Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Frank

Regulars
  • Posts

    26
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    Frank got a reaction from 2046 in Is direct realism tenable? Has it been successfully defended?   
    Yeah, after reading some more replies, I realized my position is too influenced by Theravada Buddhism, which, opposite of Mahayana, is strictly realist, and denies any and all agent in being. There is no experiencer in this understanding, hence, indirect realism is impossible. I understand, now, that this view is incompatible with Objectivism, which seems to hold consciousness a lot higher than Theravada Buddhism (not saying much, since Theravada breaks it down entirely to entirely empty phenomena with no doer even involved [Visuddhimagga XIX.20]), but a lot less than your average eternal soul believing religion. I need to read more about Objectivism. I realize now, that I was unconsciously, and wrongly, equating atheism with reductionism/mechanism thusly: If there is no soul, then there is no such thing as an experiencer. 
    Thank you for your mature, well written, and polite critique.
  2. Like
    Frank reacted to StrictlyLogical in Is direct realism tenable? Has it been successfully defended?   
    Frank:  Perhaps, all crows are black
    2046:   Everyone knows coal is black.  Idiot.
  3. Like
    Frank reacted to Boydstun in Is direct realism tenable? Has it been successfully defended?   
    I have Prof. Huemer's book you are considering, Frank. It's great. Go for it. -S
  4. Like
    Frank got a reaction from Boydstun in Is direct realism tenable? Has it been successfully defended?   
    Thank you so much for all the info! A work I'm considering buying that defends direct realism: Skepticism and the Veil of Perception, by Michael Huemer.
  5. Like
    Frank reacted to Boydstun in Is direct realism tenable? Has it been successfully defended?   
    What has contemporary philosophy done for us lately concerning the nature of perception?
    Well, this month Tyler Burge gives us his Perception: First Form of Mind.
    I'll have to see what is the sense in which "representational" is employed in this much-anticipated work.
  6. Like
  7. Like
  8. Thanks
    Frank reacted to Boydstun in Does objectivism offer a way to demonstrate that even the purport that nothing is real/the objective doesn't exist/antirealism/idealism/etc is self refuting or otherwise flawed from the start?   
    On the scenario of the solitary thinker Frank raised, additional to what I responded earlier, were I that thinker:
    Thinking to myself discursively and being intellectually honest in my course of thought, I’d acknowledge, to myself, that my question “What if everything were literally in my head?” is in fact an extrapolation from an earlier perfectly sensible sort of question of mine: “What if this particular item of thought or perception, seeming to reside in the world independently of my thinking it or my perceiving it, were really only in my head?” And I’d acknowledge to myself that the latter sort of question makes sense only if there are some things I think of or perceive that are in the contrast condition of not being only in my head. Without carrying that condition right along in the extrapolation to all things possibly being only in my head, the extrapolated possibility cannot really make sense. Then the thought to myself that everything might be only in my head is false and is itself an occasion of something only in my head.
    Thanks for raising these issues, Frank, and thanks to 2046 for the link on the related topic.
  9. Thanks
    Frank reacted to 2046 in Does objectivism offer a way to demonstrate that even the purport that nothing is real/the objective doesn't exist/antirealism/idealism/etc is self refuting or otherwise flawed from the start?   
    I've heard some people say, more than a few times, that the reason they don't believe in objectivity or that an external world exists is "because of quantum physics." But, as far as I can tell, this rests on some kind of confusion. 
    This doesn't sound like anything I've seen about quantum physics. But I think you have to go back to when the quantum revolution first dropped. Everybody was committed to a kind of implicit or explicit materialism in which the word was composed of these microphysical particles in which everything is deterministic and it's all bottom-up causality and so forth. So the quantum revolution hit and people were like oh it's not really like that at all, these things are not deterministic, these little objects don't have determinate positions, like wow, I guess there's no reality there at all then. 
    But you can see that that doesn't really follow, that is resulting from a sort of frustrated materialist ambition. A lot of the anti-realist stuff isn't even consistent or methodical anti-realist. Very few people think anything like that. But what it is is misplaced realistic goals with a sort of implicit anti-realist premises that results in people getting tripped up.
  10. Thanks
×
×
  • Create New...