What Distance Must An Object Be For Its Appearance To Equal Its Real Size?

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Reconstructo
 
Reply Tue 2 Mar, 2010 03:05 pm
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;134636 wrote:
I don't know what you mean, but if the board is 4 feet long, it's really 4 feet long. This is not a matter of a appearance, it is a matter of reality.


it's a matter of transcendental number imposed on transcendental space. it's empirically real, but mysterious at the core. For pure being is not only unknowable but also unthinkable....
 
Gracee
 
Reply Tue 2 Mar, 2010 03:06 pm
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;134799 wrote:
Unless we have a reason to doubt, why would we? Extreme skepticism leads to infinite regression, and can actually manifest itself as a form of paranoia.

Just because it's logically possible we could be living in the Matrix, doesn't mean we should doubt that we are living in reality.


I agree, and i'm not saying we should doubt the existence of reality (i would consider myself a direct realist), i'm simply saying we can doubt it, and therefore can never be certain.



[/QUOTE]I would really try offering a source better than yahoo, but I will take a look Smile

But if Kant says we cannot even talk about reality, I certainly disagree. What rational person wouldn't?[/QUOTE]

Yes, i did wonder, but the explanation is pretty good, and i can't seem to find a better one on google. there's a brilliant one in my philosophy text book, but unfortunately that can't be copied and pasted onto my PC... yet, here's hoping!

Its a very interesting theory, and i would be inclined to agree with you had i not studied it in detail, but logically, it really does make sense.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Tue 2 Mar, 2010 03:16 pm
@Gracee,
Gracee;134791 wrote:
But the fact is we don't know we're perceiving anything accurately, again, check out Decartes' total deception argument, or just watch the Matrix! In either scenario what we are seeing is not reality, but it looks just like reality, so we simply cannot tell the difference.

Kant also says we can't even talk about reality, because we have our own conceptual scheme which means we project certain qualities onto the world that aren't really there. For example, the fact that things do get smaller as we move away from them, this doesn't happen in reality, but if our minds didn't do this, the world would be unperceivable. He uses the example of rose tinted sunglasses that we can't take off, our minds are like the sunglasses, they make the world seem different to how it really is.
I'm not explaining very well... try this In As philosophy; how does Kant's conceptual scheme work? - Yahoo! UK & Ireland Answers



This is true, and some philosophers do say that we don't need certainty in order to know something. However, the definition of knowledge is a true proposition, and if we can't really say whether the proposition 'there are birds in trafalger square' is true with 100% certainty, can we really say we know it?
I would say no, but for all practical purposes, we will say we do.

Its really one of those philosophical dilemmas which is impossible to answer, but it really doesn't affect the way you live your life. Personally that's why i prefer ethical philosophy, but i'm studying this stuff right now and i have an exam in May, so i thought i'd get some practice in! Smile


It seems to me that the question of what the conditions for claiming we know something, are different from the conditions for knowing that something. It is true that we should not claim we know something, unless we feel certain that it is true. It would be very misleading if we did. On the other hand, that does not mean that unless we are absolutely certain we don't know what we think we know. Feeling certain that we know what we claim to know is proper. But that doesn't mean that unless we are certain that we know what we think we know, we don't know it. The feeling of certainty is required for claiming to know, but not required for knowing.

Ethical philosophy requires the same kind of analytical thinking that involves the making of necessary distinctions between things that need to be distinguished as any other philosophy. Like, for example, the distinction between motives and intention.

As Joseph Butler wisely pointed out, "Everything is what it is, and not another thing".

Kant thought there were two kinds of reality:structured reality that we can know about through science; and unstructured reality which is impervious to science, and reason in general. I myself doubt that is true.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Tue 2 Mar, 2010 03:25 pm
@Gracee,
Quote:

But if Kant says we cannot even talk about reality, I certainly disagree. What rational person wouldn't?


Kant was grounding objectivity. Direct realism is equivalent to solipsism. Of course objectivity is grounded in a practical sense by language. Direct realism is not absurd because it unconsciously is founded on language, which can only evolve socially--refuting its logical implication of solipsism. If we see the real directly, then all experience is equally real....and all thought is true..because thought is absolutely essential to the way that humans perceive reality.

Kant was grounding it logically. The average person is close enough to reality for their everyday needs.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Tue 2 Mar, 2010 03:27 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;134823 wrote:
Kant was grounding objectivity. Direct realism is equivalent to solipsism. Of course objectivity is grounded in a practical sense by language. Direct realism is not absurd because it unconsciously is founded on language, which can only evolve socially.

Kant was grounding it logically. The average person is close enough to reality for their everyday needs.


Yes, if you are an average person you don't need logic. Who claimed that direct realism is absurd?
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Tue 2 Mar, 2010 03:33 pm
@Pythagorean,
Gracee wrote:
there's a brilliant one in my philosophy text book, but unfortunately that can't be copied and pasted onto my PC... yet, here's hoping!


Perhaps you could scan it and then share it? I would be interested. Thanks.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Tue 2 Mar, 2010 03:36 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;134825 wrote:
Yes, if you are an average person you don't need logic. Who claimed that direct realism is absurd?


That's true. A person doesn't need a comprehensive logical explanation of being. That's the game of philosophers...

Direct realism is obviously absurd. If we all see the truth directly, there is no objectivity but only subjectivity...

But objectivity doesn't need to be logically grounded. The later Wittgenstein is "proof" of that. There is no private language. Language evolved in the midst of social practice.
 
longknowledge
 
Reply Tue 2 Mar, 2010 05:43 pm
@Reconstructo,
I think you'll find the answer to this OP here. :flowers:
 
SammDickens
 
Reply Tue 2 Mar, 2010 08:09 pm
@Pythagorean,
It must be at precisely the same distance as the instrument of measure.

Samm
 
Alan McDougall
 
Reply Tue 2 Mar, 2010 08:32 pm
@Pythagorean,
Size is relative and subjective you will not truly comprehend the true size of an African Elephant unless you stood right next to it

---------- Post added 03-03-2010 at 04:34 AM ----------

Size is relative and subjective, you will not be able to true size of an African Elephant unless you stood right next to it.

Please go to the link below and you will see exactly what I mean
YouTube - size our of universe
 
Scottydamion
 
Reply Tue 2 Mar, 2010 09:25 pm
@Alan McDougall,
Alan McDougall;135024 wrote:
Size is relative and subjective you will not truly comprehend the true size of an African Elephant unless you stood right next to it

---------- Post added 03-03-2010 at 04:34 AM ----------

Size is relative and subjective, you will not be able to true size of an African Elephant unless you stood right next to it.

Please go to the link below and you will see exactly what I mean


How about:

Size is relative, you cannot comprehend the true size of an African Elephant.
 
ughaibu
 
Reply Tue 2 Mar, 2010 10:03 pm
@Gracee,
Gracee;134803 wrote:
i'm simply saying we can doubt it, and therefore can never be certain.
This argument is invalid, obviously so, because there are some things about which all healthy human adults can be certain, even Descartes.
 
north
 
Reply Tue 2 Mar, 2010 11:46 pm
@Scottydamion,
Scottydamion;135093 wrote:
How about:

Size is relative, you cannot comprehend the true size of an African Elephant.


if size is relative then the size of the African Elephant can compared to an atom no matter where you are in the Universe
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Tue 2 Mar, 2010 11:49 pm
@north,
north;135182 wrote:
if size is relative then the size of the African Elephant can compared to an atom no matter where you are in the Universe

Which brings us to Kant, and the difference twixt appearance and noumena. Also to the later Wittgenstein, for language is our real objectivity. (Not discounting science, but science must persuade by means of language (Rorty's brilliant realization, that consensus is the true ground of objectivity.....
 
Scottydamion
 
Reply Tue 2 Mar, 2010 11:58 pm
@north,
north;135182 wrote:
if size is relative then the size of the African Elephant can compared to an atom no matter where you are in the Universe


I am not sure what you mean. What I was saying is that there is no objective frame of reference to judge size from.
 
Alan McDougall
 
Reply Tue 2 Mar, 2010 11:59 pm
@north,
north;135182 wrote:
if size is relative then the size of the African Elephant can compared to an atom no matter where you are in the Universe


It is mathematically possible to account for the number of atoms that make up an elephant thus a comparison is possible mathematically
 
Pythagorean
 
Reply Wed 3 Mar, 2010 12:11 pm
@north,
north;135182 wrote:
if size is relative then the size of the African Elephant can compared to an atom no matter where you are in the Universe


What is the size of an atom?
 
SammDickens
 
Reply Wed 3 Mar, 2010 01:42 pm
@Pythagorean,
Pythagorean;135439 wrote:
What is the size of an atom?

Which atom? :-)

Samm
 
Night Ripper
 
Reply Wed 3 Mar, 2010 01:59 pm
@Pythagorean,
Pythagorean;127695 wrote:
At what distance must an object be from a perceiver in order for its appearance to equal its real size?

--


I would say that the distance doesn't matter. The context matters. People look like ants from high enough but the cars look like matchboxes and you get a better sense of their real size which is their size relative to everything else.
 
north
 
Reply Wed 3 Mar, 2010 03:27 pm
@Scottydamion,
Quote:
Originally Posted by north http://www.philosophyforum.com/images/PHBlue/buttons/viewpost.gif
if size is relative then the size of the African Elephant can compared to an atom no matter where you are in the Universe



Scottydamion;135196 wrote:
I am not sure what you mean. What I was saying is that there is no objective frame of reference to judge size from.


why is an atom size not objective , lets say hydrogen
 
 

 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 05/29/2020 at 04:41:40