In a previous post, (Naive Realism) this fellow proposed that:
/"Meditators are transcendentalists, whereas naive realists are
materialists." /
That report was a reflective account of an un-reflective view. For,
strictly speaking, the moment a naive realist reflects upon his view he
is no longer completely naive. According to my professor, A.J. Bahm, the
naive realist is something of a strawman set up by epistemologists to
represent us in our un-reflective moments. This straw man may not be
quite like any of us, or you, because most of us have reflected somewhat
on the transcendental view as opposed to the materialistic view. Yet, we
can recognize that it represents a view we transcendentalists hold much
of the time.
In order to remind the good reader of all the salient points covered in
that cogent post by this fellow, it would be perhaps beneficial to
review here, to wit, those salient points:
There are six statements which summarize the doctrine of a
Transcendentalist:
1. Objects do NOT exist independently of their being known. They cannot
endure or continue to exist without being experienced by anyone.
Knowing objects creates them.
2. Objects derive their existence or nature from the knower.
3. Objects, including their qualities, are affected merely by being
known. Knowledge of objects changes their nature.
4. Objects are not as they are and are not as they seem. Or, as we
sometimes say, appearances are not realities. What seems obviously
so is sometimes not so.
5. Objects are not known directly; that is, there is something between
them and our knowledge of them. We do not experience them exactly as
they are because they are distorted by the intervening senses.
6. Objects are not public; that is, they can not be known by more than
one person. exactly alike. Several people can see the same object
and see it differently.
Are we agreed so far?
