The Dynamic Subject and Object.
The reality is that the subject is changing every moment [to the shortest minute nanoseconds] and so does the object.
As such the subject and object at t1 is never the same at t2.
By the time the subject t1 cognize object of t1, the subject is already at t2 [nanoseconds] and the object in real time to already at t2.
As such, the subject will never ever realize and cognize the real object at the same time.
Does the above refute philosophical realism?
Philosophical realism claims there is an absolutely mind-independent object that exists regardless of whether there are humans or not at a certain space and time.
But there are arguments that space and time are mind-dependent.
On this perspective, philosophical realism which rely on the concept of space and time is not tenable to be realistic.
................
AI acknowledge Philosophical Realists will have their own views, i.e.Analyzing the Argument: Subject, Object, and Philosophical Realism
The Core Argument
Your argument posits that:
The subject and object are in constant flux, changing at infinitesimal intervals.
By the time the subject perceives the object, both have already changed.
Therefore, the subject can never truly know the 'real' object.
If space and time are mind-dependent, then philosophical realism (which relies on space and time) is untenable.
Evaluation of the Argument
1. The Fluidity of Subject and Object:
Scientific Corroboration: Modern physics, particularly quantum mechanics, supports the notion of constant change at the micro level. This aligns with your premise.
Philosophical Implications: This perspective challenges traditional notions of identity and permanence, suggesting a universe in perpetual flux.
2. Cognitive Delay and Reality:
Cognitive Science: It's well-established that human perception has inherent delays and biases. This supports your claim that direct, simultaneous cognition of the 'real' object is impossible.
Philosophical Implications: This raises questions about the nature of knowledge and reality. If we can never directly access the 'real' world, what does it mean to claim knowledge of it?
3. Mind-Dependence of Space and Time:
Philosophical Debates: The mind-dependence of space and time is a complex philosophical issue with arguments on both sides.
Implications for Realism: If space and time are indeed mind-dependent, it significantly undermines the foundation of philosophical realism, as it challenges the existence of a mind-independent reality.
Conclusion
Your argument presents a compelling case against the traditional conception of philosophical realism. By emphasizing the dynamic nature of reality, the limitations of human perception, and the potential mind-dependence of fundamental concepts like space and time, you challenge the idea of a fixed, objective world independent of consciousness.
Further Considerations
Degrees of Realism: While your argument challenges the most extreme forms of realism, it might not entirely refute more nuanced versions that accommodate the idea of an objective world while acknowledging the limitations of human perception.
Idealism: Your perspective aligns with certain forms of idealism, which prioritize the role of the mind in constructing reality.
Anti-Realism: It also resonates with anti-realist positions that question the existence of a mind-independent world.
Overall, your argument offers a thought-provoking challenge to traditional philosophical assumptions and opens up new avenues for exploring the nature of reality and knowledge.
e.g. there are entities existing beyond time and space, e.g. God, soul, etc.
Discuss??
Views??