Even more cumbersome to classify become intersubjectively held fictions, like unicorns, which are not intersubjective realities in the same sense that moneys and cultures are - yet are still actual/real as culturally present fictions: unicorns then being a real, rather than an untrue, fictional notion within the cultures we partake of — javra
It will be a historical curiosity, and interesting, not because it is a piece of paper but because it was money. What significance would it have then, or would it have had in the past, as a piece of paper? Imagine the museum exhibit: "Piece of paper." — Ciceronianus
Right, but why not revise what we understand of the real, rather than create new categories because they do not fit tradition? — StreetlightX
is there something at stake is excluding money from the real? — StreetlightX
This seems to be your favorite rhetorical gun, too bad you can't seem to hit anything with it.Plato — bongo fury
it seems as if our existence occurs fundamentally in the encounter between the two. Everything else becomes objectification of that universal reality. — Melanie
If a ten dollar note (money) isn't a ten dollar note (money), what is it? Something else, which we merely treat as if it were a ten dollar note (money)? — Ciceronianus
What do you think about this framework? — Hermeticus
Hence the ontology of money requires one to step outside the ontological categories of real or imaginary or physical or mental, and to recognises that there is a wider social world that transcends these limited categories. — Banno
It seems funny to me that what is at stake in the OP is that money fails the expectation of what reality somehow ought to be — StreetlightX
I'm simply saying that the idea that there are abstract reals is not a novel idea. — Wayfarer
Rather than seeing the world as 'things projected into our imaginations" our experiences can be seen as our imaginations projected into or onto things. — Melanie
So hate to dissappoint you, but it's not a new category, rather you've discovered or re-discovered the basic idea behind universals. — Wayfarer
Again if you had bothered to read you would have seen this is exactly my point.But if you consider the experience of the world to comprise sensations and ideas (as idealist philosophy claims) then the division is by no means neat. — Wayfarer
This sounds awfully close to Lacan's conception on the subject. You'd only be missing what he calls "the symbolic", the other two are as stated. — Manuel
We could call money a useful fiction. Something which is considered valuable solely by our considering pieces of paper to be of worth. — Manuel
They are opposites. Mental objects which cast a shadow into the physical world, vs physical objects which cast a shadow into the mental world.I think that your distinction between real imaginary and imaginary real is not needed. You can use one term to encompass both ideas. — Manuel
Odd here: You speak of innate moral intuitions, then deride ethical Realism with a capital R — Astrophel
What follows is so far from obvious as to be incomprehensible.In fact, the idea is so obvious than I cannot even imagine seriously dismissing — Astrophel
This doesn't just tell us what the subject of ethics is, but states a thesis about what ethics is (emphasis in the original). — SophistiCat
There are only two parties in American democracy for the simple reason that those who created it realized, much to our benefit, that given any issue, only two voices matter - those for and those against. — TheMadFool
To the extent that we see them expressed in even 'unintelligent' and very nonhuman species, such as fish, we can guess: quite.But those inborn concepts and feelings, how inborn are they? — Astrophel
The innate ethical tendencies are shaped and directed by culture in very varied ways. The same as with our innate linguistic tendencies, sexual tendencies, etc.what is the separation between what is acculturated and what is "natural"? — Astrophel
That is, if I have a feeling, a pang of conscience, isn't this to be brought up under review to see if it's right? — Astrophel
You are one of many who feels compelled to believe that ethics is Real with a capital R. I don't sympathize. Do you seriously think there is a material basis for ethics? This isI think ethics is Real, not just a construct. All constructs are constructs OF something. All meaningful affairs are meaningful only to the extent that there is a material basis for them. — Astrophel
And this specific position is?This answer seeks to smuggle a specific position on metaethics into the very definition of the subject matter — SophistiCat
I don't even know who you are arguing with anymore. Again, where am I assuming this?You are assuming another possible universe is simply an extension of the one we are in, adding features here and there. — jgill
Which is nonsense. — Raymond
Exactly how do you do this encoding? Is it arbitrary? — jgill
I am asserting:Hence, you assert the "number" of possible universes is countable. That's a big "if". — jgill
Alexandre made that assumption also.
If there are other universes the principles of probability we have assembled may not be the same. — jgill
nullum sensum facit — jgill
With that expressed, I'm curious what the threshold is for "enough people" to perceive something/somewhere as sacred, for it to then become so? — Bret Bernhoft
That's an excellent question, and I'd assume not. But I could be mistaken. — Bret Bernhoft