FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Wed Feb 28, 2024 12:34 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Feb 28, 2024 11:33 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Wed Feb 28, 2024 10:50 am
And what is your understanding of the reasons why philosophers distinguish between that which is discovered and that which is invented?
So for instance mathematical realists say that numbers and mathematical properties thereof are discovered, but antirealists say they are constructed or invented.
The following point are the reasons why mathematical realists [and p-realists] say that numbers and mathematical properties thereof are discovered, but antirealists say they are constructed or invented.
The argument that numbers and mathematical properties are discovered, provide support for theists argument for God, i.e. they cannot come from nothing and the only tenable something has to be an omnipotent and omniscient God.
This leading to God is ugly, while the antirealist approach is more realistic.
To explain why the antirealist [Kantian*] ...........
.........
(see details below)
Let's just put the question again and see if you can answer it this time.
And what is your understanding of the reasons why philosophers
distinguish between that which is discovered and that which is invented?
Arrogant and condescending when you are the ignorant and blinded one.
- discover = to obtain sight or knowledge of for the first time.
invent: to produce (something, such as a useful device or process) for the first time through the use of the imagination or of ingenious thinking and experiment
Here is an example in differentiating discover and invent;
PR
discovered a watch on a beach that was
invented by PPR in his workshop [PPR lost it while testing it in seawater].
In the above case, 'discover' imply Philosophical_Realism and "invent" imply ANTI-Philosophical_Realism, i.e. whatever the thing it has something to do with humans [mind or body] influence, thus contra Philosophical Realism.
In the same with, 'discovering' of numbers which imply Philosophical_Realism while "inventing" numbers by humans imply ANTI-Philosophical_Realsim, i.e. whatever the number it has something to do with humans' [mind or body] influence, thus contra Philosophical Realism.
ANTI-philosophical_realists argued philosophical_realism is not tenable nor realistic.
Kantian ANTI-philosophical_realists argued their Transcendental_Idealism-Empirical_Realism is tenable and realistic in claiming objective reality.
Here are the Kantian ANTI-philosophical_realists explanation to support their claim;
ANTI-philosophical_realists.
To explain why the antirealist [Kantian*] is tenable is we have to link back to abiogenesis, unicellular organisms, evolution and evolutionary biology and evolutionary psychology.
* it cannot be any antirealist, it has to be specific and in my case is the Kantian antirealist.
I have explained it somewhere [should have open a separate thread for that for easy reference].
To facilitate basic survival [re food and threats] all living organisms are "programmed" with a s
ense of externalness, thus the more instinctual external world.
This >3 billion years old algorithm is adapted throughout evolution till the present humans.
This is the reason why humans are instinctually driven toward the external world that need to be discovered for basic survival re food, threats, new land, etc.
For >3 billion years attention is directed outward to the external, and it is only within the last 5000 years [could be less] that humans became aware there is an inner self that could influence how the external is cognized.
The point is as human evolved with their self-awareness and intelligence they are more aware of greater inner [psychological, diseases, etc.] and external local, global [pandemic, global warming] and galactical [rogue asteroids] threats compared to the past where they are concerned with finding their next meal within the surrounding external environment.
The awareness of greater threats demands attention to the inner human factors thus the more wider, deeper and advanced anti-realist [especially Kantian] view.
This is participatory [not invented] view rather than the discovered [of external reality] view.
The point is there were already philosophical savants [long ago 5000 years ago] who discovered the limitations of the discovered p-realist view [ideological], thus there seeking of alternative more effective views.
Most the the majority [like you, Peter and others] being instinctual with the p-realist views could understand the views of these savants* and some are even killed or forced to change their views to the default one.
* just in case, I am not one of them but merely a rational follower.
see this for my future reference:
Default Sense of Externalness Drive P-Realism
viewtopic.php?t=41885
Tell me how and where the above explanation fall short of your question?