What are the objections against the view that a lot of different realities can co-exist? Especially in the science driven global culture of today there seems to be a lot of resistence. That is at least what I experience. — Prishon
The point is that you already refer to a world. As if there is just one possible one. That is, the material world. — Prishon
But there isn't much that can be said that applies to everything in the world. So we tend to be ontological pluralists by default — Manuel
transcendental subjectivity’
— Joshs
One of Husserl's? I don't properly understand it. Quick definition? — Tom Storm
28mReplyOptions — Joshs
After all, particles that have no "mass" are themselves made up from some that do — Fine Doubter
I'm a beginner and I've not yet found out whether scholars have posited "ontological relativity" (my search engine is buzzing as it is). — Fine Doubter
To answer your question, could you define what you mean by a reality? An example of at least two types that fit your definition would be nice — Philosophim
That's more like Heidegger's version (he traded on his Husserl connection so that most people are too confused to tell them apart). Some flaws in Husserl's own version needed attending to and Walter Hopp in Phenomenology, a contemporary approach pubd Routledge 2020 covers the scheme systematically and the comments already made by others to make it hang together better. In particular Husserl identified three successive phases in perception including valuing (which ties in with Nietzsche's call) which is separate from judgment. — Fine Doubter
Husserl maintained you can't genuinely perform "reductions" or "brackettings" (which just means hold two or more things in your mind alongside each other) beyond what "is" into the fact of "is" itself. — Fine Doubter
Heidegger reifies a thing he calls Being itself, which causes all sorts of personality and societal disturbances. — Fine Doubter
To my mind the meaning in what is, is "Is". Things that are, are telling us that they are, and that they are what they are. This is the answer to the "why is there something rather than nothing" question. (There must have been an existence wave or something. Popper's rather nice word is "propensity". I call it Sam Johnson's Toe.) Why questions are mostly how questions, and how questions are mostly what questions. To my mind, this must be the basic premise of logic. — Fine Doubter
When one adds (to Husserl's scheme) the semiotics of Peirce (reading the language of nature as well as culture) and those forms of hermeneutics that resemble it (i.e not Heidegger's), not forgetting quasi-indexicality in holy texts (why gods are reported to say what they are saying and who it was as if to) and one gets a toolkit for sanity. — Fine Doubter
Aboriginal dreamtime and their reality of a Natural world — Prishon
what you mean by ‘personality and societal
disturbances’ — Joshs
removal — Joshs
Peirce ... Hegelian — Joshs
It's the same world as the only world there is, it isn't a different reality. — Fine Doubter
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.