If there is no hierarchy, then are all beliefs on the same level? what someone thinks is a good description of what they experienced. I could also ask this way : are you an idealist and not a realist? are you a pure one?
How does this relate, for exmaple, to all the work you did on showing that Republicans were X - generally negative? Can they just say, well, that’s how you experience it? One way of experiencing amongst many, and no hierarchy between these different interpretations.
What hierarchy are you thinking of? I was thinking in terms of the hierarchy of dependency like in a computer there are services that depend on other services which depend on the machine which depends on electricity etc etc and there would be no end to the dependencies so long as you continue looking, because what you’re ultimately looking at is yourself which results in infinite regression.
It almost seems that you’re thinking in terms of accuracy like the time I was shocked by an electric fence and figured that a log fell from a tree onto the back of my neck before finally realizing I had accidentally touched the fence with my elbow. So my first perception was inaccurate and lower in the hierarchy of accuracy. But if we’re thinking in terms of accuracy, I think ultimately we’re going to be in another infinite regress because what really is, is you, once again, and you can’t be an object of your own knowledge. So I think we can move towards or away from accuracy, but never really arrive (precision).
I can’t keep those terms straight because they’re opposite from what intuition would suggest. Let’s see… an idealistic person is a realist, right? And a realistic person is an idealist? Or no? Anyway, I’m not the type who thinks there is a concrete reality independent of observation but I’m also not the type suggesting that a conscious mind is necessary for anything to exist, so what does that make me? I don’t draw lines in consciousness and proclaim “consciousness starts here: at fish, in the evolutionary model”, but I simply think consciousness is a range from humans down to atoms in degrees of it. So if conscious observation is required for something to exist, then an atom qualifies.
Sure that’s how they experience it and I know because I used to experience it since I used to be republican, and they’re free to go experience it all they want, but when they shove it down my throat, then it’s not an experience I want to experience and the experience that I prefer is that of fighting back against the aggression.
I can summon Hitchens again:
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n56u6omxeOs[/youtube]
I’m perfectly happy for people to have these toys, and to play with them at home, and hug them to themselves, and so on, and share them with other people who come round and play with the toys, so that’s perfectly fine. They are not allowed to make me play with these toys, okay. I will not play with the toys! Don’t bring the toys to my house! Don’t say my children must play with these toys! Don’t say my toys might be a condom, here we go again: I’m not allowed by their toys. I’m not going to have any of that! Enough with clerical and religious bullying and intimidation! Is that finally clear? Have I got that across? Thank you.
So it’s the same argument: If they want to worship the rich and cater to them at their own expense, then fine; they’re welcome to lick all the boots they want, but don’t bully me and mine into prostitution for survival just to increase the opulence of some arbitrary idol. They don’t even need to enter into a voting booth, just go to work all week and send the paycheck to Jamie Dimon. Easy. Oh but it doesn’t end there, no, they want ME to send my paycheck to him as well. If they were smart enough to see what they’re doing, then I’d label them immoral, but as it is, they’re dumb animals by virtue of neural degeneration who can’t be held accountable for their actions, yet also can’t be caged in zoos.
So I’m relegated to ranting on random forums while waiting for the Max Planck axiom to play out.
Accuracy, yes, in terms of future and repeatable experiences, but also accuracy in terms of realism. If I look at the above, you explain that you were mistaken about what was happening with objects, then realized which object you interacted with. Electric fences having qualities that affect experiences. Yes, subjective experiences. yes, time bound experiences through a subject. Yes, we don’t really know what a fence is without a subject present. But the realist model of objects out there that move in and out of people’s experiences of them seems pretty useful. Might even be true.
No, not to me, lol.
or it could be what Sillouette is saying which is more like a phenomenalism…
Sounds like panpsychism. Which I tend to believe in. Which is not necessarily hte same as idealism. I think you could even call some versions a realism. Though most realists would get all pissy if you did.
I’m not asking why you fight or saying you should stop. It just seemed like you were taking an objective stance. Look, here are the facts. Here’s what statistics show, here’s the data, you’re just being emotional amydala people if you disagree and so on.
It seemed like you were saying: this is what reality out there is like. Period. I can show the objective truth on the subject.
I think I know what you’re indicating here and I’m fairly sure you’re trying do more with it than you can.
We’re social beings and our survival has depended on our cooperation, individually we’re vulnerable and we have a strong desire to “belong” which can and does do work on us.
But even in groups we’re only as strong as our cohesion. Getting everyone to agree about a course of action requires, at minimum, an agreement about a goal as well as the best way to accomplish it.
If you were to iterate conceptually on a strategy that would most reliably produce group cooperation you’d likely end up with a religious belief… the objective is to get a group ought from what is.
This is the formula for how you get an ought from what is: motivation + terrain = ought
Bill wants to obtain x as fast as possible
The fastest/only way to obtain x is by doing y
Bill ought to do y
Now let’s make it as universal as possible…
Everyone wants to avoid suffering
The only way to avoid suffering is to do x
Everyone ought to do x
That’s every religion ever produced… the suffering may be terrestrial or it may be spiritual, but that’s the formula for all of them whether or not they include gods.
Biological adaptability is time consuming making motivation hard to tamper with, so our strategy instead has been focused on our more malleable perception of the terrain…
And so each religion proposes the addition of a cosmic terrain that suggests different behavior depending on the historical needs of the time
This is not an accidental design nor merely the byproduct of cognitive errors… but one could argue they are useful misapprehensions.
Take the proposition “If you jump off a cliff you will fall” whatever mechanism produces your perception of the world, it MUST recognize this or die…
This is not limited to the human condition, the production of this recognition is necessary in any creature that must successfully navigate in a goal seeking manor, whether solitary or social
That is to say whatever else you may take perceived reality to be, you MUST recognize this as part of it.
What’s more a mechanism like this is necessary in ANY conceivable world with only one exception… a world in which reality is shaped by the creature’s conception of it.
Philosophical realism is the recognition that reality does not bend to our will nor is shaped by our conceptions of it… this is self evident to any being that cannot shape it’s own reality.
Now we can argue about how best to conceptualize the reality we’re confronted with, whether our theory of gravity is the most accurate way to apprehend it or not
But the denial of objective reality is a debilitating form insanity which you would not survive without help.
You cannot act on that denial, you cannot reason from or to it… it’s an entirely dead track to run on, leading only to is epistemic nihilism.
You’re response to me earlier in this thread was the only one I would accept for abandoning philosophical realism… which I’m going to paraphrase as “I think it helps psychologically”
You might be right, maybe it does… It’s not for me to say what is psychologically pleasing to you.
But it is intellectually indefensible and can only be smuggled in through the door of “uncertainty”.
Which is why these conversations always lead to “we can’t be certain” and then die.
Like I said earlier, this is often innocuous and done for the sake of ego… which is fine, because we all know when you get off the computer you’re not going be jumping off a bridge or anything.
You’re most likely not even going to propose any wild and speculative corrections to our theory of gravity.
At most you’re just going to feel good about yourself for having made a point you think most people are too blind to see and pat your own back for doing so… and if that makes you happy who am I to get in your way.
As I had mentioned above, there are two levels re the fear of death, i.e.
DNA wise ALL humans IN GENERAL as normal persons are not bothered by death because humans has evolved imperatively to not-be-bothered-by-death. The point is if one is bothered by death, one would be paralyzed with fear, thus not being able to do anything productive, especially the drive for procreation to preserve the human species.
As I had stated for any one to be bothered with death, then that person would need psychiatric help, i.e. Thanotophobia.
It is also very normal for any to have a fear of dying, as evidenced from our emotions, observations of others and making inferences.
While the fear of death is suppressed to facilitate optimal survival at the subconscious levels, there are LEAKAGES that manifests as Angst or existential anxieties that make one very psychological insecure.
To make oneself psychological secure, the majority turned to God as a balm to soothe the subconscious existential pains and objectivists are compel to believe in 100% pure objectivity of a thing-in-itself independent of human conditions.
We cannot be too sure how our brain will response if and when the threshold is reached. I mentioned the once world most notable atheist, Anthony Flew, who turned deist at the later part of his life. I bet he did not know what was happening except he must have felt the most comforting in taking the stance a deistic God exists.
Personally I am not too sure of my response if I am in that condition, the only prevention is I am taking steps to strengthen the relevant inhibitors [neurons] and hope they do not atrophize too much when I reached old age.
I read someone stated, he will take a gun to his head if he ever get the stirring impulse to lean towards a God.
Note I denounced 'propositions not supported by empirical evidence, possibility and rationality [philosophical].
Thus rational truths or propositions must be supported by empirical evidence, possibility and rationality [philosophical].
I believe the concept of objectivity implied processed and a refinement of ‘subjectivity’ with due care and rationality, i.e. put through the rigor of testing for empirical evidences, possibility and rationality.
E.g. God is not-empirical-evident, is impossible and irrational. God is only useful for psychological reasons.
OK, I get your point because it can be a very loose term.
However I believe we can tighten the term ‘objectivity’ with more precise definitions.
I believe the dichotomy of the subject versus the object, thus subjective versus objective is essential. Thus the use of the term ‘objectivity’ is useful, i.e. as shared or intersubjectivity, because as I mentioned above it is processed and refined ‘subjectivity’. Therefore we cannot separate subjectivity from what is objectivity.
What the objectivists proposed as 100% pure objectivity need to be expounded and the error be exposed as incorrectly misled by psychology. What is critical is we need to explore and research into the role of psychology in compelling a person toward the ideology of theism and philosophical realism. This will then take us to explore deeper into the brain and human psychology.
If I agree with your sticking to subjectivity without the corresponding ‘objectivity’ we will not have the potential for further exploration and research.
The very serious arguments from the Philosophical Anti-Realist [Buddha, Kant et al) is reality-as-it-is does bend to our will, i.e. the collective not the individual’s Will. As part and parcel of reality-as-it-is, the subjects are co-creators of reality-as-it-is.
The Philosophical Realists’ view on objective reality [independent of the human conditions] is “I am 100% right you are wrong”, “take it or the highway”, which is similar as the theists’ view.
Note the Philosophical Realists’ view is not evident ultimately but based on a leap of faith to insist there is something like the thing-in-itself [noumenon] when there is no such thing as a thing-in-itself, thing-by-itself, things-by-themselves.
Regardless of whatever one feels, what count are the arguments, whether they are sound or not.
Note the trend of knowledge as in Physics has been moving from the focus on the objects to the subjects, note observers’ effect, QM - collapse function, etc.
Copernicus did it and Kant [mine] followed suit;
The Philosophical Realists’ position [the majority’s] is based on common sense and the default. Kant’s and others are swimming against the tide of the majority. It take a big psychological battle to break through this, but the Philosophical Realists by default just cannot do it since they are being trapped by their inherent psychological defense mechanisms.
To experience this defense mechanism first hand, try this;
Spirituality: How Long Can You Hold Your Breath?
styles/prosilver/imageset/icon_post_target.gif
This psychological defense mechanism is so strong and aggressive, some will even kill if that defense is threatened.
To me, an idealistic person would be one who asserts that their ideal situation is objective truth and the realistic person would be one who asserts that ideal situations don’t exist or that situations aren’t always ideal. Like Jefferson idealistically claiming that a nation with a standing army is a danger to freedom, then later realizing without an army there can be no country.
Realism = objectivism = idealistic person.
Idealism = subjectivism = realistic person.
It’s hard for me to keep it straight because I don’t associate what’s ideal with what’s mental… and I don’t associate what’s real as anything other than “mental” (subjective).
From my frame of reference, all adherents to logic should see it my way. From their frame of reference, which is from a hole in the sand, they can’t see it.
Dumb minorities vote liberal because the oppression of minorities by conservatives is not difficult to see. Any idiot can see it.
Dumb whites vote conservative because the oppression of dumb whites by conservatives is too difficult to discern and it requires the caliber of someone like Noam Chomsky to point it out, and even then, it requires fairly substantial intelligence to see it even when illustrated by Noam. So there is nothing they can conclude other than all those smart professors are idiots.
Well first, I’m not having this conversation with Kant or the Buddha, I’m having it with you…
So maybe you can present me with your thoughts instead of attempting to speak on behalf of greater minds.
You’ve not really giving me anything to work with here… you’ve just made assertions without outlining any kind of reasoning that leads you to your conclusions.
Not only that but you’ve also predefined “philosophical realism” into a neat little box with predefined flaws that you can point out independent of me.
My participation at this point seems optional…
But on the off chance that you may actually respond to ME and not some predefined tenet that you imagine I hold to, I’ll say again:
I don’t have to convince you of anything, because you’re already operating as though you agree with me… I am not saying you’re wrong, I’m saying you’re playing a language game.
You might want to frame it as “collective reality” or “relative reality” but it’s inconsequential.
Say something of consequence, commit to something that makes your faith falsifiable THEN I’ll concede that you’re not JUST playing word games.
Yeah don’t flatter yourself… ideas are not dangerous to realists, knowledge is.
When realists have knowledge, they guard it carefully. Whether it’s scientific discoveries, military intelligence, new tech designs you name it…
They’re happy for you to be ignorant, gives them an edge.
It’s the ideological religious types who NEED you to believe what they believe and insist you change your mind.
And it’s just as unpersuasive when they drone on about how defensive and closed off you are to accepting their brand of horseshit.
And what on earth does that mean? Different extant people fill in the blank here with different [conflicting] sets of political prejudices.
Then the moral objectivists among them will insist that the manner in which they construe the whole truth here is on par with the manner in which all of us can determine/demonstrate what is true in the either/or world — encompassed in the evolution of life on earth culminating [so far] in our own species biologically able to impregnate the female of the species.
Then this part:
It’s not a question of the universe caring, it’s a question of what those of our own species are able to demonstrate is true objectively for all rational human beings. Something that lions and deer know practically nothing of.
Okay, that part I understand. Objectivity is defined into existence “in your head”. James Saints “definitional logic”. And if you can convince others to share in those definitions culminating in the meaning or words placed in a particular order in posts like this, then objectivity is captured. If only in a world of words.
Of course in a wholly determined universe even the human “subject” is but one more of nature’s objects. But, if one presumes some level of autonomy, then [for me] what counts is connecting the dots between what any particular subjects believe is true and what they are able to demonstrate is true. Using, for example, the scientific method and the logical rules of language
Yes, but only to the extent that any particular subject is able to demonstrate that one can approach the morality of abortion as a doctor approaches human sexuality and pregnancy given her objective understanding of the biological parameters involved.
Here, I can only imagine folks at an abortion clinic protest reacting to this. How “for all preactical purposes” might this be useful to them?
I have no idea what this has to do with the points I raise in regards to abortion out in the is/ought world. I’m not saying you are wrong, only that it is all entirely too abstract [to me] to have any real use value or exchange value in a context in which a particular abortion is actually being reacted to.
Well, I imagine that any number of subjects have beheld a woman at an abortion clinic having a procedure that ends the life of her unborn zygote/embryo/fetus.
But how does one behold conflicting narratives in regard to the morality of it?
In a determined universe, everything that we think, feel, say and do embodies the illusion of autonomy.
And, in an autonomous universe, I believe that objectivist moral narratives/political agendas reflect the illusion of an objective morality.
Only I immediately recognize my inabilty to demonstrate that this in itself is true objectively. Why? Because there may well be an existing God. Or there may well be a wholly rational Humanist assesment out there that does in fact pin down an objective argument about the morality of abortion one way or the other.
But I don’t focus as much on defining illusion. Instead, my interest is in taking any particular definitions out into the world of actual human interactions and testing them existentially.
Well, we need to name a particular context. Say, building Trump’s wall on the border with Mexico. Then we need to hear all of the conflicting arguments regarding whether [objectively] we can discern the “right thing to do here”.
With regard to actual flesh and blood human beings whose lives will either be uplifted or upended in building or not building it.
There are two types of objectivity : relative and absolute
Relative objectivity is inter subjective consensus that has the rigour of evidence or proof or logic or reason to support it [ it is
not merely popular opinion for that does not require any rigour at all ] This is the type of objectivity that you are referring to
Absolute objectivity is that which is held to be true even though it cannot be demonstrated such as for example the existence of God
Although given that belief in God is subjective then absolute objectivity must logically also be subjective. Ones position on this is dependent upon
whether you are a theist or an atheist : theists will say absolute objectivity exists because God exists while atheists will say the complete opposite
This is incidentally why you cannot find an objective answer to your abortion dilemma : anti abortionists are theists and pro abortionists are atheists
They cannot agree on the morality of abortion because they are using entirely different moral authorities namely God and human beings
The anti abortionists are citing an authority that the pro abortionists do not acknowledge so difference of opinion is therefore inevitable
Having spent the amount of time on both, I would consider myself a near expert on their knowledge. Thus my views are very similar to the Buddha’s and Kant, thus standing on shoulders of giants to support my views.
I did not make my own definition. I had actually defined Philosophical Realism based on the general accepted definition, i.e.
The last point is debatable depending on whether one is referring to classical Science or Modern or Quantum Physics.
Ideas [philosophical] i.e. ideology not dangerous?
Note Communism, Nazism, fascism and Islamic theism and others of the like.
Knowledge itself is not dangerous but only when it is abused with an ideology.
To put into Kant’s Perspective;
Transcendental/Philosophical Realism = objectivism = idealistic person.
Transcendental Idealism = subjectivism = realistic person.
It is not easy to explain, I will try;
Transcendental/Philosophical Realism = objectivism = idealistic person.
An pure objectivist of Transcendental/Philosophical Realism believe in an external object that is independent of the human condition, which mean there is a reality GAP between the subject and the object connected by waves.
The waves of the external object form a mental conception and idea of the object in the mind.
In this case, the subject never interact with the supposedly real object at all.
This is the reason why the pure objectivist or philosophical realist is an idealistic person.
This weakness is exposed by Meno’s Paradox.
For example a philosophical realist believe there is a real table that is external to his human subjective conditions. But the philosophical realist never get in “touch” with the real table but only is connected via electromagnetic waves from his real table.
The question is, is there a “real” table emitting waves to his brain?
Note I had quoted Russell’s doubts, i.e. “perhaps there is no table at all”
A Philosophical Realist will often condemn his counterpart as an idealist, not being aware they are the real idealist, i.e. transcendental idealist indulging in illusions.
Transcendental Idealism = subjectivism = realistic person.
On the other hand the transcendental idealist is an empirical realist.
To the empirical realist the object co-exists with the subject, there is no object that is external to the human conditions, i.e. no reality-GAP at all.
Thus the transcendental idealist or empirical realist which is intersubjective is realistic, i.e. what is cognized and emerged is what you get.
Common sense indicate there is some sort of externalness, i.e. a distance between the subject and the object [Sun 93 million miles away], but this distance is still subjective.
The term “idealist” is a derogatory term thrown at those who oppose their Philosophical Realism views.
They so called and condemned ‘idealists’ [not theistic idealists like Berkerley] are actually empirical realists, thus very realistic.
Didn’t I include a definition of idealism? In philosophy it has a different meaning.
Now that’s idealism. You’re an idealist.
plato.stanford.edu/entries/idealism/ (this is just one take on idealism)
You are prioritizing your view over theirs. That’s not an accusation, but you are claiming, with the word ‘logic’ that you are more objective.
I cannot see how claims to objectivity are not part of the foundation for this attitude.
Ideas are not dangerous…
YOU might be dangerous, if you were armed with knowledge… but not your ideas.
You idealist types often ARE dangerous because you desperately need to get everyone else to agree with you.
It’s almost as if you believe your fantasy world stops being real if you can’t get the “collective” to agree… 
Whereas for realists that’s not really a concern…
This has been a truly tiresome conversation…
I know, that’s why I can’t keep it straight until I go through the effort of figuring it all out again.
I’m an idealist except that I don’t define “mental” as most people would. You know that.
I’m simply saying that plugging concepts into logical equations spits out certain conclusions subject to the logic and the variables.
Does it REALLY matter if anyone is exploited? No. But if nothing matters, then it doesn’t matter if I fight back.
For the attitude of the dummy it is because he cannot see and is drawing conclusions from darkness, then holding them on faith. Noam has authored over 100 books, holds 40 honorary degrees, and has been lecturing on politics and economics for longer than most people have been alive, yet he’s casually dismissed as an idiot by people who are themselves idiots if their standardized test results and grades are any guide. They are making an objective claim. I am making a subjective claim that’s subject to logic and reason, but they are making an objective claim that’s subject to nothing.
Whether agree or disagree, the currency is sound arguments.
If you have sound counter arguments then I can either counter or agree.
Whether it is ‘realism’ or ‘idealism’ we need to put them into their proper contexts.
There are those who jumped to claim they are Philosophical Realists with the ideology of Realism but the philosophical argument is they are not realistic.
Philosophical Realists insist they can point to a real table, but as Russell stated, under strong philosophical rigor, perhaps there is no really-real table at all as proposed by the so claimed Realists.
It is argued the Philosophical Realists are actually empirical idealists and transcendental realists.
The typical so condemned ‘idealist’ is actually an empirical realist and a transcendental idealist as I had explained from the Kantian perspective.
It doesn’t matter if anyone is exploited?
Who are you? (today)
I’m not saying ‘those guys are fine’ I’m just trying to understand your position. IOW if I probe you in your debate on the right, I am not saying the Right is right. I mean, you both could be nuts, for exmaple. I don’t think your nuts, but often on the internet if you probe or criticize one side of a debate or one part of someone’s argument, it is taken to mean one agrees with the other team. Both teams could be nuts. The other team could be nuts about most thigns, but not this one thing. It could have been worded weird. Their might be a third team that’s great. I am sure there are other possiblities.
I still find it strange that you think you are making subjective claims only.
Even the head in the sand metaphor strongly implies that your head is not in the sand. So you can look at the objects. They have their head in the sand, so they are making stuff up. IOW objects can be percieved. They are out there. You are triangulating them and have a better chance of knowing their nature, becaues your head is not under the earth. You have a direct line of sight.
The Right…my thoughts on the right are so weird to most people I haven’t even brought them up: I think they are a reflection of our denials. Feelings and thoughts we did not want to look up because we were afraid they meant we are bad, seeped out of us and lo…there they are fixed and as bad as we feared, but only because we denied them. IOW they are not as real.
