On a more serious note and putting aside what I said earlier about "real" here, if a word is causing more obscurity than clarity, perhaps its best either to drop the word, or using it sparingly. We can get awfully tangled up in arguing about the meaning of words as opposed to arguing ideas. — Manuel
shown in the way we use the word in our language games... — Banno
we shouldn't discuss at all issues and concepts that aren't perfectly defined. — dimosthenis9
I'm saying that we don't always need to start with definitions - indeed, that we cannot always start with definitions.
A moment's consideration of the nature of definitions will show this to be so. — Banno
When it is raining outside, you cannot "avoid" that it is raining outside "by staying inside". Btw, your example doesn't concern ontology, Banno, which, in the context of my remarks, isn't relevant.I avoid the rain by staying inside. Hence, it is not ineluctable; and not real. — Banno
I avoid the rain by staying inside. Hence, it is not ineluctable; and not real. — Banno
When it is raining outside, you cannot "avoid" that it is raining outside "by staying inside". Btw, your example doesn't concern ontology, Banno, which, in the context of my remarks, isn't relevant. — 180 Proof
different individuals aren't using a common basis of understanding when they each refer to 'reality' — sime
But isn't even this supposedly aperpsectival concept of 'shared reality' relative to perspective, and thus not a defence against irrealism? — sime
This absurdity disappears by restricting reality to a mere general metaphysical conception, re: ↪T Clark, constructed and apprehended by humans alone. Then those silly marks bracketing the word, which carries the implication it isn’t a valid conception in the first pace, can disappear as well. — Mww
In other words, the territory does not transcend its mapping so much as the territory is conceived of as an ensemble of all of its possible maps; 'reality as such' as a generalization from – simplification of – many different, particular realities (i.e. ways of depicting and modeling). — 180 Proof
It is crucial for Goodman’s argument that in the conflict between (S1) and (S2) we have (a) an actual conflict between statements, and (b) no other way to resolve that conflict — SEP: Nelson Goodman
"Our reality" consists in every possible "form of how real can be presented". Analogously, chess consists in every game that it is possible to play, whether or not they are ever played, and not just instantiated by a single representative (perfect? ideal?) game of chess..So at the end you think that "our real" is just one form of how real can be presented? — dimosthenis9
No. Every "possible form that can be" known and unknown.One of numerous other possible forms that can be?
See above (and links at end of my previous post).Or you mean something else?
Our reality" consists in every possible "form of how real can be presented". Analogously, chess consists in every game that it is possible to play, whether or not they are ever played, and not just instantiated by a single representative (perfect? ideal?) game of chess — 180 Proof
But there are other ways to resolve "the conflict". Either the cases are equivalent and can be transformed from one to the other as in the geocentric/heliocentric example, or one account is wrong or insufficient, as in the Herodotus/Thucydides example.
Inventing the paraphernalia of worldmaking is surely overkill. — Banno
the world is a composite of different (or all of it's) possible descriptions of the world – a complementary plurality – instead of a unity (i.e. univocity) — 180 Proof
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.