---In [email protected], <punditster@...> wrote :
In a previous post, (Naive Realism) this fellow proposed that: "Meditators are transcendentalists, whereas naive realists are materialists." I missed this previous post, can you post a link? 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: 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. > Rubbish Objects derive their existence or nature from the knower. > Prove it. > Objects, including their qualities, are affected merely by being known. Knowledge of objects changes their nature. > Sorry, I'm not religious. > 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. > Fair enough on that one. > 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. > Yup, obvious really. 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. > Another hit, keep going you'll get there in the end. Or force yourself into a corner of unreasonable conclusions drawn from poor inferences. > > Are we agreed so far?
