Right, so you need to say why talking about possibilities is a red herring.Skepdick wrote: ↑Fri Mar 12, 2021 6:12 pmIt's a thought experiment about predicting one's own behaviour.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Fri Mar 12, 2021 4:06 pm Re saying that I'm lying about not just talking about a needle in a haystack--so you think I was literally just talking about that instead of taking it to just be an example?
If you wanted to just talk about literal needles in haystacks for some reason then sure, I misread that. If we're literally talking about needles in haystacks then I don't care either way. Couldn't care less if there's a needle in it, I'm not going to be looking for one, etc.
You could apply it to anything which you are pursuing for which you presently lack evidence of existence.
Cure for cancer/alzheimers.
Theory of everything in physics.
World peace.
Pick your example. You are still unable to account for the lack of causal behaviour between one's beliefs and one's actions.
Rorty - No Mind-Independent Reality
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 4548
- Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Richard Rorty
Re: Richard Rorty
It's precisely because it is a red herring is why I am not even going to address it.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Fri Mar 12, 2021 8:05 pm Right, so you need to say why talking about possibilities is a red herring.
-
- Posts: 12990
- Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am
Re: Richard Rorty
Note I listed 3 types of illusion, i.e. 1 involving the empirical and 2 based on reasoning.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Fri Mar 12, 2021 12:39 pmNone of this changes the fact that there is absolutely no ground for claiming that anything is an illusion unless we're claiming that we're getting right what something is like contra a particular appearance. Which means that we can observe what things are really like.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Mar 12, 2021 8:23 amNote there are different levels of illusions, i.e.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Fri Mar 12, 2021 7:28 am
So for example there is absolutely no ground for claiming that anything is an illusion unless we're claiming that we're getting right what something is like contra a particular appearance. Which means that we can observe what things are really like.
1. Empirical - senses
2. Logical illusions - fallacies
3. Transcendental illusions - things-in-themselves
Within the empirical FSK, whatever do not qualify as empirical reality is an illusion, e.g. a bent stick between water and air, the Hering illusion where two straight parallel line appears bent, etc.
However what are real empirical things will be transcendental illusions if they are claimed IDEOLOGICALLY to be absolutely real independent things-in-themselves as Physical Realists, Naive Realists are claiming.
So far, what I gathered of Rorty's view is, he argued and insisted philosophers should abandoned all till-the-cows-come-home sort of dichotomies and antinomies.
Then they should ensure to continue the conversation/discourse amicably and agree-to-disagree without being ideological with 'ism' like the scientism of the logical positivists who got embarrassed by their very arrogant dogmatic ideologies which were proven to be false subsequently.
You can only observe what-things-are-really-like EMPIRICALLY.
In the case of illusions based on reasoning,
we are getting right what something is like, contra what is logical and rational.
There is no appearance involved in these cases as what is logical and rational.
For example to insist a square-circle exists as real is illusional and delusional because a square-circle is a contradiction logically, i.e. not rational.
The idea of a God [an illusory thought] is a logical impossibility which do not need to compare against some real-God.
-
- Posts: 12990
- Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am
Rorty: Reality is Mind-Dependent
[ME]"In Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature (1979) Rorty argues that the central problems of modern epistemology depend upon a picture of the mind as trying to faithfully represent (or "mirror") a mind-independent, external reality. When we give up this metaphor, the entire enterprise of foundationalist epistemology simply dissolves."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_R ... _of_Nature
Does the above also imply Rorty also gave up the view, there is no mind-independent, external reality.
If that is the case, what is Rorty's concept of reality?
.................
[AI] According to the article, Richard Rorty did not believe in mind-independent reality. He argued that we should abandon the idea of trying to represent reality accurately, and instead focus on the usefulness of our beliefs.
Rorty argues that reality is not mind-independent but rather mind-dependent*. He believes that we should abandon the idea that we can have perfect knowledge of the world and instead focus on what is useful.
[AI]
The document says that Rorty rejected the idea that there is a mind-independent, external reality.
Rorty rejects the idea that there is an objective reality that exists independently of human thought and language. He argues that our knowledge is limited to our own vocabularies and that these vocabularies are constantly changing. Thus, there is no single, fixed reality; instead, there are multiple realities, each shaped by our own unique perspectives and experiences.
...............
*It is AI that use 'mind-dependent,' not me.
Views??
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_R ... _of_Nature
Does the above also imply Rorty also gave up the view, there is no mind-independent, external reality.
If that is the case, what is Rorty's concept of reality?
.................
[AI] According to the article, Richard Rorty did not believe in mind-independent reality. He argued that we should abandon the idea of trying to represent reality accurately, and instead focus on the usefulness of our beliefs.
Rorty argues that reality is not mind-independent but rather mind-dependent*. He believes that we should abandon the idea that we can have perfect knowledge of the world and instead focus on what is useful.
[AI]
The document says that Rorty rejected the idea that there is a mind-independent, external reality.
Rorty rejects the idea that there is an objective reality that exists independently of human thought and language. He argues that our knowledge is limited to our own vocabularies and that these vocabularies are constantly changing. Thus, there is no single, fixed reality; instead, there are multiple realities, each shaped by our own unique perspectives and experiences.
...............
*It is AI that use 'mind-dependent,' not me.
Views??
-
- Posts: 12990
- Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am
Re: Rorty: Reality is Mind-Dependent
Philosophical Realists claim there is an objective reality that exists independently of human thought and language.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Feb 22, 2024 7:27 am [ME]"In Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature (1979) Rorty argues that the central problems of modern epistemology depend upon a picture of the mind as trying to faithfully represent (or "mirror") a mind-independent, external reality. When we give up this metaphor, the entire enterprise of foundationalist epistemology simply dissolves."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_R ... _of_Nature
Does the above also imply Rorty also gave up the view, there is no mind-independent, external reality.
If that is the case, what is Rorty's concept of reality?
.................
[AI] According to the article, Richard Rorty did not believe in mind-independent reality. He argued that we should abandon the idea of trying to represent reality accurately, and instead focus on the usefulness of our beliefs.
Rorty argues that reality is not mind-independent but rather mind-dependent*. He believes that we should abandon the idea that we can have perfect knowledge of the world and instead focus on what is useful.
[AI]
The document says that Rorty rejected the idea that there is a mind-independent, external reality.
Rorty rejects the idea that there is an objective reality that exists independently of human thought and language. He argues that our knowledge is limited to our own vocabularies and that these vocabularies are constantly changing. Thus, there is no single, fixed reality; instead, there are multiple realities, each shaped by our own unique perspectives and experiences.
...............
*It is AI that use 'mind-dependent,' not me.
Views??
Since Rorty, as above, "rejects the idea that there is an objective reality that exists independently of human thought and language"
then Rorty is an ANTI-philosophical_realist, i.e. opposes philosophical realism with is pragmatism and language.
-
- Posts: 12990
- Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am
Re: Rorty - No Mind-Independent Reality
You accuse me of being ignorant of Rorty.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Wed Feb 28, 2024 8:17 am The whole failing of Kant that you have borrowed is predicated on a faulty understanding of the mind as a mirror to nature which Kant derived without really thinking about it from Descartes. You didn't read Rorty as well as you think you did. You don't really read other people's ideas well in general though.
Note this thread I raised re Rorty
Rorty - No Mind-Independent Reality
viewtopic.php?t=32188
Where did I miss out on Rorty's stance?
You wrote somewhere you are not with Rorty's view but has similar views as those of Peter.
So what is your final stance?
Point if you are with Rorty, then you are an ANTI-philosophical_realist with your own antirealist stance.
If this is the case you cannot agree with Peter's what is fact is independent of the subject's opinions, beliefs and judgement which is fundamentally philosophical realism.
- FlashDangerpants
- Posts: 6520
- Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm
Re: Rorty - No Mind-Independent Reality
You have already quoted me telling you the Rorty thing. If you don't understand that the phenomenal/noumenal issue that you base all your antirealism on is a pseudo-problem as per that book... then why would we need to do 10 pages on whether you've read Rorty appropriately? We already have the answer.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Feb 29, 2024 8:09 amYou accuse me of being ignorant of Rorty.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Wed Feb 28, 2024 8:17 am The whole failing of Kant that you have borrowed is predicated on a faulty understanding of the mind as a mirror to nature which Kant derived without really thinking about it from Descartes. You didn't read Rorty as well as you think you did. You don't really read other people's ideas well in general though.
Note this thread I raised re Rorty
Rorty - No Mind-Independent Reality
viewtopic.php?t=32188
Where did I miss out on Rorty's stance?
You wrote somewhere you are not with Rorty's view but has similar views as those of Peter.
So what is your final stance?
Point if you are with Rorty, then you are an ANTI-philosophical_realist with your own antirealist stance.
If this is the case you cannot agree with Peter's what is fact is independent of the subject's opinions, beliefs and judgement which is fundamentally philosophical realism.
-
- Posts: 12990
- Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am
Re: Rorty - No Mind-Independent Reality
Point here is both Rorty and Kant do not believe in the philosophical realists' absolute mind-independent reality, therefore their basic stance are the same, i.e. both oppose philosophical-realism, so both are ANTI-philosopical_Realism.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Thu Feb 29, 2024 8:57 amYou have already quoted me telling you the Rorty thing. If you don't understand that the phenomenal/noumenal issue that you base all your antirealism on is a pseudo-problem as per that book... then why would we need to do 10 pages on whether you've read Rorty appropriately? We already have the answer.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Feb 29, 2024 8:09 amYou accuse me of being ignorant of Rorty.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Wed Feb 28, 2024 8:17 am The whole failing of Kant that you have borrowed is predicated on a faulty understanding of the mind as a mirror to nature which Kant derived without really thinking about it from Descartes. You didn't read Rorty as well as you think you did. You don't really read other people's ideas well in general though.
Note this thread I raised re Rorty
Rorty - No Mind-Independent Reality
viewtopic.php?t=32188
Where did I miss out on Rorty's stance?
You wrote somewhere you are not with Rorty's view but has similar views as those of Peter.
So what is your final stance?
Point if you are with Rorty, then you are an ANTI-philosophical_realist with your own antirealist stance.
If this is the case you cannot agree with Peter's what is fact is independent of the subject's opinions, beliefs and judgement which is fundamentally philosophical realism.
IF Rorty did not take the phenomenal/noumena issue is not critical to their fundamental stance.
I did a search in Rorty's book, he did not mention Kant's noumenal at all.
It is not possible to remember the whole book, but I believe whatever Rorty critiqued about Kant, it is very likely a misinterpretation. [subject to confirmation in a rereading of the book].
What is critical for my point is Rorty and Kant are both ANTI- and oppose Philosophical Realism.
It is just like ANTI-theists [atheists, non-theists] has the fundamental beliefs where they all oppose theism.
Anti-theists may be a Buddhist, communist, or democrat, Nazi, etc., that is secondary to the main issue that they all appose theism.
Last edited by Veritas Aequitas on Thu Feb 29, 2024 9:48 am, edited 2 times in total.
- FlashDangerpants
- Posts: 6520
- Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm
Re: Rorty - No Mind-Independent Reality
The Rorty point that I pointed at is the point, therefore Rorty's point was indeed the one at which I pointed.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Feb 29, 2024 9:37 amPoint here is both Rorty and Kant do not believe in the philosophical realists' absolute mind-independent reality, therefore their basic stance are the same, i.e. both are oppose philosophical-realism, so both are ANTI-philosopical_Realism.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Thu Feb 29, 2024 8:57 amYou have already quoted me telling you the Rorty thing. If you don't understand that the phenomenal/noumenal issue that you base all your antirealism on is a pseudo-problem as per that book... then why would we need to do 10 pages on whether you've read Rorty appropriately? We already have the answer.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Feb 29, 2024 8:09 am
You accuse me of being ignorant of Rorty.
Note this thread I raised re Rorty
Rorty - No Mind-Independent Reality
viewtopic.php?t=32188
Where did I miss out on Rorty's stance?
You wrote somewhere you are not with Rorty's view but has similar views as those of Peter.
So what is your final stance?
Point if you are with Rorty, then you are an ANTI-philosophical_realist with your own antirealist stance.
If this is the case you cannot agree with Peter's what is fact is independent of the subject's opinions, beliefs and judgement which is fundamentally philosophical realism.
That Rorty did not take the phenomenal/noumena issue is not critical to their fundamental stance.
It is just like ANTI-theists [atheists, non-theists] has the fundamental beliefs where they all oppose theism.
Anti-theists may be a Buddhist, communist, or democrat, Nazi, etc., that is secondary to the main issue that they all appose theism.
-
- Posts: 12990
- Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am
Re: Rorty - No Mind-Independent Reality
Not sure what the above is about.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Thu Feb 29, 2024 9:42 amThe Rorty point that I pointed at is the point, therefore Rorty's point was indeed the one at which I pointed.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Feb 29, 2024 9:37 amPoint here is both Rorty and Kant do not believe in the philosophical realists' absolute mind-independent reality, therefore their basic stance are the same, i.e. both are oppose philosophical-realism, so both are ANTI-philosopical_Realism.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Thu Feb 29, 2024 8:57 am
You have already quoted me telling you the Rorty thing. If you don't understand that the phenomenal/noumenal issue that you base all your antirealism on is a pseudo-problem as per that book... then why would we need to do 10 pages on whether you've read Rorty appropriately? We already have the answer.
That Rorty did not take the phenomenal/noumena issue is not critical to their fundamental stance.
It is just like ANTI-theists [atheists, non-theists] has the fundamental beliefs where they all oppose theism.
Anti-theists may be a Buddhist, communist, or democrat, Nazi, etc., that is secondary to the main issue that they all appose theism.
I edited the above to;
IF Rorty did not take the phenomenal/noumena issue is not critical to their fundamental stance.
I did a search in Rorty's book, he did not mention Kant's noumenal at all.
It is not possible to remember the whole book, but I believe whatever Rorty critiqued about Kant, it is very likely a misinterpretation. [subject to confirmation in a rereading of the book].
- FlashDangerpants
- Posts: 6520
- Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm
Re: Rorty - No Mind-Independent Reality
I have no interest in ANY question about mind independent reality. I have told you this enough times over enough years that I consider it a misunderstanding to to take the question seriously at all. You dragged a quote from me in some other thread into this one and then tried to force me to have my original quote be about mind independent reality, which of course is not what it was about. Then you had the nerve to tell me I was missing the point about mind independent reality.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Feb 29, 2024 9:50 amNot sure what the above is about.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Thu Feb 29, 2024 9:42 amThe Rorty point that I pointed at is the point, therefore Rorty's point was indeed the one at which I pointed.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Feb 29, 2024 9:37 am
Point here is both Rorty and Kant do not believe in the philosophical realists' absolute mind-independent reality, therefore their basic stance are the same, i.e. both are oppose philosophical-realism, so both are ANTI-philosopical_Realism.
That Rorty did not take the phenomenal/noumena issue is not critical to their fundamental stance.
It is just like ANTI-theists [atheists, non-theists] has the fundamental beliefs where they all oppose theism.
Anti-theists may be a Buddhist, communist, or democrat, Nazi, etc., that is secondary to the main issue that they all appose theism.
Learn to read and undestand other people's words please. This is getting to be an emergency for you.
-
- Posts: 12990
- Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am
Re: Rorty - No Mind-Independent Reality
My reading is this,FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Thu Feb 29, 2024 10:04 amI have no interest in ANY question about mind independent reality. I have told you this enough times over enough years that I consider it a misunderstanding to to take the question seriously at all. You dragged a quote from me in some other thread into this one and then tried to force me to have my original quote be about mind independent reality, which of course is not what it was about. Then you had the nerve to tell me I was missing the point about mind independent reality.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Feb 29, 2024 9:50 amNot sure what the above is about.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Thu Feb 29, 2024 9:42 am
The Rorty point that I pointed at is the point, therefore Rorty's point was indeed the one at which I pointed.
Learn to read and undestand other people's words please. This is getting to be an emergency for you.
if you don't have any thing to do with mind-independent reality, then you are an anti-philosophical realist.
In that case, you cannot claim the mind-independent moon pre-existed humans and will continue to exist even if there are no more humans.
This is counter to Peter's claim of the above.
But you insisted Peter and you share the same beliefs.
How do you reconcile that?
If you are not banking on a mind-independent reality,
then what is your stance other than the above.
One option is Rorty's pragmatism based on what is useful and langauge.
But somewhere you wrote, you do not agree with Rorty.
So what is your position precisely?
Looks like you have bag of contradictory ideas?
- FlashDangerpants
- Posts: 6520
- Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm
Re: Rorty - No Mind-Independent Reality
Your reading is inadequate.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Feb 29, 2024 10:46 amMy reading is this,FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Thu Feb 29, 2024 10:04 amI have no interest in ANY question about mind independent reality. I have told you this enough times over enough years that I consider it a misunderstanding to to take the question seriously at all. You dragged a quote from me in some other thread into this one and then tried to force me to have my original quote be about mind independent reality, which of course is not what it was about. Then you had the nerve to tell me I was missing the point about mind independent reality.
Learn to read and undestand other people's words please. This is getting to be an emergency for you.
if you don't have any thing to do with mind-independent reality, then you are an anti-philosophical realist.
Re: Rorty - No Mind-Independent Reality
Is this assertion "adequate"?
-
- Posts: 12990
- Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am
Re: Rorty - No Mind-Independent Reality
For philosophical sake why you explain your position more precisely instead of hiding behind something others could not understand adequately.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Thu Feb 29, 2024 12:23 pmYour reading is inadequate.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Feb 29, 2024 10:46 amMy reading is this,FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Thu Feb 29, 2024 10:04 am
I have no interest in ANY question about mind independent reality. I have told you this enough times over enough years that I consider it a misunderstanding to to take the question seriously at all. You dragged a quote from me in some other thread into this one and then tried to force me to have my original quote be about mind independent reality, which of course is not what it was about. Then you had the nerve to tell me I was missing the point about mind independent reality.
Learn to read and undestand other people's words please. This is getting to be an emergency for you.
if you don't have any thing to do with mind-independent reality, then you are an anti-philosophical realist.