As opposed to the assumption that we don't know what being out of the cave looks like... — Banno

That's kinda the point. We imagine the cave and what we think being out of it looks like, but the reality is we can never know. Pretty sure solipsism pointed that one out.

My preferred interpretation of W's statement is that the fly bottle is something the fly has contrived and by which it mistakenly thinks of itself as apart from the rest of the world instead of a part of the world. So, showing it the way out would include correcting misconceptions, e.g. the belief in an "external world" which can't truly be known, mind/body and other dualisms. The fly bottle is self-imposed. — Ciceronianus

That doesn't really track. You mention belief in an external world that can't be known and yet showing it the way out as if there is an "out" of it and mind/body dualism was pretty much disproven with modern neuroscience. But the external world can be known, more or less, and if not it's a safe assumption to make (also how would it be a misconception?). That's not really leading out of the bottle though so much as keeping them in one. But also if you are arguing the "external world cannot be known" then there is no "world" for it to be part of. In that sense the bottle is inescapable.

Hence why your statement doesn't really follow.

Also the bottle being a part of the world doesn't make it any less trapping. You aren't really correcting misconceptions so much as putting others in it's place.

The fly bottle isn't self imposed either, it's representative of the cave a la Plato, and suffers from the same problems. That being we assume we know what being out of it looks like. But as I said you're just going from one bottle into another.

I think his quote is made in the sense that he is largely ignorant of how philosophy is.

Sure we can. You’re right that you don’t have access to everything. But then again, the kinds of subjects that philosophy covers tend to be associated with conscious attention and intention. It’s also true that the more aware you become, the more of your unconscious mental activity becomes conscious. — T Clark

Nope, not how it works. The fact that it's unconscious means you cannot be aware of it, no matter how much more aware you become. It's out of the scope. Vision is one example of this, you brain predicts what might happen based on past data and corrects for errors, but you cannot tell. To you it seems seamless, that's something no amount of awareness will change.

Philosophy's "purpose" is flourishing –
to understand and practice aligning expectations (i.e. judgments) with reality. — 180 Proof

Funny how it manages to do the opposite of that, especially when philosophers can't agree on reality.

I like this — Tom Storm

It's self refuting if you think about it. Like if there is no "External world" that kinda renders philosophy moot.

Only if you're still buzzing around in the fly bottle. Once out, you may dare to think about, e g., your interaction with the rest of the world as an organism in an environment of which you're a part, and with others. But for those who like being in the bottle they've built, they may continue to indulge themselves.

Only if you're still buzzing around in the fly bottle. Once out, you may dare to think about, e g., your interaction with the rest of the world as an organism in an environment of which you're a part, and with others. But for those who like being in the bottle they've built, they may continue to indulge themselves. — Ciceronianus

But is it truly unfair to suggest that perhaps just because someone finds what one values in life to be false they're suddenly "a fly trapped in a bottle?" Surely that's dehumanization, an ego run amuck that only finds value in one's life choices and mindset by comparing anything different to something insignificant. Isn't that sad? A cry for help?. Love corrects. Hate condemns. Real talk. :100:

Only if you're still buzzing around in the fly bottle. Once out, you may dare to think about, e g., your interaction with the rest of the world as an organism in an environment of which you're a part, and with others. But for those who like being in the bottle they've built, they may continue to indulge themselves. — Ciceronianus

But again that would require there to be an external world, one which you doubt is true. You see how that doesn't really add up?

There is nothing to say that you being "out" would lead to thinking of you as an organism interacting with the rest of the world. Again philosophy often contradictions that notion as that would still be being in the bottle. Getting out of the bottle, ironically means accepting there might not be a world or others with which you are a part of.

But is it truly unfair to suggest that perhaps just because someone finds what one values in life to be false they're suddenly "a fly trapped in a bottle?" Surely that's dehumanization, an ego run amuck that only finds value in one's life choices and mindset by comparing anything different to something insignificant. Isn't that sad? A cry for help?. Love corrects. Hate condemns. Real talk. :100: — Outlander

Not really, comparison is what we do.

I don't understand. If someone finds they've been trapped in a fly bottle of their own making, they're free of it. Their metaphorical eyes have been opened (the fly bottle is of course only a metaphor as well). They're to be congratulated, not denigrated.

That's kinda the point. We imagine the cave and what we think being out of it looks like, but the reality is we can never know. Pretty sure solipsism pointed that one out. — Darkneos

Saying things such as that is how the fly constructs their bottle.

Some more:

The fact that it's unconscious means you cannot be aware of it, no matter how much more aware you become. — Darkneos

Getting out of the bottle, ironically means accepting there might not be a world or others with which you are a part of. — Darkneos

Seems you may be on your own on this one.

Finding the way out of the fly bottle means there is no "external" world-- there is no world separate from us, in other words. We're not observers of the rest of the world; we participate in it interact with its other constituents every moment of our lives.

So, being free of the fly bottle doesn't mean one accepts the existence of world "external" to us. One accepts, instead, that there's a world and that we're a part of it.

It's self refuting if you think about it. Like if there is no "External world" that kinda renders philosophy moot. — Darkneos

I don't think that's the right reading of his post. See last post.

I don't understand. If someone finds they've been trapped in a fly bottle of their own making, they're free of it. Their metaphorical eyes have been opened (the fly bottle is of course only a metaphor as well). They're to be congratulated, not denigrated. — Ciceronianus

Just because someone without the necessary skills to not only survive but thrive in a different environment or set or circumstances would themself feel (or perhaps truly be) "trapped" in said environment or circumstance, literally has nothing to do with anyone else who would not feel or be trapped in said environment. We assume everyone has our own weaknesses, and that these weaknesses are not personal flaws or faults, but merely a result of reality, or the world in which we all live, when they're simply not.

Just because someone convinces themself, or perhaps an entire society or even the whole world a given something is true and that a given something else is false, doesn't mean what they have convinced themself or others of is actually true or false.

Sure, most people have unhealthy habits or frames of mind they would benefit from immensely "breaking free from." The first step to recovery is realizing you have a problem, so they say. But unfortunately, human nature has a tendency to abuse truths and half-truths with the goal of advancing a personal benefit or agenda that ultimately doesn't benefit anyone but the purveyor. This is, or at least should be, common knowledge at this point.

Essentially, we can be content in our own flybottle, so long as we can condemn others to theirs, or at least our idea of others being restricted, which by de facto means we are free, or at least more free, which is in fact a lie. At least in some scenarios. See crab mentality.

I don't understand. If someone finds they've been trapped in a fly bottle of their own making, they're free of it. Their metaphorical eyes have been opened (the fly bottle is of course only a metaphor as well). They're to be congratulated, not denigrated. — Ciceronianus

But according to you there is no out as in the external world isn't known.

Finding the way out of the fly bottle means there is no "external" world-- there is no world separate from us, in other words. We're not observers of the rest of the world; we participate in it interact with its other constituents every moment of our lives.

So, being free of the fly bottle doesn't mean one accepts the existence of world "external" to us. One accepts, instead, that there's a world and that we're a part of it. — Ciceronianus

But there is an external world, otherwise there is no way you could be part of it. It would not exist only in your head or a dream. We are BOTH observers and participants of it, well that's the assumption anyway. Like you said, the external world cannot be known for certain so it could just be in your head.

Being free of the fly bottle, ironically is just flying into another one, as one cannot know if there is a "World out there" and it's not just a figment of the mind. Ergo, nothing to participate in.

I don't think that's the right reading of his post. See ↪Ciceronianus last post. — Tom Storm

It is, especially since it doesn't seem like they understand what they are saying with "External world" in air quotes. Suggesting it cannot be known means there is nothing to be a part of since it's all in your mind.

External world and reality means there is a world to be a part of that does not depend on you for its existence. I feel that much should be obvious to gather from what I'm saying.

t is, especially since it doesn't seem like they understand what they are saying with "External world" in air quotes. Suggesting it cannot be known means there is nothing to be a part of since it's all in your mind.

External world and reality means there is a world to be a part of that does not depend on you for its existence. I feel that much should be obvious to gather from what I'm saying. — Darkneos

See the comment, perhaps, more in the tradition of phenomenology or a more constructivist orientation, for which I have sympathy. It does not match your interpretation that there is "nothing and it's all in the mind".

I do not think it is clear that humans make direct contact with a world external or transcendent to our interactions and cognition, which is a perfectly standard philosophical position, whether you are talking about Kant, Heidegger, or the more prosaic Hilary Lawson. To quote the lesser known philosopher, Norman Bates, "We're all in our private traps."

See the comment, perhaps, more in the tradition of phenomenology or a more constructivist orientation, for which I have sympathy. It does not match your interpretation that there is "nothing and it's all in the mind". — Tom Storm

But that is what is meant especially since it started with "The external world that cannot be know" by their own words. Your assessment is still incorrect.

I do not think it is clear that humans make direct contact with a world external or transcendent to our interactions and cognition, which is a perfectly standard philosophical position, whether you are talking about Kant, Heidegger, or the more prosaic Hilary Lawson. To quote the lesser known philosopher, Norman Bates, "We're all in our private traps." — Tom Storm

It's actually a minority position among philosophers. Most generally regard there to be a world outside themselves, Kant merely said that we don't directly perceive it. Heidegger was kinda nutty on that end. The private traps kinda loses it's teeth when you realize he said that to other people which like means he thinks there is a world outside him (also the character is fictional).

But given the success of science it could be reasonable to say we do directly make contact with it. Albeit indirectly and it's approximations they're too consistent to default to instrumentalism anymore.

More or less it's a position you have to accept to get anywhere in philosophy otherwise you're dead in the water. Without external reality philosophy is rendered moot.

But that is what is meant especially since it started with "The external world that cannot be know" by their own words. Your assessment is still incorrect. — Darkneos

It's interesting how you consistently interpret this wrongly. To say that the external world cannot be known is by no means the same as saying there is no external world. And I am not committed to either. I am stating that I have sympathy for a constructivist view, which resonates with other philosophical schools.

It's actually a minority position among philosophers. — Darkneos

That's an ad populum fallacy. Philosophy is not a popularity contest.

Kant merely said that we don't directly perceive it. Heidegger was kinda nutty on that end. — Darkneos

I am also saying that I have sympathy for the view that reality is a human construct an act of embodied cognition and that we don't experience it directly.

More or less it's a position you have to accept to get anywhere in philosophy otherwise you're dead in the water. — Darkneos

You're dead in the water until you learn to read others with more care.

But given the success of science it could be reasonable to say we do directly make contact with it. — Darkneos

That's just amusing. A kind of naïve scientistic or materialistic position worthy of a Dawkins. There are many arguments against this notion. Let's just take one of them: the very success of science itself depends on models, abstractions, and instruments that mediate our experience. What we have are theoretical constructs and measurements, not unfiltered access to reality.

Postmodernists would go further and argue that 'success' is a socially constructed standard: science’s predictive power doesn’t show us reality as it is, but only that our current frameworks work within the language games and practices we’ve built. In other words, science is one way of making sense of the world, not a privileged window into some mind-independent truth.

Of course, you might ask, who cares what the postmodernists say? And anyone can use that approach to dismiss any school of thought that doesn’t please us.

[quote/Outlander]Just because someone convinces themself, or perhaps an entire society or even the whole world a given something is true and that a given something else is false, doesn't mean what they have convinced themself or others of is actually true or false."[/quote]
-- Outlander

I'm not sure what distinction you're making between true and false and actually true and actually false. More generally speaking, I'm sorry but I don't understand your point.

To convince people not to be gay.

... philosophers can't agree on reality. — Darkneos

Yeah, just like physicists "can't agree on" the ontology of quantum physics, and yet ... :mask:

It may be that I don't understand what you mean by "external world." If you mean by it the world we're part of, I don't know why you call it "external." External to what?

I certainly don't think we can't know the people and things we interact with every moment of our lives. What reason is there to think I don't?
Judging from our own conduct and how we live our lives, none of us actually doubt their existence or believe we don't know them. Claiming we nonetheless can doubt their existence or can't really know them is insist on a difference which clearly makes no difference.

Yeah, just like physicists "can't agree on" the ontology of quantum physics, and yet ... :mask: — 180 Proof

That's a bit more complicated.

It's interesting how you consistently interpret this wrongly. To say that the external world cannot be known is by no means the same as saying there is no external world. And I am not committed to either. I am stating that I have sympathy for a constructivist view, which resonates with other philosophical schools. — Tom Storm

It might as well be saying there isn't one if it cannot be known. But again it's not really true that it cannot be known. Kant might have thought that but that doesn't make it so.

That's an ad populum fallacy. Philosophy is not a popularity contest. — Tom Storm

It's not ad populum fallacy, also you're the one who claimed it first by saying it's a standard view yet when I say it's not suddenly it's a fallacy. Though I would argue philosophy is a popularity constest.

I am also saying that I have sympathy for the view that reality is a human construct an act of embodied cognition and that we don't experience it directly. — Tom Storm

I don't, sounds like a looney thing to think, especially since embodied cognition has fallen out of favor due to it's flaws (and evidence against it).

You're dead in the water until you learn to read others with more care. — Tom Storm

That might be more you than me, I've got their words yet you want to insist it's something else.

There are many arguments against this notion. Let's just take one of them: the very success of science itself depends on models, abstractions, and instruments that mediate our experience. What we have are theoretical constructs and measurements, not unfiltered access to reality. — Tom Storm

Not a very strong argument given the results pretty much speak for themselves. Either we are accurately contacting and modeling some sort of external reality (more or less "accurately") or we've just gotten lucky that everything works out. Occam's Razor would seem to favor the former.

Of course, you might ask, who cares what the postmodernists say? And anyone can use that approach to dismiss any school of thought that doesn’t please us. — Tom Storm

TBH yeah, who cares what they think? There hasn't been anything really useful out of that school but just undermining things (or trying to).

Postmodernists would go further and argue that 'success' is a socially constructed standard: science’s predictive power doesn’t show us reality as it is, but only that our current frameworks work within the language games and practices we’ve built. In other words, science is one way of making sense of the world, not a privileged window into some mind-independent truth. — Tom Storm

Doesn't really alter the results though, science so far has been our best method for understanding and shaping reality so that criticism kinda falls flat. They can dress their complaints all they want but they don't have anything better or more consistent so........

Ordinarily I'd give that more credence but given the success of science at what it does it's about as close to mind-independent truth as we're gonna get. There isn't much reason to think it doesn't show reality as it is (despite what postmodernists argue, and their protests aren't worth a hill of beans). I'd go further that it's not a language games thing anymore.

Maybe their just bitter because they don't have a better method, that's what it sounds like. I'm not saying it's perfect, but I can't argue with the results. Maybe they should just quit while they're behind, those arguments might have held water back when it was just Natural Philosophy, but not now.

Postmodernism is better when directed at the arts, politics, things like that, but when it comes to science it just ends up looking weak. Again the results speak for themselves, we're kinda past "language games".

It may be that I don't understand what you mean by "external world." If you mean by it the world we're part of, I don't know why you call it "external." External to what?

I certainly don't think we can't know the people and things we interact with every moment of our lives. What reason is there to think I don't?
Judging from our own conduct and how we live our lives, none of us actually doubt their existence or believe we don't know them. Claiming we nonetheless can doubt their existence or can't really know them is insist on a difference which clearly makes no difference. — Ciceronianus

External to one's perception, or in the case "mind independent". In other words the opposite of solipsism. An external world means a world that exists outside your head (not a dream for example or some hallucination). It doesn't depend on you to exist. Solipsism argues (unfortunately rather effectively) that we cannot be sure there exists such a world and it could just be a figment of our imagination.

Yeah none of us doubt it but we can't really demonstrate it to be true, it's just an assumption we make.

It's not ad populum fallacy, also you're the one who claimed it first by saying it's a standard view yet when I say it's not suddenly it's a fallacy. Though I would argue philosophy is a popularity constest. — Darkneos

I said it's an orthodox philosophical view that reality can't be fully known. I'm not saying this to imply it's popular, but rather to point out that it's an established position for us to contend with. It's on the philosophical "menu" and not, as you seem to think, something that is automatically ridiculous just because science seems to work.

Anyway, we seem to be talking past each other. Take care.

I said it's an orthodox philosophical view that reality can't be fully known. I'm not saying this to imply it's popular, but rather to point out that it's an established position for us to contend with. It's on the philosophical "menu" and not, as you seem to think, something that is automatically ridiculous just because science seems to work.

Anyway, we seem to be talking past each other. Take care. — Tom Storm

When you say something is a standard view you're implying a degree of popularity, even the context of your post showed as such.

That's not really what I'm saying at all. There is a difference between "we don't directly engage with reality" and "reality cannot be known". Again science it a strong argument that we don't have to directly engage with it to know it (which would explain why it's findings frequently go against our intuitions).

Then you bring up Postmodernism when it's criticisms of science (which I understand but....) don't really hold. They can call it language games and models and things like that but time and again the results speak for themselves. It never claims to have perfect knowledge of the world and acknowledges it could all be wrong, but we currently don't have a better method for understanding reality, and this one is working really well. Shockingly IMO.

Really just seems like you give up when called out.

When you say something is a standard view you're implying a degree of popularity, even the context of your post showed as such. — Darkneos

No, I’m saying that a particular view is simply on the menu. If you can’t tell the difference between that and an ad populum argument, then we’ve got bigger problems than the nature of reality.. :wink:

There is a difference between "we don't directly engage with reality" and "reality cannot be known". Again science it a strong argument that we don't have to directly engage with it to know it (which would explain why it's findings frequently go against our intuitions). — Darkneos

This I do largely agree with.

It never claims to have perfect knowledge of the world and acknowledges it could all be wrong, but we currently don't have a better method for understanding reality, and this one is working really well. Shockingly IMO. — Darkneos

I don't disagree with this either and have made the same point elsewhere on the forum. Which is why I have tended to describe myself as a methodological naturalist and not a metaphysical naturalist.

sounds like a looney thing to think, especially since embodied cognition has fallen out of favor due to it's flaws (and evidence against it). — Darkneos

It’s very much part of the current thinking of writers like Francisco Varela, Evan Thompson, Eleanor Rosch, and Shaun Gallagher. What evidence do you have that it has fallen out of favour? I don’t think it was ever “in favour” as such, just part of the philosophical menu. The Blind Spot: Why Science Cannot Ignore Human Experience by Adam Frank, Marcelo Gleiser, and Evan Thompson has been a significant topic of discussion on this site for a few years.

There is a difference between "we don't directly engage with reality" and "reality cannot be known". — Darkneos

Indeed and I am unsure what reality is meant to be and whether it can be known. Which is not the same thing as saying it cannot be known.

What is reality?