Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 41 to 46 of 46

Thread: What is reality?

  1. #41
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    6,709
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: What is reality?

    Oh no! I didn't put enough nines after the decimal point. I guess that means the whole thrust of that post was wrong...

    Er...no, 118, actually it doesn't. The point you were making was that regardless of what we know about the size of the particles of which the book is composed, it is the effect that those particles have on the particles of the bookshelf and your hand - the interaction of the strong and weak nuclear forces, and electrical charges, etc - and the way the particles scatter and reflect light so that you can read the book, that are most important for our understanding of reality.

    Oh, phew! Thanks, 118! So only people who wanted to wilfully misunderstand and misrepresent what I posted could misunderstand it?

    That's right, 118.

  2. #42
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Oxford
    Posts
    677
    Rep Power
    9

    Re: What is reality?

    Fundamental metaphysics...

    Any starting point is fairly arbitrary, but if we go back to Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, we see the beginnings of an argument that went on for about 2000 years.

    In simple terms, what goes on in our heads is all we know (I call that experience - it's as good a term as any). The basic question is, where does this experience come from? There are two basic answers - the arguments are all around which takes primacy and how reliable each is. Everyone acknowledged the fallibility of human perception (except for the more recent strict rationalists like Ayn Rand, but they weren't very rational...).

    The rationalist school argues that knowledge originates in the mind. Aristotle talked about perfect forms. This got teased and twisted into the idea that all knowledge originates from preconceived ideas that we then impose on the stream of perceptual experience. The primacy was given to the ideas, into which our experience was squished. So, we are born with the concept of "chair" and we learn to associate a bunch of different things we perceive with the idea "chair". In this sense, reality exists within our mind and the world is an imperfect - and imperfectly perceived - example of our internal reality.

    The empiricist school gave primacy to experience. The external world was "real" and we imperfectly perceive it. Based on this imperfect perception, we build ideas about the world in our minds. Thus the concept of chair has been developed over time as are exposed to chairs in various shapes and sizes. Of course, our perception of reality is all messed up (Socrates' Cave is the best known example of this - our mind apprehend nothing more than hints and shadows of reality).

    This all stopped when someone taught the Scots how to read. Hume came along and managed to dismember both schools of thought, demonstrating that neither school could be considered rational (Hume was, technically, a rationalist, but has never made sense to me). Thus knowledge based on either rationalist or empiricist metaphysics was irrational and fatally flawed: reality and reason were unreconcilable. He dealt with the ideas of the big names of his time - French (Descartes), English (Locke) Irish (Berkeley), and a few others (Leibniz, Spinoza). None were ablet o withstand his arguments. It too a German to put and end to the nonsense.

    Kant argued that our minds require a few basic concepts (synthetic a priori knowledge). These concepts are then applied to interpret our experience to produce knowledge. The concepts were the big abstracts - things like space, time causality and the like. The trick in deriving these principles was to take a conclusion about the necessary structure of knowledge. For Kant, it became apparent that the mind's structuring makes experience possible. Kant basically accepted the Empiricist position - that knowledge grows from experience of reality. But he also identified its limits: the statements that must be true for us to build knowledge from experience.

    One of Kant's key concepts was the idea that, "there are mind-independent objects that persist over time". While he never actually proved this to be true, he demonstrated that any presumptions of knowledge required that this be true. The lack of proof was always problematic - people like Kierkegaard and Neitzche picked up on this and started wondering what reality would be like if this weren't true. The results were some of the more interesting philosophy that we've ever seen. Sadly, the one most likely to give us a meaningful explanation wasn't able to complete his project.

    What we got instead was a Austrian transplanted to Cambridge who linked knowledge to language. Wittgenstein talked about metaphysical problems resulting from trying to express them in language. Language is how we express knowledge and it's inadequate to express knowledge about metaphysics (what is reality...). To put this another way, in his first big work, he concludes with "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent". In his second big work, he tells us we cannot (meaningfully) speak of metaphysics due to the limits of language. Thus the true nature of "reality" is an intractable problem (Wittgenstein is the most obscure writer I've ever read - so if anyone disagrees with that interpretation, that's hardly surprising).

    That's pretty much where I sit. All the ideas I've encountered about "what is reality" are flawed. I find Kant's transcendental idealism curiously pragmatic: I like it because it creates a practical basis to work from, not because it proved that basis was true. I find the strict modern empiricism of people like Popper and Ayer fails to address the flaws that were pointed out a couple of hundred years ago. Pure rationalism is similarly weak - and was almost entirely supplanted by Kant's idealism.

    I know enough to distrust my own knowledge. I don't know what reality is, but I'm damn sure no-one else does either. I automatically distrust anyone who says they know better.

  3. #43
    Registered User Beowulf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    The Beoverse
    Posts
    7,985
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: What is reality?

    Quote Originally Posted by geoff332 View Post
    Fundamental metaphysics...

    I know enough to distrust my own knowledge. I don't know what reality is, but I'm damn sure no-one else does either. I automatically distrust anyone who says they know better.

    a most rep worthy post.. well written !!

  4. #44
    Registered User stewart38's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Ambrosden it gets
    Posts
    7,480
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: What is reality?

    Quote Originally Posted by geoff332 View Post

    I know enough to distrust my own knowledge. I don't know what reality is, but I'm damn sure no-one else does either. I automatically distrust anyone who says they know better.

    That alone is worthy or rep

  5. #45
    Commercial Operator Rocky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Surrey
    Posts
    1,895
    Rep Power
    10

    Re: What is reality?

    Quote Originally Posted by geoff332 View Post
    I know enough to distrust my own knowledge. I don't know what reality is, but I'm damn sure no-one else does either. I automatically distrust anyone who says they know better.
    Exactly. We need to accept that the perception of what we think we know is flawed in that it is based on our conscious intereaction with the reality of a Universe that cannot be defined in terms of 'material' or 'substance' - and accept that even if it could be defined adequately, our consciousness that perceives and observes it is, in itself, intangible.
    Last edited by Rocky; 29th-January-2008 at 02:52 PM.

  6. #46
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    6,709
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: What is reality?

    Quote Originally Posted by geoff332 View Post
    I know enough to distrust my own knowledge. I don't know what reality is, but I'm damn sure no-one else does either. I automatically distrust anyone who says they know better.
    Nonetheless you get up each morning and live your life that day, and on all subsequent days, as if you know exactly what reality is.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. reality tv too far ?
    By Dreadful Scathe in forum Chit Chat
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 20th-September-2007, 01:03 PM
  2. Marketing Image v Actual Reality
    By Gus in forum Let's talk about dance
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: 12th-December-2004, 12:02 AM
  3. Another Reality TV Opportunity
    By uk-jive in forum Let's talk about dance
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 28th-May-2004, 11:07 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •