That is why no definition is finite: there still might be a thing that fits the description, but is somewhat different. — Jabberwock
Transcendental idealists hold that the objects as we represent them in space and time are appearances and not things-in-themselves. This, according to Kant, implies empirical realism, i.e., the view that the represented objects of our spatio-temporal system of experience are real beings outside us. “
Relative to the OP’s assertion that “this forum might give the impression that idealism is more popular among philosophers than it actually is”, I would make the opposite claim concerning Kantian Idealism. It is more popular among allegedly anti-Idealist empirical realists than they realize. — Joshs
I'm mostly interested in what a realist theory of language might be. — Tom Storm
the underlying material of language - information — Jabberwock
I found it hard to grasp how you would approach that question if you couldn't answer Banno as to what 'realism' might be. — mcdoodle
I'm not looking for a defence of realism, I'm more interested in the implications of this matter - do we need a theory of language that explains how any realist claim is possible in order to accept those claims? — Tom Storm
Such a debate is very like the debates we all have at work, or, to zoom in, with a loved one: the purported 'facts' matter, but it is not through reference to 'the real' or by coming to any agreement about 'facts' that we resolve the exchange, the issues that matter. Language flows through us, especially familiar language with familiars, and we find ways to move forwards. — mcdoodle
I'm mostly interested in what a realist theory of language might be. — Tom Storm
The only reality we describe is the reality of shared human experience and concern, as I see it. Saying that the map is not the territory is saying that the network of collective representations which constitute our real, shared world is the map, while our individual pre-linguistic experiences are the territory. — Janus
How is it possible to use something in the world to represent that world and at the same time refer to reality? Why can I pick up a few stones and arrange them in a tray to calculate something about the world? Is our understanding of the stone movements, and our bodies, a part of the world? But then how do we access the world? — Moliere
How can we have a finite set of symbols which can produce an infinite set of meanings? What is this real relation between symbol and meaning? — Moliere
I think the response from the realist side would be "what is "ultimate" doing in your sentence?" — Moliere
what is the relationships between the sign and meaning? Then finding that the relationship is itself meaningful, and hence, on the other side of reality. So language is anti-real. (though reality is, by definition, real -- of course) — Moliere
Are you saying we can encounter small "r" reality, but nothing which transcends this, hence language is anti-realism? — Tom Storm
The search for reality seems to me to be sublimated search for god. — Tom Storm
That's an interesting way of looking at it. Richard Rorty says something like truth is what communities of shared understanding describe it to be. In other words, reality is a case of intersubjective agreement, not an external certainty.
Do you share some of the post-structuralist views on language and truth? — Tom Storm
I agree that reality, in the determinate sense, is what is agreed upon intersubjectively. — Janus
I find it hard to stomach reading someone talk of ‘objective’ and ‘intersubjective’ as if they are synonymous … if they are why use both? — I like sushi
Yes, but they are not the same. — I like sushi
Well, I had a listen to the Lawson - Searle - Dawson podcast. Searle went over the usual observations concerning realism, Dawson did not seem to have much of significance to say, preferring to firmly assert his position than to argue his case, while Searle pointed out the obvious problems, using the arguments I've borrowed and used hereabouts many times. Neither seemed to have much to say that was novel. there's more on Dawson's web site, but it is paywalled, and presumably in his books, but the reviews are mixed. From this material I haven't gained a strong inclination to pursue his writing.But I am asking about Lawson's view as expressed in the OP and what others think this says about ideas like idealism. — Tom Storm
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.