Realist versus non-realist

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Postby Philosophic Caveman » Sun Aug 08, 2004 1:25 am

I will admit one thing. Your existential relativistic non-realism gives me a headache. It just seems to lack common sense. Your philosophy seems to deny existence and therefore it denies it's own existence. I am more than willing to agree that it does not exist, except in the minds of philosophers who wish to make themselves incomphehensible and to exagerate their own importance. To argue that existence is subjective is the hieght of arrogance to which man can ascend. Such men elect themselves to be God by claiming they are the creators. Since God's existence has always been in question, then I would place such philosophers in the same category.
Philosophic Caveman
 
Posts: 161
Joined: Sun May 30, 2004 5:52 pm

Postby Impenitent » Sun Aug 08, 2004 6:14 am

Philosophic Caveman wrote:I will admit one thing. Your existential relativistic non-realism gives me a headache. It just seems to lack common sense. Your philosophy seems to deny existence and therefore it denies it's own existence.

[nothing of the kind... it is solipistic... all that can be known is ones own existence]

I am more than willing to agree that it does not exist, except in the minds of philosophers who wish to make themselves incomphehensible and to exagerate their own importance. To argue that existence is subjective is the hieght of arrogance to which man can ascend.

[to argue that an external universe exists is troublesome for empirical objects and impossible for metaphysical objects... arrogance? hardly... it can not be shown to be otherwise... ]

Such men elect themselves to be God by claiming they are the creators. Since God's existence has always been in question, then I would place such philosophers in the same category.

[no, god remains dead...]

cogito ergo cogito
sum ergo sum...

Λογοκρισία και σιωπή

What's the difference between a liberal and Al Qaeda?
Oh, you don't know either?

"False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils, except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes....Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." (Thomas Jefferson)

"Stat rosa pristina nomine, nomina nuda tenemus" -Eco
Impenitent
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12706
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 3:16 pm

reality vs reality

Postby Jose » Sun Aug 08, 2004 4:31 pm

Being new at this "game", will sound more naive than the first time.
However, we seem to have gone far a field!.

Now Isee posting degenerating into some kind of contest; a lot of posturing and self-aggrandizement - which seems to negate the original intentoin of philosphy.

See game theorist wanting to "beat" everybody else, which somewhat specious arguments that do not seem to advance the dialogue.

Oh well, maybe this is normal for these threads to run? Eventually disintegrate into rantings and ravings...then whimpering?

Would appreciate somebody enlightening me
Jose
Jose
 
Posts: 9
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2004 5:02 pm
Location: USA

Re:

Postby Fixed Cross » Tue Jul 21, 2020 11:17 pm

Impenitent wrote:
Logo wrote:Yes, Russell is a realist by 19th century standards--which basically means he is an anti-idealist. But he is also an empiricist, and 20th century empiricism has come to be thought of as anti-realist position. Russell's theory of descriptions contributed greatly to the worldview of the logical positivists in the 1920's and 30's. But a new brand of realism, a reaction to positivism, took shape in the 60's and 70's--and this movement centered around a notion that Russell never would've condoned: essentialism--the idea that there is a deep, mind-independent structure to reality; that things have essential properties which make them what they are, independent of our capacity to name or describe them.

"mind-independent structure to reality" - along the lines of which the mind is also structured though, so it isn't as radical an idea at heart as it seems on the surface. It actually proposes a greater phenomenological consistency, in fact transcending substance duality. When properly grounded in direct phenomenon, which is the say at large, pathos. "The essence of pathos" ...

So in contemporary circles the debate is described as realism vs. empiricism--where a century ago, the two schools would've been compatible.

now I have always understood existentialism to take the position that existence preceeds essence, and I agree with this standpoint...
would this be considered 'realist"?

this 'essentialism' sounds like a metaphysics to be superimposed over the kantian 'thing in itself' (which can never be known) ... it seems that in proving essentialism one must argue along the lines of proving god...
is this essentialism 'anti-realist'? or mere speculative metaphysics?

The Will to Power renders it perhaps anti-realist in the most literal sense; iconoclasm.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image -
Before the Light - Den 8 - The Tree of Life
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 10746
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: Realist Definitions

Postby Fixed Cross » Tue Jul 21, 2020 11:39 pm

Impenitent wrote:
Philosophic Caveman wrote:Thanks for the responses.

What seems to fly in the face of common sense, is the idea that something does not exist until I discover it? If I don't perceive you, you still exist in reality.

no, I would not exist in your reality prior to your perception, and that's all to which you have access...

Philosophic Caveman wrote: There are gases that cannot be perceived by any of our senses and yet will still kill you. Is this claim is linked to the claim that discovery is an act of creation?

not exactly... but yes, when you discover something you have created it in your sphere of perception...

Philosophic Caveman wrote:For anyone to say confidently that knowledge is not possible seems to lack common sense also. Isn't that very statement a statement of knowledge?

Hume and Nietzsche both did quite well actually... and even Socrates knew that he knew nothing... knowing that one knows nothing is not uncommon at all, just as there are absolutely no absolutes...

Philosophic Caveman wrote: If Nitzsche knew that knowledge was not possible, how did he know it, and isn't he defeating his own arguement by claiming to know that knowledge is not possible? This seems to me to be the sort of negative scepticism that leads one to nihilism.


in fact it was quite the opposite for Nietzsche, he uncovered the nihilism behind the theories of morals and knowledge...

Philosophic Caveman wrote: To deny that knowledge is possible seems to me to be sophistry.


it may appear to be sophistry, but one must affirmitavely answer the question, what and how do you know and can you prove it... the proof is never there except definitionally which really isn't useful knowledge at all...

Excellent posts; proofs are definitional only when they need to be formulated. In Darwinistic terms, the only thing that can be proven, is proven and thus known by procreation.

Philosophic Caveman: Nietzsche evades this by positing that all knowledge-positing and fact-apprehending is a form of will to power, and that willing to power is interpreting reality in ones own terms;
so, whereas we know that knowledge is not, this knowing knows of itself that it is merely positing.
You see, knowledge is being made subservient to something else, something closer to the act of proving, than to the act of knowing.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image -
Before the Light - Den 8 - The Tree of Life
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 10746
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Previous

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users