On 1/27/2014 8:01 PM, s3raph...@yahoo.com wrote:
This is elementary. I know I exist. That is only thing of which I am *absolutely* certain.
Most people when asked this question, would reply using a naive realist position that because we are conscious and can perceive things and events with the senses so, we conclude that there must be an existence. This answer is based on observation - perception is reality. If we are a realist we see things and experience things just the way they are.

People don't usually get the notion that there is a transcendental field that is hidden from view - they just accept things as they are and as they seem - with common sense a realist just understands that gravity sucks and all human excrement flows downstream. Most people just use common sense in order to explain existence.

According to my Professor, A.J. Bahm, there are six statements that summarize the realist view:

1. Objects which are known exist independently of their being known.

2. Objects have qualities or properties, which are parts of the objects.

3. Objects are not affected merely by being known.

4. Objects seem as they are and are as they seem.

5. Objects are known directly.

6. Objects are public.

The problem with the naive realist position is that the senses don't reveal everything that can be known - things and events are not always exactly as they seem. For example, a straight stick when immersed half way into water may appear to be bent. Things and events appear to be real, but if appearances derived through one sensory channel appear contradictory, it is natural to appeal to other senses for corroboration. When they contradict, which sense shall we accept as reliable?

Reply via email to