Can we ever really know reality?

@Frank Apisa,

Hey ! There could be hope for you yet Frank! You are actually considering different contextual uses of the word "know" ! Shocked

Of course I realize it may stick in your throat to admit that there are also different contextual uses of the word "reality", or even that your word "opinion" is synonymous with the word "guess". Smile

(Alas...quote box followed by face saving mantras is what I expect to follow thereby extinguishing that "hope")

1 Reply

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

Hey ! There could be hope for you yet Frank! You are actually considering different contextual uses of the word "know" !

That is something I have mentioned dozens upon dozens of times in this forum, Fresco...and in others also. There should be no surprise involved.

Quote:

Of course I realize it may stick in your throat to admit that there are also different contextual uses of the word "reality"...

Of course there are. I have used the words "real" and "reality" (I think in this thread) in different ways. But that has nothing to do with anything I have said.

Quote:

...or even that your word "opinion" is synonymous with the word "guess".

Careful now. You were doing well...so don't go off the tracks.

I do not speak of "opinion" being synonymous with the word "guess"...and I doubt you've ever seen that coming from me.

Perhaps you were thinking of my saying that in certain contexts "believing" is synonymous (actually a disguise) for "guess."

Quote:

(Alas...quote box followed by face saving mantras is what I expect to follow thereby extinguishing that "hope")

Okay, I will not do it...so you can spend some time reflecting on what I wrote here.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Progress indeed! Now if only you could see that "context is all", you would be a postmodernist, or even a non-dualist ! Cool

1 Reply

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

Progress indeed! Now if only you could see that "context is all", you would be a postmodernist, or even a non-dualist !

1) Context is NOT "all."

2) What you apparently now see as "progress" in me...is almost certainly progress in you. You actually are reading what I have been writing all along.

3) On several occasions I have indicated that non-dualism is probably where I am. I have no problem with people who suggest non-dualism as the preferred way of looking at things. My problem is with people like you and Neo who assert it is the ONLY reasonable way...and who actually go so far as to insist it IS the way things are.

4) You would have done well to actually acknowledge the errors in your thinking in your last post...but that is not part of what you are, is it?

Lastly, on a less confrontational note, Fresco, Merry Christmas! Peace to you, your family, and the people you love.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

...and best wishes from my committee to all members of yours, whatever their stage of development, and of course your family !

0 Replies

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

Check out the philosophy annals of A2K. Opinions range from "no", to "don't know" to "reality is just a word used in contextual negotiation".
The seminal reference is of course Kant's Critique of Pure Reason in which he argues we cannot have access to noumena (things in themselves).
More recently, Richard Rorty has dismissed the realism-antirealism debate as futile.

Opinions actually range from the absolutist positions of "no" to "yes", further I would argue that the so-called "seminal reference" of Kant's Critique of Pure Reason is only formative to the extent that the scientific method is ignored.

2 Replies

@fresco,

Quote:

More recently, Richard Rorty has dismissed the realism-antirealism debate as futile.

Rorty himself is futile and superficial. Antirealism is absurd. Reality doesn't care if you believe in her or not. You're a part of her for a short while until you die, and then she goes on while you don't.

1 Reply

@Chumly,

Quote:

the so-called "seminal reference" of Kant's Critique of Pure Reason is only formative to the extent that the scientific method is ignored.

I disagree here. The scientific method is about phenomena, how things behave, and not about the essence of things in themselves. Such 'essence' or 'noumena' is in any case an hypothesis or a mere concept. It might not actually exist.

2 Replies

@Chumly,

That may be your opinion, but was not that of Feynman or currently Hawking.

Quote:

A few years ago the city council of Monza, Italy, barred pet owners from keeping goldfish in curved goldfish bowls. The measure's sponsor explained the measure in part by saying that it is cruel to keep a fish in a bowl with curved sides because, gazing out, the fish would have a distorted view of reality. But how do we know we have the true, undistorted picture of reality? Might not we ourselves also be inside some big goldfish bowl and have our vision distorted by an enormous lens? The goldfish's picture of reality is different from ours, but can we be sure it is less real?

Hawking.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

You don't seem to understand Rorty's point. He was not advocating "anti-realism". He was dismissing all metaphysical debate about "reality" as "language on holiday" (Ref Wittgenstein).

2 Replies

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

Quote:
the so-called "seminal reference" of Kant's Critique of Pure Reason is only formative to the extent that the scientific method is ignored.
I disagree here. The scientific method is about phenomena, how things behave, and not about the essence of things in themselves. Such 'essence' or 'noumena' is in any case an hypothesis or a mere concept. It might not actually exist.

I question your notion of so-called "essence of things in themselves."

0 Replies

Fresco makes the same mistake so many others here make...

...to mistake being able to discuss and describe REALITY...

...with REALITY.

REALITY is whatever it IS.

The fact that Fresco recognizes that human language may not be up to the job of discussing it or describing it...

...does not matter at all.

It is...whatever it IS.

0 Replies

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

That may be your opinion, but was not that of Feynman or currently Hawking.

Quote:
A few years ago the city council of Monza, Italy, barred pet owners from keeping goldfish in curved goldfish bowls. The measure's sponsor explained the measure in part by saying that it is cruel to keep a fish in a bowl with curved sides because, gazing out, the fish would have a distorted view of reality. But how do we know we have the true, undistorted picture of reality? Might not we ourselves also be inside some big goldfish bowl and have our vision distorted by an enormous lens? The goldfish's picture of reality is different from ours, but can we be sure it is less real?
Hawking.

Yep, I'm well aware of the both the book and the quote in question, plus Feynman references ad infinitum.

Allowing for your argument from authority fallacy (it's the holidays) you have nonetheless failed to directly reference nor address my post: # 5,845,760 by point of example, by point of comparison, by point of any direct argumentation at all.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

Quote:
the so-called "seminal reference" of Kant's Critique of Pure Reason is only formative to the extent that the scientific method is ignored.
I disagree here. The scientific method is about phenomena, how things behave, and not about the essence of things in themselves. Such 'essence' or 'noumena' is in any case an hypothesis or a mere concept. It might not actually exist.

For additional giggles, I would be willing to argue that phenomena, how things behave (to quote you) is the essence of things in themselves, in as much as such a claim has any veracity.

1 Reply

@fresco,

The rejection of metaphysics as as old as Voltaire's Candide...

0 Replies

@Chumly,

Yes, I do apologize for focusing on your raising of the "yes" pole of the argument. This is based on former conversations with you indicating you are a "scientific realist". I agree with Olivier's point to you about Kant, which together with Heisenberg's remarks about "never observing nature directly" seem to leave "scientific realism" out in the philosophical backyard. That is why I favor the pragmatism of Rorty (et al) which dismisses the "reality debate" as futile.

BTW. I never rely on "appeals to authority". I often quote thinkers I feel illustrate my ideas by providing the context essential for their interpretation. Such semantic referencing is mandatory in the humanities (in which I include philosophy), and I find objections to it tend to be a form of simplistic posturing by people who are ignorant of the literature. (This of course is not directed to you personally).

2 Replies

@fresco,

The rejection of metaphysics is at least as old as Voltaire's Candide...

1 Reply

Can we ever really know anything except reality?

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Ironically, the rejection of some metaphysical positions is itself a metaphysical position. No doubt the textual history of such rejection is boundless. Pilate's allegedly cynical "what is truth ? " or Shakespeare's "life is a tale told by an idiot..." certainly border on such positions.
I would say that Rorty's particular pragmatic contribution is to focus on the dynamics of context by reference to Heidegger's temporality. This is contiguous with Kuhn's paradigm's and Piaget's genetic epistemology.

1 Reply

@Chumly,

If by that you mean the word 'essence' is impossible to define in a clear and useful way, i agree. But Kant's theory is compatible with the scientific method.

1 Reply

Can we ever really know reality?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know