On The Contrast Between Appearance And Reality

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;133807 wrote:

I didn't argue that you were not all right. I just asked.

It is getting late, isn't it.

You are lacking a positive theory.

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;133811 wrote:

Discourse is endless qualification. .

Apparently, your discourse is. "If we had but world enough and time, this coyness lady, would be no crime".

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;133810 wrote:

and I say again that the view that idealism means that 'the world exists in only the mind of people' is a false depiction of idealism. It is not now and never has been the idealist position.

Yes, and this is another example that words do not function logically. Their meaning is not transcendental (yes/no) but something else, which is utterly context-bound (continuous).

I think we are all realists here, in the loose sense of the word.

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;133817 wrote:

Yes, and this is another example that words do not function logically. Their meaning is not transcendental (yes/no) but something else, which is utterly context-bound (continuous).

I think we are all realists here, in the loose sense of the word.

Yes, but I am a Realist in the strict sense of the word too. I think the Moon predated people.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;133818 wrote:

Yes, but I am a Realist in the strict sense of the word too.

There is no strict sense of the word. That's the crux.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;133818 wrote:

Yes, but I am a Realist in the strict sense of the word too. I think the Moon predated people.

But did the concept of the Moon predate people? What you know about the Moon could not have existed without people, and thats all you know about the Moon. Without people there would be no Moon as we know it. If there is a "Moon" that exists out there on its own, it isn't a Moon that any of us will ever know.

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;133828 wrote:

There is no strict sense of the word. That's the crux.

Ah! There is a loose sense, but no strict sense. So, by contrast with what is the loose sense a loose sense? How could there be a loose sense unless there is a strict sense?

@MMP2506,

MMP2506;133830 wrote:

But did the concept of the Moon predate people? What you know about the Moon could not have existed without people, and thats all you know about the Moon. Without people there would be no Moon as we know it. If there is a "Moon" that exists out there on its own, it isn't a Moon that any of us will ever know.

kennethamy say he is not a Materialist. I asked him how he accounts for the human mind: He says that he believes that the human mind was created by evolution. I then asked him how evolution could have created the mind; whether it was purely accidental. He has refused/side-stepped this question.

His account of objects is philosophically incomplete.

--

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;133817 wrote:

Yes, and this is another example that words do not function logically.

Well - because this is another level of discourse than the one that language is best adapted to. It is not like saying 'look over there! An antelope! Quick, spear it!' Or it is not like saying "2+2 = 4", or specificying the outcome of an hypothesis.

When we are talking about the meaning of 'mind' (or number, or meaning, for that matter) a whole new level of difficulty presents itself. It is very difficult especially if the parties to the dialog essentially refuse to agree on a starting point or whether there is anything to discuss, which appears to be happening here. I think there has been some progress, but then, I'm an idealist :bigsmile:.

---------- Post added 03-01-2010 at 03:39 PM ----------

I agree with your diagnosis, Pythagorean.

@MMP2506,

MMP2506;133830 wrote:

But did the concept of the Moon predate people? What you know about the Moon could not have existed without people, and thats all you know about the Moon. Without people there would be no Moon as we know it. If there is a "Moon" that exists out there on its own, it isn't a Moon that any of us will ever know.

Well, that's what scientists tell me. Is there a dissenting scientific view? Of course, without people there would be no Moon as people know it. You don't have to tell me that. What is a "Moon"? I thought we were talking about the Moon?

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;133831 wrote:

Ah! There is a loose sense, but no strict sense. So, by contrast with what is the loose sense a loose sense? How could there be a loose sense unless there is a strict sense?

Now that's an excellent question! The only strict sense available iz logic, which in its pure form is mathematical. Our confusion is do to a collision of transcendentals. Logos is enough like number to make us forget its continous aspect, which is analogical/dialectical/contingent upon incidental experience.

@Pythagorean,

Pythagorean;133835 wrote:

kennethamy say he is not a Materialist. I asked him how he accounts for the human mind: He says that he believes that the human mind was created by evolution. I then asked him how evolution could have created the mind; whether it was purely accidental. He has refused/side-stepped this question.

His account of objects is philosophically incomplete.

--

You mean that because I am not well-acquainted with those theories that try to account for how consciousness evolved I have side-stepped the question. I don't know exactly how water freezes either. I guess I would have to refer you to the scientists who do. Would that mean I had side-stepped the question?

@Pythagorean,

Pythagorean;133835 wrote:

kennethamy say he is not a Materialist. I asked him how he accounts for the human mind: He says that he believes that the human mind was created by evolution. I then asked him how evolution could have created the mind; whether it was purely accidental. He has refused/side-stepped this question.

His account of objects is philosophically incomplete.

--

Thats because trying to see objects objectively. Objects can't exist without subjectivity intending upon them. Thats the downfall of materialism, it becomes something that can't sustain itself.

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;133839 wrote:

Now that's an excellent question! The only strict sense available iz logic, which in its pure form is mathematical. Our confusion is do to a collision of transcendentals. Logos is enough like number to make us forget its continous aspect, which is analogical/dialectical/contingent upon incidental experience.

"Logic" is the strict sense of "Realist"? What are you talking about. Anyway, I thought you said there was no strict sense of the term, "Realist". After that, sense trailed away.

@MMP2506,

MMP2506;133842 wrote:

Thats because trying to see objects objectively. Objects can't exist without subjectivity intending upon them. Thats the downfall of materialism, it becomes something that can't sustain itself.

Yes, exactly! And this objectivity is a sand castle. We know well enough that there is a reality "under" appearance, but no where to draw the line. Not exactly. Also, minus consciousness (mystery of mysteries) nothing exists. Or nothing we can speak of/think of/know of. (Therefore noumena = x, and only x).

But because we attend funerals, and the world still exists for us, some of us assume that the world is independent of consciousness, forgetting that it is only because they are conscious that such a thought is possible.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;133841 wrote:

You mean that because I am not well-acquainted with those theories that try to account for how consciousness evolved I have side-stepped the question. I don't know exactly how water freezes either. I guess I would have to refer you to the scientists who do. Would that mean I had side-stepped the question?

If you can't account for how consciousness evolved, than why do you hold faith that evolution created it? Seems like you hold faith in something which you can't justify.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;133844 wrote:

"Logic" is the strict sense of "Realist"? What are you talking about. Anyway, I thought you said there was no strict sense of the term, "Realist". After that, sense trailed away.

Only logic provides "strict" sense, and only because logic is not logos but mathema. (Euclidean geometry is strict but impossible to draw. And before you answer the obvious, think! An ideal triangle is where?)

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;133841 wrote:

You mean that because I am not well-acquainted with those theories that try to account for how consciousness evolved I have side-stepped the question. I don't know exactly how water freezes either. I guess I would have to refer you to the scientists who do. Would that mean I had side-stepped the question?

At least you admit that they 'try' to account for how consciousness evolved. But this is disingenuous. You refuse to address the issue of the human mind because it does not fall within the purview of the physical sciences and cannot be accounted for in a strictly logical fashion. You are always suggesting that if something is not accounted for by science then it is not to be taken seriously. You don't address it because it violates your position of 'strict realism'.

The question of the human mind and its place in nature has long been of primary importance in philosophy. And it is especially apt in the context of this thread.

--

@MMP2506,

MMP2506;133842 wrote:

. Objects can't exist without subjectivity intending upon them.

What does that mean? It sounds pretty nasty. I am glad I see objects objectively if subjects keep intending on objects unless I do. That's awful!

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;133845 wrote:

Yes, exactly! And this objectivity is a sand castle. We know well enough that there is a reality "under" appearance, but no where to draw the line. Not exactly. Also, minus consciousness (mystery of mysteries) nothing exists. Or nothing we can speak of/think of/know of. (Therefore noumena = x, and only x).

But because we attend funerals, and the world still exists for us, some of us assume that the world is independent of consciousness, forgetting that it is only because they are conscious that such a thought is possible.

Right, again it goes back to Descartes when he decided to speak of the world in terms of dualism.

In order for science to work, consciousness must be separate from the thing it is studying, but that creates quite a paradox that it can't fix. How can someone study something that is unrelated to them? That would be like me trying to read a book in Japanese.

Philosophy Forum

On The Contrast Between Appearance And Reality

Quick Links

My Account

able2know