Realists as Animals Cannot Recognize Themselves in a Mirror

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12385
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Realists as Animals Cannot Recognize Themselves in a Mirror

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

RCSaunders wrote: Sat May 08, 2021 4:24 pm
henry quirk wrote: Fri May 07, 2021 6:46 pm I say the followin' without arrogance or condemnation...

The world exists, and it exists independent of me.

The apple on my table is real, and it and the table both exist whether I, or anyone, pay either any mind.

What I bring to the table (and apple) is perspective and language.

The thing I call apple, should I die, still exists as my carcass rots. What's missin' is the one who names, the one who applies significance to the apple by recognizin' it and ascribin' a value to it. Apple (the placeholder) dies with me; the value I give it dies with me; the thing itself remains. That thing exists, as I say, independent of me.
I never argue with, "philosophical realism," which is not what you and I mean by realism. You and I mean, the apple I see on the table is a real apple, and it is exactly what it appears to be, and there is no more-real apple than the one I'm seeing.

The philosophical realist means the apple you see is only a sample or less-than-perfectly-real apple that only reflects or represents the, "really real," apple (somewhere). It's Platonic nonsense, but it infects all of philosophy.

There is no place for the understanding of actual apples being the only real apples in either, "idealism," or, what's called, "realism," in philosophy. They are both assaults on the truth by means of a false dichotomy.
If you are not into "philosophical realism" then you must be into anti-philosophical_realism, i.e. the real apples are not independent of the human conditions.

If what is real apple to you is the one you are seeing, then, that apple-seen-as-real is dependent on your human conditions, i.e. you-seeing-the-apple.

As such you cannot claim there is a real apple but rather only apple-seen-as-real, i.e. what is real apple to you is always qualified by the human senses.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12385
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Realists as Animals Cannot Recognize Themselves in a Mirror

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Terrapin Station wrote: Sat May 08, 2021 5:13 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Sat May 08, 2021 4:24 pm
henry quirk wrote: Fri May 07, 2021 6:46 pm I say the followin' without arrogance or condemnation...

The world exists, and it exists independent of me.

The apple on my table is real, and it and the table both exist whether I, or anyone, pay either any mind.

What I bring to the table (and apple) is perspective and language.

The thing I call apple, should I die, still exists as my carcass rots. What's missin' is the one who names, the one who applies significance to the apple by recognizin' it and ascribin' a value to it. Apple (the placeholder) dies with me; the value I give it dies with me; the thing itself remains. That thing exists, as I say, independent of me.
I never argue with, "philosophical realism," which is not what you and I mean by realism. You and I mean, the apple I see on the table is a real apple, and it is exactly what it appears to be, and there is no more-real apple than the one I'm seeing.

The philosophical realist means the apple you see is only a sample or less-than-perfectly-real apple that only reflects or represents the, "really real," apple (somewhere). It's Platonic nonsense, but it infects all of philosophy.

There is no place for the understanding of actual apples being the only real apples in either, "idealism," or, what's called, "realism," in philosophy. They are both assaults on the truth by means of a false dichotomy.
"Realism" in a philosophical context hasn't automatically denoted realism on universals for a very long time--like well over 100 years.
Agree with the above, but what you are engaging in as "realism" is a sort of pseudo-platonic realism.
What is real to you is an objective world out there which is independent of the human conditions, not as universals but nevertheless as real things.
Atla
Posts: 6699
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Realists as Animals Cannot Recognize Themselves in a Mirror

Post by Atla »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun May 09, 2021 5:18 am If you are not into "philosophical realism" then you must be into anti-philosophical_realism, i.e. the real apples are not independent of the human conditions.

If what is real apple to you is the one you are seeing, then, that apple-seen-as-real is dependent on your human conditions, i.e. you-seeing-the-apple.

As such you cannot claim there is a real apple but rather only apple-seen-as-real, i.e. what is real apple to you is always qualified by the human senses.
Here we can see how incapable VA is of admitting his mistake. Intellectual dishonesty.
The apparent apple is dependent on human conditions, the apple behind the appearance isn't. Both are "real", two spatiotemporal events in the universe.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Realists as Animals Cannot Recognize Themselves in a Mirror

Post by RCSaunders »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun May 09, 2021 5:18 am If you are not into "philosophical realism" then you must be into anti-philosophical_realism, i.e. the real apples are not independent of the human conditions.
Sorry you have swallowed that false dichotomy. My views are not dictated by any, "ism," such as either of those wrong views of ontological reality. They make people say absurd things like:
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun May 09, 2021 5:18 am If what is real apple to you is the one you are seeing, then, that apple-seen-as-real is dependent on your human conditions, i.e. you-seeing-the-apple.
An apple's existence is not dependent on anyone's perceiving it. The apple must exist and be what it is in order for there to be an apple for anyone to perceive.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun May 09, 2021 5:18 am As such you cannot claim there is a real apple but rather only apple-seen-as-real, i.e. what is real apple to you is always qualified by the human senses.
I make no claims about apples. You are the one that claims the existence of apples must be something different (although you never say what) than what is seen, because it is seen, as though that were some kind of defect. Perhaps, in your case, it is. In my case, it isn't.

I the apple I see is not an apple as it actually is, what is it actually? In what way, precisely, is an apple something other than the one with all the properties of an apple is see, feel, smell, and taste. What are the other properties of an apple and how do you know of them.

You can have you mystical, "really real," apples that I cannot see, I'll keep the one's I defectively see, because you can eat them and make apple pie from them. I have no idea what you can do with your mystical apples.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Realists as Animals Cannot Recognize Themselves in a Mirror

Post by RCSaunders »

Atla wrote: Sat May 08, 2021 10:04 pm Yes, Kant didn't get it quite right, but was basically correct, we only have access to these appearances that are probably created in the head, and the rest is assumed based on these appearances.

Guess now you're the one clinging to substitues for rational knowledge, because you don't happen to like said knowledge.
If you want to believe the intellectual machinations of a psychotic are knowledge, that's fine with me. I don't.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8536
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Realists as Animals Cannot Recognize Themselves in a Mirror

Post by Sculptor »

Terrapin Station wrote: Fri May 07, 2021 9:32 am "Any counter from realists to the above?"

Yes. Work on being able to argue for/justify your views, including against objections that you need to be able to understand and specifically address rather than hoping to just get by on insult-oriented rhetoric.
I'll second that.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8536
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Realists as Animals Cannot Recognize Themselves in a Mirror

Post by Sculptor »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri May 07, 2021 7:44 am One the of most common and serious contention within the philosophical community is the Philosophical Realists versus the Anti-Philosophical_Realists position.

Philosophical_Realism
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism
    Philosophical realism is usually not treated as a position of its own but as a stance towards other subject matters. Realism about a certain kind of thing (like numbers or morality) is the thesis that this kind of thing has mind-independent existence, i.e. that it is not just a mere appearance in the eye of the beholder.

    Philosophers who profess realism often claim that truth consists in a correspondence between cognitive representations and reality.[7]

    Realists tend to believe that whatever we believe now is only an approximation of reality but that the accuracy and fullness of understanding can be improved

    Realism can also be a view about the properties of reality in general, holding that reality exists independent of the mind, as opposed to non-realist views which question the certainty of anything beyond one's own mind.
Anti-Philosophical_Realists
What we have in general opposition to Philosophical_Realism are the various Anti-Philosophical_Realism views which has their own different version of anti-philosophical_realism.
For example the typical philosophical idealism comprised a broad range of views of idealism, e.g. Berkeley's subjective idealism versus Kant transcendental idealism.

Note, to state the idealism means things exist dependent on mind is very misleading.
Generally in opposing philosophical realism, anti-philosophical_realism claim that things cannot exist independent of the human mind or human conditions.

Whilst the anti-philosophical_realists can accept a very evident mind-independent world from the common conventional sense perspective, the philosophical_realists just cannot comprehend the anti-philosophical_realist position, i.e. things cannot exist independent of the human mind or human conditions.

I believe why the philosophical_realists are unable to comprehend the anti-philosophical_realist position is just like why the majority of animals [with some exceptions] are unable to comprehend the reflection-of-themselves-in-a-mirror are really an image of themselves instead of seeing a stranger.

Note:
Chimps Attacks Mirror Reflections
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMHnNF2rqpI

A Palm-nut Vulture attacks its reflection in a mirror set in the Gabon jungle
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oBsjxqkTt4

These animals are entrapped with an evolutionary program that do not enable them to see the 'truth' of reality.

Similarly, philosophical_realists are like the above ignorant animals entrapped by evolution which do not enable them to view in another perspective of reality.

The philosohical_realists are like people who are unable to see both the rabbit and the duck in this image. They can only see one image, either duck or rabbit,

Image

The irony is the philosophical realists in their ignorance are SO arrogant in condemning those who see things in a different perspective or different perspectives.

Btw, whatever is claimed in various perspectives must be verifiable and justifiable empirically and philosophically within a credible FSK, thus no room for any woo woo ideas.

Any counter from realists to the above?
I can add to what Terrapin says, but would also like to add.

Your entire framing is dead wrong. There is not doubt that you are the naive realist here on the Forum. The worst kind of objectivist realist.
Real understanding entails standing away from your personal prejudice to look at bigger pictures and to take on valid criticisms.
This you fail in catastrophically
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8536
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Realists as Animals Cannot Recognize Themselves in a Mirror

Post by Sculptor »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat May 08, 2021 7:21 am
Terrapin Station wrote: Fri May 07, 2021 9:32 am "Any counter from realists to the above?"

Yes. Work on being able to argue for/justify your views, including against objections that you need to be able to understand and specifically address rather than hoping to just get by on insult-oriented rhetoric.
I believe you are your own problem.
Noted in your discussion with Bahman, you had the same problem and complained Bahman did not answer to your expectations.

I believe you will have the same problem with whoever have opposing views with yours. As I had stated, you are stuck in a dogmatic paradigm.
Such projection.
You have just rejected the best advice anyone could get.
You need it more than most.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8536
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Realists as Animals Cannot Recognize Themselves in a Mirror

Post by Sculptor »

henry quirk wrote: Sat May 08, 2021 3:11 pm just as the chimpanzee, bird or other animals cannot recognize their reflection in mirror represented themselves, [not a stranger],
the realist [you in this case] cannot understand why 'independent objects' are ultimately not independent of the human conditions.


This is the equivalent of bein' called racist!. There's no counter to it. Anything I, or any realist might offer, is dismissed as an example of inability in the same way as anyone who self-defends against the charge of racism finds his defense turned into evidence of racism.

I'll pass: I just came out of one rabbit hole so I'm not lookin' to jump into another.
If you are coming out of a rabbit hole. Don't forget to duck.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: Realists as Animals Cannot Recognize Themselves in a Mirror

Post by henry quirk »

Sculptor wrote: Sun May 09, 2021 2:48 pm
henry quirk wrote: Sat May 08, 2021 3:11 pm just as the chimpanzee, bird or other animals cannot recognize their reflection in mirror represented themselves, [not a stranger],
the realist [you in this case] cannot understand why 'independent objects' are ultimately not independent of the human conditions.


This is the equivalent of bein' called racist!. There's no counter to it. Anything I, or any realist might offer, is dismissed as an example of inability in the same way as anyone who self-defends against the charge of racism finds his defense turned into evidence of racism.

I'll pass: I just came out of one rabbit hole so I'm not lookin' to jump into another.
If you are coming out of a rabbit hole. Don't forget to duck.
👍
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: Realists as Animals Cannot Recognize Themselves in a Mirror

Post by henry quirk »

RCSaunders wrote: Sat May 08, 2021 4:24 pm
henry quirk wrote: Fri May 07, 2021 6:46 pm I say the followin' without arrogance or condemnation...

The world exists, and it exists independent of me.

The apple on my table is real, and it and the table both exist whether I, or anyone, pay either any mind.

What I bring to the table (and apple) is perspective and language.

The thing I call apple, should I die, still exists as my carcass rots. What's missin' is the one who names, the one who applies significance to the apple by recognizin' it and ascribin' a value to it. Apple (the placeholder) dies with me; the value I give it dies with me; the thing itself remains. That thing exists, as I say, independent of me.
I never argue with, "philosophical realism," which is not what you and I mean by realism. You and I mean, the apple I see on the table is a real apple, and it is exactly what it appears to be, and there is no more-real apple than the one I'm seeing.

The philosophical realist means the apple you see is only a sample or less-than-perfectly-real apple that only reflects or represents the, "really real," apple (somewhere). It's Platonic nonsense, but it infects all of philosophy.

There is no place for the understanding of actual apples being the only real apples in either, "idealism," or, what's called, "realism," in philosophy. They are both assaults on the truth by means of a false dichotomy.
All I know is: I apprehend the world as it is...not in its entirety, but as it is. There's no qualia or models or representations in my head. As you say, the apple I see on the table is a real apple, and it is exactly what it appears to be, and there is no more-real apple than the one I'm seeing.

I call this view direct realism.
Atla
Posts: 6699
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Realists as Animals Cannot Recognize Themselves in a Mirror

Post by Atla »

RCSaunders wrote: Sun May 09, 2021 2:18 pm If you want to believe the intellectual machinations of a psychotic are knowledge, that's fine with me. I don't.
Amusingly it's naive realists like you who wouldn't survive a psychosis. When the picture on the wall starts to talk to you, you have no choice but to believe that that's what's really happening.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Realists as Animals Cannot Recognize Themselves in a Mirror

Post by RCSaunders »

Atla wrote: Sun May 09, 2021 4:43 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Sun May 09, 2021 2:18 pm If you want to believe the intellectual machinations of a psychotic are knowledge, that's fine with me. I don't.
Amusingly it's naive realists like you who wouldn't survive a psychosis. When the picture on the wall starts to talk to you, you have no choice but to believe that that's what's really happening.
I suspect you really do believe, "the picture on the wall," is real. You call it, TV, and probably believe you are watching reality.

A, "naive realist," knows everything is exactly what it is, not just an appearance, and therefore would never confuse a, "TV," for anything other than a machine. For you, a thing's identity is some imaginary thing produced in the mind and you have no way to distinguish between what exists objectively (like apples and TVs) and what appears on a TV screen. That is a kind of psychosis, a self-induced one no doubted supported by some kind of academic post modernist nonsense and psychobable.

It's alright with me if you hate the real world and believe you can evade it by believing it's not what it appears to be, but it will cost you in the end.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: Realists as Animals Cannot Recognize Themselves in a Mirror

Post by henry quirk »

Simon Blackburn has argued that whatever positions they may take in books, articles or lectures, [*or in philosophy forms], naive realism is the view of "philosophers when they are off-duty."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naïve_realism

*my edit/addition
Atla
Posts: 6699
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Realists as Animals Cannot Recognize Themselves in a Mirror

Post by Atla »

RCSaunders wrote: Sun May 09, 2021 6:02 pm
Atla wrote: Sun May 09, 2021 4:43 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Sun May 09, 2021 2:18 pm If you want to believe the intellectual machinations of a psychotic are knowledge, that's fine with me. I don't.
Amusingly it's naive realists like you who wouldn't survive a psychosis. When the picture on the wall starts to talk to you, you have no choice but to believe that that's what's really happening.
I suspect you really do believe, "the picture on the wall," is real. You call it, TV, and probably believe you are watching reality.

A, "naive realist," knows everything is exactly what it is, not just an appearance, and therefore would never confuse a, "TV," for anything other than a machine. For you, a thing's identity is some imaginary thing produced in the mind and you have no way to distinguish between what exists objectively (like apples and TVs) and what appears on a TV screen. That is a kind of psychosis, a self-induced one no doubted supported by some kind of academic post modernist nonsense and psychobable.

It's alright with me if you hate the real world and believe you can evade it by believing it's not what it appears to be, but it will cost you in the end.
I was talking about a picture, not a TV. What are you babbling about?
Post Reply