The Concept of Independent Reality in Discussions of Philosophy

@joefromchicago,

Of course I condescend to belligerent discourteous foul-mouthed posters. How else can I get down to their level ? Fortunately I know of only a couple on A2K.

So now you want to talk Kant? Why have you not mentioned his concept of perceptual a prioris which he introduced to account for our seeing "the world" as we do, since we have no direct access to noumena. That is the seminal issue which has driven constructivist, phenomenological, and embodiment theories as alternatives to noumena, thereby questioning the very notion of an "independent reality".

But no, you seem content to indulge in barbers shop kibbitzing, rather than actual philosophical discourse. JLN was correct when he referred to "a waste of intellect". Its not a question of who agrees with whom about "reality", its about understanding the development of ideas and how they have needed to adapt to encompass some of the paradoxical findings of science which question lay concepts.

1 Reply

@fresco,

Considering how humbled I am that such a highly inflated personage as yourself would descend to discuss anything with me, let's keep this simple: how do you, as someone who does not accept the existence of an independent reality, live your life differently from a "naive realist" who does?

2 Replies

@joefromchicago,

Quote:

Furthermore, it's largely a matter of indifference to me whether we live in a world of objective reality or Berkeleyan idealism or Kantian noumena so long as everyone acts as if there's an independent reality.

My stance has developed to similar, as far as the above goes. An independent reality is a perceived, reasoned-about, and experimented-upon world behaving independently of personal will. The latter being desire and command expressed purely in thought -- that is, not here extended to bodily action to manipulate environmental circumstances.

How its independent "behavior" is the case might indeed be variably explained. Thus the latter can either be left a blank placeholder or be pragmatically filled-in according to a useful need / context by the metaphysical pessimist or agnostic (or those parsimonious, refraining from constantly carrying around excess baggage).

Allowing that "influences or regulation or things or some source transcendent or quasi-transcendent to both empirical and rational efforts" could be so.... That ultimate *whatever* still need not even be referred to as another "world" or "reality". Especially if when construed as being devoid of space, time, and much else which perception and thought conform to. [see Footnote]

This preserves the encountered world of extrospection as being "THE WORLD" rather than an inferior, illusory, or transfigured representation of an archetypal version. "Encountered" here referring to the whole shebang, as it works itself out: Perceiving it, interpreting it, prodding or testing it, being obstructed by it, being struck by it, imagining things about it (past, future, and behind the scenes affairs that are not present in an immediate presentation, but associated to it in later moments via memory, anticipation, inference, and speculative wandering).

[Footnote] Kant's so-called "noumenal world", for instance, is more "things without a world", a non-place. His phenomenal world ["THE world", IMO] is where such isolated distinctions connect together (via the faculties) for the organization of "nature" to arise, along with the relational interdependency of things in a world.

0 Replies

@joefromchicago,

My "life" has partially involved me in perceptual research, publication and teaching a wide variety of subjects including physics and psychology. All of these require a deep consideration of what we mean by "reality " and that is clearly a non naive one. The fact that I like everybody else take a pragmatic/naive stance on "reality" for most everyday activities is trivial. It has no more significance than living as though the sun were travelling from East to West, instead of the earth moving the other way. As Heidegger implied, "reality" is not an issue until things go wrong. But appreciation of the significance of this Heideggerian point opens many (non-naive) avenues , the celebrated concept of "non-duality" being one of them, and the transience of "self" being another. And hence the issue of the evaluation of "life" by such a "transient self" can also emerge.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

Joe, I find your question interesting, i.e., how does one live without a naive realist perspective? That's a very interesting practical question. I think the ansswer is that noone lives without it most of the time. Everyone is a naive realist when behaving in society for it is the hegemonic cultural perspective. But philosophically it is the most naive of all, hence its name. Your problem, as I see it, is that you've elevated it--as did the now out-moded logical positivists--to the level of a philosophical paradigm.
I live most of the time within (the illusion of) an "independent" reality. It's what I refer to as living as an ego, a center of consciousness surrounded by and impinged upon/constrained by all that is "not me." But sometimes, I enjoy a perspective in which reality is seen to be not only inter- or co-dependent with me but actually me, my true Self as opposed to my ego-self. I try to encorporate that into my verbal ontological formulations but, given the dualistic nature of language, and my personal limitations that is very difficult, especially when I run into people like you who devote themselves to a dualistic and naive realistic worldview. I don't mind except when they become beligerent as if I were trying to undermind their reality.
Of course this is all nonsense to you. I can share your naive realism and dualism, because of our shared cultural conditioning, but, regretfully, I do not expect you to share mine.

1 Reply

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

My "life" has partially involved me in perceptual research, publication and teaching a wide variety of subjects including physics and psychology. All of these require a deep consideration of what we mean by "reality " and that is clearly a non naive one. The fact that I like everybody else take a pragmatic/naive stance on "reality" for most everyday activities is trivial. It has no more significance than living as though the sun were travelling from East to West, instead of the earth moving the other way. As Heidegger implied, "reality" is not an issue until things go wrong. But appreciation of the significance of this Heideggerian point opens many (non-naive) avenues , the celebrated concept of "non-duality" being one of them, and the transience of "self" being another. And hence the issue of the evaluation of "life" by such a "transient self" can also emerge.

Or, in other words, you're a non-dualist in theory but a naive realist in practice. Which, in truth, makes you a naive realist in toto.

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

JLNobody wrote:

Joe, I find your question interesting, i.e., how does one live without a naive realist perspective? That's a very interesting practical question. I think the ansswer is that noone lives without it most of the time. Everyone is a naive realist when behaving in society for it is the hegemonic cultural perspective.

Well, not to disrespect your sincerely held beliefs or anything, but that's baloney. You live your everyday life as a naive realist because it's the only way you can function in the world. You're not being constrained by any kind of "hegemonic cultural perspective."

JLNobody wrote:

But philosophically it is the most naive of all, hence its name. Your problem, as I see it, is that you've elevated it--as did the now out-moded logical positivists--to the level of a philosophical paradigm.

I'm not sure I'd call it a philosophical paradigm. More like a pragmatic concession to the limitations of our sense perceptions.

JLNobody wrote:

I live most of the time within (the illusion of) an "independent" reality. It's what I refer to as living as an ego, a center of consciousness surrounded by and impinged upon/constrained by all that is "not me." But sometimes, I enjoy a perspective in which reality is seen to be not only inter- or co-dependent with me but actually me, my true Self as opposed to my ego-self. I try to encorporate that into my verbal ontological formulations but, given the dualistic nature of language, and my personal limitations that is very difficult, especially when I run into people like you who devote themselves to a dualistic and naive realistic worldview. I don't mind except when they become beligerent as if I were trying to undermind their reality.

Meh, whatever gets you through the day.

JLNobody wrote:

Of course this is all nonsense to you. I can share your naive realism and dualism, because of our shared cultural conditioning, but, regretfully, I do not expect you to share mine.

I can't imagine why I'd want to do that.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

Joe, I appreciate that your "balony" has been presented to me (and to Fresco) in such an unexpectedly civil manner.

And thanks to G.H. for such an interesting treatment of Kant. It deserves consideration and comment. Later.

0 Replies

@joefromchicago,

The fact that there is an ephemeral "you" which for its own transient self-integrity (when intellectually challenged) needs to evoke a concept of a "fresco" which conforms to its requirements, merely illustrates the co-existence and co-extension of observer and its observed. In less esoteric terms its called "rationalization". You actually have no idea how a non-naive view of reality informs my actions. On the other hand, if that "belligerent you" is a result of your "naive realism" who in their right mind would want to subscribe to it ?

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

joefromchicago wrote:

It's proof enough. Furthermore, it's largely a matter of indifference to me whether we live in a world of objective reality or Berkeleyan idealism or Kantian noumena so long as everyone acts as if there's an independent reality. You may insist that the brick wall exists only in your mind, but you walk around it just the same. To paraphrase William James, then, what is the "cash value" of your position? How does it alter the way you live? How are you any different from the poor, deluded "naive realists" who walk around the brick wall in the foolish belief that it exists independently of them?

So, 'you' the subject believes in the concept of an independent reality and are indifferent to the philosophical stance taken. This concept depends on there being a 'you' to be indifferent. Where do 'you' reside? Are you all of your body or part of it? Or are you separate from it? Or both or some other alternative? If you say it doesn't matter if there is a true self then if there is no real self then reality is 'one' and therefore not independent of 'you' because there is no 'you' to be independent from. This is relevant i.e. no subject then no independent object.

1 Reply

Cyracuz wrote:

Were there moons before they were discovered and named?
I say that there were not. There was, however, the phenomenon which we refer to as "moons".

I don't understand this. Can you explain what the difference is?

JLNobody wrote:

Pragmatically all that counts is that I avoid crashing into it or that it effectively separates "sides". But when we reduce our discussion to the wall's pragmatic implications we are simply removing ourselves from consideration of its epistemological status.

This sounds like a contradiction. The first sentence states that a pragmatic consideration of a wall involves our relationship to it (i.e. our desire not to crash into it and our use of it as a demarcation of sides), but then the second sentence states that a pragmatic consideration of the wall "removes ourselves" from its purview. How can it be both?

Eorl wrote:

Well, for a start, denying the existence of the wall as an objective fact makes me look at it differently... Only by thinking about that for a very long time have I been able to come to the conclusion that there is no absolute reality as such.

Denying the objective existence of the wall enabled you to conclude there is no objective existence of the wall? That's circular reasoning.

wandeljw wrote:

My conclusion would be the opposite, it would be foolish to carry on our lives by denying independent reality.

I would replace "foolish" with "impossible."

Much of what has been said in the last few pages has amounted to this: "It is sometimes convenient to assume objective reality for pragmatic reasons, but this is not proof of objective reality." That's fine with me. I'm happy to let those who deny objective reality to refer to a realist's position as merely "pragmatic." We all seem to agree that calling reality subjective would not alter the way we interact with a brick wall, which suggests we are all "pragmatic" in our actions, so describing a realist's position on the matter as "pragmatic" doesn't actually differentiate it from any other position.

2 Replies

@Shapeless,

Quote:

so describing a realist's position on the matter as "pragmatic" doesn't actually differentiate it from any other position.

Yes it does, because "pragmatism" has certain consequences for the notion of "truth".

For example, in a celebrated study of Azande belief in withcraft, a native accused of a crime and found "guilty" by a western style court on the basis of "material evidence" will refuse to accept his guilt because he believes he might have been "bewitched". Only a ceremony of ritual slaughtering of a chicken would "justify" or otherwise the verdict of the court for the accused and his community. Now the pragmatist would say the "truth" in the situation lay with the chicken ritual because that was what was socially agreed. i.e. Truth is what works.

This also illustrates that discussions of "reality" (or its bedfellow "truth") only have meaning in situations of discord or "things going wrong". All discussion of brickwalls is irrelevant. Neither the self that negotiates the wall nor the wall have reality unless there is a collision( except for a hypothetical third party observer wearing a philosophers hat), anymore than that "self" reading this had reality prior to this sentence! That "reality" of self+text has just been artificially brought forth. Prior to that there was just a seamless continuity of interaction.

1 Reply

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

The fact that there is an ephemeral "you"...

Hold on -- that's a fact? Then that means you can prove it, right?

fresco wrote:

You actually have no idea how a non-naive view of reality informs my actions.

You're right, largely because you seem to have a complete inability to explain how a non-naive view of reality informs your actions.

fresco wrote:

On the other hand, if that "belligerent you" is a result of your "naive realism" who in their right mind would want to subscribe to it ?

If.

0 Replies

@igm,

igm wrote:

So, 'you' the subject believes in the concept of an independent reality and are indifferent to the philosophical stance taken. This concept depends on there being a 'you' to be indifferent. Where do 'you' reside? Are you all of your body or part of it? Or are you separate from it? Or both or some other alternative?

I'll be happy to answer your questions, but you haven't answered any of the questions I posed in my last response to you. That's not very fair. I insist upon strict reciprocity when it comes to answering questions. Once you show me that you're willing to extend that sort of reciprocity to my questions, I will gladly answer yours.

1 Reply

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

All discussion of brickwalls is irrelevant difficult for me to refute

I fixed that for you.

fresco wrote:

Neither the self that negotiates the wall nor the wall have reality unless there is a collision

So the wall doesn't exist until you run into it. That's priceless.

2 Replies

@joefromchicago,

Joe, despite my everyday (much-of-the-time) naive realism and dualism it is not quite the case that I live in exactly the same world as you. The (some-of-the-time) perspective enjoyed by non-dualists , I am confident to say, enable them to live more comfortably with the inevitable existential conditions of life (e.g., loneliness, insecurity, lack of rank, loss and danger). I do not like saying this because there is no way to prove it . But the capacity to identify with one's world and not just with some putative victim/beneficiary of it comes with considerable psycho-spiritual benefits. It's the point of all meditation-oriented religious practices, practices based on experience not dogma.

2 Replies

@JLNobody,

BTW Joe, it's nice of you to provide yourself as a foil for the expression of this perspective. I hope someone benefits from it (from either my side or yours).

1 Reply

@Shapeless,

Shapeless wrote:

Eorl wrote:
Well, for a start, denying the existence of the wall as an objective fact makes me look at it differently... Only by thinking about that for a very long time have I been able to come to the conclusion that there is no absolute reality as such.

Denying the objective existence of the wall enabled you to conclude there is no objective existence of the wall? That's circular reasoning.

Your edit and strawman summary might make it look that way, but it isn't. It's closer to being able to determine if something is possible by first being able to imagine it.

Is there a wall? Yes. < very easy.
Is there 100% definately an objectively real wall from every imaginable perspective? No. What are the consequences of that answer? <not so easy.

0 Replies

@JLNobody,

JLNobody wrote:

Joe, despite my everyday (much-of-the-time) naive realism and dualism it is not quite the case that I live in exactly the same world as you.

That's reassuring.

JLNobody wrote:

The (some-of-the-time) perspective enjoyed by non-dualists , I am confident to say, enable them to live more comfortably with the inevitable existential conditions of life (e.g., loneliness, insecurity, lack of rank, loss and danger). I do not like saying this because there is no way to prove it . But the capacity to identify with one's world and not just with some putative victim/beneficiary of it comes with considerable psycho-spiritual benefits. It's the point of all meditation-oriented religious practices, practices based on experience not dogma.

I'm glad you've admitted that your non-dualism is less an epistemological position than a metaphysical belief, because that's what it is. Of course, your non-dualism doesn't affect the way you deal with "reality" on a day-to-day basis, it just affects the way you feel about it. In that respect, you're no different from the Christian who views the world differently because she believes in the salvific power of Jesus Christ. And just as the devoted Christian believes in an afterlife of eternal bliss but still buckles his seat belt when he drives to work, you believe in the non-existence of the brick wall but still walk around it.

0 Replies

@JLNobody,

JLNobody wrote:

BTW Joe, it's nice of you to provide yourself as a foil for the expression of this perspective. I hope someone benefits from it (from either my side or yours).

And you are the wind beneath my wings, JLN.

1 Reply

The Concept of Independent Reality in Discussions of Philosophy

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know