Realism Cannot Be Realistic

Discuss any topics related to metaphysics (the philosophical study of the principles of reality) or epistemology (the philosophical study of knowledge) in this forum.
Post Reply
User avatar
Burning ghost
Posts: 3065
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: Realism Cannot Be Realistic

Post by Burning ghost »

If you truly believe that under no circumstances that it is good to lie then I am going to strongly disagree with you. Generally speaking we all know that "lies" are bad. You can be insulted or you can explain.

Understand that what you are asking of your readers here is ridiculous. You repeatedly state your authority by saying you've spent 3 years studying X or Y and then use this as some kind of confirmation of what you are stating in your writing. You don't actually explain, merely assume. You assume ignorance of everyone here and then berate the ignorance you claim we have at the same time? It is contrary. If someone disagrees then obviously there is an opportunity to improve communication. Use the opportunity and remain obstinate.

I am saying you need to back up your claim that "lying" is evil and show us if there are exceptions and why this exceptions don't matter. You can of course ignore me and keep saying I am "badly educated" or I need to study X or Y more. I am not telling you to what extent I have studied Kant, Islam or Husserl, nor am I going to tell you how diverse my knowledge of cognitive neuroscience is. It doesn't matter if what I present is legitimate if it is not understood by the layman/budding philosopher scholar. Again, I am not meaning to insult you by pointing this out, it is simply that I see a certain disregard for stating the obvious by yourself. What is blatant to you may not be so blatant to others. The detail matters.

I was paraphrasing Kant, that is the gist of what he said regarding clarity of writing. In trying to be specific we often end up doing the exact opposite. He rarely used metaphor or analogy, but if I remember correctly he says it at the start of the work near the analogy of the "Queen" and unexplored territory I think. I'll find page ref. later, book is at home.

I agree that Kant is very important. COPR is a challenge and one of my all time favs because it improved my ability to read and pay attention tenfold. For that alone it is required reading for anyone seriously interested in philosophy, and/or writing in general, IMO. I don't think its fair of you to assume that others have dedicated their time to reading COPR just because they are on a philosophy forum. That is my number one criticism of parts of what you write, you sometimes don't explain the context. You amended how you used the term "opinion" and gave an explanation. I am well aware that people can, and do, cherry pick parts of COPR to fit their arguments. This is because Kant argues for and against so the causal reader can simply attach to on side of the argument and miss the counter position kant presents and even, on ocassiona, completely miss his summation/conclusion about this contrary positions.

I don't care how many translations you have, or how much time you've spent studying X or Y. Do I hav eto keep saying this before you get the idea that it doesn't matter if what you are saying is lacking in explication. Saying something and backing it up by saying "I've read X and Y so you should listen to me" just doesn't cut it. It is not my job to read between the lines, it is your job to provide me with no need to read between the lines, not to self proclaim your authority on this or that matter. Do you not see this? Are you really so blind to what I am saying? I find that hard to believe so I assume (and I admit I assue it) that you are very obstinate and struggle to take criticism. That is a problem only you can deal with. My advice would be to look at what you say to others and then apply to yourself. We are not under criticism here. By all means critique my threads, don't critique my critique of you, if you must ignore it and move on so you don't waste time.

As for "evil" there is a whole debate to be had about "quality"/"quantity". I don't have to dis/agree with you, but it would help to understand what line you are taking regarding this difference of opinion. Simply inferring my knowledge is "lacking" is barefaced rhetoric and yet another assumption you make, no doubt measured against some pasing remark I've made somewhere? Idk and I don't care much either, because it is unimportant and serves only to evade making any explanation on your part. you are posing the position so you must explicate it. It is tiresome to start attacking ideas I have not even presented and that you merely assume.

In my mind I am starting to label you as "The Assumer". Stop assuming and explain. Then when asked for more explanation give it if you can rather than pretty much declaring something along the lines of 'it is obvious' or 'you lack the knowledge'.

I am not concerned if you hate me or deem me stupid. I am guessing not because you reply. Use what you can and see if the things you deem useless and "insulting" are due to your ego or mine?
AKA badgerjelly
Spectrum
Posts: 5161
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: Realism Cannot Be Realistic

Post by Spectrum »

Burning ghost wrote:If you truly believe that under no circumstances that it is good to lie then I am going to strongly disagree with you. Generally speaking we all know that "lies" are bad. You can be insulted or you can explain.
...
I am saying you need to back up your claim that "lying" is evil and show us if there are exceptions and why this exceptions don't matter. You can of course ignore me and keep saying I am "badly educated" or I need to study X or Y more.
I have been explaining Kant's Framework and System of Morality & Ethics countless of times but no one seem to have understood it.
From the Kantian's perspective, Morality deals the Pure Principles whereas Ethics are the Applied aspects. These two aspects of Pure and Applied must work complementarily in a systematic basis.
Within Morality, absolute moral standard are established as guides.
For example, "Lying is not permissible, no ifs no buts." [under no circumstances]
But within Ethics, i.e. applied, variations from the absolute moral standards can be established under various circumstances, e.g. "Lying under certain justifiable circumstances are acceptable."
So within the Kantian moral-ethics system, 'Lying is absolutely not permissible [Pure Morality] but acceptable within justified circumstances in Applied Ethics.

It is similar to say Pure and Applied Geometry where within Pure Geometry there is no compromise to what is a Perfect-Circle in terms of measurements and features. However, in Applied Geometry is impossible to produce a Perfect-Circle, so what is acceptable as a circle under various circumstances in applied geometry will vary from what is a Perfect-Circle.
Understand that what you are asking of your readers here is ridiculous. You repeatedly state your authority by saying you've spent 3 years studying X or Y and then use this as some kind of confirmation of what you are stating in your writing. You don't actually explain, merely assume. You assume ignorance of everyone here and then berate the ignorance you claim we have at the same time? It is contrary. If someone disagrees then obviously there is an opportunity to improve communication. Use the opportunity and remain obstinate.

I am not telling you to what extent I have studied Kant, Islam or Husserl, nor am I going to tell you how diverse my knowledge of cognitive neuroscience is. It doesn't matter if what I present is legitimate if it is not understood by the layman/budding philosopher scholar. Again, I am not meaning to insult you by pointing this out, it is simply that I see a certain disregard for stating the obvious by yourself. What is blatant to you may not be so blatant to others. The detail matters.
If you state you [an average person] have spent 3 years full time studying and researching Husserl [or any other philosophers or subjects], that is definitely useful information for me if we are to discuss any issues related to Husserl. In this case, you are more familiar with Husserl's work than one who has spent a week or a month reading Husserl. Thus if I were to counter any of your views on Husserl I will have to do some serious reading to understand [not necessary agree] with Husserl's views. In addition, I will seek your views re Husserl where I lack the information.
That was what I did once with Heidegger's work when I discussed Heidegger in depth.

Frankly I am looking forward to learn from posters who has specialized knowledge in certain philosophical views and works of philosophers.

I was paraphrasing Kant, that is the gist of what he said regarding clarity of writing. In trying to be specific we often end up doing the exact opposite. He rarely used metaphor or analogy, but if I remember correctly he says it at the start of the work near the analogy of the "Queen" and unexplored territory I think. I'll find page ref. later, book is at home.

I have COPR in Microsoft Word, thus 'Queen' i.e. 2x -

Kant wrote: Time was when Metaphysics was entitled the Queen of all the sciences; and if the will be taken for the deed, the pre-eminent importance of her accepted tasks gives her every right to this title of honour. Aviii

For however the attempt be made to cast doubt upon the pretensions of the supposed Queen [i.e. Metaphysics] by tracing her lineage to vulgar origins in common Experience, this genealogy has, as a matter of fact, been fictitiously invented, and she has still continued to uphold her claims. [Aix]

I agree that Kant is very important. COPR is a challenge and one of my all time favs because it improved my ability to read and pay attention tenfold. For that alone it is required reading for anyone seriously interested in philosophy, and/or writing in general, IMO. I don't think its fair of you to assume that others have dedicated their time to reading COPR just because they are on a philosophy forum. That is my number one criticism of parts of what you write, you sometimes don't explain the context.

That is my view. Understanding [not necessary agree] Kant will contribute a strong foundation to any one's philosophical knowledge.

I don't care how many translations you have, or how much time you've spent studying X or Y. Do I have to keep saying this before you get the idea that it doesn't matter if what you are saying is lacking in explication. Saying something and backing it up by saying "I've read X and Y so you should listen to me" just doesn't cut it. It is not my job to read between the lines, it is your job to provide me with no need to read between the lines, not to self proclaim your authority on this or that matter. Do you not see this? Are you really so blind to what I am saying? I find that hard to believe so I assume (and I admit I assue it) that you are very obstinate and struggle to take criticism. That is a problem only you can deal with. My advice would be to look at what you say to others and then apply to yourself. We are not under criticism here. By all means critique my threads, don't critique my critique of you, if you must ignore it and move on so you don't waste time.

You are inventing my intention on this point.
I have never claimed just because I spent 3 years studying Kant, what I have stated must be taken as an authority. That I have spent so much time studying Kant imply that I did not simply throw in Kant's ideas from no where. Ultimately you cannot take my words for it, you will have to read up Kant to counter or agree with what I have stated re Kant.

It is the same if you stated you have spent X years studying Husserl which will give me an idea how much you know of Husserl's view. However I am not going to accept any views just because you stated it. If it is relevant and a critical point, I will read up Husserl to confirm or reject your views.

Reading various translations is useful as each translators seem to translate in such a way which is different from each other translators. This will give an idea of the range of meanings to certain concepts instead of accepting one translation as the authority. On critical issues I will refer to the views of the various translations.

As for "evil" there is a whole debate to be had about "quality"/"quantity". I don't have to dis/agree with you, but it would help to understand what line you are taking regarding this difference of opinion. Simply inferring my knowledge is "lacking" is barefaced rhetoric and yet another assumption you make, no doubt measured against some pasing remark I've made somewhere? Idk and I don't care much either, because it is unimportant and serves only to evade making any explanation on your part. you are posing the position so you must explicate it. It is tiresome to start attacking ideas I have not even presented and that you merely assume.

I have done a lot of research on the concept of 'evil' and the philosophical trend of the use of this term. Based on what you have posted and in contrast to the knowledge of 'evil' out there, I computed your knowledge of evil is lacking. You can reject it, its your discretion.

If you were advise me on any aspect that I lack knowledge I will take it as positive and review my position, if so, I will update my self on any necessary knowledge [within my capability*] which I lack.
*Some subjects like advanced Modal Logic which I wish I could master is beyond me due to the time required to master it.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.
User avatar
Burning ghost
Posts: 3065
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: Realism Cannot Be Realistic

Post by Burning ghost »

Great stuff :)

I would be cautious about repeating so often that you've studied this or that extensively though. It will put people off, especially here, if you keep saying so. You are correct though. I am glad you've studied Kant and it is worth knowing. I already noticed this when you made a comment a couple of months back about "noumenon". I have had an incredibly hard time elucidating this when trying to discuss Husserl elsewhere (that is another topic though.)

I would like to know how you justify using a measurement of "evil". Of course it is clear we can attribute "evil" to certain physical actions, but that is not the same as making "evil" quantitative. Like with happiness we cannot really talk about a percentage of happiness, but we can give a ballpark estimate from 1-10, like with other subjective experiences like pain.

I can certainly agree that Islam is lagging behind in terms of reform and that certain socio-political agendas have made matters worse in terms of any immediate reform.

I have many different views and opinions about the state of the world today and what has led to the point where we are. None of them embolden me to commit to a singular issue and I tend to think it's an admixture of different conflicts local and global, within individuals and within groups. From the destructive force of post modernism we've yet to really see the "new"/"next" general system come into fruition (or at least I cannot place my finger on what it is if it has!)

You've touched on the existential crisis before and I think it is this and the deconstruction of religiosity that has created a somewhat flailing mess that has yet to settle.

Anyway, I am trying to apply my time to others things right now, but I'll be around. Good luck and look forward to more posts and topics from you. If you have serious problem getting OP posted then tell me and I'll become a temporary MOD in order to allow everyone to apply themselves to the topic without knee-jerk reactions and want to be offended as much as they can (something that happens too much online, but I guess its always likely given the means of stop-start communication and the bias of personal interpretation we all possess to some degree.)
AKA badgerjelly
Spectrum
Posts: 5161
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: Realism Cannot Be Realistic

Post by Spectrum »

Burning ghost wrote:I would like to know how you justify using a measurement of "evil". Of course it is clear we can attribute "evil" to certain physical actions, but that is not the same as making "evil" quantitative. Like with happiness we cannot really talk about a percentage of happiness, but we can give a ballpark estimate from 1-10, like with other subjective experiences like pain.
As I had mentioned many times, if we are to made advances and progress in any problem solving, it is a default we must quantify all the critical variables, otherwise it will be a slipshod thing. Thus no matter how or what, we must establish a quantifiable model from the start and improve on it.

how you justify using a measurement of "evil"??
I have discussed my model before, i.e.
  • 1. First we defined what is evil [done previously].
    2. Take the maximum worst evil acts possible and rate it at 100% evilness - extermination of the human species via extensive nuclear bombs.
    3. Take the worst evil acts ever committed by humans and rate it.
    ----I have taken genocide as the worst evil act committed by humans and rated it [appx.] at 90%.
    ----these rating are adjustable in the context of the whole continuum.
    4. Take the least evil [relatively] acts committed by humans and rate them say at <10% to 0.1%.
    5. Prepare a list of all known evil acts committed by humans.
    6. Rate all the evil acts within the lists relatively [within bands of 10%] in relation to the maximum worst and the petty evils. This exercise will need to time and work to adjust the various acts to ensure their ratings are reasonable and rational*.
* it is critical that the whole continuum and its list of evil from 100% to 0.0001% must be rational. For me the end result of such a scale will and must be a rational one.

Without looking into the details, Londoner jumped at it and countered, if petty evil say stealing is rated at 10% and genocide is rated at 90%, thus logically will 9 thefts [9 x 10% =90%] be equal to 1 genocide [90%]. That is linear logic but even common sense will tell us 9 thefts at 10% is not equal 1 genocide at 90%.
Thus the final scales and continuum of evilness will take into account the above [unsound logic] and it will rationally justified.

Any critique on the above model?

I have many different views and opinions about the state of the world today and what has led to the point where we are. None of them embolden me to commit to a singular issue and I tend to think it's an admixture of different conflicts local and global, within individuals and within groups. From the destructive force of post modernism we've yet to really see the "new"/"next" general system come into fruition (or at least I cannot place my finger on what it is if it has!)
I have already taken into account ALL evils acts committed within humanity up to the worst possible and trace them to their ultimate root causes. I agree much of these evils are due to a combination and interaction of various variables.

I am well aware of the complexity of all evils in the world but the question is as an individual what can you actually do to contribute a part.

Another principle of effective problem solving is to break the problem into smaller manageable units.
That is what I have done by breaking the evils of the world down to Islam-related-evils which I feel I have a competence to contribute.
If you mind is fill with worries of all the variables that contribute to 'evil,' you will be paralyzed with data and be able to do anything to contribute.
I can certainly agree that Islam is lagging behind in terms of reform and that certain socio-political agendas have made matters worse in terms of any immediate reform.
I don't think you are aware of the greatest potential evil that is very possible from Islam itself based on the core ethos of Islam as from the Quran.

If there is an Islamic State and it has progressed to the level like North Korea with nuclear arms, those evil prone Muslims in such a State [when cornered*] would have no hesitation to exterminate the human species since they are assured of going to Paradise regardless of what happened on Earth.

* North Korea is only interested in protecting its own sovereignty but an Islamic State want to pursue world domination and with this, they are likely to be cornered when they pushed their agenda too far. When cornered they will go nuclear all out.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.
User avatar
Burning ghost
Posts: 3065
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: Realism Cannot Be Realistic

Post by Burning ghost »

You have absolutely no justification in using a percentage value.

It makes more sense to use a scale of 1-10, must like with hurricanes or earthquakes. If you were to add up the different "evils" presented in various religious texts, and different sect of said religions that interpret them as this or that, then grade these from 1-10, which you say you have, then compare, you'll have a vaguely presentable idea.

As for individual mentions of this or that evil you'll have to assess the context it is written in too. There are references to human sacrifice in the OT for example, and the metaphorical context of stories like Cain and Abel which are meant to show certain innate human qualities we have to confront. I've mentioned the Talmud before too.

This is all going to be quite vague befor eeven having to deal with how big an effect this has on humanity as a whole given the numerous other non-/correlating factors.

I am not really too concerned about Islam in the wider picture of the world. There will always be extremists of some nature or another, and if Islam happens to be more prone to producing them, let us say this is true for sake of arguing, there is no clear way to single out Islam as a big threat, but simply as a current extremist trend that will subside and be replaced by another, maybe slightly more or less, "evil" prone doctrine.

All that said, it could act as a catalyst to a culmination of other socio-political problems and tip us into a horrible global distaster. Or it may just be that numerous other factors would be responsible for tipping the scales. We simply cannot assess this very well. I don't see Islam as being the most important threat to humanity by any scale of my imagination, and neither do I see any other singular factor as being the problem with current world disruptions. The truth is we're living in the safest tiem in human history and we've achieved a great deal. Hubris, jealously and fear are some of the psychological factors and they have their tendrils in all manner of human matters not just religious institutions.

What you are doing is great though. To focus on a specifc area will help in some way or another to distinguish the problem/s involved in todays world.

note: regarding how you rate "evil" you've already said before The Quran has more evils, so you'd need to be clear about how you've not been linear in your thinking as you've noted about Londoner's comment. I would suggest giving some samples from the texts and make comparisons and show clearly how you've rated the level of "evil". For example is there are three hundred instances of petty theft in one text which you deem to be lvl 1 evil and 2 cases of murdering prisoners of war in another, which you rate as lvl 8 evil then the first encourages petty theft, which will likely lead to more hideous crimes and likely murder, whilst the two instances of murdering prisoners of war may encourage more militant action against other beliefs in the theatre of war, and undoubtedly bleed to cases outside of war too, much as the petty thefts on such a large scale in society would lead to cities full of cutthroats (Of course I am takng extreme exmaples to emphasis possible problems of defining the amount of "evil" and its effect on the readers of the text - if they can read?)
AKA badgerjelly
Spectrum
Posts: 5161
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: Realism Cannot Be Realistic

Post by Spectrum »

Burning ghost wrote:You have absolutely no justification in using a percentage value.

It makes more sense to use a scale of 1-10, must like with hurricanes or earthquakes. If you were to add up the different "evils" presented in various religious texts, and different sect of said religions that interpret them as this or that, then grade these from 1-10, which you say you have, then compare, you'll have a vaguely presentable idea.
You seem to have missed the point.
A scale of 1-10 is too narrow. There are many types, sub-types and sub-sub types of evil acts to rate.
I used a scale of evilness from 1 [low] to 100 [highest].
Therefore if we rate act-A at 10 that would be 10/100, i.e. 10% evil.
If we rate genocide at 90, thus that is 90/100, i.e. 90%.
So that is the justification for the resultant % rating because I used 100 as the base.
To me it is basic.
Would you agree to the above percentage value?

With reference to religious texts, there are 6,236 verses in the Quran.
I can give a rating [between 1 to 100) for each verse.
Once we have a base, we can % any ratio.
From there I can do various analysis of evilness [rating/100 or in %] within the Quran, thus Islam.
I have already done this.
As for individual mentions of this or that evil you'll have to assess the context it is written in too. There are references to human sacrifice in the OT for example, and the metaphorical context of stories like Cain and Abel which are meant to show certain innate human qualities we have to confront. I've mentioned the Talmud before too.
Yes, first we do the obvious rating of each verse, para, chapter, whole book, then we analyze them within the proper context.
This is all going to be quite vague before even having to deal with how big an effect this has on humanity as a whole given the numerous other non-/correlating factors.
This is not based on pure speculation.
The advantage with religious based evil is we have real empirical evidences to start with, thus we can analyze past and current data and therefore extrapolate and forecast for the future. Note the inherent existential crisis that is driving such evil forces.
Note the trend of increasing evils, terror and violence from Islamists around the world.
Note the desperation demand for barbaric Sharia all over the world especially in developed Western Nations.
Note the increasing number of women wearing the hijab and burqa in Western Nations.
I am not really too concerned about Islam in the wider picture of the world. There will always be extremists of some nature or another, and if Islam happens to be more prone to producing them, let us say this is true for sake of arguing, there is no clear way to single out Islam as a big threat, but simply as a current extremist trend that will subside and be replaced by another, maybe slightly more or less, "evil" prone doctrine.
One thing for sure, Islam [the evil part] is a significant threat and this is based on evidence of its past and current history.
I don't foresee there will be any virulent evil as dangerous as Islam [the last of the primal based ideology] which is driven strongly by the existing existential crisis and common with >1.5 billion Muslims.
What ideology do you think can be more evil prone in our modern times, communism? fascism, alt-right? alt-left? Christianity? Judaism? or ???
As long as Muslims want to go to Paradise and avoid Hell, there will be Islamic based evils of all types.
Note it is not merely terrorist acts that we are concern with but it is the whole range of evils that Muslims are obliged to impose on non-Muslim towards world domination that we should be concern with.
All that said, it could act as a catalyst to a culmination of other socio-political problems and tip us into a horrible global disaster. Or it may just be that numerous other factors would be responsible for tipping the scales. We simply cannot assess this very well. I don't see Islam as being the most important threat to humanity by any scale of my imagination, and neither do I see any other singular factor as being the problem with current world disruptions. The truth is we're living in the safest time in human history and we've achieved a great deal. Hubris, jealously and fear are some of the psychological factors and they have their tendrils in all manner of human matters not just religious institutions.
I believe your restraint views on Islam is due to a lack of a thorough knowledge of Islam.

I mentioned the following, but you just want to ignore it;
https://clarionproject.org/muslim_broth ... emorandum/
  • The following is the official document from a 1991 meeting which outlines the Muslim Brotherhood’s strategic goals for North America. The document was entered as evidence in the 2008 Holy Land Terror Funding Trial.

    “Enablement of Islam in North America, meaning: establishing an effective and a stable Islamic Movement led by the Muslim Brotherhood which adopts Muslims’ causes domestically and globally, and which works to expand the observant Muslim base, aims at unifying and directing Muslims’ efforts, presents Islam as a civilization alternative, and supports the global Islamic State wherever it is.”

    “The process of settlement is a ‘Civilization-Jihadist Process’ with all the word means. The Ikhwan [Muslim Brotherhood] must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers…”

    “[W]e must possess a mastery of the art of ‘coalitions’, the art of ‘absorption’ and the principles of ‘cooperation.’”
I find the above alarming because the above mission is in alignment with the core ethos of Islam as represented in the Quran.
Thus there will be SOME Muslims adopting the same mission for Islam around the World and more so when there are obvious evidence to support it.

note: regarding how you rate "evil" you've already said before The Quran has more evils, so you'd need to be clear about how you've not been linear in your thinking as you've noted about Londoner's comment. I would suggest giving some samples from the texts and make comparisons and show clearly how you've rated the level of "evil". For example is there are three hundred instances of petty theft in one text which you deem to be lvl 1 evil and 2 cases of murdering prisoners of war in another, which you rate as lvl 8 evil then the first encourages petty theft, which will likely lead to more hideous crimes and likely murder, whilst the two instances of murdering prisoners of war may encourage more militant action against other beliefs in the theatre of war, and undoubtedly bleed to cases outside of war too, much as the petty thefts on such a large scale in society would lead to cities full of cutthroats (Of course I am taking extreme examples to emphasis possible problems of defining the amount of "evil" and its effect on the readers of the text - if they can read?)
As I had mentioned, I had scrutinized in details each of the 6,236 verses in the Quran. From there I can do all sorts of various analysis. What is obvious from these first draft statistics is the Quran [core of Islam] is [in a major part] inherently evil and has a core ethos of evil.

One result is there are 3,400++ or 55% of the verses relating to 'us versus them" with an evil rating of say 10%.
But a large quantity of such low rating of evilness at 10% when forged together will be a contributing factor to a 90% evil rating, e.g. genocide.

There are 300++ verses that condone directly and indirectly killing of non-Muslims.
I rate anything evil act that can lead to fatality at 75/100, i.e. 75%.

There are a ton of other analysis that can be presented in all sorts of charts and flowcharts.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.
User avatar
Burning ghost
Posts: 3065
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: Realism Cannot Be Realistic

Post by Burning ghost »

Well my post was lost and it was long. I don't really have the time or the energy to write that again. All I can say is NO, using % is not a good idea. Just say 1-100 scale or 1-50, if you need 100 points you'll have to present 100 definitions. I have never heard of a 83% earthquake before and that is your problem.

And yet more assumptions about my views ... it is like you are blind to the criticism being offered about such assumptions, which only seemed in this case to be employed to avoid the quite blatant point I was making you refered to as 'pure speculation'.

Good luck I guess.
AKA badgerjelly
NicoL
Posts: 48
Joined: September 1st, 2016, 11:12 am

Re: Realism Cannot Be Realistic

Post by NicoL »

Spectrum wrote:Thus when one observe an apple on a table, there is a gap [distance] and time lag between the perceiver and the supposedly real apple.
Even if the perceiver feel the apple, there is still a nano distance and time lag between what is supposedly real apple.
In this case, the perceiver will never ever realize the reality of the real apple.

Therefore 'Realism Cannot Never Be Realistic.'
Philosophical realism [existence of an external world independent of the subject] is thus not tenable and generate illusions and giving the perceiver the false impression they understood or realized reality.
I don't see the "time gap" you mention as a problem. Sure, there may be a sequence of successively caused events that take place before a person comes to perceive an external object. Why does the existence of such a process, which takes time, necessitate that no external object can be veridically perceived by a subject of experience? There seems to be a logical jump in this phase of your argument.

Even more importantly, what does the "reality of the apple" you refer to amount to? Do you expect that the apple possesses a default colour that is its "real colour"? This is a very naive understanding of what "there being a matter of fact about the colour of an apple" means. That matter of fact is not that the apple is red or green or yellow by default, but that the apple possesses a disposition to cause a variety of effects under a variety of circumstances, in virtue of the grounding universe's structure. The possession of this disposition is what is objective, not the perception of a default colour. If a person perceives the apple as red, and this event has been caused because of the apple's disposition and the manifestation of the relevant circumstances, then I don't see any issue with the realist position.
User avatar
SimpleGuy
Posts: 338
Joined: September 11th, 2017, 12:28 pm

Re: Realism Cannot Be Realistic

Post by SimpleGuy »

Well this is the problem with realism, it is not only dependent on social status, religion and other significant things as visual and accoustic as well as haptic and other perception. Reality is a simple singular value which is even dependen on metaphisical conditions imposed on your psychology. Realism is dependent on political and religious values for different political parties this can be even defined different. So what's the story , in order to create a realistic definition one should somehow impose on it some kind of measurement which is absolutely lacking , so no real physics can be used to define what is realistic or not. The problem is somehow inert already to statistics, what is the correct hypothesis H_0 and the alternative H_1. Notice even in statistic several different Hypotheses H_0 can get accepted on the same confidence level , especially if there are several hidden variables not talked about in the model , that are just partially used for two different Hypotheses H_0.
Spectrum
Posts: 5161
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: Realism Cannot Be Realistic

Post by Spectrum »

Burning ghost wrote:Well my post was lost and it was long. I don't really have the time or the energy to write that again. All I can say is NO, using % is not a good idea. Just say 1-100 scale or 1-50, if you need 100 points you'll have to present 100 definitions. I have never heard of a 83% earthquake before and that is your problem.
I agree to use % of evil is not the norm especially where it involve abstract concepts.
Here is one attempt by some one; It is not easy for most to view things in new or different perspectives.
If it is too tough, I will adopt your recommendation to use a scale of 1-100 and I will divide it into 10 major bands and define them appropriately.

-- Updated Thu Sep 14, 2017 9:37 pm to add the following --
NicoL wrote:I don't see the "time gap" you mention as a problem. Sure, there may be a sequence of successively caused events that take place before a person comes to perceive an external object. Why does the existence of such a process, which takes time, necessitate that no external object can be veridically perceived by a subject of experience? There seems to be a logical jump in this phase of your argument.
There is a 'time' and 'space' gap between cognition and the "real" thing.

Try this experiment which prove what is 'cognized' is not the 'real' thing.
Under normal conditions, in this experiment, what is a concaved-face is always viewed as a concave-face in 3D. [no matter how many times one close and open one's eyes or change position].
In this case the 'deception' can easily be exposed because one can take the mask and examine it closely to know it is physically as a concave side.

The above is a clue to demonstrate the human brain and mind play a significant role in the cognition of what is reality.

Take the example of an apple on the table.
What is more realistic is the apple is merely a bundle of tightly pack atoms with its fast spinning electrons around a proton which in its finer form are merely a bundle of quarks.

According to the philosophical anti-realists' view, there is no such thing as an apple-by-itself. An apple is more realistically a bundle of quarks. Further there is no such things as quarks-by-themselves. Ultimately there are no thing-in-itself.
What is a 'thing' [e.g. apple] is always conditional to the subject.
There is no external apple [or anything] out there independent of the subject.
Therefore there is no external reality out there independent of the subject.

Note this from Bertrand Russell's Problem of Philosophy;
[b]Bertrand Russell[/b] wrote:Before we go farther it will be well to consider for a moment what it is that we have discovered so far. It has appeared that, if we take any common object of the sort that is supposed to be known by the senses, what the senses immediately tell us is not the truth about the object as it is apart from us, but only the truth about certain sense-data which, so far as we can see, depend upon the relations between us and the object. Thus what we directly see and feel is merely 'appearance', which we believe to be a sign of some 'reality' behind. But if the reality is not what appears, have we any means of knowing whether there is any reality at all? And if so, have we any means of finding out what it is like?

Such questions are bewildering, and it is difficult to know that even the strangest hypotheses may not be true. Thus our familiar table, which has roused but the slightest thoughts in us hitherto, has become a problem full of surprising possibilities. The one thing we know about it is that it is not what it seems. Beyond this modest result, so far, we have the most complete liberty of conjecture. Leibniz tells us it is a community of souls: Berkeley tells us it is an idea in the mind of God; sober science, scarcely less wonderful, tells us it is a vast collection of electric charges in violent motion.

Among these surprising possibilities, doubt suggests that perhaps there is no table at all.
Philosophy, if it cannot answer so many questions as we could wish, has at least the power of asking questions which increase the interest of the world, and show the strangeness and wonder lying just below the surface even in the commonest things of daily life.
My point;
What is deemed to be real by the Philosophical Realists' Realism cannot be realistic per se.
The philosophical anti-realists' views of an emergent reality as interdependent with the subject is a more realistic view.

-- Updated Fri Sep 15, 2017 3:14 am to add the following --

Oops!
Correction;
Under normal conditions, in this experiment, what is a concaved-face is always viewed as a concave-face in 3D. [no matter how many times one close and open one's eyes or change position].

To:
Under normal conditions, in this experiment, what is a concaved-face is always viewed as a convexed-face in 3D. [no matter how many times one close and open one's eyes or change position].
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.
Londoner
Posts: 1783
Joined: March 8th, 2013, 12:46 pm

Re: Realism Cannot Be Realistic

Post by Londoner »

Thus when one observe an apple on a table, there is a gap [distance] and time lag between the perceiver and the supposedly real apple.
Even if the perceiver feel the apple, there is still a nano distance and time lag between what is supposedly real apple.
In this case, the perceiver will never ever realize the reality of the real apple.

Therefore 'Realism Cannot Never Be Realistic.'
Philosophical realism [existence of an external world independent of the subject] is thus not tenable and generate illusions and giving the perceiver the false impression they understood or realized reality.
Realism simply says that there is something external that is responsible for our 'seeing the apple'. The 'seeing' bit describes the kind of sense data, i.e. that it is reflected light. The 'apple' is the name we have learnt is associated with that pattern of sense data.

There is no claim that my experience; 'seeing an apple', is identical to that apple.

No need to bring in nano distances and time lags. One could equally point out that if we close our eyes, or turn the lights out, then we will stop seeing the apple. It will disappear! Since we find objects can appear or disappear to our senses, everyone must realise that to see an object cannot be to 'realize the reality' of that object.

Do we think Realists are unique in that they have never noticed this? It seems unlikely. So perhaps the idea of 'Realism' in philosophy is not what you think it is.
User avatar
Burning ghost
Posts: 3065
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: Realism Cannot Be Realistic

Post by Burning ghost »

Spectrum -
Take the example of an apple on the table.
What is more realistic is the apple is merely a bundle of tightly pack atoms with its fast spinning electrons around a proton which in its finer form are merely a bundle of quarks.
That is a common analogy used in schools to help students grasp something wholly beyond the means of physical intuition. One which you seem to buy into as being "realistic".

The math represents the physical phenomena and the brain makes poor analogies to help people "visualize" and comprehend the general principle of the math. Electrons do most certainly not spin fast around protons. Before we even try and pretend to visualize the subatomic level of the world we're already in a realm beyond our intuitive experience in the molecular world.
AKA badgerjelly
User avatar
The Beast
Posts: 1403
Joined: July 7th, 2013, 10:32 pm

Re: Realism Cannot Be Realistic

Post by The Beast »

As Spectrum was not very realistic in considering Axel and his Noble Prize as a figment of a rational mind and irreverent to the immobility of his description of cardinality and dimension, this mathematical approach is then one of metaphysical properties. We could consider cardinality a dilation of unit and all instances are in the space-time as subdivisions of this unit. The idea of Space-Time metaphysical is this R3 vector with the unit that might as arbitrary as whenever we measure temperature. “The book is hotter” is an appreciation of this realm. Mathematical result is best recorded at the level of individual cells. It is a problem of how many spheres had degeneracy. That is, they ceased to exist and are a point in the dilation that is a unit. And so there will be a progression of points to a moment in which cardinality is itself a point. Existence/non-existence is not properly addressed in this scenario. By the same token we might be part of a bigger unit called humanity as a dilation in the Space-Time vector. The introduction of rationality and metaphysical properties (complex numbers) complicates the new resultant versor.
Spectrum
Posts: 5161
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: Realism Cannot Be Realistic

Post by Spectrum »

[b]Londoner[/b] wrote:Realism simply says that there is something external that is responsible for our 'seeing the apple'. The 'seeing' bit describes the kind of sense data, i.e. that it is reflected light. The 'apple' is the name we have learnt is associated with that pattern of sense data.

There is no claim that my experience; 'seeing an apple', is identical to that apple.

No need to bring in nano distances and time lags. One could equally point out that if we close our eyes, or turn the lights out, then we will stop seeing the apple. It will disappear! Since we find objects can appear or disappear to our senses, everyone must realise that to see an object cannot be to 'realize the reality' of that object.

Do we think Realists are unique in that they have never noticed this? It seems unlikely. So perhaps the idea of 'Realism' in philosophy is not what you think it is.
Note this which is fundamental to Philosophical Realism;
Wiki wrote:Philosophers who profess realism often claim that truth consists in a correspondence between cognitive representations and reality.[1]

Realists tend to believe that whatever we believe now is only an approximation of reality but that the accuracy and fullness of understanding can be improved.
"approximation of reality" this imply there is a more realistic reality existing out there independent of the subject. This also imply there exist nano 'time' and 'space' between the cognition and that-which-is-cognized.

Kant presented this reality as the thing-in-itself, e.g. the realistic apple-in-itself or apple-by-itself independent of the subject.
Londoner wrote:One could equally point out that if we close our eyes, or turn the lights out, then we will stop seeing the apple. It will disappear!
Note the Einstein Mask Illusion. If you close your eyes, you will not experience that real cognition of the illusory convex 3D face. It is likely a fly will not experience that illusion?

What humans are cognizing and experiencing as knowledge is grounded on perhaps a 4 billion years old system of cognition and experience such that we human take it for granted as what is experienced is THE REALITY as claimed by Philosophical Realism.

Point is if we philosophize and analyze deeper [e.g. by Kant, Phenomenologists, Eastern Philosophers and others] we discover what is deemed to be 'reality' could be like the illusion of the Einstein Mask in a more nuanced level. Thus Realism [Philosophical] Cannot Be Realistic.

-- Updated Sat Sep 16, 2017 12:09 am to add the following --
  • Kant presented this reality as the thing-in-itself, e.g. the realistic apple-in-itself or apple-by-itself independent of the subject.
Correction to above:
Kant presented and argued against this 'reality' as the thing-in-itself, e.g. the realistic apple-in-itself or apple-by-itself independent of the subject.

Kant asserted the idea of the thing-in-itself or noumenon is an illusion. In other words, what Kant claimed is that 'reality' [supposedly and assumed] that is claimed by the Philosophical realists is illusory.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.
User avatar
Burning ghost
Posts: 3065
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: Realism Cannot Be Realistic

Post by Burning ghost »

Spectrum -
It is not easy for most to view things in new or different perspectives.
If it is too tough, I will adopt your recommendation to use a scale of 1-100 and I will divide it into 10 major bands and define them appropriately.
This is a poor attempt at humility. I now class you as possessing an "evil" rating of 3,000,000.

Like with rain we can say "drizzle", "spitting", or "down pour". We would never say "7% rain", "10% rain" or "90% rain". We use adjectives to describe the extent and force of the rain. If we were to use empirical measurement most people simply wouldn't quite understand what it meant (ie. 3 inches of rain in 3 hours), With other natural phenomenon such as hurricanes or earthquakes we use a particular scale that is guided by actual empirical force and damage effect. The empirical measure is taken exponentially to tie into the scale model so it is easier to understand.

We could most certainly come to some vague agreement about a scale of evil. The scale would not be based on hard empirical data. We already have this model represented in LAW. Laws differ from country to country, but we have a reasonably obvious pattern that agrees on crimes such as murder and theft (albeit similar in democratic countries more than in authoritian countries).

The most "evil" crimes would be those considered worthy of life imprisonment (with ZERO chance of release) and execution. Simply killing a person cannot be considered as an outright evil act, there are numerous circumstances where killing is actually "legal", in war or if protecting your family and such.

Then there is theft. If someone's family is starving to death then they tried to steal an loaf of bread to feed them I would not regard this act as evil at all, desperate yes, but not evil.

To create a scale set up a level playing field or an imagined group of people of equal standing. From there you can build a general scale. Making one that has 100 parts is utterly futile, other than simply as an exercise to condense it down to a more manageable number, like 10 or 20, in order to show you've put a great deal of effort into exploring the obvious pitfalls of introducing such a self-made system of measure.
AKA badgerjelly
Post Reply

Return to “Epistemology and Metaphysics”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021