I do not wish to quarrel on this. I have not 'objected'.

Even so, let me get into semantics for a moment. I find your first sentence quite interesting. And you seem to agree, then why do you insist to refer theories as abstract 'objects'.

Or are you refering to products or derived phenomenon of a given theory as 'objects'. In which case, you would tend to mislead further by refering to theories, and theoretical objects/things/entities in the same breath.
Concepts are always in the mental realm, while objects are used in the physical world too, like a football. So my interference.

Anyway, if you find this objectionable, i say i have no further objections.

According to my favorite philosopher, Ortega y Gasset:

"My Life" or "Living" is the "Radical Reality," in the sense that all other "realities" appear or are "rooted" in it. (The word "radical" comes from the Latin word "radix" meaning "root.") "My Life" means my life, your life, the life of each individual. Therefore, something is only a "reality" if it's an "appearance" in someone's life.

The word "reality" is derived from the Middle French realite (French ), with meanings as follows (starting at the dates indicated) "possession," "property," or "real property" (1368), "character of that which is real" (c1460), "that which is real" (1530), and from its etymon post-classical Latin realitas, with meanings "property," "estate" (1120), "quality of being real" (from 1300 in British sources, from 15th cent. in continental sources), derived from the Latin adjective realis, + the classical Latin suffix -tis "real," Realis in turn is derived from the classical Latin res, "thing" + the suffix, -alis.

Now according to Ortega, "My Life," which is the "Radical Reality," consists of "Happenings" or "Occurrences." One of the "happenings" that "occur" in "My Life" is "I," "My I," the perceiving, feeling, thinking, desiring, deciding person that "I" am. The other is "My Circumstance, every "thing" Other than "My I."

Furthermore, the word res, "thing," was the word that was used to translate into Latin the Greek word pragma (plural pragmata), also "thing," but which orginally meant "concerns" or "importances." So Ortega wishes to revive the original meaning by saying that "My Circumstance" Consists of "Concerns," "Importances" or Pragmata.

Now we can interpret Ortega's famous formula from 1914, "I am I and my circumstance," to mean "My Life Consists of My I and My Circumstance," that is, the first "I" is meant to represent "My Life," amd the second "I," represents "My I," the person that I am, and "My Circumstance," represents the "things" that are of "concern" or "importance" to "My I," as Ortega does explicity in his later works.

Now the word "appearance" comes from the Old French aparance or aparence (later apparence), from the Latin apparentia, "appearance," abstract nominative form of apparent-em, present participle of the verb appare-re, "to appear," derived from the Latin prefix ad-, "to" + the verb parere, "to come in sight" or "come forth," from pareo, verb intr. form of paro, "to make ready" from părio, "to bring forth"; hence, "to be ready", "at hand."

So according to Ortega, "appearances" are the "realities" that are "concerns" or "importances," "occurring" or "happening" in "My Circumstance," that along with "My I," forms the "Radical Reality" that is "My Life."

Hence, by this argument, Ortega is able to "Save the Appearances"!

[CENTER]:flowers:[/CENTER]

According to my favorite philosopher, Ortega y Gasset:

"My Life" or "Living" is the "Radical Reality," in the sense that all other "realities" appear or are "rooted" in it. (The word "radical" comes from the Latin word "radix" meaning "root.") "My Life" means my life, your life, the life of each individual. Therefore, something is only a "reality" if it's an "appearance" in someone's life.

The word "reality" is derived from the Middle French realite (French ), with meanings as follows (starting at the dates indicated) "possession," "property," or "real property" (1368), "character of that which is real" (c1460), "that which is real" (1530), and from its etymon post-classical Latin realitas, with meanings "property," "estate" (1120), "quality of being real" (from 1300 in British sources, from 15th cent. in continental sources), derived from the Latin adjective realis, + the classical Latin suffix -tis "real," Realis in turn is derived from the classical Latin res, "thing" + the suffix, -alis.

Now according to Ortega, "My Life," which is the "Radical Reality," consists of "Happenings" or "Occurrences." One of the "happenings" that "occur" in "My Life" is "I," "My I," the perceiving, feeling, thinking, desiring, deciding person that "I" am. The other is "My Circumstance, every "thing" Other than "My I."

Furthermore, the word res, "thing," was the word that was used to translate into Latin the Greek word pragma (plural pragmata), also "thing," but which orginally meant "concerns" or "importances." So Ortega wishes to revive the original meaning by saying that "My Circumstance" Consists of "Concerns," "Importances" or Pragmata.

Now we can interpret Ortega's famous formula from 1914, "I am I and my circumstance," to mean "My Life Consists of My I and My Circumstance," that is, the first "I" is meant to represent "My Life," amd the second "I," represents "My I," the person that I am, and "My Circumstance," represents the "things" that are of "concern" or "importance" to "My I," as Ortega does explicity in his later works.

Now the word "appearance" comes from the Old French aparance or aparence (later apparence), from the Latin apparentia, "appearance," abstract nominative form of apparent-em, present participle of the verb appare-re, "to appear," derived from the Latin prefix ad-, "to" + the verb parere, "to come in sight" or "come forth," from pareo, verb intr. form of paro, "to make ready" from părio, "to bring forth"; hence, "to be ready", "at hand."

So according to Ortega, "appearances" are the "realities" that are "concerns" or "importances," "occurring" or "happening" in "My Circumstance," that along with "My I," forms the "Radical Reality" that is "My Life."

Hence, by this argument, Ortega is able to "Save the Appearances"!

[CENTER]:flowers:[/CENTER]

Good stuff! I love all the etymology, too.

We know of no reality except that which is experienced by a subject. For humans reality appears. This is just to say that reality shows up, not that reality does not exist.

A person's life includes both the experience of self (as a pseudo-object) and that self's concerns/environment. "My Life", in this case, reminds me of the transcendental ego (radical = root). Also of unity-in-difference.

It all ultimately boils down to a unity: Life.

Inpenatrable................................

You must mean "im-penetrable."

Ancient philosophers, excepting Plato, believed that reality consisted of the world of "things," and that human beings were just other "things." The word "reality," comes from the Latin res, "thing," the word they used to translate the Greek pragmata, which was used by the Greek philosophers also to refer to "things." That philosophy became known as "Realism."

Modern philosphers, starting with Descartes, brought into doubt this concept of reality by indicating that all that we are aware of about "things" are the sensations that we have of them, and that therefore we cannot be sure of the existence of "things" independent of our sensations of them. This led to Descartes's famous declaration that the one thing he could be sure of was his thoughts or "ideas." "I think, therefore I am." On the basis of this Modern philosophy became known as "Idealism." This led to the extreme solopsistic position of Fichte in the 19th century, with his declaration: "Everything is I."

At the beginning of the twentieth century, with the phenomenological analyses of Husserl, the recognition that the phenomena of our sensations had just as much "reality" as the "I" perceiving them. Ortega used this analysis to develop his philosophy that overcomes the extreme solopsism of "Idealism" by stating that both the I and what he calls "My Circumstance" co-exist within the "Radical Reality" of "My Life." "My Circumstance" consists not only of the so-called "physical" phenomena that I sense, but also of the so-called "mental phenomena" that I think, feel, dream, hallucinate, etc., and the so called "social" phenomena resulting from encounters with other human beings, whom we discover are experiencing the same kind of "reality" as we are in their "My Life."

And so Ortega presents us with a new pluralistic concept of reality as consisting of the "My Life" of each human being. At the same time, within each life there is a dualism of an "I" and its or "My Circumstance."

Is that less "in-penetrable"?

Sorry. Typo. Whatever Ortega means by "raal" or by "realism", it has nothing to do with what is meant either in ordinary language by those terms, or by philosophers.

I disagree. Ortega himself was certainly a philosopher. So were his influences. You sound like a republican who doesn't believe that democrats even exist. :bigsmile:

Wittgenstein equated solipsism with realism. Yeah, I didn't capitalize "democrats." My bad. Consider it a lyrical indulgence.

It still seems to me that you are playing a partisan role. Maybe I'm wrong.

Sorry. Typo. Whatever Ortega means by "raal" or by "realism", it has nothing to do with what is meant either in ordinary language by those terms, or by philosophers.

What is the passage in which Wittgenstein did that? I don't understand what that would mean. I am partisan. I am in support of clarity and truth. And against arrant nonsense.

It's that passage from the Tractatus I quoted before. No philosopher is really in the party of nonsense. They just throw the word at one another. The Analytics shout "nonsense." The Continentals shout "shallow." Both are as wrong as they are right. ,---"nonsense!"

.62 This remark provides the key to the problem, how much truth there is in solipsism. For what the solipsist means is quite correct; only it cannot be said, but makes itself manifest. The world is my world: this is manifest in the fact that the limits of language (of that language which alone I understand) mean the limits of my world. 5.621 The world and life are one.
5.63 I am my world. (The microcosm.)
5.631 There is no such thing as the subject that thinks or entertains ideas. If I wrote a book called The World as l found it, I should have to include a report on my body, and should have to say which parts were subordinate to my will, and which were not, etc., this being a method of isolating the subject, or rather of showing that in an important sense there is no subject; for it alone could not be mentioned in that book.-
5.632 The subject does not belong to the world: rather, it is a limit of the world.
5.633 Where in the world is a metaphysical subject to be found? You will say that this is exactly like the case of the eye and the visual field. But really you do not see the eye. And nothing in the visual field allows you to infer that it is seen by an eye.
5.6331 For the form of the visual field is surely not like this
5.634 This is connected with the fact that no part of our experience is at the same time a priori. Whatever we see could be other than it is. Whatever we can describe at all could be other than it is. There is no a priori order of things.
5.64 Here it can be seen that solipsism, when its implications are followed out strictly, coincides with pure realism. The self of solipsism shrinks to a point without extension, and there remains the reality co-ordinated with it.
5.641 Thus there really is a sense in which philosophy can talk about the self in a non-psychological way. What brings the self into philosophy is the fact that 'the world is my world'. The philosophical self is not the human being, not the human body, or the human soul, with which psychology deals, but rather the metaphysical subject, the limit of the world-not a part of it.

I don't know what he means by "equates with pure realism" except perhaps that the solipsist believes that only he exists, and so that only he is mind-independent. But, then, of course, Wittgenstein means by "realism" what philosophers have always meant by it.

I don't know about "raal," but the Dictionary of Philosophical Terms and Names gives:

realism, perceptual

Belief that material objects exist independently of our perception of them. (Thus, opposed to idealism.) Realistic theories of perception include both representationalism, in which awareness of objects is mediated by our ideas of them, and direct realism, which presumes an immediate relation between observer and observed.

Recommended Reading:


Critical Realism: Essential Readings, ed. by Margaret Archer, Roy Bhaskar, Andrew Collier, and Tony Lawson (Routledge, 1999)

David Kelley, The Evidence of the Senses: A Realist Theory of Perception (Louisiana State, 1988)

Hilary Putnam, Realism With a Human Face (Harvard, 1992)

Joseph Margolis, Selves and Other Texts: The Case for Cultural Realism (Penn State, 2001)

Stathis Psillos, Scientific Realism: How Science Tracks Truth (Routledge, 1999)

Gustav Bergmann, Realism: A Critique of Brentano & Meinong (Wisconsin, 1967)

Simon Blackburn, Essays in Quasi-Realism (Oxford, 1995)

But I suppose you never heard of any of them.

See also the long article on Realism in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

I really must be more careful.

Yes, you must. You were wrong about "Realism" also, really, but you chose to ignore that.

How about responding to:

"My Life" = "Radical Reality"

"My Life = "My I" + "My Circumstance"

"My Circumstance" = "Physical Phenomena" + "Mental Phenomena" = "Social Phenomena"

"Penetrable" enough for you???