All Philosophies Reduced to Realism vs Idealism

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

FlashDangerpants
Posts: 2465
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: All Philosophies Reduced to Realism vs Idealism

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Jun 14, 2020 7:21 am
You occupy many categories as a living breathing human being, to keep this conversation polite I will pretend that "philosopher" is one of them. But you cannot be reduced to your philosophy, you have important other categories to exist in such as 'rabid hater of a specific religion'.
I can't very well reduce you your islamaphobia and reduce you to your philosophy, those are contradictory reductions. I mean if all of your philosophising is merely footnotes to your vendetta against Islam, then I guess that specific contradiction is resolved, in which case some other category to which you belong still won't be.
All human actions are reducible the inherent program to survive.
Well that's just stupid and obviously untrue. I can't be bothered with this shit.

If all human activites are reducible to survivial, then there is at least one further reduction of all those philosophies. So reduction to realism v idealism is meaningless.
surreptitious57
Posts: 4217
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: All Philosophies Reduced to Realism vs Idealism

Post by surreptitious57 »

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
All human actions are reducible the inherent program to survive
There are actually only six for which this is true [ eating / drinking / sleeping / shelter / protection / propagation ]
Any others are for the purpose of improving quality of life that while desirable are not necessary in order to survive
surreptitious57
Posts: 4217
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: All Philosophies Reduced to Realism vs Idealism

Post by surreptitious57 »

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
There is no two realities i e you and the external world
There is indeed only one reality and so it is wrong to think it is just something OUT THERE but not IN HERE
For it is equally inside the human mind as everything is directly or indirectly connected to everything else
So when we use our minds to interpret or understand reality we are actually using part of reality to do so
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4618
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: All Philosophies Reduced to Realism vs Idealism

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Sun Jun 14, 2020 2:40 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Jun 14, 2020 7:21 am
You occupy many categories as a living breathing human being, to keep this conversation polite I will pretend that "philosopher" is one of them. But you cannot be reduced to your philosophy, you have important other categories to exist in such as 'rabid hater of a specific religion'.
I can't very well reduce you your islamaphobia and reduce you to your philosophy, those are contradictory reductions. I mean if all of your philosophising is merely footnotes to your vendetta against Islam, then I guess that specific contradiction is resolved, in which case some other category to which you belong still won't be.
All human actions are reducible the inherent program to survive.
Well that's just stupid and obviously untrue. I can't be bothered with this shit.

If all human activites are reducible to survivial, then there is at least one further reduction of all those philosophies. So reduction to realism v idealism is meaningless.
Again you are ignorant of facts of human nature.
Are normal humans programmed to be born only to die immediately or driven to die from the time of birth?

Yes, all of realism and idealism is reducible to survival.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4618
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: All Philosophies Reduced to Realism vs Idealism

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

surreptitious57 wrote: Sun Jun 14, 2020 5:20 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
All human actions are reducible the inherent program to survive
There are actually only six for which this is true [ eating / drinking / sleeping / shelter / protection / propagation ]
Any others are for the purpose of improving quality of life that while desirable are not necessary in order to survive
Many human actions do not seem to be reducible to survival.
But upon deeper investigation, these self-destructions action are driven fundamentally by impulses that are supposed to support survival.

Say if a person murder another.
The fundamental of 'murder' is killing.
The killing instinct [kill for food, in self defense] is critical for survival.
But this fundamental impulse [kill] for survival is misdirected and hijacked by deviant impulses [which may also be reducible to survival] e.g. anger which is a necessary emotion for survival but in this case misdirected.

Propagation you mean "procreation" if so, that is not for survival of the individual but survival of the species.
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 2465
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: All Philosophies Reduced to Realism vs Idealism

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Jun 15, 2020 6:16 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Sun Jun 14, 2020 2:40 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Jun 14, 2020 7:21 am
All human actions are reducible the inherent program to survive.
Well that's just stupid and obviously untrue. I can't be bothered with this shit.

If all human activites are reducible to survivial, then there is at least one further reduction of all those philosophies. So reduction to realism v idealism is meaningless.
Again you are ignorant of facts of human nature.
Are normal humans programmed to be born only to die immediately or driven to die from the time of birth?

Yes, all of realism and idealism is reducible to survival.
I need to ask, what exactly do you think it means for one phenomenon to be reducible to another?
Skepdick
Posts: 5034
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: All Philosophies Reduced to Realism vs Idealism

Post by Skepdick »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Mon Jun 15, 2020 9:45 am I need to ask, what exactly do you think it means for one phenomenon to be reducible to another?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reduction_(complexity)
In computability theory and computational complexity theory, a reduction is an algorithm for transforming one problem into another problem. A sufficiently efficient reduction from one problem to another may be used to show that the second problem is at least as difficult as the first.

Intuitively, problem A is reducible to problem B if an algorithm for solving problem B efficiently (if it existed) could also be used as a subroutine to solve problem A efficiently.
Every "problem" in Philosophy reduces to the is-ought gap.

Realist (descriptive) perspective: What is a "problem"?
Idealist (prescriptive) perspective: A problem ought to be... <insert your definition here>.

Realistically I don't know what a problem IS.
Ideally a problem OUGHT to be is "Discrepancy between what is and what ought to be."

If nothing needs to be different, if nothing ought to change then there's no problem.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4618
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: All Philosophies Reduced to Realism vs Idealism

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Mon Jun 15, 2020 9:45 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Jun 15, 2020 6:16 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Sun Jun 14, 2020 2:40 pm
Well that's just stupid and obviously untrue. I can't be bothered with this shit.

If all human activites are reducible to survivial, then there is at least one further reduction of all those philosophies. So reduction to realism v idealism is meaningless.
Again you are ignorant of facts of human nature.
Are normal humans programmed to be born only to die immediately or driven to die from the time of birth?

Yes, all of realism and idealism is reducible to survival.
I need to ask, what exactly do you think it means for one phenomenon to be reducible to another?
I view 'reducible' as moving backward from conclusion to minor premise [MI1] to the major premise [MP1] [the ground].

Where the major premise [MP1] is a then a minor premise [MI2] of a prior syllogism, it is thence reducible to the major premise [MP2] and so on till we arrive at a ground [major premise] we can go no further, and invoking Wittgenstein,
  • "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."
    (Tractatus 7)
surreptitious57
Posts: 4217
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: All Philosophies Reduced to Realism vs Idealism

Post by surreptitious57 »

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Many human actions do not seem to be reducible to survival
Human beings now have far more leisure time than they did at any other point in our history
A lot of that time is taken up with activities that have absolutely nothing to do with survival
Such as for example watching television or surfing the internet or listening to music or reading books

The amygdala was once fundamental to our survival as it determined the correct response to fear but nowadays is used relatively little
Whereas the pre frontal cortex which deals with abstract thinking is used significantly more since we are now a more educated species

The more civilised we have become the less primitive we have become so survival is not as fundamental to our existence as it once was
Society is more regulated and we have made advances in eliminating illnesses and are more knowledgeable across very many disciplines

The quality of life of the average human is significantly better now than it was I00 000 years ago when homo sapiens first came into existence
Indeed it is significantly better now than it was even I00 years ago not because of survival but of science - not because of fear but of education
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 2465
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: All Philosophies Reduced to Realism vs Idealism

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Jun 16, 2020 9:06 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Mon Jun 15, 2020 9:45 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Jun 15, 2020 6:16 am
Again you are ignorant of facts of human nature.
Are normal humans programmed to be born only to die immediately or driven to die from the time of birth?

Yes, all of realism and idealism is reducible to survival.
I need to ask, what exactly do you think it means for one phenomenon to be reducible to another?
I view 'reducible' as moving backward from conclusion to minor premise [MI1] to the major premise [MP1] [the ground].

Where the major premise [MP1] is a then a minor premise [MI2] of a prior syllogism, it is thence reducible to the major premise [MP2] and so on till we arrive at a ground [major premise] we can go no further, and invoking Wittgenstein,
  • "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."
    (Tractatus 7)
Ok, so that would mean that every discussion within for instance the philosophy of aesthetics would have as its premises a set of propositions that are minor premises on some argument about realism. And every discussion about realism would have as it's premises something that is just a subset in a discussion about survival.

In which case you are apparently discussing the normal interpretation; that to be reducible to some lower level of description entails that the matter being reduced can be fully accounted for within that parent. So in a more normal version of this, chemistry is al bout physical interactions between particles, and thus chemistry reduces to physics.

But you think Aesthetics reduces all the way down to survival.

I don't agree with either of your reductions, both are absurd. Your premise is faulty and thus your argument is bad.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4618
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: All Philosophies Reduced to Realism vs Idealism

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Tue Jun 16, 2020 3:05 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Jun 16, 2020 9:06 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Mon Jun 15, 2020 9:45 am
I need to ask, what exactly do you think it means for one phenomenon to be reducible to another?
I view 'reducible' as moving backward from conclusion to minor premise [MI1] to the major premise [MP1] [the ground].

Where the major premise [MP1] is a then a minor premise [MI2] of a prior syllogism, it is thence reducible to the major premise [MP2] and so on till we arrive at a ground [major premise] we can go no further, and invoking Wittgenstein,
  • "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."
    (Tractatus 7)
Ok, so that would mean that every discussion within for instance the philosophy of aesthetics would have as its premises a set of propositions that are minor premises on some argument about realism. And every discussion about realism would have as it's premises something that is just a subset in a discussion about survival.
All discussion re Philosophical Realism and Philosophical Anti-Realism are reducible to survival, albeit Philosophical Realism is not realistic.
In which case you are apparently discussing the normal interpretation; that to be reducible to some lower level of description entails that the matter being reduced can be fully accounted for within that parent. So in a more normal version of this, chemistry is al bout physical interactions between particles, and thus chemistry reduces to physics.
Isn't Physics at present is attempting to find the ultimate substance, to quarks, etc., while at present it is facing a dilemma that the final substance could either be a wave or particle that is conditioned upon human conditions.

Further I can demonstrate even Physics itself and the ultimate particle are reducible to survival in one one sense.

A clue: IF there is no SURVIVING humans at all, the question of reduction is a non-starter. Thus 'survival' is the ultimate ground in this sense.
But you think Aesthetics reduces all the way down to survival.
Yes.
I don't agree with either of your reductions, both are absurd.
Your premise is faulty and thus your argument is bad.
You don't agree because you are ignorant and don't have the knowledge and competency to reflect on its truths.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4618
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: All Philosophies Reduced to Realism vs Idealism

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

surreptitious57 wrote: Tue Jun 16, 2020 3:00 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Many human actions do not seem to be reducible to survival
Human beings now have far more leisure time than they did at any other point in our history
A lot of that time is taken up with activities that have absolutely nothing to do with survival
Such as for example watching television or surfing the internet or listening to music or reading books

The amygdala was once fundamental to our survival as it determined the correct response to fear but nowadays is used relatively little
Whereas the pre frontal cortex which deals with abstract thinking is used significantly more since we are now a more educated species

The more civilised we have become the less primitive we have become so survival is not as fundamental to our existence as it once was
Society is more regulated and we have made advances in eliminating illnesses and are more knowledgeable across very many disciplines

The quality of life of the average human is significantly better now than it was I00 000 years ago when homo sapiens first came into existence
Indeed it is significantly better now than it was even I00 years ago not because of survival but of science - not because of fear but of education
"so survival is not as fundamental to our existence as it once was"

You are a bit lost here.
Note my justified true moral fact;
"No normal human will volunteer to be killed or die prematurely."
There is no exception to the above for any 'normal' human being because DNA/RNA wise they are "programmed" like a 'robot' to strive to survive.

As such survival is a still a very fundamental impulse within all normal human beings.

Humanity has made exponential advances, and this is directed to survival at the fundamentally level.
Humanity seek more advances medicine and other technologies to ensure they don't die easily, thus to ensure survival.

A small percentage are risk takers and some are very reckless and lackadaisical with their life, but these are the exceptions on the normal distribution scale.

There are ironic cases, where the impulse for survival, somehow is antithetical to their survival, but nevertheless in such cases, the survival instinct is still fundamental.
For example the need to eat is for survival, but some abnormal eaters overeat themselves to death despite knowing the threat of death.
In the case of suicide bombers, their survival instinct drove them to theistic religions which command them to be suicide bombers with a promise of an eternal life in paradise with virgins.
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 2465
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: All Philosophies Reduced to Realism vs Idealism

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Jun 17, 2020 5:40 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Tue Jun 16, 2020 3:05 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Jun 16, 2020 9:06 am
I view 'reducible' as moving backward from conclusion to minor premise [MI1] to the major premise [MP1] [the ground].

Where the major premise [MP1] is a then a minor premise [MI2] of a prior syllogism, it is thence reducible to the major premise [MP2] and so on till we arrive at a ground [major premise] we can go no further, and invoking Wittgenstein,
  • "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."
    (Tractatus 7)
Ok, so that would mean that every discussion within for instance the philosophy of aesthetics would have as its premises a set of propositions that are minor premises on some argument about realism. And every discussion about realism would have as it's premises something that is just a subset in a discussion about survival.
All discussion re Philosophical Realism and Philosophical Anti-Realism are reducible to survival, albeit Philosophical Realism is not realistic.
In which case you are apparently discussing the normal interpretation; that to be reducible to some lower level of description entails that the matter being reduced can be fully accounted for within that parent. So in a more normal version of this, chemistry is al bout physical interactions between particles, and thus chemistry reduces to physics.
Isn't Physics at present is attempting to find the ultimate substance, to quarks, etc., while at present it is facing a dilemma that the final substance could either be a wave or particle that is conditioned upon human conditions.
Oh my God, I don't care about that.

I was checking that you don't have some exotic new meaning for reduction. So you are saying that as discussions of chemistry can be complete and, and full and thorough, using only the explanations that physics provides to it, so all philosophy can be completely and thoroughly described in total, just by the discussion of antirealism?

That is what reduction means, and that is what your stuff about major and minor premises seems to mean. but it makes no sense for that to be what it means and then survival to be the thing to which you reduce. Nor is it rational to argue that one philsoophical area of debate contains all of the others in this manner.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Jun 17, 2020 5:40 am
But you think Aesthetics reduces all the way down to survival.
Yes.
I don't agree with either of your reductions, both are absurd.
Your premise is faulty and thus your argument is bad.
You don't agree because you are ignorant and don't have the knowledge and competency to reflect on its truths.
Your premise is clearly faulty, and your argument is blatantly unsound anyway. Insulting me because I don't agree with a faulty unsound argument is not really impressing anyone.
Skepdick
Posts: 5034
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: All Philosophies Reduced to Realism vs Idealism

Post by Skepdick »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Wed Jun 17, 2020 8:57 am I was checking that you don't have some exotic new meaning for reduction. So you are saying that as discussions of chemistry can be complete and, and full and thorough, using only the explanations that physics provides to it, so all philosophy can be completely and thoroughly described in total, just by the discussion of antirealism?
What a stupid fucking question!

You can't even explain to me (or anybody) what a "problem" is in basic English, but you want to tackle ideas such as "reduction", "complexity", "completeness" and "totality" in one go.

Fuck anti-realism. As you say it changes nothing - is just another word. What is a "problem"? Is it a real thing or an abstract thing? Do "problems" exist?

There are no such things as "problems". Anywhere. The existence of problems is ONLY a factual claim within a framework/system such as Philosophy.
Which is precisely what VA is arguing. Your framework is no more (or less) legitimate for manufacturing facts than any other framework.
Last edited by Skepdick on Wed Jun 17, 2020 11:17 am, edited 1 time in total.
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 2465
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: All Philosophies Reduced to Realism vs Idealism

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Your specialness and huge importance has been noted, thank you for reminding us.
Post Reply