Pluarity is impossible because we are dealing with explanation. One cannot have two forms of explanation. If something is explained, true, etc., it is so in the same sense: the thing in question has been accounted for. — TheWillowOfDarkness

True explanations are often incomplete. Incomplete explanations are not complete accounts. If we make a true statement about a tree, the tree has not been accounted for - by any robust accounting practice.

Do we agree here?

My Spinozisic intentions must not have been clear enough...

Pluarity is impossible because we are dealing with explanation. One cannot have two forms of explanation. If something is explained, true, etc., it is so in the same sense: the thing in question has been accounted for. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Ah.

I separate from certainty when it comes to the origen of everything. I also do not require omniscience for knowledge of X.

That said... Spinoza on "love"... brilliant and certain of it! Spinoza on monism... the same holds good.

Correct. More than one substance is incoherent. :clap: — TheWillowOfDarkness

Not following this...

What counts as "substance" will determine whether or not there can a plurality. This seems irrelevant to the topic at hand.

Help?

Ordinary objects and fundamental particles are on the same level, each is a thing we may describe. Fundamental particles are really just another ordinary object. — TheWillowOfDarkness

That doesn't follow unless everything we may describe counts too.

Stop using it to do things we cannot do with it.
— creativesoul

You mean don't use mountains when doing philosophy? — Marchesk

No.

I mean stop using the subjective/objective dichotomy as a means to take account of experience. It cannot take proper account of our own thought and belief. All of our experience consists - in very large part - of our thought and belief throughout the duration thereof.

It's an issue of whether nature is the way we conceptualize it to be. — Marchesk

Yes. Do we form, have, and/or hold true belief about nature? Are our beliefs about nature true?

"Nature" here - for me at least - refers to the universe and/or ourselves.

The problem with real mountains as objects is where to draw the line on what constitutes a mountain versus a hill or some other formation. — Marchesk

What counts as a mountain is wholly determined by us. The same is true of a hill. The problem above is the bit about "real mountains as objects"....

What are those again?

Whoops, I apologize. That was meant for Wayfarer — PessimisticIdealism

Gotcha. Notta problem. So, you are arguing against the historical archaic version of realism. Have fun, but just so ya know, there have been much better versions arise.

:wink:

Well, it's a problem with how we're talking about the world and/or ourselves. Typically, I fix such problems by changing how I talk.
— creativesoul

One way would be to stop using the word mountain. — Marchesk

Stop using it to do things we cannot do with it.

Analysis of what it takes for "mountain" to represent serves us better.

Analysis of how the word mountain is used? — Marchesk

Analysis of how use naming and descriptive practices as a means for talking about mountains would serve us better.

I agree that that's the real problem. Where we will inevitably disagree is how to solve the problem.
— creativesoul

What's the solution? Analysis of how the word mountain is used? — Marchesk

Well, it's a problem with how we're talking about the world and/or ourselves. Typically, I fix such problems by changing how I talk.

You are exactly right, Creativesoul. — PessimisticIdealism

Given I've made so many different remarks here recently, I'd like to 'hear' what you find to be exactly right.

:smile:

Alright, so do mountains exist? And by mountains, I don't mean the rocks, dirt, snow making them up. I mean do objects called mountains exist?

What's the issue here? It's an issue of whether nature is the way we conceptualize it to be. The problem with real mountains as objects is where to draw the line on what constitutes a mountain versus a hill or some other formation. — Marchesk

I agree that that's the real problem. Where we will inevitably disagree is how to solve the problem.

To put my objection another way: the realist position doesn't hinge on finding something out about the world (about X and what we don't/know of it); it hinges on finding something out about ourselves. — StreetlightX

Well put. Elegant.

This realist's position most certainly does. After all, everything ever thought, believed, spoken, written, and/or otherwise uttered is existentially dependent upon our ability to do so. There is no stronger justificatory ground upon which to build one'e edifice than knowledge of what all human thought and belief consists of. It's even better when that knowledge is itself based upon statements of which there are no current examples to the contrary. That's the first goal.

Ah.

:smile:

What is there to say about ancient people’s assuming that our vision ‘shone outward’ rather than light ‘shining inward’? — I like sushi

Could be a poetic way of talking about the good affects/effects that we sometimes have upon others...

Maybe?

a much better understanding of all the things which are existentially dependent upon and/or consist of both the objective and the subjective.
— creativesoul

You don't seem to have discarded the distinction between the objective and the subjective. Can you rephrase the above sentence without using the terms "subjective" and "objective"? If not, and you need to use the terms, then they will be of no use unless you maintain the distinction between them. — Janus

Using to refer is mention.

There are countless historical records of things existing unbeknownst to humans that killed vary large numbers of them long before we gained enough knowledge of those things to name them and eradicate or treat them effectively. That's more than adequate ground for believing that some things(Mt. Everest included) exist in their entirety prior to our awareness of them.
— creativesoul

You probably won't get this, but the point of the anti-realist position is that your mind, or rather, human knowledge generally, is providing the background, as it were, against which all such judgements are made. Where, after all, does 'the historical record' reside? — Wayfarer

I agree with that. Our judgments are largely informed by our own thought and belief. Notta problem though, we can get stuff wrong in that we can most certainly be mistaken about all sorts of different stuff.

Design presupposes a designer... Same ground. Logical possibility.

What kind of realist are you then? — PessimisticIdealism

I'm a realist in the sense that I strongly believe that some things exist in their entirety prior to our awareness of them.

"Mt. Everest" picks out a particular mountain. That mountain existed in it's entirety prior to being named.
— creativesoul

I agree, but where does nature draw the line on what is Mt. Everest and what isn't? — Marchesk

Nature doesn't draw lines. We do, and we can be wrong sometimes, depending upon what we're delineating.

If you agree then what's the issue?

The objective/subjective distinction is rendered inherently inadequate in that it's use cannot take proper account of what all experience consists of.

Discard it.
— creativesoul

Fine. Go ahead. Try discarding it. — Mww

Try? That's hilarious. As if it's impossible to discard. Read my threads.

You're going to have to replace it with something... — Mww

Nah. I reject it based upon my own knowledge of all human thought and belief. I 'replaced it' with a much better understanding of all the things which are existentially dependent upon and/or consist of both the objective and the subjective. Such things cannot be taken proper account of in terms of one or the other. All experience counts as such things. As does all thought and belief...

Pure reason? As in reasoning from an armchair?
— creativesoul

No, that’s just plain ol’ run-of-the-mill thinking, or, practical reason. No one consciously thinks in terms of merely theoretical pure reason, armchair-bound or otherwise.... — Mww

The question(implied) was about the referent of the name "pure reason". To what are you referring? What is the criterion/definition of "pure reason" that you're working from here?

What are logical forms taking account of?
— creativesoul

Illogical thought; irrational reasoning. — Mww

What about logical thought, and rational reasoning?

:gasp:

"Mt. Everest" picks out a particular mountain. That mountain existed in it's entirety prior to being named.
— creativesoul

That doesn't really answer Marchesky's question. How do we know that that mountain existed before we knew about it? — Michael

It either did or it did not. I strongly believe that it did.

I know what naming practices require. I know what discovery requires. If things did not exist prior to our naming practices and/or discovery, then there could be no such things. There are countless historical records of things existing unbeknownst to humans that killed vary large numbers of them long before we gained enough knowledge of those things to name them and eradicate or treat them effectively. That's more than adequate ground for believing that some things(Mt. Everest included) exist in their entirety prior to our awareness of them.

It's also true. So...

While we cannot literally and physically "check to see for ourselves" if something exists before us, for that would require us to exist before we do, it is of no negative consequence whatsoever. What we can know about allows us to be completely justified in continuing to hold such belief. It is part of our default belief system.

The better questions are asked of those who doubt it.

I don't see the problem here. — Chris Hughes

The problem was that statement about the meaning of Shakespeare's works being in his head. That's just not the case, and we know that beyond a reasonable doubt. So...

The works of Shakespeare (the product of his mind) are the subject of the monkeys/typewriters thought experiment, which is used by many scientists to defend the idea that DNA code could arise by chance, given a very long time.

Oh, I get it now... you're a true believer... That makes sense. The argument about monkeys and typewriters has the exact same ground as any and all arguments for God. Logical possibility.

How do we know that Mt. Everest existed before we knew about it? — Marchesk

Glad I saw this. Last I looked it read differently.

"Mt. Everest" picks out a particular mountain. That mountain existed in it's entirety prior to being named.

That question doesn't make sense to me. Does it to you? Is that what you meant to ask?
— creativesoul

No, but I can substitute real in there: How dow we know Mt. Everest to be real? — Marchesk

That's a different question entirely.

Oh okay, Cart, horse, idealists being trampled. — Marchesk

A reductio ad absurdum is not about the person guilty of holding belief that leads to such. Rather, it's about offering strong ground for rejecting such belief(good reason to abandon it).

If it is the case that Mt. Everest existed in it's entirety prior to it's discovery, then it does not matter what one's philosophical bent may be... Mt. Everest existed in it's entirety regardless of whether or not one believes that.
— creativesoul

Agreed, but three possible objections:

1. How do we know that to be the case? — Marchesk

Please fill in the value of the term "that". To what are you referring?

...time is somehow dependent on the perspective of an observer...
— Wayfarer

No. No. No. No.
— creativesoul

You panic because your sense of the nature of reality is being called into question. Do not adjust your set, this is a philosophy forum and it's normal programming. — Wayfarer

Some implies more than one. Somehow implies more than one way for time to be dependent upon an observer.

"No. No. No." applies to one kind of dependency. Care to readjust your set or are you in the mood to talk about something that's not on mine?

Time cannot be existentially dependent upon the perspective of an observer because all perspective is accrued and as such requires time in order to develop.

Check.

Mate.

...time is somehow dependent on the perspective of an observer... — Wayfarer

No. No. No. No.

Please set out the referent for the term "that". I
— creativesoul

Oh okay, Cart, horse, idealists being trampled.

Mount Everest is the reference of "that". How do we know that Mt. Everest existed before we knew about it? — Marchesk

That doesn't work. Here's the question again...

"How do we know that to be the case?"

Substitution leaves us with "How do we know Mt. Everest to be the case?"

That question doesn't make sense to me. Does it to you? Is that what you meant to ask?

Whoa...

You asked, "How do we know that to be the case?"

Please set out the referent for the term "that". I'm trying to answer the question. I want to know that I understand what you're talking about. We've not been discussing any of those things you just mentioned. We could later, if it goes there... and it ought!

Terrapin?

Sometimes it's just best to say "ok"... and do it. Especially when someone else who tells you to is the boss of you!

:wink:

If it is the case that Mt. Everest existed in it's entirety prior to it's discovery, then it does not matter what one's philosophical bent may be... Mt. Everest existed in it's entirety regardless of whether or not one believes that.
— creativesoul

Agreed, but three possible objections:

1. How do we know that to be the case?

2. What if the concept of things existing independent of us (or perception) was incoherent?

3. What if mountains and everyday objects is just a human (or animal) carving up of the world?

All of these arguments have been made against mountain realism. I'm not saying they necessarily exceed, only that it's a contentious topic in philosophy. — Marchesk

Regarding 1.

Please set out the referent of "that".

Regarding 2.

Discard such a concept.

Regarding 3.

Carving needs something to be carved.

Well, in the context of subjective experience, humans, since we know that for ourselves. Most likely other animals, given similar enough biology and behavior. But we don't have a means of being sure. Thus "what it's like" to be a bat.

But we can stick with humans as perceivers — Marchesk

That's the only starting point.

I've expressed my own well considered opinion regarding the purported lack of means. We have a means. Language use. Not just any language use, mind you. Rather, language use that picks out the right kinds of things to further consider.

It's a crying shame that - given our remarkable extraordinary advances - convention has still not gotten our own thought and belief right...

We certainly have had such arguments on the old forum regarding Everest, apples and chairs. They tended to go over a 100 pages.

But yes, for everyday object realists, the mountain existed prior to humanity. — Marchesk

Yup. It seems necessary to have them once again...

I'm a bit puzzled by the second part. If it is the case that Mt. Everest existed in it's entirety prior to it's discovery, then it does not matter what one's philosophical bent may be... Mt. Everest existed in it's entirety regardless of whether or not one believes that.

It's a living organism that has some form of rudimentary physiological sensory perception.

You tell me.

I'm just trying to delineate. I'm not feeling objectionable at the moment.

An amoeba?

Are you suggesting that an argument needs to be made for the following statement...

"Mt Everest existed in it's entirety prior to it's discovery?

Experience is a quality?

Consisting entirely of Quale?
— creativesoul

I don't know, but it's something perceivers generate in the act of perception, memory, imagination, dreams, hallucinations, etc. — Marchesk

I would agree if we changed that slightly to "help generate"...

What's a "perceiver"?