7
   

Why do philosophers debate such a simple presupposition?

 
 
Reply Tue 4 Aug, 2015 06:46 am
"Objects exist independently of our knowledge of them."

This is my presupposition whenever I discuss epistemology or scientific methodology. Yet, this presupposition constantly comes under criticism in philosophy threads.
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Aug, 2015 11:43 am
@wandeljw,
wandeljw wrote:
"Objects exist independently of our knowledge of them." . . .
Oh yeah? How do you know that? Laughing
InfraBlue
 
  2  
Reply Tue 4 Aug, 2015 01:06 pm
In some forms of thinking, you're making a leap of logic beginning with what you perceive to the conclusion that what you perceive exists independently thereof.
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Aug, 2015 01:14 pm
@neologist,
neologist wrote:

wandeljw wrote:
"Objects exist independently of our knowledge of them." . . .
Oh yeah? How do you know that? Laughing


Are you familiar with George Berkeley, neologist? He was both an Anglican bishop and a philospher. Berkeley would probably disagree with my presupposition, He was famous for asserting: "esse est percipi (aut percipere) — to be is to be perceived" (material objects can not exist without being perceived).
neologist
 
  2  
Reply Tue 4 Aug, 2015 01:35 pm
@wandeljw,
I was being facetious.
It's the old "tree falls in the forest" thing.
0 Replies
 
tsarstepan
 
  2  
Reply Tue 4 Aug, 2015 01:38 pm
@wandeljw,
How do I know you guys who post on philosophy threads are real? Maybe your the internet forum's version of bad music earworms (bad songs that get stuck in your head and loop and loop until you find a way to stop thinking about them).

Wandel on the other hand is real because I know he's particularly cool guy. ♥(ˆ⌣ˆԅ)
Something my own brain can't make up on its own to torture myself.
Frank Apisa
 
  2  
Reply Tue 4 Aug, 2015 02:13 pm
@wandeljw,
wandeljw wrote:

"Objects exist independently of our knowledge of them."

This is my presupposition whenever I discuss epistemology or scientific methodology. Yet, this presupposition constantly comes under criticism in philosophy threads.



Objects MAY exist independently of our knowledge of them?

Perhaps the missing qualifier is the reason this "presupposition" constantly comes under criticism in philosophy threads.

neologist
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Aug, 2015 03:08 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Yeah, but Frank.
Every object ever found existed before it became known.
Fantastic correlation, IMO
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Aug, 2015 03:09 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:

wandeljw wrote:

"Objects exist independently of our knowledge of them."

This is my presupposition whenever I discuss epistemology or scientific methodology. Yet, this presupposition constantly comes under criticism in philosophy threads.



Objects MAY exist independently of our knowledge of them?

Perhaps the missing qualifier is the reason this "presupposition" constantly comes under criticism in philosophy threads.


For me, I need to take it as a given that material things DO exist independently. Otherwise, I would have a difficult time discussing anything.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Aug, 2015 03:18 pm
@neologist,
neologist wrote:

Yeah, but Frank.
Every object ever found existed before it became known.
Fantastic correlation, IMO


You've been around long enough to know that for sure?
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Aug, 2015 03:19 pm
@wandeljw,
wandeljw wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

wandeljw wrote:

"Objects exist independently of our knowledge of them."

This is my presupposition whenever I discuss epistemology or scientific methodology. Yet, this presupposition constantly comes under criticism in philosophy threads.



Objects MAY exist independently of our knowledge of them?

Perhaps the missing qualifier is the reason this "presupposition" constantly comes under criticism in philosophy threads.


For me, I need to take it as a given that material things DO exist independently. Otherwise, I would have a difficult time discussing anything.


Fine.

Then I disagree with you completely.

No big deal. I just do.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Aug, 2015 03:25 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Sorry, Frank
I thought it self evident.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Aug, 2015 03:29 pm
@neologist,
neologist wrote:

Sorry, Frank
I thought it self evident.


It is not. It is simply something you are positing...gratuitously.

All...may be an illusion. All...may be the creation of a single mind.

You cannot establish with any certainty that you and everything you think you know and remember...all the memories...

...were not created just a second ago.

Or not even a second ago...perhaps just THIS instant.
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Aug, 2015 03:31 pm
@Frank Apisa,
That kind of reasoning will never get you the beer I promised, will it?
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Aug, 2015 03:48 pm
@neologist,
neologist wrote:

That kind of reasoning will never get you the beer I promised, will it?


My guess is that if we meet...

...one of us will buy the other a beer damn near immediately.

And then the buy will go the other way.

"The reasoning" will never even come into play.
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Aug, 2015 03:50 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Sidestepper
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Aug, 2015 04:04 pm
@tsarstepan,
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Aug, 2015 04:55 pm
@neologist,
neologist wrote:

Sidestepper


Yeah...I'm the kind of guy who will not stand up for his position...and will, instead, just defer to people who challenge me.

Yup...anyone here can testify to that.

(Of course it was sarcasm)
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  3  
Reply Tue 4 Aug, 2015 07:16 pm
@wandeljw,
I have to go along with you on this wandel. Anyway, if everything didn't exist independently of our knowledge of it, there's not much likelihood we could be here also.
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Aug, 2015 12:40 am
@wandeljw,
What is 'an object' other than a named focus of human attention ?

What humans call 'a dead fly' does not 'exist' for a starving frog whose perceptual system 'ignores it'. And are we not merely a different type of frog despite our ability to selectively modify our perceptual abilities according to our focal interests ?

Such questions seriously lead to a reconsideration of the words object, existence and knowledge.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
DOES NOTHING EXIST??? - Question by mark noble
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Why do philosophers debate such a simple presupposition?
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 05/21/2019 at 06:28:23