So a simple fellow like me may be inclined to ask what, if that's the case, they "really" are if they're not a snake and a train, and what the difference is between the snake and the train (or what we only "think" are the snake and the train) and what the snake and train "really" are. If there is a difference, how does that difference affect what we do with what seem to be snakes and trains? — Ciceronianus the White
I haven't seen the article, but I have read the book. So, I'd say that the difference that makes a difference, between imaginary snakes and real snakes, is the practical distinction between Concrete and Abstract. Concrete things have physical properties, such as poison, that can have physical effects, such as death-by-snake-bite. But Abstract things, have their physical properties abstracted (pulled out), so what remains are ethereal meta-physical qualities (MPQ). MPQ are not inherent in snakes, but attributed by the observer. And one of the MPQ of both snakes-in-the-flesh and snakes-in-the-mind is that they can cause the real physical responses we call "fear". You may mistake a garden hose for a snake, but the fear-response will be the same. And some people have dropped dead from fear --- yet the cause was not bio-chemical toxin, but bio-mental shock.So a simple fellow like me may be inclined to ask what, if that's the case, they "really" are if they're not a snake and a train, and what the difference is between the snake and the train (or what we only "think" are the snake and the train) and what the snake and train "really" are. If there is a difference, how does that difference affect what we do with what seem to be snakes and trains? — Ciceronianus the White
It strikes me that if the "real snake" (or whatever it may be) cannot be known, the mental representation snake is what is of significance to us. It doesn't matter what the "real snake" is, nor does it matter if our snake is a mental representation. — Ciceronianus the White
That description may be true of many people, who accept what they think they see as what is real. But to skeptical scientists and philosophers, and some poets, it does make a difference to know what is real and what is illusion. A major feature of wisdom is to know what you don't know.It strikes me that if the "real snake" (or whatever it may be) cannot be known, the mental representation snake is what is of significance to us. It doesn't matter what the "real snake" is, nor does it matter if our snake is a mental representation. — Ciceronianus the White
Who said it was? What I said was, "A major feature of wisdom is to know what you don't know." Do you disagree with that assertion? The point of wisdom is to be aware of the potential for Black Swans in any risky endeavor. :smile:I wouldn't describe the belief that only the unknowable is real as wisdom. — Ciceronianus the White
Who said it was? What I said was, "A major feature of wisdom is to know what you don't know." Do you disagree with that assertion? — Gnomon
But to skeptical scientists and philosophers, and some poets, it does make a difference to know what is real and what is illusion. — Gnomon
No two of them see the same thing. — tim wood
And of course there is no such thing as a sunset. I'll presume you're talking about the experience. If that, no argument, beyond observing what you observe, that the experiences themselves are all different and only by processes of abstraction and agreement is the phenomenon processed as an experience, and further shared as one.But they do, you know. They see exactly what they should see--the sunset. — Ciceronianus the White
And of course there is no such thing as a sunset. I'll presume you're talking about the experience. If that, no argument, beyond observing what you observe, that the experiences themselves are all different and only by processes of abstraction and agreement is the phenomenon processed as an experience, and further shared as one.
But what is a sunset to the sun, or the horizon, or to the processes themselves that create it? Nothing more than a judgment of sorts attached to a cognitive asterism of unrelated objects. — tim wood
But to skeptical scientists and philosophers, and some poets, it does make a difference to know what is real and what is illusion. — Gnomon
My response was that my understanding of the claim being made is that we can't know what's real. If that's a misstatement of your position, let me know. — Ciceronianus the White
:up:One of the problems with this position--that we can't know what the real world is--is that it perpetuates the view reality is "out there." It treats us, or at least our minds, as something apart from and observing the world rather than as a part of the world and in constant interaction with its other constituents. — Ciceronianus the White
Do you really know what's real? My position is similar to that of Kant : our senses are probing the presumed reality outside our heads, but the picture we construct from those bits of data is a mind-made (subjective) representation (symbol), not the ultimate (objective) thing, as known to omniscience. — Gnomon
I think all knowledge is provisional, — Ciceronianus the White
The point is not whether you know what you know, but how it's grounded, or more exactly what grounds it. If nothing, then no knowledge. If something, then knowledge. So, what is the something?We know quite well they are cats, dogs, etc., and not something "unknowable" — Ciceronianus the White
I think you are over-reacting to presumed implications of Kant's Transcendental Idealism, which was not a denial of a real world, or affirmation of a heavenly realm, but a critique of the limits of human Reason. And his Idealism is not necessarily supporting traditional Religious or Spiritualist worldviews, Descartes also seemed to acknowledge our ability to deceive ourselves -- or to be deceived by a hypothetical demon -- about reality, in his "cogito ergo sum" expression : all I know for sure is the contents of my own mind. In that sense, Reality transcends my abbreviated and subjective world model. You may not go so far as Plato, to imagine an Ideal world from which our reasoning abstracts it's own version of Reality. But for scientific purposes, it's necessary to accept the limitations on our ability to know and to model Reality. :cool:We're not outside the world looking in. What we think, what we experience, what we do or don't do, all take place in the world. — Ciceronianus the White
Kant’s Philosophy of Religion :
Kant has long been seen as hostile to religion. Many of his contemporaries, ranging from his students to the Prussian authorities, saw his Critical project as inimical to traditional Christianity.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-religion/ — Gnomon
Claim and believe what you like, can you improve on Kant? — tim wood
but a critique of the limits of human Reason. — Gnomon
How do you know its a cat? — tim wood
I don't think we reason (...) unless we encounter a problem (...). — Ciceronianus the White
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.