Bohr argued that there were no 'things in their own right' we call 'electrons', only consistent human 'interactions' with an aspect of the world it was convenient to explain by the word 'electron'. Einstein, perhaps in line with his role in establishing 'the reality of atoms', disagreed. — fresco
You said it yourself. They are phenomena. What is phenomena? Knowing a lot about something entails knowing what they really are. If you don't know what they are, effectively you don't know what you're talking about.We can know a lot about such phenomena (obviously) - short of what they really are. — Wayfarer
If you don't know what they are, effectively you don't know what you're talking about. — Harry Hindu
That is assuming that you know what knowing really is.If you know you don't know something, that's something you know. — Wayfarer
e.g. 'Does global warming exist ? ' only has significance if an answer implies subsequent action.
...in short, everyday usage of 'existence' is relative because it involves 'what's it got to do with us ?' — fresco
What I am reacting against by using the term 'seminaritis', are academic scenarios such as 'atheists' arguing with 'believers' about 'evidence for the existence of God'. This never happens in 'real life' where the labels 'atheist' and 'believer' never arise except in social conflict situations, like for example, in discussion of 'educational curricula'. In 'real life', believers and atheists just 'get on with it' with or without the functionality of a God' concept. — fresco
I note that some dissenters are arguing from pov's like 'this is epistemology not linguistics — fresco
as per usual, you guys still haven’t moved past semantics. no wonder it is said that “philosophy is dead;” the philosophers today know nothing of the nature of being. — TheGreatArcanum
However, I assert these are always going to be futile — fresco
No. The above quote is what Witt meant when he used the phrase, "language on holiday". You are taking his phrase and reusing it in a way that is incoherent.The main (Pragmatist) point I want to re-iterate is that questions that imply a regress of definition (language chasing language) fall into what I take to be Wittgenstein's 'language on holiday'. Language is 'not on holiday' when it applies to communicative situations which involve decision about subsequent action either individually or jointly.... — fresco
Terrapin Station
9.2k
as per usual, you guys still haven’t moved past semantics. no wonder it is said that “philosophy is dead;” the philosophers today know nothing of the nature of being. — TheGreatArcanum
For one, should I be surprised that you'd reach conclusions about "philosophers today" based on posts on this board? — Terrapin Station
...Futile because 'evidence' in the case of 'God' is in the eye of the beholder. The 'utility' of the concept is a psychological and social issue,outside contexts in which 'evidence' is a consensual criterion. — fresco
Why would we talk about evidence differently only in the case of God?.Futile because 'evidence' in the case of 'God' is in the eye of the beholder. — fresco
You're forgetting that the words are used to trigger concepts in other minds via communication. The concept of existence exists as something non-verbal in your mind, which you then translate into verbal form for communicating, but if the same concept isnt triggered in another mind when you use that word, can you really say that the concept was triggered by your use of the word?Let me say it one more time, 'existence' and 'evidence are words triggering concepts the utility of which differs according to the context in which they are used. From this pov all concepts exist by virtue of the words which evoke them, but the concept of evidence presupposes a context open to the possibility of social consenus about the utility of another concept like 'God' — fresco
Delusions are functional for those that have them, but not for me.As an atheist, I cannot dispute 'the existence of God' for 'believers', because the concept is functional for them, albeit dysfunctional for me. — fresco
Existence' is a human concept, and like all concepts requires context in which it is meaningful. The issue was perhaps highlighted my Niels Bohr's argument with Einstein about the existence of 'electrons'.
Bohr argued that there were no 'things in their own right' we call 'electrons', only consistent human 'interactions' with an aspect of the world it was convenient to explain by the word 'electron'. Einstein, perhaps in line with his role in establishing 'the reality of atoms', disagreed.
A current book by Rovelli (the Order of Time) underscores Bohr's view with the phrase 'things are just repetitive events.
This proposed 'relativity of existence' seems to me to render most philosophical discussion of 'ontology' to be what Wittgenstein called Geschwätz (idle chatter).
Any thoughts ? — fresco
I disagree. Bohr was in tune with Heisenberg here who said..'we never observe nature directly...only the results of the questions we ask of it'.
This, for me, is an acknowledgment of at least four related issues:
(1) Kant's point about the inaccessibility of noumena (2) Nietzshe's point there is no description -reality distinction (3) Psychological views that perception is selectively active, not passive (4) Measurement begins with 'the nominal', i.e. human naming ,of the selected phenomenon.
The particular case of 'the electron' brings these to the fore, not because of 'size issues' but 'uncertainty' and 'complimentarity' issues highlight point 2.
Your 'blind man' scenario is interesting from a 'comparative physiology across species' pov (...'dead insects dont 'exist' for hungry frogs...) and also the specific human issues of shared language reflecting shared needs. Human use of transducers to enhance active perception could be said to be exemplified by the blind man's stick. — fresco
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.