I think a new category is needed
The Real Imaginary: Exist in the mental world, but is projected into the physical world.
The world is filled with such things: nations, religions, ideologies, institutions, are a few examples. Money is just more stark because of its potency and because it has its own physical avatars, currency. — hypericin
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
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
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
I'm simply saying that the idea that there are abstract reals is not a novel idea. — Wayfarer
The Unreal: Doesn't exist at all, even in a mind. — hypericin
I'm not familiar, his division is into the Real, Imaginary, and Symbolic? — hypericin
They are opposites. Mental objects which cast a shadow into the physical world, vs physical objects which cast a shadow into the mental world. — hypericin
Money relates to a real exchange of commodities. — Paine
The commodity theory of money was defended by many classical economists and can still be found in most economics textbooks (Mankiw 2009, Parkin 2011). This latter fact is curious since it has provoked serious and sustained critique. An obvious flaw is that it has difficulties in explaining inflation, the decreasing value of money over time (Innes 1913, Keynes 1936). It has also been challenged on the grounds that it is historically inaccurate. For example, recent anthropological studies question the idea that early societies went from a barter economy to money; instead money seems to have arisen to keep track of pre-existing credit relationships (Graeber 2011, Martin 2013, Douglas 2016, Part III). — SEP
This can be seen from the fact that a ten dollar note is a valueless piece of paper unless those involved in the transaction have trust in it's value. — Banno
The "ten dollar note in itself" — Ciceronianus
instead money seems to have arisen to keep track of pre-existing credit relationships — SEP
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
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
What do you think about this framework? — Hermeticus
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
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.