Reality - thing or phenomenon?

@Frank Apisa,

It is predictable that one who chose the handle "Ding an Sich" (Thing in Itself) would be likelyto support Frank's limited view of "reality".

3 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

I think it is sad that Frank tries so hard to reduce this thread to a quarrel about tautologies.
No one is disputing that 'reality is'.

The question of this thread is what it is. More specifically whether the term 'reality' refers to the object or the experience.

There are two philosophical certainties, and they collide. Experience occurs within the object. But the object is formed through experience.

My guess is that nobody here KNOWS WHAT IT IS.

But whatever it is...IT IS.

It objectively IS.

1 Reply

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

It is predictable that one who chose the handle "Ding an Sich" (Thing in Itself) would be likelyto support Frank's limited view of "reality".

My view of REALITY is much, much less limited than yours, Fresco. I do not know what it is. You seem to be certain about what it is.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Anytime. Just thought I might chime in is all.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

You just stated a straw man. A guess and right doesn't clarify anything.

An argument can only be fallacious when, and only when, an argument is given. I didn't present an argument. I stated an axiom. Whatever is, well, is.

And I shouldn't have to clarify the law of identity; it's self-evident when you look around you. Now, as to the nature, the "hyle", of the world around us along with ourselves... that is a totally different story.

1 Reply

@Ding an Sich,

What you actually stated was

Quote:

Although Frank may not claim to know or believe this, he's still right. Whatever "right" would mean in a guessing framework.

"Right would mean in a guessing framework" is a straw man; it doesn't follow; a non sequitur.

1 Reply

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

It is predictable that one who chose the handle "Ding an Sich" (Thing in Itself) would be likelyto support Frank's limited view of "reality".

Well, I don't entirely support Frank's "limited" view of reality (see what I did there? Pretty cute.). I support the law of identity, but none of this hub-bub about only having guesses or opinions or whatnot. I also, to extend Frank's view, support belief and knowledge. In any event, I agree with Frank on the law of identity.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

What you actually stated was
Quote:
Although Frank may not claim to know or believe this, he's still right. Whatever "right" would mean in a guessing framework.

"Right would mean in a guessing framework" is a straw man; it doesn't follow; a non sequitur.

So, is it a straw man, or a non sequitur? And I don't see what argument you are addressing. He's right because he's going off the law of identity. It's an axiom. No argument needed.

1 Reply

@Ding an Sich,

I never heard of that "axiom."

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_identity

1 Reply

@Ding an Sich,

What is tells me is that they are talking about objective identities. Everybody knows "a man is a man." We're not questioning that kind of "understanding" of language. When they use the term "what is is what it is," they're still talking about objective identities. There is no confusion there - for most of us on this thread.

Now explain to us "reality is objective?"

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

First off, I don't have to explain anything to anyone, as I was pointing out that people on this thread wouldn't know the law of identity if it hit them in the face.

Secondly, even dreams, thoughts, and other purportedly "subjective" things are identical with themselves. The dream I had last night was not something else. It had a particular character to it.

And when you say "objective", what do you mean? The history of philosophy shows that that word has various meanings. What's your take? Do you mean that there is a correspondence between me and some existing thing out there in reality? Or that there is a coherence between me, the thing, and a community?

Be careful when you start throwing around these words. They carry a lot of philosophical baggage.

1 Reply

@fresco,

And for the record, my username is an artifact of the days when I was a Kantian. I don't really care for things-in-themselves, thing-for-itself, being-in-the-world, being-there, thing-in-and-for-itself, or any of that other german idealistic/ heideggarian hooplah. But I'm sure you already knew that.

1 Reply

@Ding an Sich,

I use the dictionary definitions. It has served me well.
Please explain "objective reality."

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Quote:

There are two philosophical certainties, and they collide. Experience occurs within the object. But the object is formed through experience.

This is like the saying "Who came first the snake or the egg?" If the snake is first, what will it eat? If the egg came first, where did it come from?

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

I use the dictionary definitions. It has served me well.
Please explain "objective reality."

Don't have to. Refer to my last post to you. I'm under no obligation.

2 Replies

@Ding an Sich,

Of coarse you don't, but you're the one supporting a non sequitur that you haven't explained. You made the claim,

Quote:

he's still right. Whatever "right" would mean in a guessing framework.

That has absolutely nothing to do with the law of identity.

It probably hit you in the face, and lost your brain.

0 Replies

@Ding an Sich,

Of coarse you don't, but you're the one supporting a non sequitur that you haven't explained. You made the claim,

Quote:

he's still right. Whatever "right" would mean in a guessing framework.

That has absolutely nothing to do with the law of identity.

It probably hit you in the face, and lost your brain.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

Of coarse you don't, but you're the one supporting a non sequitur that you haven't explained. You made the claim,
Quote:
he's still right. Whatever "right" would mean in a guessing framework.

That has absolutely nothing to do with the law of identity.

It probably hit you in the face, and lost your brain.

"He's still right" refers to Frank's statement that "whatever is, is", which is a laymen's way of expressing the law of identity. Don't really get what you keep prattling on about. And I still don't see how it does not follow. Could you explain to me exactly where the non sequitur lies? I would like to hear some reasons instead of bold-faced quotes and claims that I am committing a non sequitur.

1 Reply

@Ding an Sich,

Your posts have indeed moved on from a straight Kantian position on noumena. However, your support for "the Law of Identity" is still in accord for a "realism" stance. There is a counter argument (termed post modernist" I think) which is exemplified by the question:

Is this A the same as this A ?

In one sense the answer is "yes" because the signal/symbol/word which A stands for has not changed. But the answer is also "no", because the perception of the two A's are different events separated in space time. In other words the significance of the second A must be different to that of the first since the state of the perceptive apparatus has "moved on". This leads to issues like "the problem of universals" and whether static properties of things constitute a substrate for what we call aspects of "reality" we claim to "know", or whether "knowledge" is about prediction (from A1 to A2) in which the law of identity A1=A2 is simply being evoked by inductive belief.

I have argued before that the abstract permanance of words taken out of context lulls us into that belief in the abstract existence of "a reality" (IS-NESS independent of context). But linguistic philosophers have shifted to a non-representationalist view of "words" such that context is required to specify meaning. Since this context is by definition shifting in space-time, the law of identity (A=A) is a questionable axiom based on static set theory rather than dynamic interaction of observer and observed.

Apologies if I have used my reply to you as a response to all who cannot understand key problems of "realism". What I have said here is unlikely to be comprehensible to those who hold traditional logic and facticity as sacrosanct.

2 Replies

Reality - thing or phenomenon?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know