So you're saying professional philosophers agree it's not a problem and don't discuss it? Or that you have just solved it now? — Marchesk
So there are two important things here. The first is that our concept of ordinary objects may not reflect what makes an ordinary object, which leaves the door open to the possibility that there are no ordinary objects. — Marchesk
What I said was that anyone who thinks this is a problem doesn't understand what science is doing. — Terrapin Station
Yeah, long before I read about p-zombies or even solipsism — Marchesk
Ontology — Marchesk
ol - in other words, you stated it as if there's some implicational relationship, but there isn't. — Terrapin Station
Are we changing the subtopic from whether it's philosophers who are misunderstanding what science is doing? — Terrapin Station
orget trying to support the claim that philosophers are perpetuating a particular misunderstanding of science rather than computer techs etc. who like to talk about philosophy online. — Terrapin Station
I supported the claim with links to philosophical sources, jot computer techs talking about philosophy. You can do a Google search yourself if you're not satisfied. — Marchesk
You ignored clarifying if you're claiming that and tried to redirect. — Terrapin Station
Good that you're trying to argue with me when you're not even understanding and don't particularly care about what I'm saying, haha. — Terrapin Station
We seek clarification, because it doesn't make sense without proper context. — Marchesk
The notion of real has been misused here. — Banno
Is the problem that of working out what a universal refers to? What sort of thing?
And if so, why assume that there is some thing that each word refers to? — Banno
The problem is working out how universals are useful. They may or not point to a particular thing (a universal object) in the world, but it would be fair to assume there is something about individual things which allows us to universalize.
At which point we look at the similarity among individual things and debate what that entails. Or alternatively, the similarity reflects an organizational feature of our minds. — Marchesk
However, notice the difference if someone asks whether the world consists of pictures, like we might ask whether the universe is populated by ordinary objects. In this context, the meaning of real is contrasted with that of appearance. — Marchesk
When the question is asked, "Do ordinary objects like tables and chairs exist?", the question is asking whether our conception of normal objects fits with being made up of particles and space. — Marchesk
When the physicist tells us that the chair is made up of particles and space, he is making a statement about the chair. So yes, our notion of normal objects fits with their being made up of particles and space. — Banno
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.