"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.
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?
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).
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.
"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.
"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.
"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.
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.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace