P2) In order to know whether or not "the being of X is independent of its being known," one must “know X when X is not being known.” — PessimisticIdealism
P1) The realist argues that “the being of X is independent of its being known.” — PessimisticIdealism
This realist doesn't. — creativesoul
Wouldn't a realist have to make that argument? A galaxy millions of light years away or an evolutionary ancestor would exist as they are regardless of whether we ever know, if galaxies and ancestor organisms are real.
Otherwise, "realism" dissolves into man is the measure, which would some form of Kantianism or anti-realiism. — Marchesk
What argument needs made here? — creativesoul
Mt Everest existed in it's entirety prior to it's discovery? — creativesoul
We certainly have had such arguments on the old forum regarding Everest, apples and chairs. They tended to go over a 100 pages.
But yes, for everyday object realists, the mountain existed prior to humanity. — Marchesk
If it is the case that Mt. Everest existed in it's entirety prior to it's discovery, then it does not matter what one's philosophical bent may be... Mt. Everest existed in it's entirety regardless of whether or not one believes that. — creativesoul
If it is the case that Mt. Everest existed in it's entirety prior to it's discovery, then it does not matter what one's philosophical bent may be... Mt. Everest existed in it's entirety regardless of whether or not one believes that.
— creativesoul
Agreed, but three possible objections:
1. How do we know that to be the case?
2. What if the concept of things existing independent of us (or perception) was incoherent?
3. What if mountains and everyday objects is just a human (or animal) carving up of the world?
All of these arguments have been made against mountain realism. I'm not saying they necessarily exceed, only that it's a contentious topic in philosophy. — Marchesk
Please set out the referent of "that". — creativesoul
Please set out the referent for the term "that". I — creativesoul
P1) The realist argues that “the being of X is independent of its being known.” — PessimisticIdealism
How do we know that Mt. Everest existed before we knew about it? — Marchesk
'Before' implies duration, duration is predicated on there being time, and time is somehow dependent on the perspective of an observer. — Wayfarer
If Mt Everest were endowed with sentience, he/she/it would probably be incapable of cognising h. sapiens, because we're so tiny, and our lives so ephemeral, that they wouldn't even register in his/her/its
consciousness. Glaciers and rivers, maybe, because they stick around long enough to (ahem) make an impression. — Wayfarer
Please set out the referent for the term "that". I
— creativesoul
Oh okay, Cart, horse, idealists being trampled.
Mount Everest is the reference of "that". How do we know that Mt. Everest existed before we knew about it? — Marchesk
"How do we know that to be the case?"
...time is somehow dependent on the perspective of an observer... — Wayfarer
And yet we know about deep time, and we can measure how long Everest has been around. — Marchesk
...time is somehow dependent on the perspective of an observer...
— Wayfarer
No. No. No. No. — creativesoul
That question doesn't make sense to me. Does it to you? Is that what you meant to ask? — creativesoul
But he still maintained that in some fundamental sense, time itself was a 'primary intuition' of the observing intelligence, and denied that it had absolute or objective reality; that science itself is still dealing with the realm of phenomena. — Wayfarer
Right, does Kant ever say positively what exists and how it relates to the phenomena? So if time is a mental category, then what does it relate to in the real world? — Marchesk
Anyway I'm bowing out, I don't want to hijack the thread. — Wayfarer
You notice the hidden assumption in your last question? The 'real world'? — Wayfarer
...time is somehow dependent on the perspective of an observer...
— Wayfarer
No. No. No. No.
— creativesoul
You panic because your sense of the nature of reality is being called into question. Do not adjust your set, this is a philosophy forum and it's normal programming. — Wayfarer
That question doesn't make sense to me. Does it to you? Is that what you meant to ask?
— creativesoul
No, but I can substitute real in there: How dow we know Mt. Everest to be real? — Marchesk
Oh okay, Cart, horse, idealists being trampled. — Marchesk
If it is the case that Mt. Everest existed in it's entirety prior to it's discovery, then it does not matter what one's philosophical bent may be... Mt. Everest existed in it's entirety regardless of whether or not one believes that.
— creativesoul
Agreed, but three possible objections:
1. How do we know that to be the case? — 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.