Hi Ham, On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 12:54 AM, Ham Priday <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Steve and DMB -- > > Thanks for that explanation, Steve. With the exception of your first > paragraph, it's a clear presentation of an "anti-realist" position. I do > have some trouble making sense of the double-negative "anti-anti-realism" to > which you subscribe, however. For me it seems to be a way of avoiding the > metaphysical issue of whether objective reality exists or not. But that's > because I define "objective reality" as existence.
[Mark] Hmmm the use of a double negative sounds familiar from somewhere... This dictum of "objective reality as existence" is precisely what we are questioning in order to formulate a more revealing picture. More below. > > A couple of comments on the remaining paragraphs: > > First, aren't you slighting objective reality by crediting only its > scientific benefits? Scientific pragmatism is not a true philosophy, but we > DO take objective reality as a basis for our systems of thoughts and > actions. Certainly we do things on purpose; in that sense we are all > pragmatists. If we couldn't exercise some measure of control in our world, > it would be impossible to plan or predict the actions required in any > endeavor. That would make knowledge (the "axioms we adhere to") useless for > human progress. [Mark] In terms of your definition, scientific pragmatism would not be a true philosophy, but is it not? If part of metaphysics is exploring the "true" nature of things, then isn't scientific pragmatism such an endeavor? It may not be appropriate to simply accept the vision created by science as being something that is separate from philosophy. Granted, this "objective" reality is something readily accepted by the non-philosopher, but perhaps this is more a function of education than an inherent (or intuitive) understanding. A philosophical endeavor is to question this "control in our world". I would submit that we "deal" with this world, but are far from controlling it, and it is this sense of control which has led to our current predicament (if such a thing exists). When we sail and use the wind to propel us along, we are far from controlling the wind. We are simply dealing with the wind as it presents itself, in the same way that a river deals with the landscape it is flowing through. The river cannot be said to "control" the terrain it is flowing through; it cannot control those illusive forces which guide it from higher to lower. We adhere to the axioms which denote knowledge for convenience sake. Human progress is a measure of adaptation, not control. If we begin to run out of fossil fuel, we adapt. To continue on with the concept of "control" is to seek refuge in the ego (to use a Freudian word, but who's concept has been known for thousands of years, and done battle with), which means to separate ourselves from that outside. While this is a precept of Essentialism, I believe it bears some questioning. > > Secondly, when you say we "can't make any sense of the notion of > descriptions of reality that are objective in the sense of being true > without regard to human practice," aren't you comfirming the fact that > existence is relative? And if human understanding is based on our > experience of existence, the truths we derive from this experience must be > relative as well. (One of them is that we live in a relational world, which > neither proves nor disproves an ultimate, non-relational Reality.) [Mark] As I have questioned Marsha, I will ask you: Relative to what? What is existence related to? What tool of comparison do we use to juxtapose existence? A relational world is opposed to a relative world (how's that for a dictum?). A proof is a structure which gives an axiom substance. However such a proof is based on assumptions. The assumptions cannot be proven although often the derived proof is then reversed to prove the assumptions. We see accepted proofs fall apart with non-Euclidean geometry, for example, simply because such "non" geometry does not accept the Euclidean assumptions. When we do not accept that objective reality is the ground from which to work from, your original statement concerning such reality also falls apart. > > I submit that, whether you are an anti-realist or not, "mathematical > objects" are no more than "physical objects" expressed in a mathematical > context. It's unclear why the author characterized platonists as > "realists", inasmuch as Plato is regarded as the father of Idealism. In any > case, what appears at first reading to be a paradoxical statement is simply > common sense. Mathematics was developed to quantify objective reality. So > the "truth" of a numerical quantity is its correspondence to physical > objects, just as the "truth" of a mathematical equation relates to the > objective units that the equation represents. In other words, we learn > pragmatically, and Truth is what can be proven objectively. So what was the > author's point? [Mark] It is this correspondence (math and reality) that is under scrutiny, in the same way that words and reality are being questioned. For indeed, what is the objective reality of a Right Triangle? The Pythagorean used such symbolics to point towards a more fundamental unexperienced reality. I have never been able to experience the Golden Triangle, have you? If mathematics was indeed meant to quantify only, then how do you explain zero? If anything, zero is the absence of objective reality, and how do we explain such a thing objectively? What is the objective reality of a Fibonacci sequence? The numbers we use are a system of interrogation, similar to creating constellations out of the stars. Yes, we can objectively see such constellations, but only when we connect the dots. I certainly do not see a "Bear" in the sky at night, yet there have been books written about such a thing. An equation is a similar "connecting the dots" exercise. "Truth is what can be proven objectively", huh? This again sounds rather dogmatic. I would question your use of "proven"; we have a snake eating its own tail here, or somebody like Munchhausen pulling himself up by his own bootstraps. For how do we prove the proof? If I flip a coin and it comes up heads, does that prove that both sides are heads? If I continuously flip a coin does that prove that only heads and tails exists? There is always the possibility that a third face will appear. No, we intuit such two faced appearance from a place which is not objective. Yet we interpret the coin as if it is real, accepting such a thing from a place outside of logic. Do you think that there is a computer program that "knows" what a coin is? No, it will keep flipping the coin forever to prove it has two faces. > > Thanks to you both for helping me understand the meaning of "anti-realism". > I hope it won't offend you to hear my opinion, that it is ingenuous to be > "anti-" anything unless you know what its reality is. And judging by the > posts on this topic, there is no more agreement on what Reality is today > than when I signed up for the MD nine years ago. Yes, "Knowing what its reality is". You have hit the nail on the head there. Nothing objective about that statement. Ham, you seem to think your feet are firmly planted on the ground, but isn't one of the endeavors of philosophy to question what supports that ground? The eyes may deceive, but the nose knows. We are constructing Reality as we go along. It IS what we form, we ARE Reality. It is active participation in the endless dance, not some dictum that we must reside within. It is Quality in action. It stems more from the heart than from the brain. It is recreated at every moment. It is the head of a comet propelling into the unknown. The point is to get away from this dogmatic structure of the 21st century, to one where we participate more freely and not hold Reality at arms length as some kind of object. Stay in tune. "The asphalt of the road is much wider and safer than it occurred in memory. On a cycle you have all sorts of extra room. John and Silvia take the hairpin turns up ahead and then come back above us, facing us, and have smiles. Soon we take the turn and see their backs again. Then another turn for them and we meet them again, laughing. It's so hard when contemplated in advance, and so easy when you do it." -- ZAMM, pg 152. In tune (with something), Mark > > > > > Moq_Discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org/md/archives.html Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html
