Yes, all that. And as you seem to note, what is experienced is the world. We should avoid Stove's gem - the false argument that we only ever taste oysters with our mouths, hence we never tase oysters as they are in themselves... — Banno
We experience the world, not our experience of the world, and not our experience of our experience of the world, and not our ... — plaque flag
If you like; I've no clear idea of what the difference between an oyster-for-me and an oyster-for-anyone might be. Isn't it all just oysters? — Banno
The 'objective' truth is something like the balanced end of inquiry or the way a human ought to describe the situation. — plaque flag
Worthy of Monty Python. Have you a view as to the sense of "we experience representations of plants and animals"? Seems much like experiencing our experiences... — Banno
I'm puzzled by folk differentiating 'objective' truths from truths. Prefixing "subjective' or 'objective' to truth seems to me to do no more than muddle the nature of truth. — Banno
Animals move around and plants don't move around, although they may be moved by wind, while remaining in the same places. — Janus
Neither "the balanced end of an enquiry" nor "how someone ought describe a situation" lead inevitably to truth. — Banno
Surely Quine put the analytic-synthetic distinction, if not in its grave, at least in mortal peril. Or are you both closet Chomskyans? — Banno
It's batteries and clusters and systems and hierarchies of concepts, never just one at a time, that we deal with, — Srap Tasmaner
That emphasis on internal/external is a derangement from phenomenology. In it's place I might put bivalent logic: there is ice on the poles of Mercury, or there isn't, and that both exhausts the possibilities and is independent of our propositional attitudes towards the presence of ice on the poles of Mercury.How external is reality supposed to be for the realist ? — plaque flag
So a realist says the ball has a mass of 1kg; the anti-realist might say that saying that it has a mass of 1kg is useful, or fits their perceptions, but will not commit to its being true. The anti-realists failure to commit amounts to a failure to understand how language functions; "the ball" is the ball. — Banno
...the sort of framework you deny exists. — Srap Tasmaner
I've edited together my notes on realism and antirealism in an attempt to set out my view. — Banno
I've usually characterised my own ontology as realist. I've argued against typical examples of anti-realism such as pragmatic theory, logical positivism, transcendental idealism and Berkeley's form of idealism. I have however also defended a constructivist view of mathematics, an anti-realist position; and sometimes off-handedly rejected realism in , only to change my mind later. — Banno
I'm amenable to giving consideration to a paraconsistent anti-realism. So I don't think the “middle way” is absurd. The question may be were it is appropriate to apply anti-realism rather than a blanket acceptance or denial. Realism is about there being stuff. Whether our statements about that stuff are true or false is incidental to realism. Whether we understand things about that stuff is also incidental to realism. A realist might well adopt a three-valued logic with regard to statements. Nothing in realism locks the realist into a particular logical system. — Banno
So the argument usually portrayed as realism vs antirealism is perhaps better thought of as about whether we should best make use of a bivalent logic, or use some paraconsistent logic. And for my money the best way to talk about the various bits and pieces of our everyday use is with a bivalent logic.
That might not be the case in other specific circumstances, nor in ethics, aesthetics or mathematics. — Banno
The relation between logical systems and antirealism? I gather that this is what produced the swell in antirealist theory in the 90's. Especially Kripke throwing his hat in the ring. Seems to have subdued over time - there is nothing recent in the Journals of the AAP.I don't think this is well understood — Tom Storm
It just seems to me that certain ethical statements are true - that kicking puppies for entertainment is wrong, for example. And that this is not just an expression of my outrage, nor how things are, but simply and directly how they ought be.What brings you back to realism in ethics and aesthetics? — Tom Storm
I should be out moving soil, but... — Banno
Or that the difference between realism and anti-realism is more one of choice of grammar than profound ontology? — Banno
It just seems to me that certain ethical statements are true - that kicking puppies for entertainment is wrong, for example — Banno
And which culture did you inherit your scientific realism from? — Joshs
Suppose Mike is involved in a debate about the truth of his own particular New Age belief system. Things are not going well for him. Mike’s arguments are being picked apart, and, worse still, his opponents have come up with several devastating objections that he can’t deal with. How might Mike get himself out of this bind?
One possibility is to adopt the strategy I call Going Nuclear. Going Nuclear is an attempt to unleash an argument that lays waste to every position, bringing them all down to the same level of “reasonableness”. Mike might try to force a draw by detonating a philosophical argument that achieves what during the Cold War was called “mutually assured destruction”, in which both sides in the conflict are annihilated.
What fun.liaising with the government about funding for the end of financial year acquittals — Tom Storm
Oh, yes.We jump to profound ontology rather quickly sometimes. — Tom Storm
I'm presently entertaining the view that the obvious will suffice. So, if we came across someone who thought it acceptable to kick puppies for fun, I suspect we would agree that there was something wrong with them, that they would make such an error.What does it rest on other than the obvious? — Tom Storm
Anti-realism holds that stuff is dependent in some way on us, that thinking makes it so. — Banno
Perhaps you don't give phenomenology enough credit. Husserl alone is already great. Also the realism/antirealism seems like an echo, with realism favoring the external.That emphasis on internal/external is a derangement from phenomenology. — Banno
A realist will say that either there is water at the poles, or there isn't - that either the statement or its negation is true. An anti-realist may say that the statement "There is water at Mercury's poles" is neither true nor not true, until the observation is made. Which is the better approach? — Banno
And for my money the best way to talk about the various bits and pieces of our everyday use is with a bivalent logic.
That might not be the case in other specific circumstances, nor in ethics, aesthetics or mathematics. — Banno
How many planets are in our solar system? The number of planets is both an observation and an imposition. — Banno
Are you familiar with Stephen Law's notion of Going Nuclear? — wonderer1
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.