Reply
Mon 31 Jan, 2005 01:39 pm
By Paul Andrew Bourne, MSc. (candidate); BSc. (Hons); Dip. Edu.
According to positivists, an ontology exists in that there is an absolute truth "out there". This begs the question, "out where?" Furthermore, when one speaks of "real" this denotes undenable fact. "Undenable fact!" wow! In this context, peoples socially construct the world and things therein in order to comprehend what they see in order to fathom that which they think is. With the latter position being the views of the interpretatists. Therefore, "is 'real' real?" The example is here is water, water? Within that socail construct of this world that man has fashioned in order to understand those things that exist that he/she thinks exist, man will further continue to conceptualized life. Therefore, we can use ontology with real as they are .. .? I am requesting that you provide me with the answer.
Re: "Ontologically real"
Paul Andrew Bourne
First I don't think positivists sustain that there is an absolute truth. Or an "out there".
And I am not sure that I understood your point.
There are several levels of "reality". The external stimulation of our senses is real. The conceptualization of those stimulus is real. The concepts are language, mental and social constructs. The relations we give to those external stimulus are real in our experience conditions.
Water is a concept and a word, but is also a sensorial experience. Within the limits of that experience, water is ontologicaly real.
But if by real you mean the being of things in itself, like water, that is different. How can I know what is the being of water, suposing it exists? Our senses, our mind, organise from external stimulus what we call the world. The world has its reality in the configuration we give to it, as human beings.
Water is ontologicaly real since its being is fashioned by us.
About the "absolute truth out there", I don't know anything. There is no "out there" where I am not.
But I feel I missed something in what you said.
"Simplifying the simple"
By Paul Andrew Bourne, MSc. (candidate); BSc. (Hons); Dip. Edu.
Society members have come to accept those things that they socialized to recognized as is. In history, the ontology was that the world was flat and that was a truth. After the discovery made by Christopher Columbus, the truth that the world was flat changes to that it is round. The truth that we have come to accept may one day be falsified by more discoveries. Therefore, an antology is not limited by time, space or any other magnitude because it is so. Many of the things that we have come to appreciate and accept within our defined space is supported by the acedemics of the date. If and when more findings refute those positions of the day that situation give rise to an anomaly. When more academics study this irregularities, this gives rise to new theorizing.
It follows, therefore, that many of the things that hold true today are not real but socially constructed because of time and space, and the availability of resources that are available to man. The word water is socially construct, that is it was given it name by man. As such, how are we absolute sure water is water? This same theorizing can be used to apply to other things within our socialized space.
"The positivists!"
By Paul Andrew Bourne, MSc. (candidate); BSc. (Hons); Dip. Edu.
In response to the position forwarded by the other "disscuant", I am requesting that you read Thomas Kuhn book on scientific revolution and exemplars such as Professor Uche and others in order to comprehend their beliefs of this world.
Re: "Simplifying the simple"
Paul
Reality is not the same thing as truth. When I see water - unless there is something wrong with my eyes or mind - I see something real. That reality is build by the external stimulus and by my eye: the image of water is in me, but only because something external to me stimulated my eye (of course, I cannot know what those external stimulus are if not according to my senses and mind).
When we try to explain what water is, then we are dealing with social constructs. Their truth depends, in part, on historical and social adequation.
Re: "The positivists!"
paul andrew bourne wrote:By Paul Andrew Bourne, MSc. (candidate); BSc. (Hons); Dip. Edu.
In response to the position forwarded by the other "disscuant", I am requesting that you read Thomas Kuhn book on scientific revolution and exemplars such as Professor Uche and others in order to comprehend their beliefs of this world.
Paul: In these forums, we try to maintain a certain level of polite discourse. That includes referring to other posters by their screen names (or some abbreviation thereof), and, when addressing them directly, it is customary to identify the person you are addressing and to use the second-person form. Referring to a member with whom you are engaged in a discussion as "the other disscuant" [
sic] can be interpreted as a mark of disrespect. I have seen nothing in
val's posts that would warrant such condescending treatment.
Re: "Ontologically real"
paul andrew bourne wrote:By Paul Andrew Bourne, MSc. (candidate); BSc. (Hons); Dip. Edu.
According to positivists, an ontology exists in that there is an absolute truth "out there". This begs the question, "out where?"
.....
In this context, peoples socially construct the world and things therein in order to comprehend what they see
I think your answered your own question. "Out there" is what people see, and therefore build contructions around.
Also, truth, by definition, does not change. If we believe something, which turns out not to be true, it is not a truth. It is a belief. Things that people believe are beliefs. No one is claiming that a belief is universally true or incapable of being proven wrong.
Truth can be based on factual truth or honest truth.
Honest truth is merely a person sharing their thoughts, memories or opinions as they actually are without lying.
Factual truth is a different matter.
The universe exists as a multi-dimensional structure of energy forms. These energy forms take certain patterns and are definately one thing, or another. Factual truth is how much our description of these patterns corresponds with their actual form.
The absolute truth in the universe is the fashion in which these energy forms exist. That is the objective nature of the universe. Each person has a subjective opinion based upon their interactions with the objective truth. This subjective opinino may or may not be correct.
Theantibuddha, do you make a distinction between religious truth, mystical truth, theoretical (scientific and philosophical) truth, and factual truth? Of course they are not the same thing as truthfulness (sincerity).
JLNobody wrote:Theantibuddha, do you make a distinction between religious truth, mystical truth, theoretical (scientific and philosophical) truth, and factual truth? Of course they are not the same thing as truthfulness (sincerity).
Yes, as it happens I do.
Religious and mystical truth, better known in common english by the name outrageous lies, are quite distinct from theoretical truth ("we tried and this answer will be considered right for the next century or so"). Factual truth is the actual state of the universe, which we can not directly perceive.
antibuddha
You make a distinction between theoretical truth and factual truth. Factual truth being, in your own words, "the actual state of the universe".
But don't you think that saying "actual state of universe" you are already using a theoretical concept? In fact, the word "universe" is already a theoretical concept.
You cannot have a perception of the universe. For example, you don't see "stars". You only see little bright lights emerging from the dark.When you say "star" you are already making a conceptual construct, according to a theoretical conception.
Using your own distinction, I don't see any difference between the "theoretical truth" and the "factual truth".
Val, congratulations on a very subtle observation.
What is then the difference between theoretical and actual? My body is as I see it and feel it. Is this theoretical or actual? My body is also a bunch of atoms vibrating. Is this theoretical or actual?
Maybe actual and theoretical is the same thing on different places in the process?
cyracuz wrote:
Quote:What is then the difference between theoretical and actual? My body is as I see it and feel it. Is this theoretical or actual? My body is also a bunch of atoms vibrating. Is this theoretical or actual?
Maybe actual and theoretical is the same thing on different places in the process?
val's keen observation we can see that too is theoretically based.
E.g.
val wrote:
"You cannot have a perception of the universe. For example, you don't see "stars". You only see little bright lights emerging from the dark.When you say "star" you are already making a conceptual construct, according to a theoretical conception.
Using your own distinction, I don't see any difference between the "theoretical truth" and the "factual truth"."
I agree with
val's above, though there's a tendency to read it as if
val's comment is factual compared to
antibuddha's
Cyracuz, I think the distinction in question is between theoretical and FACTUAL, not actual. We tend to think that facts are hard evidence for or against a hypothetical proposition. That theory refers to hypothetical and factual to actual. But as I see it facts are really little (taken for granted or tacit) theories. They are not "brute" they are perceptions that are cooked rather than raw. Every datum we observe and measure is laden with interpretive presumptions. Even our units of measurement reflect theoretical notions of rank (with reference to constructed criteria). Notions of brute facts and common sense reflect a set of epistemological and ontological presuppositions called, as you probably know, Naive Realism.
You ask the interesting question, "are my perceptions of my body theoretical or actual? Obviously (to me, that is) your bodily sensations are actual. But your reference to them as vibrating atoms (or ANY statement about them, even those presented as merely factual) is theoretical.
Your last susggestion--"Maybe actual and theoretical is the same thing on different places in the process?"--is suggestive, but requires more thought.
ADDENDUM: The above was wriltten and submitted before I read Tywvel's post.
JLNobdy
Quote:But as I see it facts are really little (taken for granted or tacit) theories. They are not "brute" they are perceptions that are cooked rather than raw. Every datum we observe and measure is laden with interpretive presumptions. Even our units of measurement reflect theoretical notions of rank (with reference to constructed criteria. Notions of brute facts and common sense reflect a set of epistemological and ontological presuppositions called, as you probably know, Naive Realism.
I think this emphasizes our non-phenomenal presence; that which knows.
Beyond understanding or up-stream from interpretations, evaluations, and meaning constructions, and beyond or prior to the invasion of memory into a pure perception, there is what
is
Twyvel, as far as I can tell there is only thinking, no thinker. There is sleeping, no sleeper, love-making and fighting, no lover and fighter. No you, no me, only this conversation, while it occurs. Someone once answered, when asked if he believed in God "Yes and nothing else". He meant, it seems, that there is only God, i.e., only thinking, sleeping, love-making and fighting, and so forth: just a dancing God (but a god that has nothing to do with the usual object of theism). It's what we all see and know before we try to see and know.
That's as murky (and truthful) as I can get.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace