34
   

Are Philosophers lost in the clouds?

 
 
ACB
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Jul, 2010 07:23 am
Can everyone please be careful to attribute the quotes to the correct person. It is very confusing otherwise.
0 Replies
 
Ding an Sich
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Jul, 2010 09:35 am
@guigus,
guigus wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

guigus wrote:

kennethamy wrote:
"before [us] it was possible for the Moon to have been observed or known about." That's it: without us the world is just a possibility.


You know what I meant. I meant the we know that there was a world of planets, and stars, an moons, which antedated the existence of people by many billions of years. So don't twist my words. I was reply to your view that it was impossible for any object to exist unobserved, and I replies it was possible. That did not mean it was only a possibility. Or as you put it "just a possibility". It is a possibility that Obama is president. But it is not "just a possibility". It is an actuality. To put the best light on it, you are confusing "X is possible" with "X is only possible", another confusion. There is a big list of them now. Everything that is actual is also possible. And so, that the Moon existed for 4 billion years before it was observed is possible because it is actual. Science supports what I say. What supports what you say?

By the way, since all you seem to mean by "true existence" is just, "existence" why not drop the "true" since it just is confusing?


I did not "twist" your words. You said that "before [us] it was possible for the Moon to have been observed or known about" just because you could not have said that before us it was actually observed and known about - which alone would make it an actuality - without seeming delusional. And you are wrong: science does not support that. Scientists are well aware that any theory is always subject to going to the garbage of history, so it is never the actuality of whatever it asserts.


But that does not mean that it will become "subject to the going to the garbage of history". Just because it is a theory does not mean that it is false. Nor should we assume that it will be false at some point. It very well might be but we cannot assert that now. Science does support it and it is true. Granted at some point in the future it may be refuted or the theory may be thrown in the garbage as you so elegantly pointed out, but that does not mean that that is the case now. The theory holds, it is true, and may or may not be false in the future. You cannot say though that it will be false because it is "just a theory" (or whatever people say condescendingly of theories).

Toodles.
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Jul, 2010 10:22 am
@guigus,
guigus wrote:

Fido wrote:
Believe it or not, I am not missing anything... I have looked at it from all angles, and in the end all we get of reality is a sense of the meaning, and meaning is what we share in our relationships.... Truth is just one of those forms we share meaning through.... It is impossible to grasp reality whole, impossible to say what part of existence we can conceive of in reality... What we can reasonable presume is that the end of humanity will mean the end of reality and existence because all we have of reality is a certain meaning, so that life and meaning are the same.... If reality and existence and truth were to exist beyond us then they would exist; but it would not matter... For it to mean it must matter, and for us to think of it, it must mean...


That's all fine, and I generally agree with you, provided you yourself do not fall into the idealistic trap, by reducing truth to our own side of it, which you seem dangerously near to doing: there is a difference between saying that truth does not exist without our side of it and saying it is only about our side of it. Although truth has its focus always placed on our side of it, and although whatever is out there does not actually exist outside of it (except as the nothingness of a non-actual possibility), it still depends on something out there, just as much as the actuality of that something depends on it, hence its duality.


Everything, all meaning has its focus on our side of It... Consider every question of justice, truth, or logic... Is it not always presented from a certain perspective??? Without that Certain perspective, of the individual, all one gets is paralax... Like Anni Defranco said: Every time I move the landscape shifts.... Ultimately, life, and our individual experience of it provides that certain perspective and grounds all questions, even moral questions in what is the good of the individual, and that sense of good is not always for the best, because the logical conclusion that the certain fact of our own lives is mulitplied in humanity is lost on most people... That is the one point were logic could support morality and does not; again, because reason and logic only work from a certain perspective, and all advances of thought and behavior take a leap of insight beyond what is strictly logical... And even when that can happen, it is still from OUR side of it because there is no other side of it... No people equals no reality..., and regardless of what Kenn says: We cannot think of a reality without our being, but we can imagine it.... Without us, the life- supporting the logic is gone, so we cannot be rational because reason needs that certain grounding of life to be made possible... Would you not agree that possibility plays a part in all rational considerations???
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Jul, 2010 12:42 pm
@Fido,
Fido wrote:

guigus wrote:

Fido wrote:
Believe it or not, I am not missing anything... I have looked at it from all angles, and in the end all we get of reality is a sense of the meaning, and meaning is what we share in our relationships.... Truth is just one of those forms we share meaning through.... It is impossible to grasp reality whole, impossible to say what part of existence we can conceive of in reality... What we can reasonable presume is that the end of humanity will mean the end of reality and existence because all we have of reality is a certain meaning, so that life and meaning are the same.... If reality and existence and truth were to exist beyond us then they would exist; but it would not matter... For it to mean it must matter, and for us to think of it, it must mean...


That's all fine, and I generally agree with you, provided you yourself do not fall into the idealistic trap, by reducing truth to our own side of it, which you seem dangerously near to doing: there is a difference between saying that truth does not exist without our side of it and saying it is only about our side of it. Although truth has its focus always placed on our side of it, and although whatever is out there does not actually exist outside of it (except as the nothingness of a non-actual possibility), it still depends on something out there, just as much as the actuality of that something depends on it, hence its duality.


Everything, all meaning has its focus on our side of It... Consider every question of justice, truth, or logic... Is it not always presented from a certain perspective??? Without that Certain perspective, of the individual, all one gets is paralax... Like Anni Defranco said: Every time I move the landscape shifts.... Ultimately, life, and our individual experience of it provides that certain perspective and grounds all questions, even moral questions in what is the good of the individual, and that sense of good is not always for the best, because the logical conclusion that the certain fact of our own lives is mulitplied in humanity is lost on most people... That is the one point were logic could support morality and does not; again, because reason and logic only work from a certain perspective, and all advances of thought and behavior take a leap of insight beyond what is strictly logical... And even when that can happen, it is still from OUR side of it because there is no other side of it... No people equals no reality..., and regardless of what Kenn says: We cannot think of a reality without our being, but we can imagine it.... Without us, the life- supporting the logic is gone, so we cannot be rational because reason needs that certain grounding of life to be made possible... Would you not agree that possibility plays a part in all rational considerations???


Does that mean that the Moon is four billion years older than the first human being or not? And, if it is, then how could its existence depend on being thought about? How about answering that question? I have asked it often enough. Have you a sensible answer or don't you?
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Jul, 2010 05:17 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy wrote:

Fido wrote:

guigus wrote:

Fido wrote:
Believe it or not, I am not missing anything... I have looked at it from all angles, and in the end all we get of reality is a sense of the meaning, and meaning is what we share in our relationships.... Truth is just one of those forms we share meaning through.... It is impossible to grasp reality whole, impossible to say what part of existence we can conceive of in reality... What we can reasonable presume is that the end of humanity will mean the end of reality and existence because all we have of reality is a certain meaning, so that life and meaning are the same.... If reality and existence and truth were to exist beyond us then they would exist; but it would not matter... For it to mean it must matter, and for us to think of it, it must mean...


That's all fine, and I generally agree with you, provided you yourself do not fall into the idealistic trap, by reducing truth to our own side of it, which you seem dangerously near to doing: there is a difference between saying that truth does not exist without our side of it and saying it is only about our side of it. Although truth has its focus always placed on our side of it, and although whatever is out there does not actually exist outside of it (except as the nothingness of a non-actual possibility), it still depends on something out there, just as much as the actuality of that something depends on it, hence its duality.


Everything, all meaning has its focus on our side of It... Consider every question of justice, truth, or logic... Is it not always presented from a certain perspective??? Without that Certain perspective, of the individual, all one gets is paralax... Like Anni Defranco said: Every time I move the landscape shifts.... Ultimately, life, and our individual experience of it provides that certain perspective and grounds all questions, even moral questions in what is the good of the individual, and that sense of good is not always for the best, because the logical conclusion that the certain fact of our own lives is mulitplied in humanity is lost on most people... That is the one point were logic could support morality and does not; again, because reason and logic only work from a certain perspective, and all advances of thought and behavior take a leap of insight beyond what is strictly logical... And even when that can happen, it is still from OUR side of it because there is no other side of it... No people equals no reality..., and regardless of what Kenn says: We cannot think of a reality without our being, but we can imagine it.... Without us, the life- supporting the logic is gone, so we cannot be rational because reason needs that certain grounding of life to be made possible... Would you not agree that possibility plays a part in all rational considerations???


Does that mean that the Moon is four billion years older than the first human being or not? And, if it is, then how could its existence depend on being thought about? How about answering that question? I have asked it often enough. Have you a sensible answer or don't you?

Sure; if there is such a thing as an insensible answer to the insensible.... What exists exists because if matters, and has meaning... Is the moon older??? What is time but a certain meaning, and if because there were no people to gaze upon it, it then has no meaning, what does it matter??? If some one gets their jollies calculating how long the moon has been falling down drunk, why should i care... The moon has only been there as long as me, because it did not give me meaning, but I gave it meaning only so long as I was alive to. Time before and after our own time is unreal... And there is the reason our government and social forms fail us, and it is a problem Philosophy and religion cannot bear to face... We are each and everyone of us doomed, but our inability to face that fact in a comprehensive manor forbids our looking into the future at all, so we are blinded where we should see, and instead must rely upon faith and hope to guide us in our affairs... The gulf disaster should be the rule and not the exception... Clearly faith in good fortune and God, and blind hope that all will turn out well has something to recommend it since it so clearly works...
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Jul, 2010 06:33 pm
@Fido,
Fido wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

Fido wrote:

guigus wrote:

Fido wrote:
Believe it or not, I am not missing anything... I have looked at it from all angles, and in the end all we get of reality is a sense of the meaning, and meaning is what we share in our relationships.... Truth is just one of those forms we share meaning through.... It is impossible to grasp reality whole, impossible to say what part of existence we can conceive of in reality... What we can reasonable presume is that the end of humanity will mean the end of reality and existence because all we have of reality is a certain meaning, so that life and meaning are the same.... If reality and existence and truth were to exist beyond us then they would exist; but it would not matter... For it to mean it must matter, and for us to think of it, it must mean...


That's all fine, and I generally agree with you, provided you yourself do not fall into the idealistic trap, by reducing truth to our own side of it, which you seem dangerously near to doing: there is a difference between saying that truth does not exist without our side of it and saying it is only about our side of it. Although truth has its focus always placed on our side of it, and although whatever is out there does not actually exist outside of it (except as the nothingness of a non-actual possibility), it still depends on something out there, just as much as the actuality of that something depends on it, hence its duality.


Everything, all meaning has its focus on our side of It... Consider every question of justice, truth, or logic... Is it not always presented from a certain perspective??? Without that Certain perspective, of the individual, all one gets is paralax... Like Anni Defranco said: Every time I move the landscape shifts.... Ultimately, life, and our individual experience of it provides that certain perspective and grounds all questions, even moral questions in what is the good of the individual, and that sense of good is not always for the best, because the logical conclusion that the certain fact of our own lives is mulitplied in humanity is lost on most people... That is the one point were logic could support morality and does not; again, because reason and logic only work from a certain perspective, and all advances of thought and behavior take a leap of insight beyond what is strictly logical... And even when that can happen, it is still from OUR side of it because there is no other side of it... No people equals no reality..., and regardless of what Kenn says: We cannot think of a reality without our being, but we can imagine it.... Without us, the life- supporting the logic is gone, so we cannot be rational because reason needs that certain grounding of life to be made possible... Would you not agree that possibility plays a part in all rational considerations???



Sure; if there is such a thing as an insensible answer to the insensible.... What exists exists because if matters, and has meaning... Is the moon older??? What is time but a certain meaning, and if because there were no people to gaze upon it, it then has no meaning, what does it matter???


Oh please! Is this this kind of gibberish that is an answer to the simple question, could the Moon which is much older than people been observed by people? The answer is to that question is, no, because no people, no observation by people. Next, does that imply that the Moon existed before (and independently of its being observed)? The answer is obviously, yes. We know that that Moon existed before people existed. The evidence is massive and overwhelming. Please, no more silly business about time having meaning, and the rest. It is just a diversion because you know very well that the Moon did exist independently of people, since everything we know tells us that. And that shoots your position (which was absurd to start with) to hell. End of story.
0 Replies
 
guigus
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Jul, 2010 12:23 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy wrote:

guigus wrote:

Fido wrote:
Believe it or not, I am not missing anything... I have looked at it from all angles, and in the end all we get of reality is a sense of the meaning, and meaning is what we share in our relationships.... Truth is just one of those forms we share meaning through.... It is impossible to grasp reality whole, impossible to say what part of existence we can conceive of in reality... What we can reasonable presume is that the end of humanity will mean the end of reality and existence because all we have of reality is a certain meaning, so that life and meaning are the same.... If reality and existence and truth were to exist beyond us then they would exist; but it would not matter... For it to mean it must matter, and for us to think of it, it must mean...


That's all fine, and I generally agree with you, provided you yourself do not fall into the idealistic trap, by reducing truth to our own side of it, which you seem dangerously near to doing: there is a difference between saying that truth does not exist without our side of it and saying it is only about our side of it. Although truth has its focus always placed on our side of it, and although whatever is out there does not actually exist outside of it (except as the nothingness of a non-actual possibility), it still depends on something out there, just as much as the actuality of that something depends on it, hence its duality.


What does "our side of it" mean? You might start by explaining what the "it" is. Our side of what? By the way, what is a "non-actual possibility". Now that is a new one, I'll give you that. Perhaps what you mean is "only a possibility", as in, "it is only a possibility that McCain won the election, for he did not win it". Could that be what you mean?


It is our side of the truth, "it" means the truth. And a non-actual possibility means a possibility that is not yet actual. Your example fits, as a past non-actual possibility.
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Jul, 2010 12:53 pm
@guigus,
guigus wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

guigus wrote:

Fido wrote:
Believe it or not, I am not missing anything... I have looked at it from all angles, and in the end all we get of reality is a sense of the meaning, and meaning is what we share in our relationships.... Truth is just one of those forms we share meaning through.... It is impossible to grasp reality whole, impossible to say what part of existence we can conceive of in reality... What we can reasonable presume is that the end of humanity will mean the end of reality and existence because all we have of reality is a certain meaning, so that life and meaning are the same.... If reality and existence and truth were to exist beyond us then they would exist; but it would not matter... For it to mean it must matter, and for us to think of it, it must mean...


That's all fine, and I generally agree with you, provided you yourself do not fall into the idealistic trap, by reducing truth to our own side of it, which you seem dangerously near to doing: there is a difference between saying that truth does not exist without our side of it and saying it is only about our side of it. Although truth has its focus always placed on our side of it, and although whatever is out there does not actually exist outside of it (except as the nothingness of a non-actual possibility), it still depends on something out there, just as much as the actuality of that something depends on it, hence its duality.


What does "our side of it" mean? You might start by explaining what the "it" is. Our side of what? By the way, what is a "non-actual possibility". Now that is a new one, I'll give you that. Perhaps what you mean is "only a possibility", as in, "it is only a possibility that McCain won the election, for he did not win it". Could that be what you mean?


It is our side of the truth, "it" means the truth. And a non-actual possibility means a possibility that is not yet actual. Your example fits, as a past non-actual possibility.



Oh. I see. What you mean by "our side of the truth" is only what we believe is true. But not, of course, what need be true (although it may be that too). Well, I am glad that is cleared up.
guigus
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Jul, 2010 01:29 pm
@Ding an Sich,
Ding an Sich wrote:
But that does not mean that it will become "subject to the going to the garbage of history". Just because it is a theory does not mean that it is false. Nor should we assume that it will be false at some point. It very well might be but we cannot assert that now. Science does support it and it is true. Granted at some point in the future it may be refuted or the theory may be thrown in the garbage as you so elegantly pointed out, but that does not mean that that is the case now. The theory holds, it is true, and may or may not be false in the future. You cannot say though that it will be false because it is "just a theory" (or whatever people say condescendingly of theories).

Toodles.


You are facing the dual nature of truth: as an actual truth - when you forget it is your belief - it is certain, and as a possible truth - when you remember it is your belief - it is uncertain, no matter how high is its probability. Scientists have a classification of probability to decide about the empirical confirmation of a theory (which is a belief). For example, the Tevatron is now competing with the LHC to find the Higgs boson first. Rumors say they have found some weak evidence of it, but some are saying it is a three-sigma signature, which means a 99,7% probability. To be considered a discovery, it would have to be five-sigma, which means 99,9% probability. However, five-sigma is a very hard level to achieve in science: it is a rare event. And I do not have to say to you that there is no such thing as a 100% probability, have I?
0 Replies
 
guigus
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Jul, 2010 01:42 pm
@Fido,
Fido wrote:
[...] and all advances of thought and behavior take a leap of insight beyond what is strictly logical... And even when that can happen, it is still from OUR side of it because there is no other side of it...


First, what you call "strictly logical" has to do with symbolic logic, which is neither all nor the only logic. Second, you are falling in the idealistic trap. From "no people equals no reality" does not follow that reality does not exist. The same way there is no reality without us, we too do not exist without reality. This is a duality, and a duality means two inseparable things, each of which does not exist without the other. Without us, reality reduces to nothing, but if we are here, then reality is there.
guigus
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Jul, 2010 01:47 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy wrote:

guigus wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

guigus wrote:

Fido wrote:
Believe it or not, I am not missing anything... I have looked at it from all angles, and in the end all we get of reality is a sense of the meaning, and meaning is what we share in our relationships.... Truth is just one of those forms we share meaning through.... It is impossible to grasp reality whole, impossible to say what part of existence we can conceive of in reality... What we can reasonable presume is that the end of humanity will mean the end of reality and existence because all we have of reality is a certain meaning, so that life and meaning are the same.... If reality and existence and truth were to exist beyond us then they would exist; but it would not matter... For it to mean it must matter, and for us to think of it, it must mean...


That's all fine, and I generally agree with you, provided you yourself do not fall into the idealistic trap, by reducing truth to our own side of it, which you seem dangerously near to doing: there is a difference between saying that truth does not exist without our side of it and saying it is only about our side of it. Although truth has its focus always placed on our side of it, and although whatever is out there does not actually exist outside of it (except as the nothingness of a non-actual possibility), it still depends on something out there, just as much as the actuality of that something depends on it, hence its duality.


What does "our side of it" mean? You might start by explaining what the "it" is. Our side of what? By the way, what is a "non-actual possibility". Now that is a new one, I'll give you that. Perhaps what you mean is "only a possibility", as in, "it is only a possibility that McCain won the election, for he did not win it". Could that be what you mean?


It is our side of the truth, "it" means the truth. And a non-actual possibility means a possibility that is not yet actual. Your example fits, as a past non-actual possibility.



Oh. I see. What you mean by "our side of the truth" is only what we believe is true. But not, of course, what need be true (although it may be that too). Well, I am glad that is cleared up.


I am glad too.
0 Replies
 
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Jul, 2010 02:18 pm
@guigus,
guigus wrote:

Fido wrote:
[...] and all advances of thought and behavior take a leap of insight beyond what is strictly logical... And even when that can happen, it is still from OUR side of it because there is no other side of it...


First, what you call "strictly logical" has to do with symbolic logic, which is neither all nor the only logic. Second, you are falling in the idealistic trap. From "no people equals no reality" does not follow that reality does not exist. The same way there is no reality without us, we too do not exist without reality. This is a duality, and a duality means two inseparable things, each of which does not exist without the other. Without us, reality reduces to nothing, but if we are here, then reality is there.


Of course it does not follow from, If there are no people, then there is not reality. Why should it? You would need the the additional premise, that there are no people. Then, of course, the argument would be:

1.If there are no people, then there is no reality.
2. There are no people.

3. There is no reality.

Now the above argument is valid. Which is to say that 3. follows from 1 and 2 (by the inference rule, modus ponens). But, anyway. The argument is unsound, since premise 1 is false, and premise 2 is also false. So, although the argument is (as I said, valid) it is unsound. So, just what is the trap I fell into? I think you called it "the idealist trap". I don't know what that is, but then, you have not shown I have fallen into any trap at all. So, I don't guess it matters.

Now, if we are a part of reality, then, of course, if reality exists, then so do we. But, we were talking about whether the part of reality that does not include people can exist without people. At least that is what I thought we were talking about. If we were not, then I have no idea what our dispute is all about. And, it is clear that the part of reality which does not include people does exist, and can exist even if people did not exist. And, as I keep pointing out, we know that is true because we know that the Moon antedates the existence of people.

Now, that means that if we are talking about reality as including people, then clearly, unless people exist, than a part (but not all) of reality does not exist. However, if we are talking about reality as apart from people, then we know that reality can exist without people. So, to clarify matters, we can distinguish between two different senses of there term, "reality". "Reality-1", is reality as it includes people. "Reality-2" is reality as it does not include people. Now, what is true is that Reality 1 does not exist if there are no people, since it includes people. But Reality-2 does exist without people. And we know that because science provides overwhelming evidence for it.

So, I hope you are now clearer about the matter.
guigus
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Jul, 2010 02:55 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy wrote:
Of course it does not follow from, If there are no people, then there is not reality. Why should it? You would need the the additional premise, that there are no people. Then, of course, the argument would be:

1.If there are no people, then there is no reality.
2. There are no people.

3. There is no reality.

Now the above argument is valid. Which is to say that 3. follows from 1 and 2 (by the inference rule, modus ponens). But, anyway. The argument is unsound, since premise 1 is false, and premise 2 is also false. So, although the argument is (as I said, valid) it is unsound. So, just what is the trap I fell into? I think you called it "the idealist trap". I don't know what that is, but then, you have not shown I have fallen into any trap at all. So, I don't guess it matters.

Now, if we are a part of reality, then, of course, if reality exists, then so do we. But, we were talking about whether the part of reality that does not include people can exist without people. At least that is what I thought we were talking about. If we were not, then I have no idea what our dispute is all about. And, it is clear that the part of reality which does not include people does exist, and can exist even if people did not exist. And, as I keep pointing out, we know that is true because we know that the Moon antedates the existence of people.

Now, that means that if we are talking about reality as including people, then clearly, unless people exist, than a part (but not all) of reality does not exist. However, if we are talking about reality as apart from people, then we know that reality can exist without people. So, to clarify matters, we can distinguish between two different senses of there term, "reality". "Reality-1", is reality as it includes people. "Reality-2" is reality as it does not include people. Now, what is true is that Reality 1 does not exist if there are no people, since it includes people. But Reality-2 does exist without people. And we know that because science provides overwhelming evidence for it.

So, I hope you are now clearer about the matter.


Unfortunately, you actually have no idea what we are discussing about. First, your "two realities" are exactly the same: reality as an actuality. There is indeed a "reality-2," which you did not refer to, but I will: it is reality as a possibility, which is whatever you believe taken as a belief. The world without people is not yet such a reality unless you include yourself withing that people, which you haven't so far. You talk about a world without people as if you were not one of them, but rather some kind of privileged spectator. If you take yourself to be just like the others and kindly take your place among the people you make vanish, then you will realize the world without people becomes a non-actual possibility, which is a kind of nothingness. Of course you can forget about yourself and concentrate on the world as if you were not also there, which is exactly what Newton did. This way the world will be an actuality and you may eventually be certain that you know everything about it, just like Newton did. But this is actual truth, which is only half of the truth. The other half is possible truth, and it doesn't take much time for it to manifest itself, just like it happened with Newton's physics.
0 Replies
 
guigus
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Jul, 2010 03:06 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy wrote:
Of course it does not follow from, If there are no people, then there is not reality. Why should it?


This is not what I said. I said that from accepting that actual reality depends on our belief does not follow that reality does not exist, which is the idealistic view of the world. Idealists reduce reality to the idea. What I am saying is that you can accept that actual reality does not exist without your belief on it without becoming an idealist. Got it?
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Jul, 2010 04:10 pm
@guigus,
I am saying is that you can accept that actual reality does not exist without your belief on it without becoming an idealist. Got it?
[/quote]

Sorry, no, since what you just wrote is not an English sentence. Could you please translate it into English? And be sure to mention what "actual reality" means. I have never heard the phrase before. Are you a native English speaker? That may be a part of the problem. But if I think that trees don't exist unless they are thought about (or observed) then I am an Idealist. Since I don't know what "actual reality" means, I don't know whether trees are, or are not, a part of "actual reality".
de Silentio
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Jul, 2010 07:26 pm
@guigus,
guigus wrote:
Idealists reduce reality to the idea.


Do you consider Kant an Idealist? Certainly you would agree that Transcendental Idealism is a form of Idealism.

If so, Kant says that "Transcendental Idealism leads to Empirical Realism". In this way, Kant is both an idealist and a realist. In fact, he claims to be more of a realist than those who called themselves realists before him.

If not, then why isn't Transcendental Idealism a form of Idealism?
guigus
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Jul, 2010 09:38 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy wrote:

guigus wrote:

I am saying is that you can accept that actual reality does not exist without your belief on it without becoming an idealist. Got it?


Sorry, no, since what you just wrote is not an English sentence. Could you please translate it into English? And be sure to mention what "actual reality" means. I have never heard the phrase before. Are you a native English speaker? That may be a part of the problem. But if I think that trees don't exist unless they are thought about (or observed) then I am an Idealist. Since I don't know what "actual reality" means, I don't know whether trees are, or are not, a part of "actual reality".


So if I imagine a different reality, for example, a different outcome for Obama's election, that "possible reality," for you, wouldn't be in English? Neither would it be the opposite of the actual reality of Obama being elected? Are you a native English speaker? In time: your citation of my sentence stripped out its first word, "what." Please take care with other people's English sentences.
guigus
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Jul, 2010 09:46 pm
@de Silentio,
de Silentio wrote:

guigus wrote:
Idealists reduce reality to the idea.


Do you consider Kant an Idealist? Certainly you would agree that Transcendental Idealism is a form of Idealism.

If so, Kant says that "Transcendental Idealism leads to Empirical Realism". In this way, Kant is both an idealist and a realist. In fact, he claims to be more of a realist than those who called themselves realists before him.

If not, then why isn't Transcendental Idealism a form of Idealism?


I think Kant is in the verge of transcending (no pun intended) idealism, but he never did so. His "thing in itself" is not yet nothing. To transcend idealism you must realize that if all we have of objectivity is our representation of it, then it is nothing. By which our representation is also nothing, as a representation of nothing. But this would be unacceptable for Kant, as it is for most of us, since it leads, precisely, to nothing. It is only acceptable when we find a way by which nothing is also something else, which is impossible in the framework in which occidental though has moved so far.
0 Replies
 
guigus
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Jul, 2010 10:00 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy wrote:
Since I don't know what "actual reality" means, I don't know whether trees are, or are not, a part of "actual reality".


That may be a part of the problem.
0 Replies
 
guigus
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Jul, 2010 10:10 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy wrote:
And be sure to mention what "actual reality" means. I have never heard the phrase before.


This is probably because you have read nothing other than your schoolbook on first-order logic. Just Google for the expression "actual reality" for some reading suggestions. Man, this forum thing is funny!
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 07/25/2021 at 04:05:10