Markus Gabriel one of the founders of New Realism, talks to Anja Steinbauer about why the world does not exist, and other curious metaphysical topics.
https://philosophynow.org/issues/113/Markus_Gabriel
Markus Gabriel
Re: Markus Gabriel
Rhizome 4/28/16 in which I ride and perpetuate (to the best of my ability (a discourse on the New Realism starting with the interview of Markus Gabriel in issue 113 of Philosophy Now:
“‘New Realism’ was used as a label before, a hundred years ago, but this is not the same thing, right? This is a new movement, which you have co-defined with Maurizio Ferraris, is that right? So what’s that all about?” –Anja Steinbaur
“What’s new is that I define New Realism as a combination of two tenets. Tenet one: we can grasp things in themselves. That’s the sense that philosophers have attached to the word ‘realism’ – as a theory of our access to how things really are, so I hold on to that. My more radical approach is shown in tenet two:, things in themselves do not belong to a single domain, ‘the world’. So what I mean by New Realism is realism without the world. Many philosophers would say that realism means we have immediate access to the world [as it really is]; but I deny the existence of ‘the world’ in this particular sense. So it’s realism without a single reality. That’s what I think is new about this particular approach.” –Gabriel
Then later in the interview:
“So philosophy is also kind of a historical process. Why is it so important to you to claim that the world doesn’t exist? You seem to be saying that at no time can we actually grasp the world, but we can grasp smaller entities of meaning. But why deny the existence of the world? Why can’t we accommodate all those entities of meaning within one world, which after all is something we can conceptualize?”
“Well I doubt that we can actually conceptualize it. I think what we can achieve are local unifications.”
Now I mainly bring up the second point to illustrate what I see as a clear distinction between the old Realism and the new. One of the problems we have always seen with those who embrace the so-called “objective” is that they tend to work from a knowledge of finite systems, which they can easily prove, to general statements which they can’t. Ayn Rand’s objectivism is an extreme (therefore a kind of straw man argument (example of this in that she works from a lot of talk about “facts” to the general assertion that Liaise Faire Capitalism is the only means by which man can achieve his true greatness which is far from being a fact.
So you have to respect the humbleness of the New Realism. This, I think, goes to your point, David:
“Logic is rigid. Reality is not.”
The reason logic is rigid is because it is always working with finite systems which will always fall short of the infinite reality we are dealing with. Still, like mathematics, it is a useful form of Play. The problem, of course, is when it gets so thrilled with itself that it entertains the pretense of being able to describe reality as a whole.
“The contents of the so-called subjective are themselves objectively apprehended. So any notion of a primacy of mind or spirit etc still does not give any credence to subjectivism or idealism since even this "mind" is "out there".” –Raan
Yes: consciousness projects into the world. M. Meurleau-Ponty goes deeply into this. At the same time, I would return the point I made about psychedelics:
“If this linear process from the object to the subject was accurate, this form of realism was true, then the psychedelic experience would be one of seeing reality as it actually is while the brain superimposes images on top of it. But that’s not how it works. The psychedelic experience is one of reality itself being transformed into something cartoonish or like the TV programs we watched as children. In other words, reality becomes conditioned by the psychological baggage the individual carries with them.”
In the context of your point, Raan, this points out that while you may be right about how consciousness does seem to project into the world, you still have to admit to the import of the locality of consciousness in the brain given that the distortions of reality are the result of chemical changes in the brain.
“The "mind" is "out there" approach suggests to me some serious thinking about panpsychism, crazy though it sounds - do we have possess consciousness or is it inherent to the material of the Universe? There are a few variations but it begins with the kind of things you are intimating here and these inside/outside thoughts...” –Chris
Chris, this goes towards the Anthropic Principle: something I hope to go into deeper with you.
“‘New Realism’ was used as a label before, a hundred years ago, but this is not the same thing, right? This is a new movement, which you have co-defined with Maurizio Ferraris, is that right? So what’s that all about?” –Anja Steinbaur
“What’s new is that I define New Realism as a combination of two tenets. Tenet one: we can grasp things in themselves. That’s the sense that philosophers have attached to the word ‘realism’ – as a theory of our access to how things really are, so I hold on to that. My more radical approach is shown in tenet two:, things in themselves do not belong to a single domain, ‘the world’. So what I mean by New Realism is realism without the world. Many philosophers would say that realism means we have immediate access to the world [as it really is]; but I deny the existence of ‘the world’ in this particular sense. So it’s realism without a single reality. That’s what I think is new about this particular approach.” –Gabriel
Then later in the interview:
“So philosophy is also kind of a historical process. Why is it so important to you to claim that the world doesn’t exist? You seem to be saying that at no time can we actually grasp the world, but we can grasp smaller entities of meaning. But why deny the existence of the world? Why can’t we accommodate all those entities of meaning within one world, which after all is something we can conceptualize?”
“Well I doubt that we can actually conceptualize it. I think what we can achieve are local unifications.”
Now I mainly bring up the second point to illustrate what I see as a clear distinction between the old Realism and the new. One of the problems we have always seen with those who embrace the so-called “objective” is that they tend to work from a knowledge of finite systems, which they can easily prove, to general statements which they can’t. Ayn Rand’s objectivism is an extreme (therefore a kind of straw man argument (example of this in that she works from a lot of talk about “facts” to the general assertion that Liaise Faire Capitalism is the only means by which man can achieve his true greatness which is far from being a fact.
So you have to respect the humbleness of the New Realism. This, I think, goes to your point, David:
“Logic is rigid. Reality is not.”
The reason logic is rigid is because it is always working with finite systems which will always fall short of the infinite reality we are dealing with. Still, like mathematics, it is a useful form of Play. The problem, of course, is when it gets so thrilled with itself that it entertains the pretense of being able to describe reality as a whole.
“The contents of the so-called subjective are themselves objectively apprehended. So any notion of a primacy of mind or spirit etc still does not give any credence to subjectivism or idealism since even this "mind" is "out there".” –Raan
Yes: consciousness projects into the world. M. Meurleau-Ponty goes deeply into this. At the same time, I would return the point I made about psychedelics:
“If this linear process from the object to the subject was accurate, this form of realism was true, then the psychedelic experience would be one of seeing reality as it actually is while the brain superimposes images on top of it. But that’s not how it works. The psychedelic experience is one of reality itself being transformed into something cartoonish or like the TV programs we watched as children. In other words, reality becomes conditioned by the psychological baggage the individual carries with them.”
In the context of your point, Raan, this points out that while you may be right about how consciousness does seem to project into the world, you still have to admit to the import of the locality of consciousness in the brain given that the distortions of reality are the result of chemical changes in the brain.
“The "mind" is "out there" approach suggests to me some serious thinking about panpsychism, crazy though it sounds - do we have possess consciousness or is it inherent to the material of the Universe? There are a few variations but it begins with the kind of things you are intimating here and these inside/outside thoughts...” –Chris
Chris, this goes towards the Anthropic Principle: something I hope to go into deeper with you.