It's obviously somewhat different than the appearance, or naive realism would have gone unquestioned. — Marchesk
It's obviously somewhat different than the appearance — Marchesk
Who's arguing for naive realism? — creativesoul
Set it out... this difference between world and.... what, exactly are you claiming must be different than the world? — creativesoul
Our image... as retinal? — creativesoul
Explanation is always complete because it details some thing-- "It has been explained"-- but never exhaustive because there are things of which a given account does not speak.
So yes, the tree has been accounted for, insofar as it has been truthfully spoken about. Speak the shape.of it's leaves, you give a full account, insofar as you describe, the shape of the trees leaves. Do not be fooled by the fact there is much more to the tree, you have genuinely accounted for the tree. You just aren't accounting for the many other ways and relations this tree exists in. — TheWillowOfDarkness
Our experience of the world including perceptions and thoughts. — Marchesk
Seems to me like we do not subject accounts we know to be perception to a supposition of it being an illusion... so I suspect we might be closer to the naive realists than you might think. — TheWillowOfDarkness
It's certainly not enough to say that ordinary word usage captures reality. — Marchesk
So, there's clearly a difference between the world and our thought and belief about it? — creativesoul
Yes, basically that's it, although the visual metaphor bothers me a little, because one might argue we're being fooled by thinking only in terms of vision, where illusions can occur. — Marchesk
P3) It is neither self-evident nor certain that “the being of X is independent of its being known.”
C2) Therefore, philosophy should not begin with the assumption that “the being of X is independent of its being known.” — PessimisticIdealism
It doesn't follow from the statement "We've been mistaken about some things" that we're been mistaken about everything. It does not follow from the statement "We do not see some things as they are" that we cannot see anything as it is. — creativesoul
That is, even if an individual doesn't perceive the world as it really is, what the individual perceives is influenced by some real things that influence his perception, so the individual perceives what the world really is like when these real influences are taken into account, but the thing is of course the individual doesn't perceive these real influences as long as they mess with his perception. — leo
That makes sense. But then when the individual wants to know what the world's like independent of anyone perceiving it, questions about realism, epistemology and science come into play. And they might want to know this because they think there is a world that's more than just humans perceiving it. — Marchesk
It doesn't follow from the statement "We've been mistaken about some things" that we're been mistaken about everything. It does not follow from the statement "We do not see some things as they are" that we cannot see anything as it is.
— creativesoul
That's not what I said either, I said we cannot all be seeing things as they are (otherwise there would be no disagreement), and I also said we cannot be mistaken about everything, for instance we cannot be mistaken about the fact that "not everything can be an illusion, there has to be something real". — leo
As for the skeptical alternative, that would require a clear definition of what it means to know anything — Harry Hindu
Well yeah, they're realists about other minds. Which is open to the same sort of criticism of the OP — Marchesk
Yes. Doesn't that tie into the OP's argument? — Marchesk
I'm not quite clear on what the problem is. Don't we acquire knowledge from observations? We don't know anything until we observe it. So the answer is observe it and then you will know.The burden of proof lies on the realist to demonstrate that he “knows” whether the being of X is independent (not in terms of relations (i.e. the being of X ceases to partake in the relation of being known to a knower")) of its being known — PessimisticIdealism
When you observe your experiences it seems pretty clear that there is an external world because it would be a different experience if there wasn't. You might say that there'd be no experience at all. — Harry Hindu
I'm not quite clear on what the problem is. Don't we acquire knowledge from observations? We don't know anything until we observe it. So the answer is observe it and then you will know. — Harry Hindu
But those are all external worlds. Is the argument "how do we know there is an external world", or "how do we know what the external world is like"? The latter assumes the prior is true.But that external world might be a brain in a vat, a simulation, a dream in God's mind, etc. if we take into account skeptical possibilities. — Marchesk
Then the question is how can we be certain, not how do we know things?The problem is that our acquisition of knowledge doesn't lead to certainty. Which is usually fine for everyday living, but has issues when doing philosophical inquiry. If we want to know what's real, then we have to deal with skepticism. — Marchesk
Then the question is how can we be certain, not how do we know things? — Harry Hindu
“Are you asking how do we know things independent of knowing? That would be a silly question.” — Harry Hindu
With that being said, the realist’s position is undermined by groundbreaking discoveries in the field of quantum mechanics which subsequently serve as evidence that go against the realist’s assertion that “knowing makes no difference to what is known.” — PessimisticIdealism
I found an interesting statement by Einstein related to this:
"The physical world is real." That is supposed to be the fundamental hypothesis. What does "hypothesis" mean here? For me, a hypothesis is a statement, whose truth must be assumed for the moment, but whose meaning must be raised above all ambiguity — Andrew M
the absurd statement “knowing makes no difference to what is known.” — PessimisticIdealism
This argument is based on a similar argument belonging to Robin George Collingwood. — PessimisticIdealism
Well, unfortunately, you are interpreting the standard realist position wrongly. — PessimisticIdealism
Mt. Everest existed in it's entirety regardless of whether or not one believes that. — creativesoul
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.