to say of what is not, that it is not". Doesn't that sound right to you?

Yes, so the people in the market were asking if the skull was authentic. The answer was no. There are usually signs that a thing isn't what it appears to be.

A little logic always helps with that.