Reality.
More than likely the most pervasive theme running through metaphysics within academic philosophy. What could be so controversial about reality, you ask. Why should it be necessary to look at ‘reality’? Surely it is simply the case that the world is what it is and there is not much we can do about this? Some really silly questions, I would say. Unforgivable.
Firstly, no questions in philosophy are necessary. Only definitions are necessary in philosophy. So there is no reason why anyone ‘should’ look at finding answers to questions of any kind. Even most philosophers have accepted this. Such questions are, at the very least, somewhat interesting and, at the very most, tremendously interesting. And that is that. There is just one axis for questions such as these. Because they are fundamentally useless.
And then, one does not study things necessarily with the desired outcome being any sort of manipulation. Sometimes we just study things to know about them. So be it. What then are these questions about reality?
We’ll start with one: Does something (chair, table, cat or plate of cauliflower soup, God and angels) have to be able to exist without my existence in order for their existence to be considered real? In other words, must they have independent existence, for them to be considered actual things? Or is it good enough, in order to earn the label of “real object”, that someone out there is conscious of it? In fact, some would say that it is necessary to have awareness of an object for that thing to exist. This, of course implies that nothing exists that we are not aware of.
Here are your options. You can let me know if you know of any more:
If things must have independent existence for them to be considered real then you are a realist of about objects. (It is possible to be a realist about some objects such as chairs and tables and not about others such as gods and fairies.) The important question a realist faces is one regarding knowledge: Say I believe that God exists independently of me- so he is not a figment of my imagination- then how do I know this? Plato ran up against this problem when he spoke of the Essential Qualities of things in the world having separate existence to the things they are qualities of. No one has been able to rescue him yet.
If you take reality to be a product of our consciousness or awareness you may consider yourself as some sort of constructivist about reality. In this case you will not have a problem regarding knowledge of the thing, because the thing itself is an extension of you thoughts. So no little epistemological problems arising from the gap between our minds and the world out there. The problem for this view, of course, is that this must mean that there are as many realities as there are minds. If this is the view you take you must also be able to accept that in the same place at the exactly the same moment someone’s bed can be burning and not burning, depending on who is observing. So, is the bed burning or not? And it does not solve the problem to say that for someone it might be. We all accept this to be so. But, the controversial question must surely be, if they think their bed is burning (while lying in it), then why is the flesh not falling from their bones? It seems, therefore, a little wishful to think that reality can be reduced to subjectivity.
Let me know what you think. I am really interested.
More than likely the most pervasive theme running through metaphysics within academic philosophy. What could be so controversial about reality, you ask. Why should it be necessary to look at ‘reality’? Surely it is simply the case that the world is what it is and there is not much we can do about this? Some really silly questions, I would say. Unforgivable.
Firstly, no questions in philosophy are necessary. Only definitions are necessary in philosophy. So there is no reason why anyone ‘should’ look at finding answers to questions of any kind. Even most philosophers have accepted this. Such questions are, at the very least, somewhat interesting and, at the very most, tremendously interesting. And that is that. There is just one axis for questions such as these. Because they are fundamentally useless.
And then, one does not study things necessarily with the desired outcome being any sort of manipulation. Sometimes we just study things to know about them. So be it. What then are these questions about reality?
We’ll start with one: Does something (chair, table, cat or plate of cauliflower soup, God and angels) have to be able to exist without my existence in order for their existence to be considered real? In other words, must they have independent existence, for them to be considered actual things? Or is it good enough, in order to earn the label of “real object”, that someone out there is conscious of it? In fact, some would say that it is necessary to have awareness of an object for that thing to exist. This, of course implies that nothing exists that we are not aware of.
Here are your options. You can let me know if you know of any more:
If things must have independent existence for them to be considered real then you are a realist of about objects. (It is possible to be a realist about some objects such as chairs and tables and not about others such as gods and fairies.) The important question a realist faces is one regarding knowledge: Say I believe that God exists independently of me- so he is not a figment of my imagination- then how do I know this? Plato ran up against this problem when he spoke of the Essential Qualities of things in the world having separate existence to the things they are qualities of. No one has been able to rescue him yet.
If you take reality to be a product of our consciousness or awareness you may consider yourself as some sort of constructivist about reality. In this case you will not have a problem regarding knowledge of the thing, because the thing itself is an extension of you thoughts. So no little epistemological problems arising from the gap between our minds and the world out there. The problem for this view, of course, is that this must mean that there are as many realities as there are minds. If this is the view you take you must also be able to accept that in the same place at the exactly the same moment someone’s bed can be burning and not burning, depending on who is observing. So, is the bed burning or not? And it does not solve the problem to say that for someone it might be. We all accept this to be so. But, the controversial question must surely be, if they think their bed is burning (while lying in it), then why is the flesh not falling from their bones? It seems, therefore, a little wishful to think that reality can be reduced to subjectivity.
Let me know what you think. I am really interested.
4 comments:
Can't work out the picture; a woman sucking the marrow from life?
This is a big one.
Firstly I am not sure that I understand the statement in the first sentence of your second para. What is philosophy? An etymological description would be the love of knowledge. How do you get knowledge without first posing the right questions? Okay so the questions have to have meaning and thus definitions are also necessary, but where do we get with this posting if you don't first put the question - is reality objective? I am sure that I have missed something. I certainly don't undertsand the axis point - is it a reference to the lovely logical positivists?
In the next para, I am hope it is true that there is some disinterested researcher out there (human nurture being so powerful, that remains to be seen). It has been shown by the supposedly pure science of sub-atomic physics that the action of observation influences the observed, so that, by necessity the outcome is altered by the act of enquiry.
On to the meat of your question.
I have to say that I think it a psychological question as much as a philosophical question. The answer we choose (for both are reasonable and both are ridiculous) will be a reflection of our state of mind. Part of my journey has been from a young man looking for external certainty, convinced that reality could be defined by words and logic. In the same way that John Donne tried to define God by the huge power of his intellect and craft.
A few decades on, I am more introspective and my inner life has become stronger. 'The bed exists'. Whether true or false, it is not very interseting. 'I am lying in the bed tied up in knots'. Whether true or false, it is of interest. For me the knots are true and more intense than the bed. For (nearly) everyone else the knots are irrelevant.
If the knots are so intense that I forget the bed is there, does it cease to exist? Yes.
Let us leave the bed for a minute and do a simple thought experiment with the speed of light. I am sure that I don't have to continue..... if we are not physically together you are going at a different speed to me (in a realist sense). The speed of light is taken to be an absolute and will be the same for both of us from the same source but added to our differing speeds, how can it be? Unless something as simple as miles per hour is a personal matter.
If we join the constructivist camp, does that leave us completely alone and unable to share our reality with others. Does it mean that any attempt at communication is futile? I would like help with that one.
I will continue to ponder and may add.
As ever....
Thank you, anonymous.
The picture: Frieda Kahlo in her bed of pain. The pianting is called "Hopelessness". I love her work so much.
Regarding the questions which can ne asked in philosophy: It is my reasoned opinion that metaphysical questions in philosophy are meaningless and futile. i do not think that one can discover the nature of reality, the existence or not of God ar any other sorts of facts around the ontology of various objects by way of reasoning. One cannot prove God's existence using argumentation. See this:
All people with larger brains are more intelligent than people with smaller brains.
Men have larger brains than women.
Therefore, men are more intelligent than women.
Perfectly logical and yet entirely false.
However, some questions are suited to philosophical investigation- such as questions around meaning and the meta discourses around what truth is (not what is true).
I take your constructivist point, of course. Reality is relative to the observer. The constructivists opted for this because it avoids any problems around knowledge of reality. But in this case the constructivist is not entitled to ever correct someone as to what they are experiencing as real, because this would imply that they are pressupposing an objective reality which another agent is not tracking correctly. E.G. Someone feels that they have sinned. No, they know that they have sinned. Like the knots in your bed. The realist could say that person "But you have not"- being entitled to believe that people sometimes make mistake in their perceptions of reality (as it is not merely subjectivist). But, the constructivist is compelled, for reasons of rationality and consistency, to agree that if that person knows that they have sinned then they, indeed, have done so.
Most of us, even those who champion constructivism, behave mostly like realists. This seems to be the common sense default position we take in everyday life. This is why we argue with people about their view points.
I do not think "miles per hour" is a personal matter. i think it is measured by objective standards. this why speaking of reliativity even makes sense, do you not think? if miles per hour was, in itself, agent dependent, then there would be no thing such as relativity, merely millions of different universes, completely seperate from each other, unable to commune or even compare.
I loved talking with you. More please. When you have time.
I love this. Please remember that it is a long time since I have engaged like this, so your forbearance is assumed.
I understand your point about questions. Metaphysical questions are meaningless. To have meaning a question must adhere to the verification principle. If you follow the logical positivists strictly, might that not that mean that our discourse is inane?
We do all live our day-to-day life as realists, but does this make it true? We live our lives stuck in Euclidian geometry. Few easily absorb Newton's differential calculus, which is necessary to understand acceleration and who do you know who lives day to day with Einstein's mind boggling games with curved space.
Miles per hour is relative to each physical body that is not inter-twined, but we are each governed by the same laws, so comparison is possible. To commune/empathise? I do not know.
I want to know what you think. I assume that you are a realist, a logical positivist and a reductionist. What a lot of labels.
One last question. What is philosophy?
I should start with "What is philosophy?"
Definitions for this abound, naturally, but my notion of philosophy is that it is a sort of "thinking about thinking". So, as I have mentioned, I do not believe that it can solve any problems regarding reality, morality or politics (maybe politics it can...I think it fares quite well here).
I think the task of philosophy is to clarify the conceptual basis of what things can or cannot be true, what is knowledge and how does our language acquire meaning. In other words, it should propose the criteria for truth (not what is true), the criteria for knowledge (not what is known)and which semantic theories best describe our linguitic activities (and not what it is that we mean).
Philosophy should be able to, given a certain definition and understanding of something, be able to deduce the intricate lines of inference from that definition, and be able to preserve the truth values of related propositions across an argument. But if the argument involves conclusions about existence and the likes, it is not the task of the philosopher to believe any of the end conclusions, despite truth having been perfectly preserved, but merely to marvel at the brilliance of the mitigation. Sophistry, you see.
I think science should deal with relativity and the existence of things- even such as God and each individual person with their own morality.
Mathematics is very close to philospophy because it is pure logic. Let philosophers play here, it can do not harm, I think. But they should not start speculating about the metaphysical reality of mathematical objects. If it were a desire to discover such things 'in reality' no amount of reasoning will get us there.
The bed and the knots. If you cannot experience the bed anymore, there can be no doubt that, to you, it does not exist in a very immediate sense. But answer me honestly here: Are you claiming that it does not exist anywhere, just because you are not aware of it? If someone is not standing in front of you, does that mean that they do not exist at all- anywhere? See, the questions are not around experience they are around existence. You are, of course, entitled to stand by your claim that existence must pressupose experience. But this will need further discussion.
Yes, I am a reductionist (theoretically- see my comment to the last post) and I am a logical positivist. But I am not a realist- believe it or not. This should take you by surprise as it definitely seems that I have been making a case for realism. But I am trying to lead a sort of step by step argument into the problems with realism. And the problems are not the metaphysics but rather the epistemology. For another day, though.
I thank you very warmly.
Post a Comment