Naturalism or realism art not possible in art. We just have to be
satisfied with our varied aesthetic expressions of it. There is no
mystery to art, just personal individual taste of one or groups.
mando
On Mar 17, 2010, at 11:01 AM, Boris Shoshensky wrote:
For me, naturalism and realism have the same meaning. We have limited
knowledge of it and always will, but always trying to learn more
regardless.
Boris Shoshensky
---------- Original Message ----------
From: "Frances Kelly" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Thought always precedes speech
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 22:05:55 -0400
Frances to Boris and others...
It is tempting for me to tentatively retain "realism" or some
brand of realism like "idealist realism" or "realist pragmatism"
as the label for any key support philosophy, but the door is
always ajar and ready to accept suggested alternates. The term
"dialectic naturalism" is unknown to me, but let me search it
out.
Incidentally, assigning any notion of "theism" to a key
support philosophy would be unacceptable to me, although the
loose religiosity of Peirce is admitted, as is the roots of
realism in catholic antiquity, but this background in my opinion
did not affect his scholarship. Peirce by all accounts was
clearly a mathematician and logician and scientist of the highest
order. He simply wanted to blend evolution theory and creation
theory in general philosophic ways that were nonreligious and
panentheistic or neutrally moral, with the goal of respecting
intellectual economy and authority.
Boris wrote...
How about dialectic naturalism. I think it includes idealism
and materialism as "general" realistic accounts of the world.
Frances wrote to Saul...
If it may be correct that naturalist pragmatism or idealist
realism now fail as "general" accounts of the world, then the
search likely continues for some other alternate theory, but just
exactly what that might be remains unclear to me; however all
suggestions are welcome.
Saul wrote to Frances...
Theistic evolutionism - very 19th century pragmatic inductive
rationalism- your trapped in words- you call it realist- and by
that you are held to 19th century concepts - this is what becomes
of them disciple
Frances wrote to Saul...
The antirealist alternative to globally account for what may
be felt or sensed or known by humans as being in the world is
some kind of subjective mentalism, like notionalism or
nominalism
or rationalism, which is unacceptable to realists.
The common sense hypothesis of external existence is a good
guess, derived from individual observations of inner feelings
about the seeming haze given of phenomenal stuff, which
subjective observations are then put to objective expressions,
so
that other normal experts who are similarly inclined will by a
consensus of their agreed opinion tentatively determine what is
real and true. Since the individual observer is unreliable, it
falls to the community of observers to control conformity by
analyzing their expressed propositions. What collective
thinkers
have found to date is that mathematics and logics, and
synechastics or the evolving phenomenal categories, are ideal
objective things that exist independent of human feelings or
knowings, and that furthermore the laws of nature and the laws
of
science are also found to be objective phenomenal constructs.
These expert findings of course would be conditionally
contingent
and provisionally probable. Under the philosophy of realist
pragmatism this is a situation of objective relativism, where
the
human is brought into an indirect relation with the objective
phenomena they subjectively feel might exist, and not into a
relation with their own inner psyche about the haze of seeming
phenomenal stuff that is given uncontrolled to them. The
mathematics and logics and laws of nature or science found to
exist by humans are not arbitrary inventions. The agents of
this
design are the dispositional tendencies of stuff to evolve in
the
best direction possible, which is generally fated towards a
good
end goal.
Saul wrote to Frances...
As revealed or hypothesized by human beings - whomergent
world se knowledge of the world is emergent - consequently
man-made laws are merely propositions and cannot be held to be
true - in other words they are either merely symbolic or mythic
or in some cases delusional.
Frances wrote to Saul...
My understanding of realist pragmatism on this issue of what
continues or exists in the world before signs is that phenomena
does, and as categorically structured with monadic qualities
and dyadic facts and triadic laws.
