It seems to me than many users here are lacking in their knowledge of different philosophical schools and concepts — Wheatley
Post phenomenological realism; a return to emphasising scientific content rather than human discourse. — fdrake
Social philosophy done through the lens of modern social science (contra discourse analysis) that leverages neuroscience+psychology (or psychoanalysis) to link it to the part of nature which is us (contra linking discourse to the subject through phenomenology). — fdrake
.But, I thought that Realism is really just the idea that what is "out there" is what exists. What is "in here" is simply another form of what is "out there" (i.e. materialism, material monism of some sort). — schopenhauer1
({Speculative realism} is to {the various post-Kantian threads}) as ({models of the generative conditions of phenomena} are to {conditions of possibility of their conceptualisation-articulation}). Generativity vs Conceptual possibility. — fdrake
As an aside, how is the subject/phenomenology not a "part of nature"? I think this is where my characterization might come in handy: — schopenhauer1
Can you provide the context of this? If it is a return, what was the original (I'm thinking Logical Positivism?). If it was a breaking away, then what started it and why? I'm thinking late Wittgenstein and social based philosophers? — schopenhauer1
It's kind of a straw man enemy created for a certain kind of Continental philosopher perhaps, to then knock down. Who besides these small contingent of post-Kantian philosophers are they addressing it for then? — schopenhauer1
God only knows how that answer would look like if the title of the thread was Philosophical circlejerk instead of The Educational Philosophy Thread. — sucking lollipops
Much better. Although, if that's your best, I would still not let you anywhere near a novice. — sucking lollipops
For what they're reacting against; nature is claimed to be construed as nature-under-the-aspect-of-the-norms-of-scientific-discourse, with the critical injunction that its concepts are more social construction than true. The conceptions of nature that transcendentally ground scientific discourse are emphasised as a "for us", never approximately true of an "in itself". — fdrake
If you imagine a particularly staunch Wittgensteinian who would see something like "F=ma" and claim that it holds only within a language game rather than approximately reflecting reality under certain contexts, it's close I think. What is "empirically real" is transformed into an "empirically real for us". — fdrake
One interesting way of doing that, now that you're gonna speculate anyway, is to follow how models of reality work and be inspired by them; those models are now interpreted as being approximately true of the objects they concern. This invites talking about models of reality as well as models of humanity's behaviour and thoughts. — fdrake
That invites a certain flatness of ontology; removing the implicit "it's about us" from the human norm centered interpretation of the models invites seeing objects as pattern generative; they do stuff in a structured way, there are models of the structure, they can be used to form perspectives on related stuff. Now you can do ontology about patterns in that context, human and inhuman - that's what I think speculative realism is. — fdrake
I guess my main question then is what functionally, do we gain or not gain from Speculative Realism vs. Kantianism? The scientific method works the same under both assumptions. — schopenhauer1
I just think this is normal discourse on "emergence" and such that you see all over now.. Information theories, and all that stuff. It's essentially constructing theories on scientific research. I guess it is just an attitude towards the subject at hand. What it pretty much seems to always go back to is philosophy of mind usually. — schopenhauer1
Isn't this just normal social sciences, neurosciences, evolutionary biology and the like? — schopenhauer1
Here's your chance to ask questions about philosophy, request information about different schools of philosophy. — Wheatley
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.