T.L. Austin — Gnomon
has decreed that “a philosopher doesn't get to decide the meaning of a word”. Instead, he insists that we must deal with words as they are found in the wild, so to speak -- uncontaminated by philosophical sophistry. Since when does he have that authority? — Gnomon
I suppose it was when the Linguistic Turn*1 began to transform Philosophy into a passive observer of the world as it seems to be, instead of an active participant in interpreting the world of “appearances”, that Kant said was a mask over the unknowable ideal “ding an sich”. — Gnomon
But Language is the essence of human Culture, and hardly Real, in the sense of Natural*3. — Gnomon
Exactly @Gnomon's modus operandi, counselor. And the rest follows ... :smirk:T.L. Austin
— Gnomon
J. L. Austin, you mean. — Ciceronianus
:clap: :100:Perhaps you're using words like "nature" and "real" in a peculiar manner, though.
What Austin and others were doing (including Wittgenstein) was pointing out that the misuse of language_--the contrived use of it--leads us to make unwarranted conclusions and sends us on expeditions without purpose.
Forgeries are real.
Thanks for the correction. I had never heard of Austin, before reading the Philosophy Now article. And my comments are based on the article, not from personal familiarity.J. L. Austin, you mean. Not to be confused with John Austin, the esteemed (by me) legal positivist. — Ciceronianus
Unfortunately, such a bureaucratic conceit would stifle the most creative philosophers. For example, I tried to read Whitehead's Process and Reality --- in which he conceived of a new school of Process Philosophy --- but found its novel technical terminology hard to follow. That's one reason I provide an extensive glossary & footnotes in my thesis and blog*1.It strikes me that if we're going to accuse philosophers of conceit, that accusation is more properly brought against those who disregard the meaning of a word, creating their own meaning for self-serving purposes. — Ciceronianus
To the contrary, I was distinguishing between Nature and Culture, not Nature and Reality. Nature got along for eons without Culture or Language, until artificial "human nature" -- in the last few ticks of Time -- began dominating natural Nature. Do you think humans are nothing-but Nature? In what sense is Culture or Language Real? Certainly not in the sense of this thread's topic, implying that Real is the opposite of Ideal, which is the exclusive purview of human thought, language & philosophy. :smile:But Language is the essence of human Culture, and hardly Real, in the sense of Natural*3. — Gnomon
You don't think we're part of nature? Or you think we're not real? — Ciceronianus
In Science, what is Real & Physical & Actual is what is not Ideal or Imaginary or merely Potential. — Gnomon
What is real? And how can you know that for real? — A Realist
OK. What kind of philosophical world model, based on what kind of scientific evidence, are you willing to accept as Real? Is that less confusing --- or more? — Gnomon
That seems to me to prefigure the answer from Austin. — Banno
Yes. Although my post contrasted Potential with Actual, and Real with Ideal, not Potential Energy with Reality, as you mis-construed it. For example, a AAA battery has a potential voltage of 1.5V, but until it's plugged into a complete circuit, that potential is not realized. Any potential thing or action is not yet real (i.e. not materialized), until actualized*1 in a system. Do you disagree with my list of opposites in this context? If so, in what sense is Potential real?*2.So potential energy is not real? — Banno
Are you accusing me of "dismantling the apparatus of physics"? Or merely of being "crass" enough to mention an alternative (non-mechanical) mechanism? Could you be more specific? Which "apparatus" am I tearing down? Newtonian Mechanics?*3 Actually, it was the pioneers of Quantum Theory who crassly deconstructed Newton's machine with "spooky action at a distance".But of course, you did not mean that. It would be crass for someone to suggest that we ought dismantle the apparatus of physics because it does not meet your exhortation. — Banno
For example, a AAA battery has a potential voltage of 1.5V, but until it's plugged into a complete circuit, that potential is not realized. — Gnomon
Yes — Gnomon
Sounds good to me. But how do you determine the accuracy of fit for a world model? Since many of the controversies on this forum revolve around the physical foundations of the world (e.g. matter particles vs mathematical fields) , I tend to rely on Quantum Physics as the most appropriate resource.Well, I find it to be a matter of skill in considering things, to be able to look at things from different perspectives, so I'm apt to apply the sort of modeling that seems most usefully accurate for what I am considering, whether that be particles, or fields, or whatever. It doesn't make much sense to call a model "Real" though. It makes more sense to me to consider the degree to which a model is accurate, and not confuse the model for that which is being modeled — wonderer1
You missed the point. I didn't refer to Aristotle as an authority on storage batteries, but as the guy who originally defined the terms "Potential" & "Actual"*1. Of course, Voltage is a measure of Energy, not energy per se. And the measurement is expressed as a ratio between Zero now and some Potential value in the future. A battery contains no Actual Energy, only Potential Energy*2. That's why you can touch both poles and not get shocked. Aristotle's definition, in terms of existence, is pertinent to the OP topic of Reality. :smile:Aristotle is probably not the best source, regarding the nature of batteries. Also the subject was potential energy. Voltage is not energy. — wonderer1
That does seem odd. Please show me where I denied "the existence of certain things posited by science". Just a short list of instances would be more helpful than a blind blanket denouncement.So in order to defend your scientistic realism, you deny the existence of certain things posited by science. That seems odd. . . . And again, your style is almost unreadable — Banno
Sounds good to me. But how do you determine the accuracy of fit for a world model? — Gnomon
I tend to rely on Quantum Physics as the most appropriate resource. — Gnomon
What can you do when your "most accurate" model is rejected by your interlocutors, and they don't acknowledge your analytical "skill"? — Gnomon
Of course, Voltage is a measure of Energy, not energy per se. — Gnomon
And the measurement is expressed as a ratio between Zero now and some Potential value in the future. — Gnomon
A battery contains no Actual Energy, only Potential Energy*2. — Gnomon
That's why you can touch both poles and not get shocked. — Gnomon
Apparently, you are expecting technical answers on a philosophical forum. I was addressing a philosophical question, not an electrical engineering question. Does your referenced link explain "what is real?". We are not talking about the same thing here. :smile:And the measurement is expressed as a ratio between Zero now and some Potential value in the future. — Gnomon
No it is not. And this is yet another example of your tendency to assert things without knowing what you are talking about. — wonderer1
I was addressing a philosophical question, not an electrical engineering question. — Gnomon
Harry Frankfurt, On BullshitIt is in this sense that Pascal’s statement is unconnected to a concern with truth: she is not concerned with the truth-value of what she says. That is why she cannot be regarded as lying; for she does not presume that she knows the truth, and therefore she cannot be deliberately promulgating a proposition that she presumes to be false: Her statement is grounded neither in a belief that it is true nor, as a lie must be, in a belief that it is not true. It is just this lack of connection to a concern with truth—this indifference to how things really are—that I regard as of the essence of bullshit.
You can falsify scientific claims with counter-evidence. How would you falsify a philosophical analogy : Potential as not-yet-real future event? What made you think I was making a "truth claim"?What you were doing was making false claims. I don't know why you would consider that to be a valuable contribution to a philosophical discussion. — wonderer1
Please show me where I denied "the existence of certain things posited by science". — Gnomon
@unenlightenedWhat everyone else is getting at is that reality is that about which one can be deceived. So in the case where what is real to you is unreal to me, at least one of us is deceived. But if you are suggesting that something can really be real to you and really be unreal to me, then I think you must be confused.
@A Realistsomething can be real to me but not real to someone else.
The reality of light for us is completely different from the reality of light for bees, but maybe if we could understand the language of bees! He probably acknowledged with us the fact that there is something, even if the reality is different for both of us. — Ali Hosein
The reality that you perceive as honey is probably completely different from the reality that the bee perceives as its product. — Ali Hosein
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.