How is this definition of "belief"?

@Olivier5,

...I suppose you also intend to mean that such argumentation would indeed be a real argumentation... Laughing

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:

...I suppose you also intend to mean that such argumentation would indeed be a real argumentation...

Yes, even surreal...

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

...hmm...that could be taken both as a compliment and a critique...but then being realistic about that also is a good thing ! Wink

PS - I find it quite enervating this convenient cultural stigma that realists are this squary dudes from the nineteen century...it speaks tomes about anarchists and humanists agenda against any true development on our understanding of the world...the yesterday so called "social liberals" that set men in the centre of this processes are now fierce conservationists and a force of stagnation self admittedly anti rational...they need to be confronted with their own limitations...although I suspect you French background may leave me wondering what is your stance on this...

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:

I find it quite enervating this convenient cultural stigma that realists are this squary dudes from the nineteen century...it speaks tomes about anarchists and humanists agenda against any true development on our understanding of the world...the yesterday so called "social liberals" that set men in the centre of this processes are now fierce conservationists and a force of stagnation self admittedly anti rational...they need to be confronted with their own limitations...although I suspect you French background may leave me wondering what is your stance on this...

About what exactly? Indeed I work with other references than most of you guys, but do consider myself a humanist and a realist. Frank called me a "naive realist" and although I fail to see what a non-naive realist would be, and find nothing naive in accepting reality as a given -- eg all scientists do that -- i kinda took this as a badge of honor.

2 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

That's fine Fil.

You were the one who said that reality being subjective proves that it's objective.

I don't have to call you an idiot. You are doing it yourself. Just keep it coming. I am endlessly amused. Smile

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

Cyracuz...I probably say the words "I do not know" more than any person in this forum. I have no problem whatever acknowledging that I do not know what I do not know. For you to suggest that I am refusing to do so is bizarre.

I know. It is bizarre. I did not make that assertion lightly.
But in this matter, I do think that you might be claiming as knowledge something that is not knowledge, but assumption.

May I ask again; do you see the difference between the two assertions;

"reality is objective is a fact"

and

"reality IS is an objective fact about reality."?

The first states that subjects or perceivers don't matter. Reality happens regardless. We can not know this. There is a chance that we haven't even conceived of anything remotely close to what is actually going on.

The second states that reality IS, and that any subject who seeks to verify this will have the same result. I might agree that this is a tautology.

Is this completely incomprehensible?

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

That Reality IS is what Searle calls a "background presupposition". Something we cannot know but which we need to presuppose in order to manaage existence. Even the ego isn't but must be assumed to exist for the sake of getting along. Illusions everywhere but necessary ones as well as unnecessary onnes. Philosophers here it seems are mainly concerned with whether they have been proven to exist.

2 Replies

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

Quote:
I find it quite enervating this convenient cultural stigma that realists are this squary dudes from the nineteen century...it speaks tomes about anarchists and humanists agenda against any true development on our understanding of the world...the yesterday so called "social liberals" that set men in the centre of this processes are now fierce conservationists and a force of stagnation self admittedly anti rational...they need to be confronted with their own limitations...although I suspect you French background may leave me wondering what is your stance on this...

About what exactly? Indeed I work with other references than most of you guys, but do consider myself a humanist and a realist. Frank called me a "naive realist" and although I fail to see what a non-naive realist would be, and find nothing naive in accepting reality as a given -- eg all scientists do that -- i kinda took this as a badge of honor.

Olivier5 wrote:

Quote:
I find it quite enervating this convenient cultural stigma that realists are this squary dudes from the nineteen century...it speaks tomes about anarchists and humanists agenda against any true development on our understanding of the world...the yesterday so called "social liberals" that set men in the centre of this processes are now fierce conservationists and a force of stagnation self admittedly anti rational...they need to be confronted with their own limitations...although I suspect you French background may leave me wondering what is your stance on this...

About what exactly? Indeed I work with other references than most of you guys, but do consider myself a humanist and a realist. Frank called me a "naive realist" and although I fail to see what a non-naive realist would be, and find nothing naive in accepting reality as a given -- eg all scientists do that -- i kinda took this as a badge of honor.

I may have, but without looking it up, I suspect I said something more like, "What people here would call a naive-realist."

People call me a naive-realist all the time...especially Fresco.

I take it as I suspect it is intended...as an attempt at an insult.

2 Replies

@Olivier5,

Normally n speaking in simple minded stereotype manner realists and humanists don't hang together although I quite frankly rather have 10x a "naive" realist then a mind freak extremist...I just pounder because you are French you could be one from the idealist bunch, but it seams like you are in the extreme opposite side after all...I myself have a moderate stance.

2 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

Quote:
Cyracuz...I probably say the words "I do not know" more than any person in this forum. I have no problem whatever acknowledging that I do not know what I do not know. For you to suggest that I am refusing to do so is bizarre.

I know. It is bizarre. I did not make that assertion lightly.
But in this matter, I do think that you might be claiming as knowledge something that is not knowledge, but assumption.

May I ask again; do you see the difference between the two assertions;

"reality is objective is a fact"

and

"reality IS is an objective fact about reality."?

The first states that subjects or perceivers don't matter. Reality happens regardless. We can not know this. There is a chance that we haven't even conceived of anything remotely close to what is actually going on.

The second states that reality IS, and that any subject who seeks to verify this will have the same result. I might agree that this is a tautology.

Is this completely incomprehensible?

Cyracuz...as I said, I have no problem ever saying that I do not know something...and I have probably also acknowledged mistakes (I do make them) as much or more than anyone else in this forum.

You suggestion was way off base.

What IS...IS.

What IS...is REALITY.

REALITY is objective...not subjective.

The attempts you seem to be making in what seems like a desire not to acknowledge that I am completely correct on all that...

...is as close to incomprehensible as it can be.

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

JLNobody wrote:

That Reality IS is what Searle calls a "background presupposition". Something we cannot know but which we need to presuppose in order to manaage existence. Even the ego isn't but must be assumed to exist for the sake of getting along. Illusions everywhere but necessary ones as well as unnecessary onnes. Philosophers here it seems are mainly concerned with whether they have been proven to exist.

Jesus, JL.

REALITY IS...no matter what. If it is a "background presupposition"...

...THAT IS WHAT THE REALITY IS.

What is there about this that is causing you guys so much trouble?

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Okay. Did you get to understand what a non-naive realist would be?

2 Replies

@JLNobody,

What are you intending to talk about I don't get it it is to subjective...are you understanding this sentence or it also it is to much subjective ? What does subjective mean ? I suppose its relative perhaps if we social negotiate for a while subjective becomes objective and objective becomes subjective...shall we make a deal ? that is if you get to understand this text after all there is nothing here, no real text, is just an assumption we have to do... Wink

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

It seams Frank and I n now you are all naive realists... Wink

Better ask them what they mean if it is not to much subjective to explain it...

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank a "background presupposition" WHICH IS, is no longer a presupposition but a fact, proper background !

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:

Normally n speaking in simple minded stereotype manner realists and humanists don't hang together although I quite frankly rather have 10x a "naive" realist then a mind freak extremist...I just pounder because you are French you could be one from the idealist bunch, but it seams like you are in the extreme opposite side after all...I myself have a moderate stance.

Maybe you could point me to some defitions of these terms? I fail to see how a realist would necessarily not be a humanist. Realists are human, too.

In my tradition, humanism is about proclaiming human reason as superior to any dogma, and human rights as superior to any dictatorship. It affirms the central reality of the human mind, as a fragile, beautiful, well-oiled, rational and esthetic instrument of understanding, worthy of respect and protection.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

This is from wikipedia:

Quote:

Naïve realism, also known as direct realism or common sense realism, is a philosophy of mind rooted in a theory of perception that claims that the senses provide us with direct awareness of the external world. In contrast, some forms of idealism assert that no world exists apart from mind-dependent ideas and some forms of skepticism say we cannot trust our senses. The realist view is that objects are composed of matter, occupy space and have properties, such as size, shape, texture, smell, taste and colour, that are usually perceived correctly. We perceive them as they really are. Objects obey the laws of physics and retain all their properties whether or not there is anyone to observe them.

I generally tend to think of a naive-realist as one who does not consider his own role as perceiver of his own reality. In that regard, all of natural science is naive-realistic. At least up until such things as wave-function collapse entered the stage, giving us hints that objectivity might actually be problematic.

So perhaps your refusal to 'do beliefs' makes you a naive-realist?

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Naive realism is a technical term for an epistemological stance, a stance that takes experience at face value. If I am a naive realist I see the world as it has been culturally described for me. My "interpretation" is, as far as I am concerned, epistemlogically unproblematical. I suppose it is a version of the world preferred for most purposes by poets. It is just analytically "naive" (a technical term, not a deliberate insult).
The epistemological sceptic, like JLNobody, takes a very different stance. I imagine that physical reality consists of things like tables because we humans have both manufactured tables and do so with the idea of "table" in mind. But all the world's "objects" (another fabrication)--man-made and nature-made--consists of molecular, atomic, sub-atomic and who knows what? Whatever they are REALLY they are so problematically--at least when I put my philosophical (ontologist and epistemologist--but not my poetic) caps) on.
Oops! Gotta go.

2 Replies

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

Okay. Did you get to understand what a non-naive realist would be?

You can certainly look the term up in Wikipedia, but for the most part, when people like Fresco use it, they mean people who are accepting that REALITY is just what it seems to be...non-illisional, without non-dualism and the other stuff that it may possibly be.

I am neither a naive realist...or whatever is its antithesis.

I frankly acknowledge that REALITY may be something quite outside the ability of humans to comprehend...or it may simply be what appears to us to be reality.

Whatever it is...REALITY is what it is.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

After I posted, I realized you have asked about a "non-naive realist."

You can extrapolate what I suspect about that from what I said about naive realists.

1 Reply

How is this definition of "belief"?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know