Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

noonemustknowmysecre t1_j9x8ewt wrote

Reply to comment by Otto_von_Boismarck in Reality is an openness that we can never fully grasp. We need closures as a means of intervening in the world. | Post-postmodern philosopher and critic of realism Hilary Lawson explains closure theory. by IAI_Admin

> There is no real "thing" called a bottle, there's just a collection of particle

That's what a "thing" entails. A collection of particles.

Yes, there is language and words concepts. But even when that gets played with and you call it a chupa, it doesn't change what it really is. The universe doesn't give two shits what's rumbling around your head.or what language you used. It existed long before you and that bottle will be around after your dead and just sitting in a land fill, probably.

Ugh, arguing with philosophers that reality exists. I need another beer.

5

hamz_28 t1_j9xwuok wrote

I don't think it's the existence of reality that's in question. Maybe the existence of mind-independent reality, or which properties are intrinsic to reality, but the existence of reality itself is pretty tough to argue against.

−2

Otto_von_Boismarck t1_j9yedln wrote

Why do you people keep talking about language? That has nothing to do with the topic. Things are simply constructs of the human mind. A chair is only so much a chair as we all agree it is one. The universe as far as we know is made up of a bunch of intrinsic items (fields or whst have you) that create new emergent properties through a bunch of interactions we call extrinsic properties. And a collection of those extrinsic properties are in our brain constructed together to give the illusion that we are looking at a singular "thing", when such a thing in reality doesn't exist. It's a mind construct, useful at that, but a construct nonetheless.

I also don't deny reality exists. Quite the opposite. I'm a physicalist after all.

−2

noonemustknowmysecre t1_ja015q5 wrote

>I also don't deny reality exists

Cool

>Things are simply constructs of the human mind.

Try to reconcile those two ideas.

If there were no human minds, would nothing exist in reality?

See, your whole stance is the philosophical take of social constructionism. Which has been watered down if late. For Berger and Luckmann circa 1966, it was the basis of reality. But this take isn't the defacto standard and I dunno how to tell you this any more plainly than a chupa exists as a chupa even when you don't know what a chupa is.

3

Otto_von_Boismarck t1_ja0lcva wrote

You seem to intentionally misinterpret my point. No I am not a social constructionist. A reality exists outside of our minds, that reality is just built up out of intrinsic objects (subatomic particles/quantum fields). Everything else is extrinsic and essentially emerges from interactions between those intrinsic items. Which includes anything the human mind can see. Therefore there isn't such a thing as a bottle, just a collection of subatomic particles/quantum fields that human minds like to construct into a cohesive object for purposes of survival.

My view lends some ideas from social constructivism however most of such constructivism is just inherently done by the brain, not necessarily defined through social interaction.

I am very aware of post modernism and social constructionism, don't need to explain it to me. My views are distinctly different even if surface level similar.

1

noonemustknowmysecre t1_ja0sjov wrote

>A reality exists outside of our minds, that reality is just built up out of intrinsic objects (subatomic particles/quantum fields)

Cool. Those subatomic particles (quarks) make atoms which make things. This is very straightforward and provable. If you want I can walk you through all the supporting evidence showing how stuff is made out of these fundamental particles.

> Everything else is extrinsic and essentially emerges from interactions between those intrinsic items. Which includes anything the human mind can see.

That's...... a social constructionist. The watered down one where "some things" are social constructs instead of everything. You've got two opposing views in your head.

>My view lends some ideas from social constructivism

"Borrow"

>most of such constructivism is just inherently done by the brain, not necessarily defined through social interaction.

A distinction that I'm not sure matters. A solipsistic take on social constructionism isn't really awe inspiring. I'm wholly unimpressed by both. They're misdirection at best. Let's take "the obvious example" of money. If people don't agree something is money (or you personally don't think it is), then it can't be used as money. And yes, something being a means of exchanging wealth does depend upon there being an exchange, implying two entities, and therefore a society. I get the concept. But far far too many people use and abuse this idea to justify the end conclusion of "it doesn't really exist" / "doesn't really matter" / "I just really like post-modernism". Like how social darwinism or eugenics were used and abused by terrible people to justify their murder. The scientific or philosophical application of these ideas is just a cover. A distraction from the real intent. Now, that's unfair to you. And it's unfair to all the eugenicists who want a better species. I am throwing out the baby with the bathwater here because the baby is bad. (haha, it's a eugenics joke. Cmon that's funny.) But social construction (and your idea of solipsistic construction) isn't that useful and has been too far abused to be publicly lauded. Extensions like including things which don't depend on social agreement, or things in general. Which is nuts.

And don't dodge it: If there were no human minds, would nothing exist in reality?

2

Otto_von_Boismarck t1_ja0wyfc wrote

> If there were no human minds, would nothing exist in reality?

Reality would exist, just as it always has, made up of a bunch of intrinsic particles/fields that interact with each other. And those interactions in turn are what emerges the rest of reality from. You're trying to gotcha me where there is nothing to gotcha.

> But far far too many people use and abuse this idea to justify the endconclusion of "it doesn't really exist" / "doesn't really matter" / "Ijust really like post-modernism".

I'm wholly uninterested in arguing about ethics, or how something being real or not somehow makes it matter or not. Whether reality is real or not to me has no bearing on how much any of it matters. If you disagree that's fine, that's your prerogative. I'm basically a socialist so wouldn't exactly call myself a eugenicist or against most values western society tends to hold right now. Actually, my worldview would imply that human subjective experience is a rare gift that if anything, we should hold dear. Again though, I'm not interested in formalizing or overthinking ethics. I've been through that already, it's boring.

In addition, I don't care in what way my views are "useful in broader society". In my view it's simply a description of reality.

> A distinction that I'm not sure matters.

Well, it does matter. The color "red" in the way I experience it is something that is constructed by the brain, while the concept of the color red, in the way we describe it and try to communicate the experience to other people would be a social construct. There's a pretty clear difference between the two, wouldn't you agree?

I'll be honest I've had a short post-modernist arc but it got pretty boring, it's a philosophical dead end broadly, same with solipsism. I also find it absurd how you accuse me of solipsism when I'm pretty clearly stating (at least that's how I feel) that my experience of reality is as real as any other, meaning, not "real", just an emergent phenomenon from a whole host of complex interactions. This personally does not bother me, if it bothers you then...I'm sorry?

I'm sure you're well aware yourself but you should turn it down with the straw man fallacies, it's not a very intellectual way of engaging and doesn't seem very productive to me. Your response didn't seem to hold much substance except for accusations. So please respond with substance and proper argumentation instead if you would.

0