Introductory book sympathic to anti realism?

  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Philosophy 101
  3. » Introductory book sympathic to anti realism?

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Reply Sun 16 May, 2010 08:24 am
This is perhaps not a "beginners" question, so my apologies if it is misplaced.

Can anyone here recommend a good introductory textbook on metaphysics that is sympathetic to anti-realism? Carter's and Loux's textbooks appear to be worthwhile, but my understanding (perhaps incorrect) is that they are convinced realists, and I'd like to read about the subject from a different perspective.

Thanks in advance.
 
Emil
 
Reply Sun 16 May, 2010 08:33 am
@Aldebaran,
Aldebaran;164934 wrote:
This is perhaps not a "beginners" question, so my apologies if it is misplaced.

Can anyone here recommend a good introductory textbook on metaphysics that is sympathetic to anti-realism? Carter's and Loux's textbooks appear to be worthwhile, but my understanding (perhaps incorrect) is that they are convinced realists, and I'd like to read about the subject from a different perspective.

Thanks in advance.


What do you mean sympathetic? Did you mean to say that they author has to be a convinced anti-realist? One can be sympathetic to a position without actually holding the position oneself, you know.
 
TuringEquivalent
 
Reply Sun 16 May, 2010 08:38 am
@Emil,
anything from Van fraassen.
 
Aldebaran
 
Reply Sun 16 May, 2010 08:40 am
@Aldebaran,
Emil:

Not necessarily something by a convinced anti-realist, but ideally by someone leaning more to that side than the realist side. Of course, I don't want something that is biased to one side or other, but, just as Loux, for instance, is supposed to give both sides a fair hearing, despite his preference for realism, I'd just like to see whether there is an introductory textbook that does the same thing, but that is written by one who leans toward the anti-realist side of the debate. Perhaps it does not exist, but that's what I am here to see!

Turing Equivalent:

Thanks; I am not familiar with van Fraassen's work, but I'll have a look.
 
TuringEquivalent
 
Reply Sun 16 May, 2010 08:42 am
@Aldebaran,
Aldebaran;164946 wrote:
Emil:

Not necessarily something by a convinced anti-realist, but ideally by someone leaning more to that side than the realist side. Of course, I don't want something that is biased to one side or other, but, just as Loux, for instance, is supposed to give both sides a fair hearing, despite his preference for realism, I'd just like to see whether there is an introductory textbook that does the same thing, but that is written by one who leans toward the anti-realist side of the debate. Perhaps it does not exist, but that's what I am here to see!

Turing Equivalent:

Thanks; I am not familiar with van Fraassen's work, but I'll have a look.


this guy Michael Dummett - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Van Fraassen, and Dummett deals with issues that are rather advanced. If you read them, you have to read their journal articles. Tough for someone in your shoe. I think you need to learn something less demanded. Probably, a general introduction to metaphysics.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sun 16 May, 2010 08:49 am
@TuringEquivalent,
TuringEquivalent;164947 wrote:
this guy Michael Dummett - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Van Fraassen, and Dummett deals with issues that are rather advanced. If you read them, you have to read their journal articles. Tough for someone in your shoe. I think you need to learn something less demanded. Probably, a general introduction to metaphysics.


Only, Dummett's anti-realism turns out to be a kind of warmed-over verificationism. An epistemology, rather than a metaphysics. But maybe that is the only kind that makes any sense.
 
TuringEquivalent
 
Reply Sun 16 May, 2010 09:02 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;164950 wrote:
Only, Dummett's anti-realism turns out to be a kind of warmed-over verificationism. An epistemology, rather than a metaphysics. But maybe that is the only kind that makes any sense.


I can understand why you would be interested in anti realism.. It is not my cup of tea. I love metaphysics.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sun 16 May, 2010 09:05 am
@TuringEquivalent,
TuringEquivalent;164952 wrote:
I can understand why you would be interested in anti realism.. It is not my cup of tea. I love metaphysics.


But anti-realism is part of metaphysics. Isn't it? Why would I (especially) be interested in ant-realism? If anything, I am a realist.
 
TuringEquivalent
 
Reply Sun 16 May, 2010 09:41 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;164954 wrote:
But anti-realism is part of metaphysics. Isn't it? Why would I (especially) be interested in ant-realism? If anything, I am a realist.




The usual anti realists reject metaphysical speculation. realist in metaphysics is someone who is not an anti realist. My interaction with you gives me the feeling that you are conservative regarding ontological commitments.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sun 16 May, 2010 10:00 am
@TuringEquivalent,
TuringEquivalent;164965 wrote:
The usual anti realists reject metaphysical speculation.


Why would you suppose that? Berkeley was an anti-realist, but he hardly rejected metaphysical speculation. He metaphysically speculated all over the map. Leibniz was an idealist, and therefore he was an anti-realist. But Leibniz was a metaphysician in the grand style. Hegel is another example.
 
TuringEquivalent
 
Reply Sun 16 May, 2010 04:47 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;164968 wrote:
Why would you suppose that? Berkeley was an anti-realist, but he hardly rejected metaphysical speculation. He metaphysically speculated all over the map. Leibniz was an idealist, and therefore he was an anti-realist. But Leibniz was a metaphysician in the grand style. Hegel is another example.



Can you explain to me why Berkeley is a realist in metaphysics? Did he no posit that minds ought to be fundamental?
 
Emil
 
Reply Sun 16 May, 2010 05:09 pm
@TuringEquivalent,
TuringEquivalent;165041 wrote:
Can you explain to me why Berkeley is a realist in metaphysics? Did he no posit that minds ought to be fundamental?


He is not a realist. Read again.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sun 16 May, 2010 05:40 pm
@TuringEquivalent,
TuringEquivalent;165041 wrote:
Can you explain to me why Berkeley is a realist in metaphysics? Did he no posit that minds ought to be fundamental?


He is an anti-realist.
 
TuringEquivalent
 
Reply Sun 16 May, 2010 07:28 pm
@Emil,
Emil;165050 wrote:
He is not a realist. Read again.


What a nice, viking way to argue, Emil. If people disagree with you, do you throw a rock at them?

---------- Post added 05-16-2010 at 08:33 PM ----------

kennethamy;165060 wrote:
He is an anti-realist.



I think there is good evidence that he is a realist. Here is why. He is a idealist, but yet, he still want to maintain that when we closer our eyes, there is still something there to sustain it. The table would still be there, because it is in the mind of god. This "god like substance" looks a lot like an ontological commitment.

From Berkeley, George [The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]


Quote:
Berkeley was an immaterialist. He held that there are no material substances. There are only finite mental substances and an infinite mental substance, namely, God



The last time i check, this substance called "mind" is an metaphysical category.
 
Aldebaran
 
Reply Sat 17 Jul, 2010 04:08 pm
Many thanks for the mostly useless replies, hijacking, etc.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sat 17 Jul, 2010 04:15 pm
@Aldebaran,
Aldebaran wrote:

This is perhaps not a "beginners" question, so my apologies if it is misplaced.

Can anyone here recommend a good introductory textbook on metaphysics that is sympathetic to anti-realism? Carter's and Loux's textbooks appear to be worthwhile, but my understanding (perhaps incorrect) is that they are convinced realists, and I'd like to read about the subject from a different perspective.

Thanks in advance.


Michael Dummett is called, and calls himself, an anti-realist. (Since I don't know what you mean by "anti-realist" I don't know whether you would consider him an anti-realist).

However:

http://www.iep.utm.edu/dummett/
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sat 17 Jul, 2010 04:22 pm
@TuringEquivalent,
TuringEquivalent wrote:



I think there is good evidence that he is a realist. Here is why. He is a idealist, but yet, he still want to maintain that when we closer our eyes, there is still something there to sustain it. The table would still be there, because it is in the mind of god. This "god like substance" looks a lot like an ontological commitment.




The term "realist" means different things to different people. But, traditionally, a realist essentially holds that the existence of objects is independent of mind. Supposing that, from the premise that even if an object is independent of a human mind, it is still not independent of a divine mind, it does not follow that because God sustains objects even when there are no people, it clearly does not follow that Berkeley is not an Idealist but a Realist as you argue, since according to you (and Berkeley) objects do need a mind to exist.
 
ughaibu
 
Reply Sun 18 Jul, 2010 09:07 pm
Is this the kind of thing you want: http://www.amazon.com/Metametaphysics-New-Essays-Foundations-Ontology/dp/0199546002
 
 

 
  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Philosophy 101
  3. » Introductory book sympathic to anti realism?
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/22/2019 at 03:30:14