11
   

Reality - thing or phenomenon?

 
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Jul, 2013 09:14 am
@Cyracuz,
What I'm saying is that it is within our experience to "see" the experience of other animals, and describe their habits. Our ability at observation, analysis, and communication makes all that possible.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Jul, 2013 10:20 am
@Cyracuz,
Cyracuz wrote:

Yes. But we can only do so to the extent that these other animals come into our experience. So we are not going beyond it. We are merely extending it whenever we encounter new things.


Not only that...but to term it "their reality" is self-serving, gratuituous assertions without foundation.

It may well not be their reality at all. It may be what they experience and perceive of REALITY.

But getting that possibility across in this thread seems futile, because people like ci are intent on asserting that there is a "my reality", "your reality, "their realilty"...even though there is absolutely no basis for such an assertion. Those things are merely possibilities.
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Jul, 2013 10:43 am
@Frank Apisa,
I think the main problem in here is that everyone is approaching the issue from their own angle, and we are not really very good at trying to understand each other. I will take my share of that criticism.
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Jul, 2013 10:58 am
Dawn on me that species (animal and vegetal) constitute one form of categories that have an objective existence "out there". Every human society has a taxonomy of species from its environment, and those tend to fit Limnea's, by and large.
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Jul, 2013 02:21 pm
@Cyracuz,
Yes. When geologists study the properties of rocks they are STILL dealing with HUMAN reality (I took a class in geology at a human college).
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Jul, 2013 05:00 pm
@JLNobody,
What is there beyond "human college?"
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Jul, 2013 05:23 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Search me.
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Jul, 2013 05:47 pm
@Cyracuz,
Cryacuz says: "What I'm saying is that it is within our experience to "see" the experience of other animals, and describe their habits. Our ability at observation, analysis, and communication makes all that possible."

But that ability is often more limited than we realize. Anthropological ethnographers sometimes find that no matter how carefully they describe the lifeworlds of people of exotic cultures those people are sometimes amazed at how much the ethnographers miss the meaning and point of their lives and behaviors (from the natives' perspective). In such instances the ethnographers focused on questions reflecting their own cultures rather than those of those their "subjects". If that is so, imagine how much more does that would apply to other species?
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Jul, 2013 05:55 pm
@Cyracuz,
I should acknowledge that Cyracuz acknowledged that "the main problem... here is that everyone is approaching the issue from their own angle, and we are not really very good at trying to understand each other" (my emphasis).
Yes, we find that to be the case in interpersonal, inter-cultural and almost absolutely in terms of inter-species communication (even with our pets). We live a range of realities.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Jul, 2013 06:01 pm
@JLNobody,
JLN, That was my quote. Of coarse it's limiting, but that doesn't mean we are completely ignorant of their habits. We still don't understand the totality of human behavior - much less other animal species.

Look what Jane Goodall was able to accomplish on primate behavior.
0 Replies
 
kcookypr
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 6 Jul, 2013 06:37 pm
@Cyracuz,
Our life is a physical manifestation of the thoughts that go on in our head.

Life is one big road with lots of signs. So when you riding through the ruts, don't complicate your mind. Flee from hate, mischief and jealousy. Don't bury your thoughts, put your vision to reality. Wake Up and Live!
-Bob Marley

What we achieve inwardly will change outer reality.
-Plutarch

Reality
The state or quality of being real; actual being or existence of anything, in distinction from mere appearance; fact.
That which is real; an actual existence; that which is not imagination, fiction, or pretense; that which has objective existence, and is not merely an idea.
Loyalty; devotion.
Ding an Sich
 
  2  
Reply Sun 7 Jul, 2013 05:10 pm
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:

Pretty serious list you got there. I haven't read a fifth of them and haven't heard of most of the others... Tells you something about how (un)seriously I approach philosophy myself. Sad


It's alright if you haven't read that much philosophy. And you don't need to read a whole lot of philosophy to not take philosophy seriously. But it may be required for it. Or it may just turn you off completely, like in the case of reading Hegel. Smile

Olivier5 wrote:

I agree Hegel is a charlatan. I don't see how he would be worth reading - his prose is just too sloppy (on purpose of course, it's a way to hide his vacuity). I could only envisage reading him in order to debunk him. But his gravest sin IMO has been to create this fake persona of the thick-worded, convoluted philosopher whom nobody actually understands and who seems to be saying all sorts of absurdities but that's just because he's soooo deep, ya know? Since then, philosophy became an exercise in deceiving and and mocking the lay man. With exceptions of course.


I go back and forth with Hegel, much like how I go back and forth with Heidegger. By the end of the day, I still think they're both full of hot air, especially Hegel (since he greatly contributed to Marx's thought, which I despise).

Olivier5 wrote:

I am new on this board and do find it shitty debate-wise, with many posters too immature, in spite of their grey hair, to actually discuss things honestly and fairly. Many people seem to be here to bitch about other people. But it ain't going to get better until good, sensible posters take a firmer foothold and sense of propriety. So please keep posting.


Welcome to the real world. I can't tell you how many times I've tried to engage in debate, only to realize that people don't understand what debating involves. This forum is no different, and it is a pretty good example of bad debating. There are better sites, should you be interested. Here's one:

philosophyforums.com

Like I said earlier, I'll chime in, but that's about it. I have too many other things to do.
Ding an Sich
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Jul, 2013 08:08 pm
@Ding an Sich,
I meant to say, "And you don't need to read a whole lot of philosophy to ("not" is removed) take philosophy seriously." The "not" turns it into a double negative. lol
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Jul, 2013 09:05 am
@Ding an Sich,
Quote:
you don't need to read a whole lot of philosophy to not take philosophy seriously.

I saw you disclaimer but that was funny...

Quote:
I go back and forth with Hegel, much like how I go back and forth with Heidegger. By the end of the day, I still think they're both full of hot air, especially Hegel (since he greatly contributed to Marx's thought, which I despise).

I find Marx's diagnosis of capitalism y and large okay, if a bit ballistic; it's the cure (communism) that wasn't that good.

Quote:
I can't tell you how many times I've tried to engage in debate, only to realize that people don't understand what debating involves. This forum is no different, and it is a pretty good example of bad debating. There are better sites, should you be interested. Here's one:

philosophyforums.com

Thanks, I'll check it out!

Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Jul, 2013 07:41 am
@JLNobody,
Yes.
Our notion of a reality beyond the multitudes of different individual relationships seems to be derived from the observation that similar conditions appear to apply to all variations of relationship (human reality, squirrel reality, dolphin reality etc.).
0 Replies
 
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Jul, 2013 08:28 am
@kcookypr,
That's one way to look at it.

But do you agree that the definition you give of 'reality' turns it into something physical? It basically equates 'having physical properties' with 'having reality'.
0 Replies
 
Ding an Sich
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Jul, 2013 07:04 pm
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:

Quote:
I go back and forth with Hegel, much like how I go back and forth with Heidegger. By the end of the day, I still think they're both full of hot air, especially Hegel (since he greatly contributed to Marx's thought, which I despise).

I find Marx's diagnosis of capitalism y and large okay, if a bit ballistic; it's the cure (communism) that wasn't that good.


Do you think there is a cure for capitalism? This seems to raise, or beg, the question "what exactly is wrong with capitalism"?

Glad you liked my revision. I got a chuckle out of it too. Smile
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Jul, 2013 07:14 pm
@Ding an Sich,
What's wrong with capitalism? Are you serious?

Look at what's been happening during the past four decades when the biggest portion of the wealth went to the wealthy while the middle class (who produced the profits from their higher productivity) didn't keep up with inflation and their ratio of wealth dropped.

Quote:
Table 1: Income, net worth, and financial worth in the U.S. by percentile, in 2010 dollars
1.Wealth or income class 2.Mean household income 3.Mean household net worth 4.Mean household financial (non-home) wealth
......1............................2............ .........3.......................4
Top 1 percent.......... $1,318,200... $16,439,400..... $15,171,600
Top 20 percent....... $226,200.... $2,061,600....... $1,719,800
60th-80th %tile..... $72,000...... $216,900.......... $100,700
40th-60th %tile..... $41,700............ $61,000............ $12,200
Bottom 40%.......... $17,300.............-$10,600.......... -$14,800
Ding an Sich
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Jul, 2013 08:26 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Well... what is the cause of inflation? Why couldn't the middle class keep up? Is there a correlation between the rich, inflation, and the rich getting richer, while the middle class are getting poorer? What is it?
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Jul, 2013 08:31 pm
@Ding an Sich,
It's called "greed." Ever hear of it?

Here's a pretty good article on Wiki.
Quote:
Income inequality in the United States
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The distribution of income in the United States has been the subject of study by scholars and institutions. Data from a number of sources[1] indicate that income inequality has grown significantly since the early 1970s,[2][3][4][5][6] after several decades of stability.[7][8] While inequality has risen among most developed countries, and especially English-speaking ones, it is highest in the United States.[9][10][11]
Studies indicate the source of the widening gap (sometimes called the Great Divergence) has not been gender inequality, which has declined in the US over the last several decades,[12] nor inequality between black and white Americans, which has stagnated during that time,[13] nor has the gap between the poor and middle class been the major cause—though it has grown.[14] Most of the growth has been between the middle class and top earners, with the disparity becoming more extreme the further one goes up in the income distribution.[15] Upward redistribution of income is responsible for about 43% of the projected Social Security shortfall over the next 75 years.[16] The Brookings Institution said in 2013 that income inequality was increasing and becoming permanent, reducing social mobility in the US.[17]
A 2011 study by the CBO[18] found that the top earning 1 percent of households gained about 275% after federal taxes and income transfers over a period between 1979 and 2007, compared to a gain of just under 40% for the 60 percent in the middle of America's income distribution.[18] Other sources find that the trend has continued since then.[19] In spite of this data, only 42% of Americans think inequality has increased in the past ten years.[20] Income inequality is not uniform among the states; as measured by the Gini coefficient: after tax income inequality in 2009 was greatest in Texas and lowest in Maine.[21]
Scholars and others differ as to the causes, solutions, and the significance of the trend,[22] which in 2011 helped ignite the "Occupy" protest movement. Education and increased demand for skilled labor are often cited as causes,[23] some have emphasized the importance of public policy; others believe the cause(s) of inequality's rise are not well understood.[18] Inequality has been described both as irrelevant in the face of economic opportunity (or social mobility) in America, and as a cause of the decline in that opportunity.[24][25]


I call it greed. CEO's and managers of companies are supposed to look out for their workers who produce the profit of the company they work for. It's called fairness of treatment by the companies they work at.

0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Nature of gun laws - Discussion by gungasnake
Atheism - Discussion by littlek
Is Reality a Social Construction ? - Discussion by fresco
Do you See what Eye See?? - Discussion by NoName77
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 01/24/2022 at 06:57:28