there is something independent of any phenomenal form which constitutes the being of objects. — TheWillowOfDarkness
For a transcendental or Berkeley idealist, are there things that exist independent of their mind, whether it be other minds, or other bodies? — Harry Hindu
The point is that it doesn't matter whether the external stuff is other ideas, or material, or whatever - only that there is stuff that exists — Harry Hindu
As for the skeptical alternative, that would require a clear definition of what it means to know anything. — Harry Hindu
There is a difference between arguing that there is more to an object than the form I give it, and arguing that it subsists in itself. One could say, for instance, that my sense of an object anticipates beyond itself , and meets up with that object In that way, I can determine an object to be a relation between what I already expeieince and what is new in that object with respect to my experiecne. Another way of putting it would be to say that all objects of my experience exist for me only in relation to a field. All objects for me are figures on a background which is intrinsic to their meaning for me. Thus no object is completely independent of my subjecdtivity in its meaning, and no object is merely co-opted into my subjectivity.the form cannot be exhaustive of it. There might always be more to the object. It is more than the concept of form in question.
Objects need more than an idea to make them so. — TheWillowOfDarkness
P1) The realist argues that “the being of X is independent of its being known.” — PessimisticIdealism
I favor a linguistic approach to this issue. What exactly do we mean by 'being' and 'independent'? — Eee
"Mt. Everest" picks out a particular mountain. That mountain existed in it's entirety prior to being named.
— creativesoul
That doesn't really answer Marchesky's question. How do we know that that mountain existed before we knew about it? — Michael
It simply means there is more to the world than humans. So evolution, stars, big bang, atoms, disease, animals in the deep sea, maybe alien life, etc. We may or may not come to know about all these things. We certainly won't know everything. — Marchesk
To put my objection another way: the realist position doesn't hinge on finding something out about the world (about X and what we don't/know of it); it hinges on finding something out about ourselves. — StreetlightX
The dependence of what is observed upon the choice of the experimental arrangement made Einstein unhappy. It conflicts with the view that the universe exists "out there" independent of all acts of observation. In contrast, Bohr stressed that we confront here an inescapable new feature of nature, to be welcomed because of the understanding it gives us.
There are countless historical records of things existing unbeknownst to humans that killed vary large numbers of them long before we gained enough knowledge of those things to name them and eradicate or treat them effectively. That's more than adequate ground for believing that some things(Mt. Everest included) exist in their entirety prior to our awareness of them. — creativesoul
But the kind of realism that the OP is criticizing doesn't see it that way at all. — Wayfarer
"Mt. Everest" picks out a particular mountain. That mountain existed in it's entirety prior to being named.
— creativesoul
I agree, but where does nature draw the line on what is Mt. Everest and what isn't? — Marchesk
What kind of realist are you then? — PessimisticIdealism
There are countless historical records of things existing unbeknownst to humans that killed vary large numbers of them long before we gained enough knowledge of those things to name them and eradicate or treat them effectively. That's more than adequate ground for believing that some things(Mt. Everest included) exist in their entirety prior to our awareness of them.
— creativesoul
You probably won't get this, but the point of the anti-realist position is that your mind, or rather, human knowledge generally, is providing the background, as it were, against which all such judgements are made. Where, after all, does 'the historical record' reside? — Wayfarer
Nature doesn't draw lines. We do, and we can be wrong sometimes, depending upon what we're delineating.
If you agree then what's the issue? — creativesoul
To put my objection another way: the realist position doesn't hinge on finding something out about the world (about X and what we don't/know of it); it hinges on finding something out about ourselves. — StreetlightX
Alright, so do mountains exist? And by mountains, I don't mean the rocks, dirt, snow making them up. I mean do objects called mountains exist?
What's the issue here? It's an issue of whether nature is the way we conceptualize it to be. The problem with real mountains as objects is where to draw the line on what constitutes a mountain versus a hill or some other formation. — Marchesk
I agree that that's the real problem. Where we will inevitably disagree is how to solve the problem. — creativesoul
You are exactly right, Creativesoul. — PessimisticIdealism
I agree that that's the real problem. Where we will inevitably disagree is how to solve the problem.
— creativesoul
What's the solution? Analysis of how the word mountain is used? — 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.