Likewise, the realist's claim that "we can only experience our own minds" cannot be proved is irrefutable. — Terrapin Station
For me the question is whether people believe in the existence of other people who share a world with them. — macrosoft
Will ‘something physical’ still exist if somehow all conscious life were to vanish? — macrosoft
Everyone knows that the earth, and a fortiori the universe, existed for a long time before there were any living beings, and therefore any perceiving subjects. But according to Kant ... that is impossible.'
Schopenhauer's defence of Kant on this score was twofold. First, the objector has not understood to the very bottom the Kantian demonstration that time is one of the forms of our sensibility. The earth, say, as it was before there was life, is a field of empirical enquiry in which we have come to know a great deal; its reality is no more being denied than is the reality of perceived objects in the same room.
The point is, the whole of the empirical world in space and time is the creation of our understanding, which apprehends all the objects of empirical knowledge within it as being in some part of that space and at some part of that time: and this is as true of the earth before there was life as it is of the pen I am now holding a few inches in front of my face and seeing slightly out of focus as it moves across the paper.
This, incidentally, illustrates a difficulty in the way of understanding which transcendental idealism has permanently to contend with: the assumptions of 'the inborn realism which arises from the original disposition of the intellect' enter unawares into the way in which the statements of transcendental idealism are understood.
Such realistic assumptions so pervade our normal use of concepts that the claims of transcendental idealism disclose their own non-absurdity only after difficult consideration, whereas criticisms of them at first appear cogent which on examination are seen to rest on confusion. We have to raise almost impossibly deep levels of presupposition in our own thinking and imagination to the level of self-consciousness before we are able to achieve a critical awareness of all our realistic assumptions, and thus achieve an understanding of transcendental idealism which is untainted by them.
That is solipsism, not idealism. — Wayfarer
The point is, the whole of the empirical world in space and time is the creation of our understanding, which apprehends all the objects of empirical knowledge within it as being in some part of that space and at some part of that time: and this is as true of the earth before there was life as it is of the pen I am now holding a few inches in front of my face and seeing slightly out of focus as it moves across the paper.
That is solipsism, not idealism. It is one of the consequences of Cartesianism, that I can only be certain of *my* own existence. — Wayfarer
If the whole of the empirical world in space and time is the creation of our understanding, then how can that be "true of the Earth before there was life"? — Terrapin Station
"Prior to life, the whole of the empirical world in space and time is the creation of our understanding."
Is that the case? — Terrapin Station
No, I wouldn't put it that way at all. — macrosoft
The point is, the whole of the empirical world in space and time is the creation of our understanding, which apprehends all the objects of empirical knowledge within it as being in some part of that space and at some part of that time: and this is as true of the earth before there was life as it is of the pen I am now holding a few inches in front of my face and seeing slightly out of focus as it moves across the paper.
IMV, this is an important realization, largely because it can loosen up a taken-for-granted scientism that identifies the real with the input, output, and conceptual supplements of our algorithms. This kind of scientism thinks of 'value' or 'meaning' as a kind of inessential icing on a cake of dead but real 'stuff.' This same scientism often ignores that it itself is this 'illusory' icing. In short, it denies its own reality and cannot give an account of what it itself is. The driving image seems to be a transcendence of sentimentality and bias, but the scientism I have in mind still has a passion for truth that it does not account for. Pragmatism and instrumentalism make more sense and seem less 'sentimental.' If we are just randomly evolved animals (an idea I find plausible if not the last word), then we need an account of why randomly evolved animals are sentimental about transcending sentimentality. (Some have postulated a transformation of the passion for God or gods into a passion for 'useless' Truth. ) — macrosoft
If imagine the earth before humans appeared, then what are we imagining? — macrosoft
If imagine the earth before humans appeared, then what are we imagining? It probably looks quite a bit for us in our imagination as it does for our senses. Maybe we see a green and blue sphere from outer space. Does the world have a color independent of an eye and brain that translates photons? Maybe we see trees, mountains, rivers, insects, birds. And we know what these things are and how they interact. — macrosoft
You're making up stuff so that it's not simply something stupid to say. — Terrapin Station
That's overly charitable--to a point where it's rather detrimental. It's better to simply acknowledge that people--no matter who they are, sometimes say stupid things, sometimes write poorly, etc. — Terrapin Station
The earth, say, as it was before there was life, is a field of empirical enquiry in which we have come to know a great deal; its reality is no more being denied than is the reality of perceived objects in the same room.
When we imagine the world from the viewpoint of scientific realism, then we just picture an empty universe, with nobody in it. — Wayfarer
but we're overlooking the fact that this is something that is still being understood or imagined from the human perspective — Wayfarer
To put it another way, every coherent notion of what it means to say something exists requires a perspective — Wayfarer
When we imagine the world from the viewpoint of scientific realism, then we just picture an empty universe, with nobody in it. Of course in empirical terms, there was a time when the universe was just like that - but we're overlooking the fact that this is something that is still being understood or imagined from the human perspective. — Wayfarer
But that takes too simplistic a view of what 'existence' really means. — Wayfarer
Which indicates to me, that it's not just a matter of sheer rational analytical ability (which Einstein had in spades) but a gestalt shift, a qualitative insight into the nature of knowledge. — Wayfarer
Imagine if you were a musician and you were to go into a recording studio, and anytime you try to talk about or work on anything in that situation, one guy in the band were to only talk about how soundwaves travel through the air, how they work as electrical signals in cables, the mixing board, etc.
That's fine and it's certainly a factor but if that guy seems to ONLY be able to talk about that, he'd drive you crazy--you'd think something is wrong with him, in some sort of weird OCD way, and it would be frustrating in that you'd not be able to work on anything with him, because he just constantly obsesses on soundwaves and how electrical signals in cables amount to sound transmission.
That's what it's like when people keep obsessing on epistemology, semantics/semiotics, etc. regardless of what topic you're talking about. — Terrapin Station
But why keep changing the topic to epistemology, to semantics, etc.? — Terrapin Station
nd realists are idealists in the sense that they understand reality to be mediated by the self (from sense organs to personality as a whole). — macrosoft
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.