Reality - thing or phenomenon?

@Olivier5,

Your point being.....?

2 Replies

@fresco,

You're such a hero! Fighting the good fight under the banner of St. Derrida.

0 Replies

@fresco,

I don't think there needs to be a "point." Just a comment by a participant on this thread.

1 Reply

By the way, Fresco, i asked you whence context, when languaging, etc. I used on pejoratives, i didn't use the term silly, i called you no names. You lashed out with your belligerent fool routine. The belligerence was all on your side. The attempt to bully was all on your side. You cannot abide having your premises questioned, so you got nasty. Now you want to play Winston from 1984, and revise history.

You don't get respect for just showing up for the game. The water boy shows up for the game. You don't get respect for citing authority--you have to be able to show your work, and you don't, you just cite authority. If someone questions it, you start sneering, and usually suggest that your interlocutor lacks the intelligence to understand what you've written, simply because they don't necessarily agree with you. If anyone around here consistently attempts to play the bully, it's you.

Igm came along to accuse Frank of being arrogant. That's a bit much considering his arrogant insistence on the excellence of his preferred superstition, which he so recently displayed. Anyone who believes something because they want to, and not because they can demonstrate it is indulging a superstition. I didn't call him any names, i just pointed out his own arrogance, and therefore his hypocrisy. You're the one who's trying to bully people, and who is introducing pejoratives into the discussion.

Fresco, fighting the good fight for St. Derrida . . .

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

In general I would agree, but Olivier dives the impression he has got his teeth into something which completely escapes me. His argument about the relative permanence of "property rights" makes little sense. What might be enshrined in a static law(social level) has little to do with the possibility, say, of our psychological experience of "ownership" gradually changing from asset to liablity over time.
In simplistic terms I am giving a version of the adages "You cannot step into the same river twice", or "all is in flux". I fail to see how such views are particularly contraversial.

1 Reply

@fresco,

My point is that stuff that change VERY slowly could be construed as stuff not changing that much...

2 Replies

@fresco,

I agree with you that his choice of "property rights" poorly illustrates what he's trying to say, but I'll also admit that I understood what he was trying to portray.

We can see from all of our different perspectives and perceptions about reality that it's as varied as there are receptors.

I believe many of us have problems when people use common words to mean something different than what is defined by any dictionary.

Philosophy is not about changing the meaning of words. It should be about logic, and the determination of what is objective and subjective.

Repeating statements that cannot be explained seems to me like a waste of everybody's time.

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

We can see from all of our different perspectives and perceptions about reality that it's as varied as there are receptors.

What you are blind to, ci, is that REALITY may be independent of all those perspectives and perceptions.

You just have closed your mind to that possibility...which always puts you on the wrong side of things.

REALITY MAY BE COMPLETELY INDEPENDENT OF HUMAN PERSPECTIVES AND PERCEPTIONS.

But whether it is or isn't...whatever it actually IS...that IS what it IS.

I have no idea of what the REALITY IS...and I get a huge kick out of people like you and Fresco who seem to want to assert you do.

But whatever it IS...that IS what it IS.

It is objectively what it is.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Yes. I wondered how long it would take you to concoct a projective diatribe about the word "arrogant". If Frank insists on boring members to distraction with repetition( year on year) of a vacuous lay concept, on a metaphysical thread, one can expect members to air their frustrations with an occasional harsh word.

It is ironic that one such as you who are infamous for continuous use of harsh words should seek to exonerate themselves by pointing the finger elsewhere. We've got your number. You do it every time ! Smile

.

As for the coherenc or otherwise of my posts , I admit that I tend to take the role of an "abstractor" of philosophical positions some of which might require a certain level of intellect to follow. I make no apologies. This is supposed to be "a forum for experts" not a barbers shop. All requests for clarification will be dealt with as best I can, but unsubstantiated dismissals do not belong on a philosophy thread.

Regards St. Derrida

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

Philosophy is not about changing the meaning of words. It should be about logic

That view is somewhat too simple. Reference to Wittgestein (et al) implies that words don't have non contextual meaning, and reference to Piaget and quantum physics suggests "logic" has only limited application.

As for "explanation, that's yet another paradigmatic ball game (or can of worms) involved with predictive success, and data generation.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

Here is s glaring example of you peddling your religious superstitions as though they were fact.

I don't see any superstition. How do you know it is superstition?

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

No, problem I'll assume you agree... phew about time...

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

My point is that stuff that change VERY slowly could be construed as stuff not changing that much...

When a thing changes I don't see it as the same thing... because it has changed.

You want a changed thing to be the same thing and ignore that fact and continue to believe it is the same thing. You are deluding yourself; just because you label that changed thing with the same word and continue to own that changed thing (if it is your property) doesn't mean it has not changed. It is not the same thing it once was and the same is true for every irreducible moment it belongs to you. The same is true of the owner... you and everything about you.

0 Replies

@fresco,

As I've intimated before, I'm not a fan of Wittgestein (et al) or Piaget. Nobody claims logic works in all situations; that's something you dreamed up.

Words do have "contextual meaning" for the person using it. IS that a surprise revelation for you? The people hearing it might interpret what is said differently, but that's still "contextual meaning." It's subjective to the receptor.

You wrote,

Quote:

As for "explanation, that's yet another paradigmatic ball game (or can of worms) involved with predictive success, and data generation.

Your statement above is meaningless to me!

Here's an example, "According to many economists, the US economy will remain strong throughout 2014."

Well, I for one do not believe that statement. Why? It's because nobody is able to forecast the economy in the near or long-term future. NOBODY. They are nothing but guesses.

My opinion and everybody else who has an opinion is SUBJECTIVE.

2 Replies

@Olivier5,

Speed of change is relative to contextual functionality. At what point does "an apple" cease to be "an apple"....within an eating sequence...within a rotting sequence,,,,,,,within a reproductive sequence. this is the point made by Koskpo is his book on "fuzzy logic". The argument here is that permanent set membership is a myth.
"Slow change" implies "continued functionality". It has no implication for an idea of "permanent entities in their own right"

2 Replies

@fresco,

Oh, now you're getting down to the nitty gritty of foolishness! LOL

"I ate an apple." What more does anyone want or need to know? Only a nutty philosopher! LOL

1 Reply

@igm,

igm wrote:

No, problem I'll assume you agree... phew about time...

Considering the kind of reasoning you have been doing here, igm...I guess you could "assume" that I agree!

At least you are being wrong with some consistency.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

If you agree that meaning is contextual, you are agreeing with Wittgenstein that meaning is use. Now apply that to the word "reality" which W might argue has meaning in normal usages like
"In reality the man was a thief even though he denied it",
but has NO meaning in concocted phrases like
"Reality is what is",
since this has nothing to do with "real life" communication.
W, would call this use of "reality" and even "is" language on holiday.

As for "explanation" in economics , to some extent this relies on how far you are prepared to take economics towards the idea of universal laws in the hard sciences. Since the answer to that is "not very far", you are left with statistical laws whose probabailistic "logic" is based on anthropomorphic concepts like "the average man" or "the market".

We perhaps need another thread to examine the word "explanation" significantly but in general we can say it involves the phrase "reference to a satisfactory set of predictive (or retrodictive) principles". The problem word there is of course "satisfactory".

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

As I've intimated before, I'm not a fan of Wittgestein (et al) or Piaget. Nobody claims logic works in all situations; that's something you dreamed up.

Words do have "contextual meaning" for the person using it. IS that a surprise revelation for you? The people hearing it might interpret what is said differently, but that's still "contextual meaning." It's subjective to the receptor.

You wrote,
Quote:
As for "explanation, that's yet another paradigmatic ball game (or can of worms) involved with predictive success, and data generation.

Your statement above is meaningless to me!

Here's an example, "According to many economists, the US economy will remain strong throughout 2014."

Well, I for one do not believe that statement. Why? It's because nobody is able to forecast the economy in the near or long-term future. NOBODY. They are nothing but guesses.

My opinion and everybody else who has an opinion is SUBJECTIVE.

Yup, opinions are SUBJECTIVE. And...sometimes opinions are correct...and sometimes incorrect.

The subjective opinion does not necessarily determine if the item upon which one is opining...is subjective or objective.

A subjective opinion that the moon is made of green cheese...does not make the moon any less what it actually IS.

0 Replies

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

If you agree that meaning is contextual, you are agreeing with Wittgenstein that meaning is use. Now apply that to the word "reality" which W might argue has meaning in normal usages like
"In reality the man was a thief even though he denied it",
but has NO meaning in by concocted phrases like
"Reality is what is",
since this has nothing to do with "real life" communication.
W, would call this use of "reality" and even "is" language on holiday.

As for "explanation" in economics , to some extent this relies on how far you are prepared to take economics towards the idea of universal laws in the hard sciences. Since the answer to that is "not very far", you are left with statistical laws whose probabailistic "logic" is based on anthropomorphic concepts like "the average man" or "the market".

We perhaps need another thread to examine the word "explanation" significantly but in general we can say it involves the phrase "reference to a satisfactory set of predictive (or retrodictive) principles". The problem word there is of course "satisfactory".

If the matter being discussed is "Is REALITY objective or subjective"...perhaps it does have meaning in real life.

Boy, are you ever totally devoted to this belief system of yours.

0 Replies

Reality - thing or phenomenon?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know