Before responding to Chris's last, I need to supply this prolegomenon:
Like many young students of philosophy, I went through a period of
fascination with classical conundrums of epistemology -- the study of "what
(and how) we
can know". The prototypical position we addressed was that of solipsism, the
impossibility of "knowing" for sure that anything other than our own flow of
consciousness "exists". Everything allegedly "outside", including other minds
-- and bodies, including our own -- might be just figments of our
"imagination".
When I fussed around fecklessly with such puzzles long enough, I found I just
couldn't "believe" that basic premise. And anyway, I could see a position
like solipsism was the death of any fruitful philosophies.
So I decided to start with a few unshakable convictions -- that there is what
I'll call a "material" world, and that there other people with minds of their
own. I knew I could never prove it to a solipsist (even my mind's imaginary
solipsist if something like solipsism were true), but that didn't faze me. I
was convinced that other people exist, that I'm not talking to and "hearing
from" solely myself.
I knew my philosophical conversations would have to be confined to the
population that accepted that premise with me. The company wasn't bad. It
included
all the smart folks I'd heard of since Plato's time. In fact I've never met
or heard of anyone who is genuinely a solipsist, so my non-solipsist
ontological convictions seemed the best place from which to start
philosophizing.
I was, and am, ready to concede there are all sorts of "unknowable" things
about that "material" world. Any introductory philosophy textbook will discuss
these things serviceably well. I may be initially inclined to say I'm sitting
at a typing desk that "IS" "brown", "hard", "cold", etc., but when I examine my
basic conviction, it amounts to something like this:
All my sense data are "notional" -- i.e. part of my flow of consciousness, my
awareness. The difference between me and a solipsist is that I'm convinced
there is a non-notional "entity" that is independent of my mind, and is
occasioning my sense data. I believe there is something "there". And I believe
that
everyone reading these words has similar convictions. In other words, we
believe
in both notional entities and material entities.
So when I claim the desk "is" hard, I'm ready to accept that all I can
defensibly say is that, whatever the character of the thing "in itself" is,
when I
grope this what-I'll-call "material" object with the sensors in my hand the
sense datum that arises in my mind is one that I call "hardness". When we talk
of
"hearing a sound", our phrase is serviceable enough, but when we examine that
experience we come to realize that all that is "out there" is pulsing air
waves; the sensation, "sound", is totally notional.
The sense data occasioned by our encountering a material object are entirely
notional. The character of those sensations depends in great part on the
character of the materials encountered.
In sum, I'm convinced there "are" two kinds of entities: material and
notional. For the sake of serviceable communication here and now, I'd say they
"exist".
Now on to Chris's posting of 9/25/08 10:21:27 AM.:
"I was a bit surprised when Cheerskep just told us that "paintings exist in
the non-notional world". Wouldn't he have only recognized the existence of an
area in his visual field -- and then say that it was notational to call some
part of it a painting ?"
First, a couple of linguistic ambiguities to relieve. When Chris says
'recognized', I figure he could mean 'grant' or ' confer the validity of', as
in,
"The Chair has not recognize the authority of that person to vote"; or he could
mean "had as part of his conscious awareness". My guess is he meant that second
one.
As for 'notational', I have no clearish idea what Chris has in mind with
'notational'.
True: My direct awareness is confined to sense data and the other notion my
associating and combining mind conjures. But as I've now expressly conceded
here, I also believe that material objects exist. And I often infer from a
sensation that a material object exits, a mind-independent thing occasioning
the
sensation. (This is very like William's "pretending".) Often, but not always:
Novelists, screenwriters, movie-directors frequently talk of visualizing,
"picturing", a scene so vividly they can then describe it as though they are
on-the-scene reporters. (Granted: It shouldn't be hard to come to an agreement
to call
"sense data" only the notion -- including visual imagery -- that is
immediately occasioned by a material object.)
(Don't let the word 'of' mislead you: "Yes, you're aware, but what are you
aware OF?" Much indefensible notion is packed into the idea behind "of-ness".)
So when I go into the living room and look at the Burliuk over the
mantelpiece, I admit my "awareness" is totally notional, but I also believe a
material
object -- a painting -- "exists", occasioning my notions.
Thus when Chris puts his queries about what exists and what does not exist
when we're standing in the Sistine Chapel, much of his list seems to me to
betray a fundamental error: He wants us to make an either/or choice -- as
though
the things he names must be either a material object or just notional
sensation,
and they can't be both. But in fact they usually are both. Material
plaster-and-pigments exist, and so do the sense data they occasion in my mind.
As for the matters of judgment/opinion ("great work of art"), I refer you to
my too-long (and too short) recent riff to Michael about restating alleged
substances as sense data they would occasion if contemplated.
Everything below is Chris's, including the last sentence.
* reflected light does exist [ ] does not exist [ ]
* a wall does exist [ ] does not exist [ ]
* plaster and pigments does exist [ ] does not exist [ ]
* depiction of the Last Judgment does exist [ ] does not exist [ ]
* illusions of volume and space does exist [ ] does not exist [ ]
* high quality of drawing does exist [ ] does not exist [ ]
* profound spiritual vision does exist [ ] does not exist [ ]
* great work of art does exist [ ] does not exist [ ]
* very famous work of art does exist [ ] does not exist [ ]
* cryptic map to the Holy Grail does exist [ ] does not exist [ ]
I'd be inclined to recognize the existence of everything listed above --
except for the last.
**************
Looking for simple solutions to your real-life financial
challenges? Check out WalletPop for the latest news and information, tips and
calculators.
(http://www.walletpop.com/?NCID=emlcntuswall00000001)
