Rorty - No Mind-Independent Reality

[Terrapin Station]

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.

It's a thought experiment about predicting one's own behaviour.

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.

Right, so you need to say why talking about possibilities is a red herring.

[Skepdick]

Right, so you need to say why talking about possibilities is a red herring.

It's precisely because it is a red herring is why I am not even going to address it.

[Veritas Aequitas]

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.

Note there are different levels of illusions, i.e.
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.

None 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.

Note I listed 3 types of illusion, i.e. 1 involving the empirical and 2 based on reasoning.

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.

[Veritas Aequitas]

[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??

[Veritas Aequitas]

[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??

Philosophical Realists claim there is an objective reality that exists independently of human thought and language.

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.

[Veritas Aequitas]

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.

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.

[FlashDangerpants]

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[FlashDangerpants]

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.

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.

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.

The Rorty point that I pointed at is the point, therefore Rorty's point was indeed the one at which I pointed.

[Veritas Aequitas]

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.

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.

The Rorty point that I pointed at is the point, therefore Rorty's point was indeed the one at which I pointed.

Not sure what the above is about.

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]

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.

The Rorty point that I pointed at is the point, therefore Rorty's point was indeed the one at which I pointed.

Not sure what the above is about.

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.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The Rorty point that I pointed at is the point, therefore Rorty's point was indeed the one at which I pointed.

Not sure what the above is about.

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.

My reading is this,
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]

Not sure what the above is about.

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.

My reading is this,
if you don't have any thing to do with mind-independent reality, then you are an anti-philosophical realist.

Your reading is inadequate.

[Skepdick]

Your reading is inadequate.

Is this assertion "adequate"?

[Veritas Aequitas]

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.

My reading is this,
if you don't have any thing to do with mind-independent reality, then you are an anti-philosophical realist.

Your reading is inadequate.

For philosophical sake why you explain your position more precisely instead of hiding behind something others could not understand adequately.