Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Apr 18, 2024 10:40 am
The reason for straw-manning an argument is to refute the straw man and pretend that that refutes the actual argument. And that's not what I'm doing.
That you insist my arguments are that of philosophical realism is a distortion and insisting you are right is a strawman as defined above.
If you study the whole of W's philosophy from beginning to later, W's refer 'forms of life' to include other forms of life, i.e. non-humans animals.
- “If a lion could talk, we wouldn’t be able to understand it” (PPF
327)
Obvious and irrelevant. When he talks about humans using language, he's talking about human forms of life.
Note the plurality in 'form
s' and there are many times in 'On Certainty' where W reference to non-human forms of life implying 'conditioning reality'.
Don't have it on hand, I get will get the reference later.
W's rejected Moore's external world and stated that whatever is known is related to the different forms of life of which the human form of life is one.
In reference to the form of life, it is implied we have to take into consideration its 3.5b years of evolution extended to 13.5b since the BB.
No, this is your interpolation, which has nothing to do with W's purpose or method.
That is what philosophy is about; philosophy is not about deadwood and dogmatic historical thoughts.
It is anti-realist because when whatever is the external world is contingent to a specific form of life, i.e. human in this case, it cannot be independent of the human condition, thus cannot be realist[p]*.
*realist[p] claim the external world is independent of the human conditions.
No. This is your straw man of (at least my) philosophical realism. And your reference to 'the external world' gives the game away. There is no internal/external world distinction. We are, as you say, part and parcel of reality. And to say that that reality depends in some way on us is ridiculous.
The above is similar to your 'what is fact' which is independent of the human conditions of human opinions, beliefs and judgment.
According to W, 'what is fact' [post Tractatus] is contingent to a specific form of life, i.e. the specific language-game of a form of life.
As you know, that's from the Tractatus, which promoted ideas that he rejected later in the Investigations and other writings, including On Certainty. His critique of Moore was that bafflement about the existence of 'the external world' comes from a peculiar philosophical delusion about our supposed separation from that world. In my opinion.
Nope! you got it wrong.
It is not from the Tractatus.
In the Tractatus, W claim the world consist of a totality of facts which are independent of the humans' opinion, beliefs and judgments. W then rejected this idea in PI and rejected that totally in 'On Certainty'.
'Wittgenstein, the Austrian-British philosopher, famously expressed this idea in his work Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. The statement “whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must remain silent” ...'
I've been reading and wrestling with Wittgenstein for at least 40 years, and I've corresponded with Peter Hacker at Oxford - arguably the most important and influential W scholar (along with Gordon Baker) ever. So I suggest you tread carefully when proclaiming that you understand W better than others. And feel free to apologise for this mistake.
I won't accuse you of the "fallacy of name-dropping". At least you gave me an idea of where you are coming from with your ideas.
There are tons of materials out there which claim the later-W is antirealist culminated in his 'On Certainty'. Here is one among the many;
An approach to Wittgenstein’s antirealism
https://www.redalyc.org/journal/1053/105352363010/html/
Having read W's On Certainty thoroughly I agree with such a view.
Btw, I am not a fan of W except to understand his views to counter those who misunderstood the later-W.
Peter Hacker is an analytic philosopher, so most likely a philosophical realist and will not accept the fact that the later W is antirealist. If Hacker still insist W is the typical realist [p] then he is wrong.
Btw, Bertrand Russell [a hardcore analytic philosopher] who was W's teacher in Oxford did not agree with the later-W ideas implying W had gone to the other side, i.e. antirealism.
What Moore's [common sense] was claiming is similar to what W was claiming in his Tractatus.
W's critique of "a peculiar philosophical delusion about our supposed separation from that world" was a self-critique of his earlier delusion in the Tractatus.
I know. And I also know how to suck eggs.
While W did move on, you are stuck with W primitive views from the Tractatus.
I did not state the FSRC does not exist - you must have misinterpreted my point.
Try reading carefully. I didn't say you think the EFFSRC doesn't exist. I said you think that reality - outside the EFFSRC - doesn't exist - that there's no such thing outside the EFFSRC bubble.
The FSRC exists as a process that is part and parcel of reality [all there is].
It is a system and process just like digestive system, learning system, intelligence, and the like which are part and parcel of reality[all there is].
And if it exists as a process like the digestive system, then it is part of reality - a real thing, like the digestive system - and that is a philosophically realist claim. That's why your argument is realist.
So, this is you point?
Suggest you elaborate your argument here,
viewtopic.php?t=42176
so I can counter your argument more specifically.
I addition, the new thread will enable easy reference if you ever make the same claim again.
Like the digestive system and its framework, the FRSC processes are already in existence [pre-existed], the term FSRC is merely formalizing it as a subject for consideration, discussions and debate.
Patent nonsense. The digestive system didn't pre-exist the life forms that evolved with digestive systems.
You missed my point.
In one perspective, the digestive system pre-existed before it was so named within the human-based science-biology FSRC, e.g. in primates and in the cruder form in less complex animals.
It is the same with the actual
human-based Emergence, Realization of Reality and Cognitive System inherent in all humans and other forms of life.
Since it is human-based, logically it follows, whatever the resultant cannot be absolutely independent of the human conditions, thus cannot be that of realism[p].
The question of Einstein's theism is still much debated. But if he was a theist, then he wasn't and isn't the only scientist to hold such an irrational belief. And your attempt to connect his philosophical realism with his theism is tendentious.
Einstein did believe in an independent God and independent external world. Einstein was not actually a 'theist' [believe in a person god] but actually a deist [a reasoned God like Spinoza].
When Einstein referred to "God did not play dice" with reference to the theories of QM, it is obvious he was bringing in his p-realist God into the debate and attempting to put QM into a realist[p] position.
But the current consensus of the QM principles are anti-p-realist.
As usual, you miss my point. Einstein's theism or deism has nothing to do with his scientific work, and so his attitude towards interpretations of quantum mechanics.
I understand your point if with reference to theists like Newton, Mendel and many other scientists who were dealing with CLASSICAL science, they do not bring in theism into their theories.
There is no definitive scientific work from Einstein re QM proper.
In Einstein case, his claims [thesis] on QM [hidden variable] were not accepted because he insisted in incorporating philosophical realism and the related theism in his claim which was implied in his 'God did not play dice'.
Note your ignorance on the above.
Any counter?
There are Einstein Apologists but they could not counter the current antirealist views re QM.
This is barefaced nonsense. QM discoveries and interpretations don't entail philosophically anti-realist conclusions. You're down yet another blind alley.
I suggest you research more on this?
I will hold back in exposing your ignorance.
Did you know, upon acceptance of QM, philosophy was a compulsory paper for any Physics in all [if not most] Universities.
You keep falling back on QM as the foundation for your philosophical anti-realism. But it's completely rational to understand QM as an attempt to understand the nature of reality at its fundamental level - which is at least methodologically naturalist and arguably realist. Your use of the observer effect and indeterminacy to support your argument is illegitimate, in my opinion.
Your opinion is wrong due to ignorance of the subject.
Note my point above why Einstein p-realist view of QM was wrong.
In QM there is no absolutely independent reality-at-its-fundamental-level.
Whatever is reality with QM, it cannot be absolutely independent of the human conditions [as observers, etc.]
Wrong. The observer need not be a human. It's just that which can't identify both position and velocity together. But perhaps other particle physicists here can settle this for us.
You missed my point.
Note I stated [as observers,
etc.]
Whatever, the activity of science and modern physics cannot be done without human involvements and implied in 'etc'.
No, your argument is immature and badly-conceived. So there.
I have shown above with argument why your arguments are immature [e.g. relying on W's primitive ideas] and fall short understanding reality - all there is - humans being intricately part and parcel of reality.
As I had argued many times,
you are relying on W's primitive ideas from the Tractatus, i.e. "The world is the totality of facts" [states of affairs, that is the case] which are absolutely independent of the human conditions, i.e. opinions, beliefs and judgment.
While W had rejected the above, you are still clinging to it dogmatically.
Suggest you read PI and 'On Certainty' thoroughly.
So, it is you who should "Keep thinking about it. The penny may drop. Pigs may fly."
I prefer to follow the later Wittgenstein, in his critique of his earlier ideas - and their implications. And that critique in no way entailed philosophical anti-realism. But hey, what do I know?
I don't think you have read the later-W 'On Certainty' thoroughly with suspended judgment and no dogmatic bias as a hardcore realist[p].
As stated above, there are tons of material supporting why the later-W is antirealist especially in relation to this early realism.
Do you know W was a fan of Schopenhauer and was 'religious' but he put aside whatever from these sources to 'Whereof one cannot speak, one must remain in silence'.
Will you insist this is nonsense? It is likely you will, but that is due to your ignorance and the missing pieces of W from your 40 years of a superficial understanding of W.