The Concept of Independent Reality in Discussions of Philosophy

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

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.

I implied a syllogism? Not so. You inferred one, to be sure, but then you are so wrong so frequently, I've come to expect that sort of thing from you.

fresco wrote:

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.

No, it's not. Perry Mason was a much more coherent thinker than you'll ever be.

fresco wrote:

And you don't do philosophy.

I don't do philosophy the way that you do philosophy, I'll grant you that. And for that fact I am eternally grateful.

1 Reply

fresco wrote:

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.

Kant himself recommends such an approach:
"Reason must approach nature with the view, indeed, of receiving information from it, not, however, in the character of a pupil, who listens to all that his master chooses to tell him, but in that of a judge, who compels the witnesses to reply to those questions which he himself thinks fit to propose."

2 Replies

@fresco,

Thomas wrote:

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

fresco wrote:

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).

Thomas wrote:

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

fresco wrote:

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

So by your usage of words, is it ever possible for people to agree that something is a fact---and be wrong?

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

Quote:

I implied a syllogism? Not so. You inferred one,

Pathetic ! Why quote Scruton at all then?The fallacy of "appeal to authority" ? You're slipping !

1 Reply

@wandeljw,

If Joe were intereested in philosophy I would agree with you. But he is mearly saddled with a disposition for contextual manipulation..
I am reminded of a courtcase I witnessed in which the lawyer for the accused first argued that the monetary amounts involved were too large for his client to understand and cope with, and then later in the trial.the same lawyer argued that the amounts were too small to warrant the charge as stated.

0 Replies

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

Pathetic ! Why quote Scruton at all then?The fallacy of "appeal to authority" ? You're slipping !

Usually that would be supported by a reference to Einstein, Heidegger, or Wittgenstein. You're slipping!

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Quote:

So by your usage of words, is it ever possible for people to agree that something is a fact---and be wrong?

Agreement is passive not active. Paradigms are accepted until they functionally fail, then they are revised or delimited . The word "wrong" is context specific, not an absolute.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

That last rejoinder has really surprised me.

It seems that you have not understood the irony of my comment about "appeal to authority" on your part, when you use it against others.

There may be considerations about my responsibilities as a respondent which I need to engage with.

0 Replies

@wandeljw,

I think Kant would say that in the courtroom the goal is to win, in the philosophical quest the goal is to be right--or at least closer to "the truth."

0 Replies

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

Quote:
So by your usage of words, is it ever possible for people to agree that something is a fact---and be wrong?

Agreement is passive not active. Paradigms are accepted until they functionally fail, then they are revised or delimited . The word "wrong" is context specific, not an absolute.

Is it your view, then, that when the ancients agreed on Ptolemy's geocentric model of the Universe, they weren't wrong? They just operated in a different context than we moderns do?

3 Replies

@Thomas,

Quote:

They just operated in a different context than we moderns do?

Get this worked out carefully, Thomas, because as you know, some of us "moderns" ain't all that modern--if you get my drift.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Welcome to the thread, Frank! I am so excited!

1 Reply

@wandeljw,

Let me paraphrase your statement; it may help:
"My view is that without...reality, we would have nothing to refer to, nothing to talk about, and no way to increase our knowledge".

0 Replies

@Thomas,

But isn't it likely that our perspectives change after the 'fact' of new introduced 'facts'?

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Quote:

Is it your view, then, that when the ancients agreed on Ptolemy's geocentric model of the Universe, they weren't wrong? They just operated in a different context than we moderns do?

Correct. We still operate on the geocentric model in everyday contexts.
The heliocentric model makes elegant mathematical sense for astronomical purposes. There is no "correct" view. There is simply functional and predictive expedience.
(Consider in physics, the expedient concept of "holes" travelling + to - rather than "electrons" travelling - to +, or the idea of a "positron" as "an electron travelling backwards in time")

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Hey Frank! Good to see you!

0 Replies

@Procrustes,

Procrustes wrote:

But isn't it likely that our perspectives change after the 'fact' of new introduced 'facts'?

From my point of view, it certainly is---because people correct their mistakes and adopt worldviews that are closer to reality. But as I understand Fresco's view, he or she thinks there is no reality to get closer to, and no mistakes to correct. All there is is shared opinions.

1 Reply

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

Correct. We still operate on the geocentric model in everyday contexts.
The heliocentric model makes elegant mathematical sense for astronomical purposes. There is no "correct" view. There is simply functional and predictive expedience.

Well, you're welcome to believe that if you find it functionally expedient. As for myself, I'm happy with my realism, naive or not, and see no reason to abandon it. Thanks, though, for explaining your viewpoint so patiently.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

In my opinion, I do think there is a reality. However I imagine it being like a mule forever chasing that carrot on a string attached to a stick. Maybe that's a bad analogy... If that doesn't make any sense I'll use the analogy of Icarus and his attempts to fly. Sooner or later, point of views come crashing back to earth, sometimes...

1 Reply

@Thomas,

It boils down to a question of ultimate closure or open ended modelling.
Statistically, there is a psychological leaning towards closure which figures strongly in religious belief, which is one factor for my rejection of closure.

2 Replies

The Concept of Independent Reality in Discussions of Philosophy

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know