1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Metaphysics
  3. »
  4. » Page 4

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

kennethamy
 
Reply Sat 24 Oct, 2009 05:35 am
@deepthot,
deepthot;99569 wrote:
For those who are not sure of the meaning of my terms see the first post in this thread wherein these terms are defined. Also see the subsequent discussion for some of the larger implications of the value analysis offered in the o.p.

For a fuller understanding of the meaning of Systemic, Extrinsic, and Intrinsic, see Chapter 3 of the booklet, a link to which is offered below.

The terms I defined - such as "essence" and "reality" - are basic and can be found historically in discussions on Epistemology, Metaphysics, and especially Ontology.


Do you happen to have an example or two of something that exists, but is not real? Or real, but does not exist? It would help.
 
deepthot
 
Reply Sun 25 Oct, 2009 01:13 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;99581 wrote:
Do you happen to have an example or two of something that exists, but is not real? Or real, but does not exist? It would help.


For a better understanding of what I mean by "real" I refer you to Post #109 at the end of page 11 at this link:

http://www.philosophyforum.com/philosophy-forums/branches-philosophy/epistemology/4644-what-truth-what-does-mean-exist-11.html

Some readers may have overlooked it; others have read it, but it is good to review it now and then.

For example, the destitution and hunger of many folks who live in a refugee shantytown in South Africa exists, but is not real to many Americans. It is not a real concern to them. On the other hand, baseball and/or football is. When you bring that subject up -- Now... you're really talking That's real !!!!!
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sun 25 Oct, 2009 07:23 am
@deepthot,
deepthot;99707 wrote:
For a better understanding of what I mean by "real" I refer you to Post #109 at the end of page 11 at this link:

http://www.philosophyforum.com/philosophy-forums/branches-philosophy/epistemology/4644-what-truth-what-does-mean-exist-11.html

Some readers may have overlooked it; others have read it, but it is good to review it now and then.

For example, the destitution and hunger of many folks who live in a refugee shantytown in South Africa exists, but is not real to many Americans. It is not a real concern to them. On the other hand, baseball and/or football is. When you bring that subject up -- Now... you're really talking That's real !!!!!


But then, all you mean is something like "vivid" or "important". That has nothing a all to do with what is meant when someone says that mirages are not real, or that a fake diamond is not a real diamond. You are just punning on the term "real". People sometimes say, "That's real nice of you", but the is not the use of the word "real" we are interested in. "Real" there is what linguists call an "intensifier". You still owe me a real example of something that exists, but is not real.
 
deepthot
 
Reply Sun 25 Oct, 2009 11:13 pm
@deepthot,
My definition was no pun.

I have in this thread made a value analysis, defining terms by means of value dimensions. The sense of the word "real" I intended was its role in expressing the degree of concern one has, or how involved one is with the subject that s/he calls "real." The appropriate dimension of value to define it was that which conveys emphasis, for the Intrinsic domain is the emphatic and the empathic. This, in a sense, is above and beyond the everyday, social-economic, material world.

Yes, in your usage, real things first exist. But when I defined "reality" as "Intrinsic Being" it alluded to the intense degree of involvement with, or the sense of unity with, the valuer and what is being valued when the judgment is made, when the word is employed. When I asked "Is it better to be real than merely to exist?" the sense of the term 'real' there was "authentic" since I was referring to a person as being real - rather than being a phony. If you read the chapter, What Is Ethics? (pages 26 ff.) in the booklet - a link to which is offered below - you surely would comprehend why I-Value is the appropriate dimension to talk about persons if one appreciates Ethics, and wants to be ethical.



Now you know what I meant. Now I hope and trust we can find agreement in re those questions listed in Post #58 above.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Mon 26 Oct, 2009 12:22 am
@deepthot,
deepthot;99782 wrote:
My definition was no pun.

I have in this thread made a value analysis, defining terms by means of value dimensions. The sense of the word "real" I intended was its role in expressing the degree of concern one has, or how involved one is with the subject that s/he calls "real." The appropriate dimension of value to define it was that which conveys emphasis, for the Intrinsic domain is the emphatic and the empathic. This, in a sense, is above and beyond the everyday, social-economic, material world.

Yes, in your usage, real things first exist. But when I defined "reality" as "Intrinsic Being" it alluded to the intense degree of involvement with, or the sense of unity with, the valuer and what is being valued when the judgment is made, when the word is employed. When I asked "Is it better to be real than merely to exist?" the sense of the term 'real' there was "authentic" since I was referring to a person as being real - rather than being a phony. If you read the chapter, What Is Ethics? (pages 26 ff.) in the booklet - a link to which is offered below - you surely would comprehend why I-Value is the appropriate dimension to talk about persons if one appreciates Ethics, and wants to be ethical.



Now you know what I meant. Now I hope and trust we can find agreement in re those questions listed in Post #58 above.


I just wonder what kind of truth you can discover by spinning it out of your very own definitions.
 
deepthot
 
Reply Tue 27 Oct, 2009 02:13 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;99784 wrote:
I just wonder what kind of truth you can discover by spinning it out of your very own definitions.


You write: "I just wonder what kind of truth you can discover by spinning it out of your very own definitions." Until the definitions and the theory biding them together are confirmed by experience (such as my own and that of many, many others), only Systemic Truth: which is coherence and validity.

Once repeatable experiences occur the theory is verified to a degree; the more people say it makes sense to them in their own life, the greater the degree of confirmation.

Yours for truth,
deepthot

....For those interested in Ethics, see this link
 
 

 
  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Metaphysics
  3. »
  4. » Page 4
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/17/2021 at 01:56:31