Reality - thing or phenomenon?

@Frank Apisa,

I already explain more then a couple of times...to doubt IT, is to assert IT...so I am done re explaining that bit. Wink

(descriptions are a different matter) (X is X says nothing about X)

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

I already explain more then a couple of times...to doubt IT, is to assert IT...so I am done re explaining that bit. (descriptions are a different matter) (X is X says nothing about X)

I've seen your explanations...and they are spot on.

Actually, X is X does say something about X. It is X. It is what is. And that is very important to my argument. I have come to appreciate that tautologies are not the unimportant things we've all come to think of them. They serve a purpose...and it is a reasonable purpose.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

What you (and some others here) don't understand is that the word "reality" only has meaning when it is used in day to day situations.
If we examine where "reality" is actually used it involves situations like:

He thinks he is a good driver but in reality he has had numerous accidents.
Or
For many Christians, "God" is a reality.
Or
The observation of Brownian motion is evidence for the reality of atoms.

What these have in common is the negotiation of agreement of the functional/social status/utility of the focal concepts (good driver,God, atom etc).

And this is NOT a philosophical assertion. It is philosophical iconoclasm. (and I did not invent it).

2 Replies

@fresco,

Any human concept is predicated on human life, but I am not talking about concepts. I am talking of the real thing, the stuff concepts refer to. Can you make the difference?

http://www.vulgart.be/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Magritte-La-trahison-de-image.jpg

1 Reply

@fresco,

I don't give a dime about the wording per se...how about X is X ? Do you doubt it ? Then congratulations you just refer to it ! Now you are the one trying to frame X in social blah blah blah...I rather bypass that crap n go straight to the heart of the matter, here: X !

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Quote:

I am talking of the real thing

No you are talking about concepts (images) suggesting other concepts ( smoking implements) . Note that Magritte's joke is not entirely accurate because the material on which the image is printed could conceivably be rolled up into " a pipe of sorts". i.e the IS-NESS of "this is not a pipe" relies on social conventions about the concept of "usual pipes".
To clarify, suppose you were to rob a store using an imitation gun. It is not a defence in law against armed robbery to plead it "was not a real gun". All Magritte was claiming was that the concept of a picture could not function as a smoking implement.
Reality is about functionality. And all description is conceptual, not existential.

1 Reply

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

What you (and some others here) don't understand is that the word "reality" only has meaning when it is used in day to day situations.
If we examine where "reality" is actually used it involves situations like:

He thinks he is a good driver but in reality he has had numerous accidents.
Or
For many Christians, "God" is a reality.
Or
The observation of Brownian motion is evidence for the reality of atoms.

What these have in common is the negotiation of agreement of the functional/social status/utility of the focal concepts (good driver,God, atom etc).

And this is NOT a philosophical assertion. It is philosophical iconoclasm. (and I did not invent it).

Fresco...what you are refusing to understand...or to acknowledge that you understand...is that when I am using the word REALITY...I am talking about what IS.

I may have mentioned that...several dozens of times.

Whatever actually IS...IS. That is the REALITY with which I am dealing...and you know that is what I am talking about.

If you are talking about something else...what can I tell ya?

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

No Frank. "What is" is vacuous without a specific predicate. "IS-NESS" is not itself a predicate, unless your name is Heidegger in which case "is-ness" or "being" could only be attributable to humans (Daseins)in operational contexts.

1 Reply

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

No Frank. "What is" is vacuous without a specific predicate. "IS-NESS" is not itself a predicate, unless your name is Heidegger in which case "is-ness" or "being" could only be attributable to humans (Daseins)in operational contexts.

Stop the nonsense, Fresco. Your belief system is not worth the insult to your intelligence and character that comes from this charade you are presenting.

REALITY IS WHATEVER REALITY ACTUALLY IS.

If you want to think it is a function of the minds of humans...fine. You may be correct. It is as good a blind guess as any other blind guess.

But if you are going to insist that it HAS to be correct, you have to have a reason.

The only reason I am able to discern from your arguments to date is something like:

“If it is not correct…then I will be wrong…and I cannot allow that to happen here in public.”

REALITY may be impacted by the human mind. REALITY may be completely independent and unrelated to the human mind.

So stop with the nonsense.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

On his account "negotiation" itself could become a "rock"...as no "is-ness" in "negotiation" admittedly implies so...obviously it is a bunch of baloney ! Laughing

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fresco works like a Grand Inquisitor or a Great Censor trying to choose which words have ontological substance all the while saying none has...its funny to assist ! Wink

(I don't know how he can stand himself while he does it)

1 Reply

@fresco,

Can you understand the diffrence between words and the things they tag? When you have a meal, do you eat food or do you eat concepts of food?

3 Replies

@Olivier5,

I've told you before Fresco stance is that there is no ground...no foundation..."imagination" and "consciousness" and "negotiation" are all...but then not even that if he was to be coherent...

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

I have relayed the relatively recent conclusions of philosophers of language that no words refer to ontological status except with respect to specific communicative contexts. I have illustrated some contexts where "reality" has such status and suggested where it has not.
Now what have the hecklers done, other than other than utter lay platitudes ?

2 Replies

@Olivier5,

I'm not sure how they relate to reality. When I eat food, I usually know what I'm eating and drinking. But, that's me! LOL

I also know when nature calls and I have to go take a crap or piss. I have to go to the toilet, because that's what "I learned to do." Mr. Green

0 Replies

@fresco,

When will you figure out that specific contexts require specific patterns eh ? Its not like the patterns aren't there...dynamic itself conveys objects, a parabola for instance can be a trajectory of a bullet...the trajectory its a dynamic phenomena but is real...you need a damn bullet damn energy and a medium of transmission...the bullet is not a pie and the medium is not spaghetti the trajectory and energy are not ketchup !

1 Reply

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

I have relayed the relatively recent conclusions of philosophers of language that no words refer to ontological status except with respect to specific communicative contexts. I have illustrated some contexts where "reality" has such status and suggested where it has not.
Now what have the hecklers done, other than other than utter lay platitudes ?

Is that all we have done in your opinion, Fresco...just "utter lay platitudes?"

You are the expert...we are merely laymen!

Existence is one hell of a mystery, Fresco.

I sure do not know what is going on here...for certain.

The idea that there is a universe...and I am an inhabitant in it certainly is compelling...but I grant that it may be an illusion (an unusually persistent one).

But whatever the REALITY is…that is what it is.

You seem to suggest that you KNOW what the REALITY is. You do not give us any back-up for your assertions about it…except regular appeals to authority. But they do not seem to KNOW what the REALITY is…and all you are doing is to give us their guesses (educated though they may be) about REALITY.

REALITY is…whatever it is.

You simply do not want to be wrong about your guesses about what it is…and what it isn’t.

So you are insisting that your perceptions, considerations, and guesses about it…are what it is.

I will stick with “I do not know for sure what the REALITY is…but whatever it is, it is.”

Frankly, that “lay” take make a hell of a lot more sense than your expert take.

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

When will you figure out that specific contexts require specific patterns eh ? Its not like the patterns aren't there...dynamic itself conveys objects, a parabola for instance can be a trajectory of a bullet...the trajectory its a dynamic phenomena but is real...you need a damn bullet damn energy and a medium of transmission...the bullet is not a pie and the medium is not spaghetti the trajectory and energy are not ketchup !

That is so "lay", Fil! Wink

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

I can understand your fixation with classic representationalism...the idea that "words" represent "extant things"... since we we all use such an idea in communicative exchanges without much further thought.. But what you dont seem to understand is that the word" food" does not in itslf refer to any particular item unless being used by the sharers of a specific context which is often covert or implicit. Trivially, if a muslim sees me eating a bacon sandwich he may not use the word "food" to describe what I was eating to another muslim. One mans "food" is another mans"poison". Categorization (thinging) involves social functionality.

2 Replies

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

I can understand your fixation with classic representationalism...the idea that "words" represent "extant things" and that we all use such an idea in communicative exchanges. But what you dont seem understand is that the word" food" does not in itslf refer to any particular item unless being used by the sharers of a specific context which is often covert or implicit. Trivially, if a muslim sees me eating a bacon sandwich he may not use the word "food" to describe what I was eating to another muslim. One mans "food" is another mans"poison". Categorization (thinging) involves functionality.

There you go again...the pattern in eating is real ! Is not what you eat is the EATING...it requires a subject doing it ! Now the eating is not subjective, if it was, I would not be going a bit fat now... Laughing

2 Replies

Reality - thing or phenomenon?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know