The Concept of Independent Reality in Discussions of Philosophy

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

I'll get back to you with a fuller answer, but in the interim I will say that my reply will be based on Wittgenstein's "meaning is use".

You could have just said "yes" or "no". As in "yes, all human constructions are facts", or "no, some human constructions aren't facts". I don't intend to argue with your answer, I'm just trying to understand your usage of the relevant words.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

Yes, Fresco. Accept scolding from me: It is inappropriate of you to insult Joe given that of late his behavior has been been contempt.

2 Replies

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

So what? Just because you call a position a bad name,"naive", that doesn't mean it's invalid. Indeed, it doesn't even mean you have an argument.

I suspect that fresco uses "naive" the way Republicans use "socialist."

1 Reply

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

Of course ! As ye sow, so shall ye reap !
So stop changing the subject and play your game. Your comment on your logical fallacy is.....?

I didn't make a logical fallacy. If you think I did, you should point that out. But be aware, all logical fallacies ultimately are fallacious because they're contradictions, and since you don't accept the law of non-contradiction, I'll just ask: even if I did make a logical fallacy, so what? You don't even think there are such things as logical fallacies, so what's the big deal?

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

JLNobody wrote:

Yes, Fresco. Accept scolding from me: It is inappropriate of you to insult Joe given that of late his behavior has been been contempt.

Thanks, JLN, I knew I could count on you to be be contempt.

0 Replies

@joefromchicago,

No, naive is a technical term.
By the way Joe, I deserved your jibe. I meant to say, of course, that you have behaved of late BENEATH contempt--so it was illogical for Fresco to insult you.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Okay, my reply is "yes" with the proviso that my usage of "tautology" was the best I could do within the limits of language. I originally thought of using "self-evident" but that has other connotations.

TO OTHERS
JLN is correct that "naive" is a technical term in philosophy contexts. You will find it, for example, in analyses of Russell's Paradox. We are all "naive" in everyday situations. The word takes on a "negative value" however when participants in a philosophical discussions elevate everyday assumptions to the status of philosophical axioms.

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

I am duly chastised ! Crying or Very sad

0 Replies

@joefromchicago,

You quoted Scruton...."(paraphrased)...if Heidegger is nonsense then it's laughable simple". You then said you found it "laughable simple" implying that it was therefore nonsense, which as you well know is the fallacy of affirming the consequent.

You operate on what I call "courtroom tactics" for want of a better word. If it suits you to pull others up on their logic you do. If it suits you to use my cynicism of logic against me you will. But this is philosophy not Perry Mason. And you don't do philosophy.

1 Reply

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

Okay, my reply is "yes" with the proviso that my usage of "tautology" was the best I could do within the limits of language. I originally thought of using "self-evident" but that has other connotations.

So if I tell you I can fly, or walk on water, that's a fact, merely by virtue of my ability to construct the sentence?

1 Reply

@Thomas,

No. "Languaging" is not "interactive construction" although it may be an aspect of such construction.

1 Reply

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

No. "Languaging" is not "interactive construction" although it may be an aspect of such construction.

So when Jesus says he can walk on water, and his True Believers convince themselves to believe it, does that make it a fact?

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Social interaction is part of the process of "reality generation". "God" qualifies as a "fact" for believers. That is the "self"concept for a believer is co-existent with "a God" concept. It is conceivable, as in hypnosis, that believers might "see" Jesus walking on water. ( It is certainly the case that experiments in social psychology give strong evidence for the influence of group allegiance on the reporting of events).

2 Replies

@fresco,

So 'reality' is set by a 'program' of 'facts'. This also implies that a 'program' is independent of what is 'actual' and can be 're-programed'. So when people say someone is off in their own little world, that's not far from the truth. (The computer analogy describing the psychology of human experience could be better described I think... perhaps without resorting to a computer anology.)

1 Reply

@fresco,

All quite possible. But, does that make it a fact or doesn't it?

1 Reply

@Thomas,

It does. All "facts" are hypothetically negotiable. Common physiology and culture tend to give a corpus of agreement.

1 Reply

@Procrustes,

That's correct. "Reality" is about paradigmatic consistence. It only becomes an issue in cases of inconsistence.

2 Replies

@fresco,

Good dialog. I hope the "realists" learned something.

0 Replies

@fresco,

Good dialog. I hope the "realists" learned something.

0 Replies

@JLNobody,

JLNobody wrote:

No, naive is a technical term.

No, not really. The day that I hear a "naive realist" calling himself "naive" is the day that I accept that as a technical term.

JLNobody wrote:

By the way Joe, I deserved your jibe. I meant to say, of course, that you have behaved of late BENEATH contempt

That's funny, I meant to write that "I could count on you to act like a complete hypocrite." I can't understand how I could have made such an error.

0 Replies

The Concept of Independent Reality in Discussions of Philosophy

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know