Get Real

Discussion of articles that appear in the magazine.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
Philosophy Now
Posts: 1204
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2010 8:49 am

Get Real

Post by Philosophy Now »

Paul Doolan reveals that the real problem with ‘the real world’ is knowing what ‘real’ really means.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/146/Get_Real
Belinda
Posts: 8030
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Get Real

Post by Belinda »

Paul Doolan wrote:
Only solipsists deny the existence of a reality beyond the experiencing subject
But idealists recognise the existence of other minds. Each 'mind' is a unique nexus of experiences (what Hume called a 'bundle" of experiences if I am not mistaken).
A nexus or 'bundle' of experiences would be impossible if there were no environment for the nexus/bundle to be other than.
Ansiktsburk
Posts: 447
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2013 12:03 pm
Location: Central Scandinavia

Re: Get Real

Post by Ansiktsburk »

Belinda wrote: Sun Oct 31, 2021 7:55 pm Paul Doolan wrote:
Only solipsists deny the existence of a reality beyond the experiencing subject
But idealists recognise the existence of other minds. Each 'mind' is a unique nexus of experiences (what Hume called a 'bundle" of experiences if I am not mistaken).
A nexus or 'bundle' of experiences would be impossible if there were no environment for the nexus/bundle to be other than.
And it seems like Doolan thinks that internet is a bad idea for those minds flr a means to go recognize other minds. Far too technical.
Ansiktsburk
Posts: 447
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2013 12:03 pm
Location: Central Scandinavia

Re: Get Real

Post by Ansiktsburk »

As a guy from a poor family with a philosophical mind, but also had the luck(or unluck) to have a brain that solves mathematicalish things easily i became one of those evil STEM guys. Because thats where you could get a job. This ”technology hate”, we will live in computer illusions, young guys play far too much CS or LoL, well, the ”real world” for a young person where I live now (posh area with lots of academics) is a pretty neat place. The ”real world” I grew up in was not about strolling in Swiss Alps, rather just hanging around in concrete(later in small house gardens where equally nothing happened either). We do now have the possibility to use those STEM products to actually interact with other philosophically minded people. And one do not have to pollute the air with jet plane travels to explore the world.

I’m not saying that Doohan says otherwise, but there is an air of birth in an academical, snug upbringing about the whole article. That ”Reality” is so much better. Well, reality is pretty harsh for most, most of the time.
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Get Real

Post by Dontaskme »

Belinda wrote: Sun Oct 31, 2021 7:55 pm Paul Doolan wrote:
Only solipsists deny the existence of a reality beyond the experiencing subject
But idealists recognise the existence of other minds. Each 'mind' is a unique nexus of experiences (what Hume called a 'bundle" of experiences if I am not mistaken).
A nexus or 'bundle' of experiences would be impossible if there were no environment for the nexus/bundle to be other than.
Very good reply B...in response to Doolan's claim that solipsists deny the existence of reality beyond the experiencing subject. The word ''solipsist'' is a very misunderstood word.

It's impossible for the subject to deny the existence of a reality beyond the experiencing subject. As both subject and object are one and the other simultaneously. If subject exists, but then denies the objective reality, then subject cannot exist either, since both are interdependent upon each other to exist at all...both subject and object are mutally exclusive and are always one and the same experience.


For example: try separating yourself from the thought that you are having. It's impossible. The beyond the subjective experience IS the projection of the subjective experience. The projection is not outside of the projector, it only appears to be outside of it. A ''known projected image'' is both the imageless projector and the imaged projection simultaneously.

So there's actually NO ONE to deny ANYTHING HERE, of course only the self exists, insofar as that knowing is self-evidently ''known'' conceptually via thought. Thought BEING the only tool available that apparently gives what is essentially without an image IT'S image. The giver and receiver are always one and the other in the exact same instance of knowing.

.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12240
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Get Real

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

There is some rational themes in the article but his ideas are all over the place subject to the following qualifications;
Most of this article was composed during day hikes along the Rhine valley in northern Switzerland. During these silent hours, I would find my mind returning to the question, ‘Does the term ‘real world’ make any sense?’ Each evening I would return to my study and work up my notes. Had I composed this within the four walls of the study it would have been a very different essay.
It is reasonable to ask whether the 'stars' we see up the dark sky at night are real or not, given the 'fact' of the distance they're from and that the speed of light is limited. So the stars we see at night may not be there [already destroyed & disappeared] in real time.

Nevertheless when we question reality, we need to have accurate information.

Kant's thing-in-itself is ultimately an illusion [never empirical] and has nothing to do with the senses which lead to the empirical.

Reality can be defined as all-there-is [whatever, not necessary facts].

But what is real must always be conditioned or qualified to a specific Framework and System of reality/cognition/knowledge [FSK].

There are a wide range of FSKs in representing what-is-real.
It is indisputable [rationally] the scientific FSK is the most reliable and credible FSK in representing what-is-real at present. But note, despite it being the most credible at present, its truths are at best polished conjectures.
The least credible are those of common sense and the theological FSK grounded on blind faith.
The rest are in between.

So there is nothing to be concern with 'what is real' as long as we specify the FSK we are relying upon to state our assertions.
Last edited by Veritas Aequitas on Tue Nov 16, 2021 3:35 am, edited 1 time in total.
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Get Real

Post by Age »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Nov 15, 2021 5:34 am There is some rational themes in the article but his ideas are all over the place subject to the following qualifications;
Most of this article was composed during day hikes along the Rhine valley in northern Switzerland. During these silent hours, I would find my mind returning to the question, ‘Does the term ‘real world’ make any sense?’ Each evening I would return to my study and work up my notes. Had I composed this within the four walls of the study it would have been a very different essay.
It is reasonable to ask whether the 'stars' we see up the dark sky at night are real or not, given the 'fact' of the distance they're from and that the speed of light is limited. So the stars we see at night may not be there [already destroyed & disappeared] is real time.

Nevertheless when we question reality, we need to have accurate information.

Kant's thing-in-itself is ultimately an illusion [never empirical] and has nothing to do with the senses which lead to the empirical.

Reality can be defined as all-there-is [whatever, not necessary facts].

But what is real must always be conditioned or qualified to a specific Framework and System of reality/cognition/knowledge [FSK].

There are a wide range of FSKs in representing what-is-real.
It is indisputable [rationally] the scientific FSK is the most reliable and credible FSK in representing what-is-real at present. But note, despite it being the most credible at present, its truths are at best polished conjectures.
The least credible are those of common sense and the theological FSK grounded on blind faith.
The rest are in between.

So there is nothing to be concern with 'what is real' as long as we specify the FSK we are relying upon to state our assertions.
What so-called "fsk" do you rely upon, to state your assertions?

And, how do you KNOW that that so-called "fsk" is reliable and worthy of being relied upon, to state your assertions?

Obviously some of your assertions are just completely and utterly False, Wrong, and/or Incorrect, to say the least.
Post Reply