Metaphysical realism means the the world we perceive as external consisting of objects, events, space and time exists in some form regardless of whether anyone is perceiving or thinking about it. Some form means it need not be exactly as we experience it. — Marchesk
The other thing an external world does is it makes everything hang together. Consider perception being brute. Do you still need air when you're not aware of breathing? Is your heart still beating? Does the floor under your feet still hold you up? Is the back of your head or your brain still there? How about the eyes you see with? Do they only exist in the mirror? Does your food digest or do you just have the experience of it coming out? Why would there even be an inside full of organs when we cut them open? It's not like brute experience requires a body to breathe or digest food. It's odd that we would perceive a brain if brains aren't needed. — Marchesk
Metaphysical realism means the the world we perceive as external consisting of objects, events, space and time exists in some form regardless of whether anyone is perceiving or thinking about it. — Marchesk
I understand by the transcendental idealism of all appearances the doctrine that they are all together to be regarded as mere representations and not things in themselves, and accordingly that space and time are only sensible forms of our intuition, but not determinations given for themselves or conditions of objects as things in themselves. To this idealism is opposed transcendental realism, which regards space and time as something given in themselves (independent of our sensiblity). The transcendental realist therefore represents outer appearances (if their reality is conceded) as things in themselves, which would exist independently of us and our sensibility and thus would also be outside us according to pure concepts of the understanding. (CPR, A369)
All that is objective, extended, active - that is to say, all that is material - is regarded by materialism as affording so solid a basis for its explanation, that a reduction of everything to this can leave nothing to be desired (especially if in ultimate analysis this reduction should resolve itself into action and reaction). But we have shown that all this is given indirectly and in the highest degree determined, and is therefore merely a relatively present object, for it has passed through the machinery and manufacture of the brain, and has thus come under the forms of space, time and causality, by means of which it is first presented to us as extended in space and ever active in time. From such an indirectly given object, materialism seeks to explain what is immediately given: the idea, in which alone the object that materialism starts with, exists. 1
Is metaphysical realism equivalent to belief in objective reality, or is there something more to it? — T Clark
Metaphysical realism also seems to require that the kinds and categories that the things in experience belong to are also the kinds and categories that those mind-independent things belong to, but I think there's a case to argue that this isn't the case. — Michael
Would a falling tree still make a noise if no one was around to hear it?
Yes. — Qurious
But we only want to say that something is brute when we have no further explanation. Quantum Mechanics can be said to be brute because physicists lack a means of explaining further, at least so far. — Marchesk
We perceive an external world because there is one. — Marchesk
I guess this depends on what you take for an explanation. If I can take some concepts and numbers and build a reliable prediction machine, that's great. Is this an explanation? Obviously we want reliable prediction. No complaint there. But why is this explanation? — ff0
Maybe we can go all the way back to the theorized big bang. — ff0
I don't think we need to go all the way back to the big bang to explain the rain satisfactorily. In my OP, I admitted that at some point, we run out of the ability to explain, and then we're left with brute existence. But we don't need to do that with experience. — Marchesk
How similar does reality need to be for metaphysical realism to be true? Does the fact that tables are mostly empty space mean that solid tables don't exist? Or can we just say that within the light we see, and given that our bodies and ordinary objects are held together molecular in a similar fashion, tables are solid? — Marchesk
the Earth appears to be motionless with a rising and setting sun. Our language reflects that appearance. But we know the Earth rotates around its axis every 24 hours, creating the appearance.
The issue is whether or not tables are reducible to those molecules; whether or not "table" is a mind-independent kind. If not then the above is a category error. It's not that the table is mostly empty space; it's just that there's a lot of empty space between the particles that are causally responsible for our experience of a table. — Michael
.Since this is metaphysics, there isn't a foolproof argument that will convince everyone.
.But someone could ask what the explanation for a mind-independent world is.
.We do have cosmology to help with that\
., but maybe we do end up a brute fact of existence eventually (the quantum vacuum perhaps).
.It's just that we don't have to invoke bruteness until there is no explanation available. And we do have that for the world we perceive.
To be clear, 'God' explanations run into the same problem. — ff0
Let's say, for instance, that you have a theory of everything that fits on a T-shirt. Unless that theory explains why it has the shape it has (which sounds absurd to me, like God not needing a creator)
, it's a mysterious brute fact. It's the mathematical structure that the quantifiable aspect of shared reality just happens to have. We are no less thrown into the world, having merely found some patterns in the way stuff moves.
Maybe, but explanations of God are a largely Atheist topic. — Michael Ossipoff
Many Theists don't regard God as an element of metaphysics. Metaphysics is about explanations, and things discussable and describable.Many Theists don't assert to you about God. — Michael Ossipoff
Assertion and proof are meaningful only in logic, mathematics, physics and (limitedly) in metaphysics.. — Michael Ossipoff
Speaking of "Creation", in regards to religion, is anthropomorphic. — Michael Ossipoff
I'm not trying to start a religious debate. I don't debate religion. I'm just clarifying that many Theists don't believe in a God that is an element of metaphysics or needs a creator. — Michael Ossipoff
We needn't debate it. (..and let's not). But do you think that the discussable, describable subject called metaphysics describes all of Reality, or that you could understand or know all of Reality? Maybe it would be more modest to not make such an assumption. — Michael Ossipoff
Yes, the fundamental existence of the Materialist's objectively-existent physical universe is a brute-fact.
But no, we don't need that brute-fact. There's no particular reason to believe in it. There's no particualr reason to believe that our physical universe is other than a complex system of inter-referring abstract if-then facts about hypothetics. ...one of infinitely many such complex abstract logical systems. — Michael Ossipoff
"But no, we don't need that brute-fact. There's no particular reason to believe in it. There's no particualr reason to believe that our physical universe is other than a complex system of inter-referring abstract if-then facts about hypothetics. ...one of infinitely many such complex abstract logical systems". — Michael Ossipoff
Let's say our physical universe is such a system. Why is it specifically the way that it is? — ff0
Why is it here in the first place?
Because there are infinitely-many such systems, it's hardly surprising that there's this one. ...one that is the way this one is. There are also infinitely-many other ones, which are infinitely-many different ways. — Michael Ossipoff
.“Maybe, but explanations of God are a largely Atheist topic.” — Michael Ossipoff
.
In my experience, there is here and there a metaphysical theist on philosophy forums.
.I was trying to make clear that my mention of the limits of scientific explanation wasn't some covert introduction of some other kind of explanation. Indeed, both kinds of explanation [physics and metaphysics] have the same shape in my view.
.Objects are understood within a nexus of necessary relationships.
.The 'supernatural' is just a different understanding of the natural insofar as one does a kind of science.
.Still, I don't believe in an afterlife. So that gives my perspective an atheistic feel. That is arguably the real issue: is this all there is? A brief embodiment? I think yes. But I don't claim to have some 'proof.' I can emit 'reasons' for this belief. I can cough up words.
.“Assertion and proof are meaningful only in logic, mathematics, physics and (limitedly) in metaphysics..” — Michael Ossipoff
We might even drag the word 'God' in for this largeness of life that dwarfs our systems. But I'm not attached to this or that word. Life is bigger than our words.
.“Speaking of "Creation", in regards to religion, is anthropomorphic.]
— Michael Ossipoff
.
In my view, it's all anthropomorphic.
.We only really give a damn about the human-like.
.We can do without the human body (sort of) in a Deity.
.But take away human virtues...
.and we have only a machine, a pathetic patch over our ignorance.
I'm not trying to start a religious debate. I don't debate religion. I'm just clarifying that many Theists don't believe in a God that is an element of metaphysics or needs a creator. — Michael Ossipoff
.For me philosophy is something like the religion of those who like to think of themselves as 'rational,'
.a word [“rational”] with a rich and slippery meaning.
—Michael OssipoffWe needn't debate it. (..and let's not). But do you think that the discussable, describable subject called metaphysics describes all of Reality, or that you could understand or know all of Reality? Maybe it would be more modest to not make such an assumption.
.Perhaps my fundamental theme at the moment is the gap between life as it is lived and the small 'piece' of it that we can make explicit and rational.
.As far as modesty goes, that's a tricky issue. One can be immodestly 'modest.' The real conversation is going to happen or not according to whether we have the guts to say something stirring, even if we might change our minds about it. We've got to take risks, clash, be distinct personalities.
.
Some might imagine themselves as doing a kind of science here. I don't see it that way.
.But I recognize their right to project any kind of minimally civil personality they wish. That keeps things fresh. To me this is a place of wild and often impressively articulate conversation.
.Let's say our physical universe is such a system [as I described]. Why is it specifically the way that it is? Why is it here in the first place?
Wait a minute. Isn’t there anything that isn’t anthropomorphic? Surely that’s over-broad. — Michael Ossipoff
.
Though metaphysics isn’t the same as science, it’s like science in some ways. Definitions should be explicit and consistently-used. Statements should be supported. Metaphysics, like physics, doesn’t describe all of Reality, but definite uncontroversial things can still be said about both. — Michael Ossipoff
.When it comes to what we care about, no. In my opinion. It may be an exaggeration to get the point across. Accusations of anthropomorphism don't ring true for me. What's the 'sin' here? I think the sin is supposed to be that we are less accurate about reality because of a bias toward human-likeness. Sure. QM violates ordinary experience. But it works. So we endure it. On the other hand, it makes no sense to worship or revere anything unrelated to the human. Not to me. 'God' or X has to be 'good' in some way, good-for-humans, good-for-me.
.Though metaphysics isn’t the same as science, it’s like science in some ways. Definitions should be explicit and consistently-used. Statements should be supported. Metaphysics, like physics, doesn’t describe all of Reality, but definite uncontroversial things can still be said about both
.Perhaps. But this is your assumption. This is the loaded 'how' that you bring to the situation. But my 'how' is the tendency to think this 'how' and get behind this 'how,' to open up the situation.
.What if language isn't what you need it to be here? What if strict definitions force you to abandon the fluidity of language in ordinary life?
.Your system seems well thought out, better than average. But from my point of view it's still a kind of theoretical construction that a philosopher comes up with at his desk, alone in his study. Then he goes outside and immerses himself in the usual inexplicit knowhow of moving among objects and interacting with other human beings. His conceptual art falls away. It doesn't describe the way he actually lives. It's a sort of model airplane building, fun for a certain kind of conversation.
.I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that. I'm just pursuing my own notion of 'objectivity' that does justice to non-theoretical life. I want to open the window of the study and let the storm of life in. We are mortal, loving, fearing, lusting, etc., human beings first and system-builders second. In my view, the system builders (cosy in their study) forget the storm.
.So they bring their systems to those immersed in life and meet with bewilderment.
.But what of love and relationships? And how do these fit in to our theologies?
Of course, I agree with all of that. The Atheist philosopher’s attribute-less god doesn’t make sense to me either.
.
Let me just clarify about my Theism:
.
It seems to me that metaphysics leads to the conclusion that what there metaphysically (describably, discussably) is, is insubstantial and ethereal. …implying an openness, looseness and lightness, …and something really good about what is, in a way that’s difficult to describe, explain or specify.
.
…a feeling or impression that there’s good intention behind what is.
.
That’s it. That’s my Theism. It’s an impression and a feeling. I don’t ordinarily call it Theism, because, as you suggested, “-ism”s are more for arguing…compartmentalizing and dividing people. — Michael Ossipoff
But, it seems to me that what I’m talking about is something also evidently felt by many Theists, including those who believe in Literalist allegories. …but more significant than the Literalist allegories. So even though I don’t share all the beliefs of the Biblical Literalists and the more progressive selective Literalists, many of them are still onto something, …what they likely emotionally mean when they speak of God. Of course some Theists, maybe usually the more progressive ones, are more consciously aware of that than others.
.
As I said, it’s an impression or feeling. It isn’t something to assert, and can’t be proven to someone else, but I don’t doubt it either. Sureness without proof isn’t scientific? Fine. As I said, proof and assertion are only for logic, mathematics, physics and (to some extent) metaphysics. It would be meaningless to speak of proof, or need for doubt without proof, for a meta-metaphysical impression. As I said, it would be like speaking of electroplating an adverb. — Michael Ossipoff
But I only apply that “how” where it’s called-for and appropriate. I don’t mean it or offer it outside its range of applicability. I often criticize Scientificists for wanting to apply science outside it legitimate range of applicability. You’re, quite rightly, saying that too, about the “how” of metaphysics, logic, and mathematics. Yes, I’m always criticizing that over-application of science’s approach. And yes, of course that goes for metaphysics too, which has a similar approach.
. — Michael Ossipoff
But I only talk that way in metaphysics and when I talk about logic, mathematics or science. I agree that the language of metaphysics isn’t for everyday life, and is only verbal argument. And, in fact of course, verbal description or explanation doesn’t, at all, ever even come close to experience or Reality. …and of course I realize that the metaphysics that I talk is entirely verbal and conceptual. …and couldn’t describe or substitute for experience, or describe or explain Reality.
.
I often use the analogy that the difference between metaphysics and Reality, experience, is a bit like the difference between a book all about how a car-engine works, vs actually going for a ride in the countryside. — Michael Ossipoff
But you aren’t saying, are you, that the matter of what metaphysically is, doesn’t meaningfully and relevantly relate to our larger lives? — Michael Ossipoff
But let’s not imply that the study of metaphysics (or physics, mathematics or logic) prevents someone from being immersed in life. — Michael Ossipoff
As for the relation between Theism and love and relationships: Well, I spoke of the good intent behind what is. Gratitude for that is a reason to try to embody it, repay/share some of it, at least within our limited human ability, in our own lives, actions and relations. As Theists often say it (and as you suggested), God is Love. — Michael Ossipoff
.Because there are infinitely-many such systems, it's hardly surprising that there's this one. ...one that is the way this one is. There are also infinitely-many other ones, which are infinitely-many different ways. — Michael Ossipoff
.But why isn't all the more surprising that there are infinitely many?
.One of the anti-metaphysical axes I like to grind is a sort of smugness that I feel in the 'nothing here to see, folks' approach.
.I don't mean to accuse you personally of smugness. I'm just talking about a kind of stubborn resistance to confessing any sort of experience of wonder (or terror) at finding oneself alive and mortal.
.From my point of view, there's a kind of pasting over of this wonder-terror by very plausible sciency sounding phrases.
.But I personally can't buy it. I do believe, of course, that humans can (for a long time even) remain un-freaked-out. It's not exactly convenient or practical to be freaked-out by existence all the time. But I suspect that most of us experience moments from time to time when all of the impressive words fall away and we stand before the roaring of the there that we are and the there that we are surrounded by. We are thrown into a drama that we don't remember choosing.
.Thrown into a face and language. Thrown into relationships with particular human beings, each of them also thrown. All of us mortal. All of us improvising, keeping the ship afloat or occasionally scuttling it to do away with the drama.
.This is where religion/philosophy as the non-cute stuff really kicks in. Your theoretical vision of the world is interesting enough, but surely you live in a world of people and objects.
.By no means am I trying to censor you. I'm just pointing at the gap between our creative theoretical fictions and the vivid world of people and objects we actually live in, work in, suffer in, enjoy ourselves in.
And just because there’s a metaphysical explanation for why and how it happened doesn’t make it any less amazing. — Michael Ossipoff
I know what you mean, but in a way it is the only state of affairs. Against the background of physics time it is indeed a blip. But it's all we know. Time-for-us is being late for an appointment and hating every red light. Or dreading what morning brings. Or opportunity fading away. It is death quietly and steadily approaching us, maybe tomorrow or maybe twenty years from now. It is an uncertain resource and/or the possibility of suffering.Time is short. It isn’t the usual state of affairs. — Michael Ossipoff
Sure, but the larger metaphysical basis, substrate, environment of a person’s life is of interest in that life. The overall nature and character of what metaphysically is, has a lot to do with how we interpret and feel about this life. As I mention below, what is there when we look up from our day-to-day business? — Michael Ossipoff
But maybe we don’t suffer as much, or more than necessary, depending on our perspective on what there is, and what’s going on. — Michael Ossipoff
First, some definitions. Metaphysical realism means the the world we perceive as external consisting of objects, events, space and time exists in some form regardless of whether anyone is perceiving or thinking about it. — Marchesk
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.