Philosophy discussion
General
>
Metaphysics
Robert wrote: "Duffy wrote: "Robert wrote: "Duffy wrote: "Robert wrote: "Duffy wrote: "Just giving the best answers I could. If you want me to be a bit more expansive......As to your own answer: if we have no a..."
We can't discuss it objectively. Subjective discussion seems pointless, since we don't know what each other are talking about. Thus it seems that we can't discuss it either way. In which case, I think its irrelevant to the discussion.
As I said in my first answer, I think it's best not to try to describe or define it.
It's logically possible for a solipsist to believe that reality is all that there is. Would it be a mistake for God to be a solipsist before the creation? I also think its possible for a person to honestly decline to define "reality" at all. As I said before, I think its a mistake to assume that because we have a noun, there must be some object that corresponds to it.
Bill wrote: "Duffy wrote: "Instead, I would like to say that if you want to find out about reality, meditate. You won't ever get to a description. ..."
Can you describe why reality is better 'found out' by m..."
No, I can't describe it. Instead, I suggested you try it. Maybe you will find out for yourself. Maybe not. A description is not going to capture it for you. If you want descriptions, there's tons of literature and poetry on the subject. Some of it is beautiful, but none of it does what you are asking.
Duffy wrote: "Robert wrote: "Duffy wrote: "Robert wrote: "Duffy wrote: "Robert wrote: "Duffy wrote: "Just giving the best answers I could. If you want me to be a bit more expansive......As to your own answer: ..."
And I as I indicated before, we can discuss it with value at the pragmatic level. This distinction is important. Obviously you don't think so because you keep glossing over it.
Soooooo.....if we are just going to restate our thoughts repeatedly, there is not much point in going further.
I guess I'm just not understanding the distinction. You say we can discuss it at a pragmatic level. But, then our discussions will end up being baseless. Is that your point?And I thought I pretty much covered the ground when talking about the objective and the subjective. In your understanding, does the "pragmatic level" somehow fall outside both the objective and the subjective? If so, please let me know where it is? I simply am not understanding you when you say we can discuss it at the pragmatic level.
Bill wrote: "Duffy wrote: "No, I can't describe it. Instead, I suggested you try it. Maybe you will find out for yourself. Maybe not. A description is not going to capture it for you. If you want descriptions, ..."I did not know that. It doesn't surprise me that much. If someone suggested to me that I try speaking in tongues, I wouldn't even know where to begin. Also, I have to admit that, from seeing the tapes of the practice, and from knowing some of the people that go to those kinds of congregations, neither the process nor the result appeals to me very much.
Duffy wrote: "I guess I'm just not understanding the distinction. You say we can discuss it at a pragmatic level. But, then our discussions will end up being baseless. Is that your point?And I thought I pre..."
OK...here's another try. If I am giving you directions to a friend's, and I tell you to take a right hand turn at the house that's painted red, you can follow those instructions because, through learning and convention, you have interpreted the concepts "red" and "right turn", and applied them to a set of stimuli. Through similar learning and convention, I have done the same. So, you can successfully find the turn, and when I come there later, we can successfully meet there.
If you are my boss, and you tell me that you want a business case that lists a minimum of 5 supporting reasons for a certain recommended action, I can come back and provide you with that successfully. You may or may not think my business case is well done, but you will acknowledge that I did come up with five reasons. That is because, on a pragmatic level, we share sufficient understanding of the concepts "reason" and "five" to communicate successfully.
Those are pragmatic purposes. You dig?
Bill wrote: "This sort of direct access to reality, an ecstatic mystic state brought on by music and chanting, is much older then meditation. Many primitive tribes practice it. Whirling Dervishes, etc...."
It's not really much older than meditation. First, it IS meditation...just of a different type. Ancient spiritual practices have various types of meditation: sitting (zazen), walking, yoga, etc.
Moreover, historically the Dervishes were a group within Sufism, which is the mystical sect of Islam, dated much later than ancient hindu and buddhist meditation (earliest at around 7th century CE).
The Hindu Vedanta tradition has meditation practices dated back to 1500 BCE.
Hi Robert --That is because, on a pragmatic level, we share sufficient understanding of the concepts "reason" and "five" to communicate successfully.///Our discussions are necessarily subjective because the access to reality is always through the door of our own experience.
What's the difference between understanding the concept of "five" objectively and understanding it pragmatically?
If we lack objectivity, doesn't that mean we can't establish a factual basis for the concept of "five"? I'm not sure how a pragmatic approach would suffice to establish concepts that we apparently agree on.
Tyler wrote: "Hi Robert --That is because, on a pragmatic level, we share sufficient understanding of the concepts "reason" and "five" to communicate successfully.///Our discussions are necessarily subjectiv..."
The concept "5" is a priori. It is true by definition. At that level "objectivity" and "subjectivity" don't really have much meaning. However, when the concept is applied to the request of my boss in this example it takes on a pragmatic reality that allows the two of us to communicate, and agree, a posteriori, that the request fulfilled.
You are poking at the fact that math is different from other concepts, and I certainly agree. However, when it is applied to experience it takes on a pragmatic meaning. Make sense?
The larger question though, concerning whether or not there is a distinction between pragmatic discourse and theoretical discourse as it applies to the nature of reality, regarding all of those concepts and others like them (right/left, the color "red", the number "5"), I maintain that the answer is yes.
We can attain a functional level of objectivity on the nature of reality as pertains to pragmatic discourse. So, the earlier question in this thread regarding whether or not it is useful to discuss the nature of reality as "all that there is" is, to my way of thinking, in the affirmative. However, at the theoretical level, I believe that our access to reality is always, in the end...in the END...subjective.
This approach to epistemology has probably best been articulated by C.I. Lewis in his useful work "Mind and The World Order". He discusses the reality that confronts us as "the given". He then points out that this "given" is then interpreted by us through a collection of categories (he is obviously building on Kant here, but goes in a very different direction). However, there is always the possibility that our interpretation will have to be modified in the future based on further experience with this element of the "given".
(From a scientific standpoint, that is why theories can only be strengthened, never proven conclusively, but that is a different subject.)
I agree that if you gave me directions that said to make a right turn at the red house, I could probably follow those directions.If I were your boss, I can't imagine asking you to draw up a "business case" under any circumstances.
I'm not willing to agree with your explanation for why this sort of thing can occur. I still think that there is a mistake here that stems from the idea that because there is a noun, there must be some "thing" that corresponds to the noun. In this case, the offending noun is "concept" instead of "reality".
Duffy wrote: "I agree that if you gave me directions that said to make a right turn at the red house, I could probably follow those directions.If I were your boss, I can't imagine asking you to draw up a "busi..."
That's cute, Duffy. By the way...just to clarify...the thing about you being my boss was made up; I don't consider it real (smile). Just an analogy?
I'm fine with you not agreeing with the explanation...that's why we have discourse. Your centering that argument in parts of speech, though, is for me just a little thin. If you don't want me to really engage further, well, then that approach is effective. But just FYI, if you do, you will have to go a bit deeper and engage the argument on it's own terms.
Just a suggested point of focus: "pragmatic functionality" vs. "theory".
Robert wrote: "Tyler wrote: "Hi Robert --That is because, on a pragmatic level, we share sufficient understanding of the concepts "reason" and "five" to communicate successfully.///Our discussions are necessar..."
I'm not sure what you mean by the concept of "5" being a priori. Or that it's true by definition. I didn't think that "5" was either true or false. Also, I thought the distinction between a priori and a posteriori applied to propositions, not to concepts.
Thus, it might be that the proposition "2+3=5" is a priori. But it's also possible that the proposition "All birds have feathers" is a priori. In the latter, if you start with the definition that a bird is a feathered bi-ped with wings, then you don't need to resort to experience to determine that a bird has feathers. (in other words, you don't need to know anything about birds to draw the conclusion.)
Would you come to the same conclusion if the number were 1,345,649,745,875,935,874,982,765,432.1009356333...? Is it true by definition, whatever that means? What about the "concept" of that number?
Duffy wrote: "'m not sure what you mean by the concept of "5" being a priori. Or that it's true by definition. I didn't think that "5" was either true or false. Also, I thought the distinction between a priori and a posteriori applied to propositions, not to concepts.Thus, it might be that the proposition "2+3=5" is a priori. But it's also possible that the proposition "All birds have feathers" is a priori. In the latter, if you start with the definition that a bird is a feathered bi-ped with wings, then you don't need to resort to experience to determine that a bird has feathers. (in other words, you don't need to know anything about birds to draw the conclusion.)"
Good points! I was being a bit sloppy in my argument, I agree. "5" is a concept. If I lay 5 apples out on a table, and then say, "that's 5 apples", that is true according to the definition of "5", and the concept of the symbol "apple" as applied to what is lying on the table. However, as you correctly point out, it is not, technically speaking, a priori.
When I wrote that, I was in fact thinking of what you laid out as a mathematical proposition, e.g. 2+3 = 5. That is true, a priori, according to the definitions of the concepts "2", "3" and "5", and their relationships.
So, I agree with you. I was not precise enough in the formulation of my argument.
Tyler wrote: "Why wouldn't we have access to a objective reality? It seems sense perception is how that occurs quite naturally."Once again, it does not seem intuitively obvious that what you wish to call objective reality exists apart from what I assume you would call subjective reality. This may, in fact, be true, but I suggest that this presupposes a great deal of one's epistemology which is not always evident.
You may recall that Wittgenstein in the Tractatus thought that all disagreements in philosophy were linguistic in nature. One can certainly see where he developed that idea from 19th century studies of various languages, probably primarily from Humboldt. He might not have held this view later but he was certainly on the right track, in my opinion.
Both the greatest of problems and the greatest difficulties in philosophy come from failing to make our definitions clear. Hence it is only fair to argue against, say, Plato or Hegel or Kant, if we are either accepting their preconditions and definitions or stating that those preconditions are not the case. In the latter issue, the argument against the writer's logic seems to dissolve. Conclusions without foundations are, I am sure you would agree, senseless.
The greater question here is whether there is, in fact, anything called objective reality. You are certainly well read in the subject matter and thus understand the arguments such as made by Russell concerning our memories having been created 5 minutes ago. The greater issue is, of course, that according to a well known theorem of logic, one cannot prove that a finite number of statements of a closed system are true without having access to truths outside that system.
Hence I argue that if one were to answer complex statements with any sense whatsoever (excluding that of a freshman after his first philosophy course wherein he or she has become enamored with repairing the errors of the past) I would humbly ask under what conditions those answers are valid. If one responds that they are answers which are valid under all situations, then I should call him either naive...or God.
Rhonda wrote: "Tyler wrote: "Why wouldn't we have access to a objective reality? It seems sense perception is how that occurs quite naturally."Once again, it does not seem intuitively obvious that what you wis..."
Very well said, Rhonda. I'm with you. There is no such thing as a proposition that is true under all conditions.
Returning to my own position on the initial question (which may have gotten a bit lost in the shuffle):
I hold that there is a reality "out there" (outside of my mind). What is it? It is that which produces the stimuli, or what Lewis called "The Given".
However, for me to discuss it conclusively and without subjectivity is impossible.
"There is no such thing as a proposition that is true under all conditions."Please state the conditions under which that proposition would be false.
Getting back to the original problem."The Cubs will never win the World series. That's reality. And when I say this, I'm speaking objectively."
The above makes sense to me.
"There is a reality out there but it is impossible to discuss it objectively."
This one uses some of the same words, but I have a hard time figuring it out.
Duffy wrote: ""There is no such thing as a proposition that is true under all conditions."Please state the conditions under which that proposition would be false."
Sounds like you are interested in word games...maybe that's why the focus on "nouns"?
OK...I'll play for a bit, until I'm bored.
What are the conditions under which that proposition would be false? They are these: if it were possible to state a proposition that is true under all conditions, then under that condition my proposition would be false.
OK?
Now...if you disagree with my proposition...then please do state a proposition that is true under all conditions. Maybe I go to far...so just show me.
Duffy wrote: "Getting back to the original problem."The Cubs will never win the World series. That's reality. And when I say this, I'm speaking objectively."
The above makes sense to me.
"There is a real..."
Your statement that the Cubs will never win the World series is A) a belief, based on a hypothesis, and B) a prediction, so unless you can predict the future (under which condition you should quit wasting your time on goodreads and go make some real money in the stock market) then the statement could easily be proven false by a future event. That's the nature of predictions and theory (read Popper).
As to the second point, it is an inaccurate paraphrase of my position, and it is the second time you have done so...oddly, in the same way. Here's the correct statement: "There is a reality out there, and it can be discussed objectively at the level of pragmatic functionality, but not at the essential level."
It's OK if you have a hard time figuring it out. These things are not supposed to be simple.
If there is a set of conditions under which your proposition is false, it follows that there is a proposition which is true under all conditions. However, if there is no set of conditions under which your proposition is false, that means your proposition is true under all conditions. Which means that either way, there is at least one proposition that is true under all conditions.Now, for another proposition I think is true: a single point of light cannot appear to be both red and blue at the same time. I think this statement is generally true. I don't know whether it is empirical or logical.
Duffy wrote: "If there is a set of conditions under which your proposition is false, it follows that there is a proposition which is true under all conditions. However, if there is no set of conditions under wh..."(laughing)...as I said, the sentence construction and word game is something I find boring. "Can God make a rock that is so big God can't lift it?" My first year philosophy prof offered that one.
Your word game is a paradox of sorts. What I offered is a valid proof. If you assume your proposition is true, it turns out to be false. If you assume your proposition is false, it also turns out to be false. Therefore, its false. The form of this argument is essentially the same as Godel's First Incompleteness Proof, or indeed of Kant's fisrt Transcendental argument in the Critique of Pure Reason. It may look similar to a paradox, but its not. A paradox is where if you take the statement to be true, it turns out to be false, and if you take it to be false, it turns out to be true. Here, whether you assume the statement to be true or false, it is false.
I also offered another example of a statement I take to be true under all conditions.
Edit: I'm going to amend what I said about the God comment. It's not a paradox either. I first heard this comment on George Carlin's album FM and AM. His question was "If God is all powerful, can he make a rock so big that he can't lift it?" This statement simply shows that there is a problem with the idea of omnipotence. If he can make such a rock, then he's not all powerful. If he can't make such a rock, he's also not all powerful. When I used to raise things like this with the nuns at catechism, the response was either to swat at me with a ruler or send me out into the hall for the rest of class. The problem is not with the logic, but with the idea of omnipotence in the first place. And I don't think its merely word games.
Further edit: The simplest statement I know of the form of Godel's Incompleteness Proof is this: Take the following sentence: "This statement cannot be proved in system S." Assume that its true. Then it can't be proved in system S. Assume it's false. That means that it can be proved in system S, and it is therefore true. But that is a contradiction. Therefore, it cannot be proved in system S. Godel basically figured out a way to embody that reasoning entirely within a first order system of logic.
Duffy wrote: "Your word game is a paradox of sorts. What I offered is a valid proof. If you assume your proposition is true, it turns out to be false. If you assume your proposition is false, it also turns ou..."I understand your point...really, I do. I just don't find it interesting, that's all. Or useful. Or even important in terms of the larger discussion.
I don't mean that in a dismissive way...I truly don't. Because I'm sure that many who enjoy philosophy will find it to be all of those things.
It's just that we all have to choose to spend time on those things that warrant that time, and I guess that's an individual decision.
So, I don't mean it as a criticism at all. It's just a statement of my own decision process on where to spend my time. So, if it's a weakness, then it is my weakness...not yours.
Your dismissal strikes me as being roughly similar to the nuns sending me out to the hall. It didn't bother me then, and it doesn't now. No-one should have to discuss things that don't interest them.Let me try it this way:
"I hold that there is a reality "out there" (outside of my mind). What is it? It is that which produces the stimuli, or what Lewis called "The Given".
"However, for me to discuss it conclusively and without subjectivity is impossible."
Assume, for the sake of argument, that there is no reality "out there". Assume that nothing causes the stimuli, but that the stimuli are exactly the same. What practical difference would this make?
Duffy wrote: "Your dismissal strikes me as being roughly similar to the nuns sending me out to the hall. It didn't bother me then, and it doesn't now. No-one should have to discuss things that don't interest t..."Practically? The question doesn't make sense because without the reality there would be no stimuli.
And I tried hard to show you that my lack of interest was not the same as your nun's. But hey...it is perceived by you as it is perceived. Nothing I can do about that.
Your argument that there could be no stimuli without the reality strikes me as being about the same as saying that there could be no universe without a creator. I don't see why. Suppose the stimuli just are, and that nothing causes them. You are saying that something must cause them, and that's what I'm trying to get at. Why must something cause them? If you insist on this, then tell me causes your "reality", and in turn, what causes that?
Duffy wrote: "Your argument that there could be no stimuli without the reality strikes me as being about the same as saying that there could be no universe without a creator. I don't see why. Suppose the stimu..."How do you define "stimulus"? Maybe that's the problem...
Robert wrote: "Duffy wrote: "Your argument that there could be no stimuli without the reality strikes me as being about the same as saying that there could be no universe without a creator. I don't see why. Sup..."When you said that reality is "that which produces the stimuli", I assumed that by stimuli you meant something like impressions, or sense data, something of that sort. I was trying to use your vocabulary, and maybe I got it wrong.
Duffy wrote: "When you said that reality is "that which produces the stimuli", I assumed that by stimuli you meant something like impressions, or sense data, something of that sort. I was trying to use your vocabulary, and maybe I got it wrong...."
That's fine...use my language. However, I still think this may be the root of the issue. You wrote the following:
You are saying that something must cause them, and that's what I'm trying to get at. Why must something cause them?
So, this question on your part is obviously based on your definition of "stimulus". What is it?
Hi Rhonda --The term "objective reality" condensed a question I had raised earlier about whether there exists a reality independent of the many subjective impressions of it.
The greater issue is, of course, that according to a well known theorem of logic, one cannot prove that a finite number of statements of a closed system are true without having access to truths outside that system.
We can't have a series of regressing proofs, I agree, if I'm understanding this point. So a question I posed was whether reality, defined as whatever is, could be treated as and axiom instead of a fact standing in need of proof.
Robert wrote: "Duffy wrote: "When you said that reality is "that which produces the stimuli", I assumed that by stimuli you meant something like impressions, or sense data, something of that sort. I was trying to..."I said above, I was thinking of stimuli as being akin to impressions (in David Hume's sense), or sense data. It's the raw material of perception. I'll stick with that and see where it goes.
Tyler wrote: "a question I posed was whether reality, defined as whatever is, could be treated as and axiom instead of a fact standing in need of proof. ."Tyler - I think that is precisely how it needs to be treated. I agree wholeheartedly. Trying to prove that reality exists is absurd, and a waste of time.
It degenerates into silliness like this:
Person 1: "of course, reality exists. Scientists are measuring the speed of light to known celestial bodies, and through calculation have evidence that the universe is expanding. If there is no reality outside of our mind, what is it that is producing those measurements?"
Person 2: "well, all of that could be in your own mind - you MIGHT have created the entire scenario - reading about the scientists, reading about the measurements, etc. YOU might have created ALL of that. You might even be creating in your mind this conversation we are having right now!"
That's the kind of crap that the discussion leads to. It's silliness, in my opinion.
The axiomatic treatment of reality is all that makes sense. It's self-evident. Bravo to you.
Duffy wrote: "Robert wrote: "Duffy wrote: "When you said that reality is "that which produces the stimuli", I assumed that by stimuli you meant something like impressions, or sense data, something of that sort. ..."Stimuli, by definition, come from the outside. Look it up (that's a risk for me, because I haven't - haha)
Robert wrote: "Duffy wrote: "Robert wrote: "Duffy wrote: "When you said that reality is "that which produces the stimuli", I assumed that by stimuli you meant something like impressions, or sense data, something ..."From Dictionary.com:
"1.
something that incites to action or exertion or quickens action, feeling, thought, etc.: The approval of others is a potent stimulus.
2.
Physiology, Medicine/Medical . something that excites an organism or part to functional activity."
I checked the etymology. It comes from the latin word that means "to goad". Nothing about where it comes from.
Before you said I was simply playing word games. And now you are trying to establish your point by saying that something is inherent in a dictionary definition? Even if it were inherent in the definition, I don't think it has much to do with what we were talking about.
You like to say that we can discuss reality in a pragmatic way, but not objectively. I can imagine one similarly arguing that, in a pragmatic way, it may be helpful to talk about inside and outside. But in the END, its all internal and there is no outside. I don't see much difference between the two. Apparently, you do (or did until I just saw that you agree with me that the whole thing is "silly, and a waste of time.")
Apparently, where we got off the tracks was your answering the question as "Yes, but we can't discuss it objectively." I answered the question "No.", but I should have been clearer. When I answered no, perhaps I should have simply abstained, because in the immortal words of Mona Lisa Vito "It's a bullshit question."
Duffy wrote: "Robert wrote: "Duffy wrote: "Robert wrote: "Duffy wrote: "When you said that reality is "that which produces the stimuli", I assumed that by stimuli you meant something like impressions, or sense d..."For the third time, Duffy - I didn't say we can't discuss it. I won't repeat myself again. Let's just agree to drop this...it be goin' nowhere.
Robert wrote: "Duffy wrote: "Robert wrote: "Duffy wrote: "Robert wrote: "Duffy wrote: "When you said that reality is "that which produces the stimuli", I assumed that by stimuli you meant something like impressio..."I misquoted you:
"Yes, but we can't discuss it objectively."
The direct quote, from message 41, should have been:
"Yes. However, we have no access to it that will allow us to discuss it objectively."
I fail to see much of a difference, but it's fine with me if we drop it.
Duffy wrote: "Robert wrote: "Duffy wrote: "Robert wrote: "Duffy wrote: "Robert wrote: "Duffy wrote: "When you said that reality is "that which produces the stimuli", I assumed that by stimuli you meant something..."OK...I'll clarify one more time. I won't use precisely the same words because I don't feel like looking them up. Here's my position:
1. There is an objective reality "out there". It can be taken as axiomatic, because it is self-evident (Tyler's question). Trying to "prove" something that is self-evident leads one to endless digression, circular reasoning, reductionism, and is therefore a waste of time.
2. We CAN discuss this reality "objectively" at the level of PRAGMATIC FUNCTIONALITY. In other words, we can share enough common understanding to carry out our daily lives, including both trivial and very important matters of discourse and action.
3. We CAN'T, however, discuss the reality "objectively" at the ESSENTIAL level - philosphically. Why? Because we have no access to it other than the access we get through our own processes of categorial interpretation. Those filters, if you will, are always subjective. Therefore, at an ESSENTIAL level, there is no way for me to know whether what you have in your mind as a result of your own process of interpretation is the same thing that I have in my mind.
OK...that's it. I just want to be clear. I've called out the distinction to you multiple times between pragmatic endeavors and essential philosophical meaning. You have said you don't understand the distinction. That's fine (I've said that before too). However, please don't keep reducing it down to an inaccurate portrayal of my position as "we can't discuss it."
Thanks. Yes, I think you and I have probably gone as far as we can on this. Maybe others can enrich both of our attempts to understand one another.
Robert wrote: "It can be taken as axiomatic, because it is self-evident (Tyler's question). Trying to "prove" something that is self-evident leads one to endless digression, circular reasoning, reductionism, and is therefore a waste of time. "What is self evident to one may not be self evident to all.
However, I agree with the principle that if we are to have meaningful communications with others, we have to agree on a shared starting point -- the equivalent of Euclid's Definitions, Postulates, and Common Notions. Or, in language, meaning of words. (Try having a meaningful discussion if I'm talking Russian and you're talking Swahili, and neither of understands a word of the other's language.)
But whether those are self-evident to one, some, or all is irrelevant. What is relevant is whether we all agree to accept the as a basis for the discussion to proceed on.
Everyman wrote: "Robert wrote: "It can be taken as axiomatic, because it is self-evident (Tyler's question). Trying to "prove" something that is self-evident leads one to endless digression, circular reasoning, red..."Hell, Everyman... try carrying on a conversation when both people are speaking ENGLISH!
I agree with you...what is self-evident to one may not be to another person. I have learned in my life that anybody can debate anything!
In light of your comments, let me clarify mine. I think we should accept a reality outside of our mind as axiomatic. That's my opinion.
Robert wrote: "In light of your comments, let me clarify mine. I think we should accept a reality outside of our mind as axiomatic. That's my opinion. ."Plain enough.
And my opinion is -- I have no idea whether there is a reality outside our minds. Everything that I perceive with any of my senses occurs in my mind. Is there really an external reality that makes me feel pain in my hand when I touch what my mind tells me my eyes have interpreted as a hot stove? I see, hear, feel things at night which I consider dreams which I believe do not have a corresponding external reality. And people who have lost limbs can still "feel" pain in their lost limbs even though there is no limb there, but the pain is just as real as pain that you would say came from an actual external reality.
So what I do know is that the human mind is capable of seeing, hearing, feeling things where I think you would agree there is no corresponding actual external reality (unless you think there is an actual external reality behind dreams?) So how can I know that the things I see, hear, feel at times when I think I am awake are now, by contrast, based on an actual external reality? How can I know that? And further, on what basis can I reasonably postulate that?
Everyman wrote: "Robert wrote: "In light of your comments, let me clarify mine. I think we should accept a reality outside of our mind as axiomatic. That's my opinion. ."Plain enough.
And my opinion is -- I hav..."
OK, here's my responses. I'll work on being very brief.
I agree that everything you sense is perceived inside your mind. That was made clear in my very first statement.
I feel totally confident that I can distinguish when the thing I am perceiving is inside or outside my mind. I have no doubt. When I wake up in the middle of a dream, there is a moment or two when I am confused. But that immediately clears. It is very evident to me when I am dreaming, and when I'm not.
There is a very reasonable explanation that amputees still feel their limbs. Basically, the nerves are still firing. When the nerves fire, the brain interprets. But guess what? The whole time they are well aware that their limbs are actually gone. It's not confusing. They wonder why they are still feeling the pain, but they don't "wonder" whether their limbs are actually there if they are awake when the experience occurs. Moreover, they can move their hand down and feel the stub.
It is entirely possible to let one's mind go down the road to wondering whether the only reality is actually the one in their mind. But it takes only a moment's sensible reflection to see that is not the case. As I said above, it is very clear to me the difference between sensation of external stimuli, and things that are only in my mind. When the ability to distinguish those things goes, we call that schizophrenia - there's a reason we don't call it reality.
Bill wrote: "Robert wrote: "I think we should accept a reality outside of our mind as axiomatic...."What is the difference between that statement and this one:
We don't know everything"
What's the difference? The statement "we don't know everything" is a truism.
Bill wrote: "Robert wrote: "What's the difference? The statement "we don't know everything" is a truism."..."
And your statement I quoted is not a truism? You said it was 'axiomatic'..what is the differen..."
You can think of it that way if it pleases you. However, in terms of application to philosophical problems, i think the term "truism" and "axiom" are very different indeed.
Bill wrote: "Robert wrote: "You can think of it that way if it pleases you. However, in terms of application to philosophical problems, i think the term "truism" and "axiom" are very different indeed. ..."
No..."
Well...OK. This is my approach - I'm sure you will get others who will disagree.
In philosophical discourse, an axiom is used to describe something that needs no systematic proof. Because of its self-evidence, it can be used as a foundation for other discourse...something to build on, so to speak.
As Everyman pointed out, what is self-evident to one is not always self-evident to another. True, I say. And sure...if you hold something out as axiomatic, others will often disagree. That's ALWAYS possible. However, as Tyler pointed out, axioms play a very practical purpose in philosophical discourse, again, that of a plainly evident foundation that one does not need to prove, and so can proceed to build on it to explore other things that ARE in more need of critical reasoning.
This was essentially Descarte's problem during his months of systematic radical doubt. Essentially, he was refusing to accept anything as axiomatic. Anything that could be doubted, he did...until he came to the point where he doubted his own existence. (As an aside, that is really in a nutshell the problem with trying to prove axioms - it leads to those kinds of predicaments.) However, he felt that he DID in fact succeed in proving his own existence because he said that someone needed to be thinking the thoughts he was thinking. Put differently, if he was having these doubts, someone must be doing the doubting. So, he concluded, as we all now know, "cogito, ergo sum".
He then used that as the foundation to build an entire philosophical system. However, guess what? He has, of course, in later years been roundly criticized, referred to as guilty of bad reasoning and method, etc. etc. etc.
So...that's the power of axiom.
Truism, on the other hand, is a derogatory term which simply means something doesn't need to be stated. Not true of axioms, as Tyler was pointing out by asking the question in the first place - can we take objective reality as axiomatic? Some say yes (I am one of those). Some say no (apparently E-man and Duffy are exemplars of those.)
I guess the question for you is - what do you think?
Hope that's a sufficiently clear answer, whether or not you agree with it.
Bill wrote: "Robert wrote: "Bill wrote: "Robert wrote: "You can think of it that way if it pleases you. However, in terms of application to philosophical problems, i think the term "truism" and "axiom" are very..."I don't know that you are misunderstanding anything. It could be me that is misunderstanding your meaning by using the statement "We don't know everything".
I just don't think the statements are synonymous because trying to express the idea that reality outside our minds can be accepted as axiomatic by saying "we don't know everything" just seems an oversimplification to me.
But hey - that's just me. That's the way language is...it's symbolic of concepts and intent. If you are telling me that by saying "we don't know everything" your intent is to communicate that a reality outside our mind can be accepted as axiomatic, then I say, "Oh...OK. Thanks for the clarification. We agree."
Bill wrote: "Robert wrote: "Bill wrote: " saying "we don't know everything" just seems an oversimplification to me. ..."Seems to me a lot of philosophical disagreement is over the best way to say something. ..."
Not suggesting that you should, because I'm under no illusion that I'm worth it (smile), but if you go back and read all my posts on this thread you will see that we are on similar ground.
I get bored, really quickly, when folks want to endlessly work at defining every concept to the nth degree, usually in an effort to support their own position (I'm NOT saying that is what you are doing...just a comment).
When I say "mind" I am simply referring to conscious cognition and interpretation. I agree completely with your characterization of the interpretation process (using taste as an example). My prior posts (long time ago!) will point that out. However, I still find it meaningful to distinguish between reality as it exists as "the given", and our mental processes of interpretation. Again, you will find if you read the whole history of posts on this that this position does not agree with a number of others as voiced here.
Metaphysics is an impossible dream.
G. wrote: "Metaphysics is an impossible dream."This is a bold statement. How do you relate your statement to Aristotle? Do we understand that there is nothing we can do to understand first causes and the true nature of things? If that is true, then knowing that it is not true appears to be a kind of first cause.
I don't know about first causes, neither could I know, but I do know what is present in the world.
Can't one also arrive at solip..."
Sorry, Bill. I'm not sure I understand the point of the question. Does it make sense to you to discuss some part of "all there is" that is not reality?
If there is a portion of "all there is" that is not reality, then that portion by definition is NOT reality, i.e. unreal. Correct?
Solipsism basically says that there is no reality outside of one's own mind. I say that this position is logically contradictory. If there is no reality outside of one's own mind, then to speak of one's own mind as something separate from any other person's mind, i.e. as separate from the rest of reality is absurd and contradictory. Moreover, it appears that since it is evident that you exist, and that I have no control over your actions, that my own mind is NOT the only reality.
That is very different from the realization that all reality confronts us, and we are aware of it, only through perception, and without that perception we have no access to it. Therefore, all of reality is filtered through our perceptions.
This position acknowledges a reality outside of one's own mind, but simply says that there is no way to know for sure whether your perception and mine are the same.
So...back to the original point: you will have to explain the point of your question a bit more clearly.