Reality is an Emergence

[tapaticmadness]

Are you aware of the very common issue of;
The Problem of Universals
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_universals
The weightage favor those who are against universals as independent than those who are for the same.

Your asking me if I am aware of "The Problem of Universals" is like me asking you if you are aware of neurophysiology and brain studies. Of course I am and of course you are. I have studied the topic for decades. As for that weightage, I assume you are referring to public opinion, including the opinions of those in brain studies. Yes, of course the Realism I propose does not jive with the great weight of public opinion. It is not popular philosophy. Neither does it align with what is commonly thought by researchers. So what? I am not bent under that weight. It's the age old question of realism vs. materialism. Here's Plato -

Socrates: What we shall see is something like a Battle of Gods and Giants going on between them over their quarrel about reality.

Theaetetus: How so?

Socrates: One party is trying to drag everything down to earth out of heaven and the unseen, literally grasping rocks and trees in their hands; for they lay hold upon every stock and stone and strenuously affirm that real existence belongs only to that which can be handled and offers resistance to the touch. They define reality as the same thing as the body, and as soon as one of the opposite party asserts that anything without a body is real, they are utterly contemptuous and will not listen to another word.

Theaetetus: The people you describe are certainly a formidable crew, I have met quite a number of them before now.

Socrates: Yes, and accordingly their adversaries are very wary in defending their position somewhere in the heights of the unseen, maintaining with all their force that true reality consists in certain intelligible and bodiless Forms. In the clash of argument they shatter and pulverize those bodies which their opponents wield, and what those others allege to be true reality they call, not real being, but a sort of moving process of becoming. On this issue an interminable battle is always going on between the two camps.

It is not popular philosophy. Neither does it align with what is commonly thought by researchers.
So what?
I am not bent under that weight. It's the age old question of realism vs. materialism

.
It is not realism vs materialism but realism vs. anti-realism.

If I were to claim I can fly in the air by own effort without aid, and you insist I am crazy, then I replied "so what?"
that would be the end of any philosophical discussion as expected within such a philosophy forum.

It is the same with your 'so what' in this discussion.
There is nothing to go on unless you get back to the philosophical & rational argument boat.

What I am really criticizing is the way you have taken up with the magical, mythological idea of Emergence, which is so popular now. Or at least it was. It's hard to keep up with the leaders of modern thought as they pass by going into oblivion.

[Veritas Aequitas]

What I am really criticizing is the way you have taken up with the magical, mythological idea of Emergence, which is so popular now. Or at least it was. It's hard to keep up with the leaders of modern thought as they pass by going into oblivion.

Nah, emergence as defined and explained in my sense is not something that is purely and solely magical and mythological.
The issue is what emerges that it could either be objective or illusory [magical and mythological].

For example, a hurricane is an emergence out of a certain conditions within the Earth, the solar system and the universe. A hurricane is observable, experiences and its terrible consequences is very evident which all are verifiable by all involved and most of all by Science.
How can you insist such an emergence as a 'hurricane' as magical and mythological?

The idea of God, and platonic forms, and other illusory ideas emerge from the human conditions and primarily traceable to psychological impulses. These albeit claimed to be experienced by some people have never been verified as objective as in Science plus philosophy.

[tapaticmadness]

What I am really criticizing is the way you have taken up with the magical, mythological idea of Emergence, which is so popular now. Or at least it was. It's hard to keep up with the leaders of modern thought as they pass by going into oblivion.

Nah, emergence as defined and explained in my sense is not something that is purely and solely magical and mythological.
The issue is what emerges that it could either be objective or illusory [magical and mythological].

For example, a hurricane is an emergence out of a certain conditions within the Earth, the solar system and the universe. A hurricane is observable, experiences and its terrible consequences is very evident which all are verifiable by all involved and most of all by Science.
How can you insist such an emergence as a 'hurricane' as magical and mythological?

The idea of God, and platonic forms, and other illusory ideas emerge from the human conditions and primarily traceable to psychological impulses. These albeit claimed to be experienced by some people have never been verified as objective as in Science plus philosophy.

One can use the same argument against emergence that David Hume used against causation. Emergence, causation, creation - it's all the same.

[Veritas Aequitas]

What I am really criticizing is the way you have taken up with the magical, mythological idea of Emergence, which is so popular now. Or at least it was. It's hard to keep up with the leaders of modern thought as they pass by going into oblivion.

Nah, emergence as defined and explained in my sense is not something that is purely and solely magical and mythological.
The issue is what emerges that it could either be objective or illusory [magical and mythological].

For example, a hurricane is an emergence out of a certain conditions within the Earth, the solar system and the universe. A hurricane is observable, experiences and its terrible consequences is very evident which all are verifiable by all involved and most of all by Science.
How can you insist such an emergence as a 'hurricane' as magical and mythological?

The idea of God, and platonic forms, and other illusory ideas emerge from the human conditions and primarily traceable to psychological impulses. These albeit claimed to be experienced by some people have never been verified as objective as in Science plus philosophy.

One can use the same argument against emergence that David Hume used against causation. Emergence, causation, creation - it's all the same.

Don't get your point?

Hume would have declared 'causation' is an emergence that is critically attributable to psychology rather than the claims-of-causation as objective events.

As I had stated, with emergence we deal with what emerges based on what is observed and justified to be true, then trace it as deep as possible without expecting any final cause.
What is the issue then?

[tapaticmadness]

Nah, emergence as defined and explained in my sense is not something that is purely and solely magical and mythological.
The issue is what emerges that it could either be objective or illusory [magical and mythological].

For example, a hurricane is an emergence out of a certain conditions within the Earth, the solar system and the universe. A hurricane is observable, experiences and its terrible consequences is very evident which all are verifiable by all involved and most of all by Science.
How can you insist such an emergence as a 'hurricane' as magical and mythological?

The idea of God, and platonic forms, and other illusory ideas emerge from the human conditions and primarily traceable to psychological impulses. These albeit claimed to be experienced by some people have never been verified as objective as in Science plus philosophy.

One can use the same argument against emergence that David Hume used against causation. Emergence, causation, creation - it's all the same.

Don't get your point?

Hume would have declared 'causation' is an emergence that is critically attributable to psychology rather than the claims-of-causation as objective events.

As I had stated, with emergence we deal with what emerges based on what is observed and justified to be true, then trace it as deep as possible without expecting any final cause.
What is the issue then?

If you examine the scene with your seeing, analytical mind, you will see that there is nothing there. There is no moment of one thing emerging from another, like a baby from Mother Nature, so mythological.

[Veritas Aequitas]

One can use the same argument against emergence that David Hume used against causation. Emergence, causation, creation - it's all the same.

Don't get your point?

Hume would have declared 'causation' is an emergence that is critically attributable to psychology rather than the claims-of-causation as objective events.

As I had stated, with emergence we deal with what emerges based on what is observed and justified to be true, then trace it as deep as possible without expecting any final cause.
What is the issue then?

If you examine the scene with your seeing, analytical mind, you will see that there is nothing there. There is no moment of one thing emerging from another, like a baby from Mother Nature, so mythological.

True in a way.
If we examine all emergences we could apply Hume's Theory of Causation as psychological. I can agree with that.

But the point is when we shift to the perspective of Emergence [this is why I am using the term 'Emergence'], we set aside Hume's Theory of Causation and focused on what is emerging as empirical and real.

If one note there is an emergence of a forest fire in large forest surrounding a heavy residential areas, we need to trace the causes of the emerged-fire to its roots [but not an ontological first cause].
It is only from understanding of the root causes that we can prevent future fires from emerging in that forest, thus ensuring the town will not get burnt and people dying.

That is my point with 'emergences.'

[tapaticmadness]

Don't get your point?

Hume would have declared 'causation' is an emergence that is critically attributable to psychology rather than the claims-of-causation as objective events.

As I had stated, with emergence we deal with what emerges based on what is observed and justified to be true, then trace it as deep as possible without expecting any final cause.
What is the issue then?

If you examine the scene with your seeing, analytical mind, you will see that there is nothing there. There is no moment of one thing emerging from another, like a baby from Mother Nature, so mythological.

True in a way.
If we examine all emergences we could apply Hume's Theory of Causation as psychological. I can agree with that.

But the point is when we shift to the perspective of Emergence [this is why I am using the term 'Emergence'], we set aside Hume's Theory of Causation and focused on what is emerging as empirical and real.

If one note there is an emergence of a forest fire in large forest surrounding a heavy residential areas, we need to trace the causes of the emerged-fire to its roots [but not an ontological first cause].
It is only from understanding of the root causes that we can prevent future fires from emerging in that forest, thus ensuring the town will not get burnt and people dying.

That is my point with 'emergences.'

If you are saying that when we stop doing philosophy and start doing ordinary conversation about what causes what, then the idea of emergence works fine. Pragmatically speaking/ it is useful. I agree. Other ways of understanding it would also work fine. In the meantime, I am trying to do philosophy and see what philosophical analysis yields.

[Veritas Aequitas]

If you examine the scene with your seeing, analytical mind, you will see that there is nothing there. There is no moment of one thing emerging from another, like a baby from Mother Nature, so mythological.

True in a way.
If we examine all emergences we could apply Hume's Theory of Causation as psychological. I can agree with that.

But the point is when we shift to the perspective of Emergence [this is why I am using the term 'Emergence'], we set aside Hume's Theory of Causation and focused on what is emerging as empirical and real.

If one note there is an emergence of a forest fire in large forest surrounding a heavy residential areas, we need to trace the causes of the emerged-fire to its roots [but not an ontological first cause].
It is only from understanding of the root causes that we can prevent future fires from emerging in that forest, thus ensuring the town will not get burnt and people dying.

That is my point with 'emergences.'

If you are saying that when we stop doing philosophy and start doing ordinary conversation about what causes what, then the idea of emergence works fine. Pragmatically speaking/ it is useful. I agree. Other ways of understanding it would also work fine. In the meantime, I am trying to do philosophy and see what philosophical analysis yields.

That I viewed things-as-they-are from an emergence perspective rather than the conventional view is doing philosophy.
It is not easy to shift perspective from common sense thinking to a another more effective and relevant perspective.

Note Russell's view on Philosophy;

The value of philosophy is, in fact, to be sought largely in its very uncertainty.

The [ordinary] man who has no tincture of philosophy goes through life imprisoned in the prejudices derived from common sense, from the habitual beliefs of his age or his nation, and from convictions which have grown up in his mind without the co-operation or consent of his deliberate reason. To such a man the world tends to become definite, finite, obvious; common objects rouse no questions, and unfamiliar possibilities are contemptuously rejected.

[tapaticmadness]

True in a way.
If we examine all emergences we could apply Hume's Theory of Causation as psychological. I can agree with that.

But the point is when we shift to the perspective of Emergence [this is why I am using the term 'Emergence'], we set aside Hume's Theory of Causation and focused on what is emerging as empirical and real.

If one note there is an emergence of a forest fire in large forest surrounding a heavy residential areas, we need to trace the causes of the emerged-fire to its roots [but not an ontological first cause].
It is only from understanding of the root causes that we can prevent future fires from emerging in that forest, thus ensuring the town will not get burnt and people dying.

That is my point with 'emergences.'

If you are saying that when we stop doing philosophy and start doing ordinary conversation about what causes what, then the idea of emergence works fine. Pragmatically speaking/ it is useful. I agree. Other ways of understanding it would also work fine. In the meantime, I am trying to do philosophy and see what philosophical analysis yields.

That I viewed things-as-they-are from an emergence perspective rather than the conventional view is doing philosophy.
It is not easy to shift perspective from common sense thinking to a another more effective and relevant perspective.

Note Russell's view on Philosophy;

The value of philosophy is, in fact, to be sought largely in its very uncertainty.

The [ordinary] man who has no tincture of philosophy goes through life imprisoned in the prejudices derived from common sense, from the habitual beliefs of his age or his nation, and from convictions which have grown up in his mind without the co-operation or consent of his deliberate reason. To such a man the world tends to become definite, finite, obvious; common objects rouse no questions, and unfamiliar possibilities are contemptuously rejected.

I think it would be pointless to argue just what philosophy is. We seem to have very different views on the matter.

[Veritas Aequitas]

If you are saying that when we stop doing philosophy and start doing ordinary conversation about what causes what, then the idea of emergence works fine. Pragmatically speaking/ it is useful. I agree. Other ways of understanding it would also work fine. In the meantime, I am trying to do philosophy and see what philosophical analysis yields.

That I viewed things-as-they-are from an emergence perspective rather than the conventional view is doing philosophy.
It is not easy to shift perspective from common sense thinking to a another more effective and relevant perspective.

Note Russell's view on Philosophy;

The value of philosophy is, in fact, to be sought largely in its very uncertainty.

The [ordinary] man who has no tincture of philosophy goes through life imprisoned in the prejudices derived from common sense, from the habitual beliefs of his age or his nation, and from convictions which have grown up in his mind without the co-operation or consent of his deliberate reason. To such a man the world tends to become definite, finite, obvious; common objects rouse no questions, and unfamiliar possibilities are contemptuously rejected.

I think it would be pointless to argue just what philosophy is. We seem to have very different views on the matter.

Unless you have a very good evidence and argument what you view Philosophy is,
then,
what-is-Philosophy should be represented by the common essence of what philosohpy is intended to be by those within the Philosophical community.

I have surveyed more than 500 definitions of 'what is philosophy' within the philosophy community from Western, Middle Eastern, Eastern and everywhere to arrive a common strand/theme of the meaning of philosophy.

Russell's view of Philosophy is a part of that essence of what-is-philosophy.
Can you counter his argument?

You offered no evidence and argument to support your very perverted view of what-is-philosophy i.e. from arts, poetry, etc.

[tapaticmadness]

You offered no evidence and argument to support your very perverted view of what-is-philosophy i.e. from arts, poetry, etc.

Let me take your idea that philosophy is ethics. It should work for the welfare of mankind. There have historically been two views on that matter. On one hand there are those who consider Woman, the embodiment of Nature from which the world emerges, to be the savior of the human race. On the other hand there are those who consider Woman, as the same embodiment of Nature's deadly entanglement, to be man’s downfall. My guess is that you fall in with the first group. I am in the second group.

Aside from the natural world and woman, there is the Supernatural world, which is the realm of boys, angelic beings (the Wild Boys of Burroughs). The Boy rules the Platonic realm, not Woman. The Forms are Supernatural things, not natural.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You offered no evidence and argument to support your very perverted view of what-is-philosophy i.e. from arts, poetry, etc.

Let me take your idea that philosophy is ethics. It should work for the welfare of mankind. There have historically been two views on that matter. On one hand there are those who consider Woman, the embodiment of Nature from which the world emerges, to be the savior of the human race. On the other hand there are those who consider Woman, as the same embodiment of Nature's deadly entanglement, to be man’s downfall. My guess is that you fall in with the first group. I am in the second group.

Philosophy is related to the impulse to facilitate the well being of humanity.
The details are more complex than this.
Ethics is merely one of the many tools used by philosophy.

Don't know where you get the two views,
1. woman is savior of human race
2. woman is the man's downfall
This has nothing to do with what-is-Philosophy per se.

The fact is, in general, man and woman must work as a team in complementarity to ensure the preservation of the human species. This is so evident.

Aside from the natural world and woman, there is the Supernatural world, which is the realm of boys, angelic beings (the Wild Boys of Burroughs). The Boy rules the Platonic realm, not Woman. The Forms are Supernatural things, not natural.

Nah, you are veering into the woo woo and illusory world without providing evidence, justification and arguments.
This is at most driven by your subjective feeling, fantasy and that is psychological.

When we do philosophy-proper we must always start from real grounds not jump into la la land without evidence and rational argument.

For example I know human beings exists as real as verified and justified.
I also know planet exists within a universe within space and time.
Thus I can speculate there could be human-liked aliens existing within some planets 1000 light years away.
Note the bolded are related to grounded reality.

IF I were to speculate there could be supernatural aliens existing within some planets 1000 light years away.
Such a claim is not feasible and possible because supernatural-aliens are not grounded and related to anything real.
That would be a fantasy and illusory.

[tapaticmadness]

Nah, you are veering into the woo woo and illusory world without providing evidence, justification and arguments.
This is at most driven by your subjective feeling, fantasy and that is psychological.

.

I come from a place you apparently know nothing about. I am driven by art and literature, which you dismiss as negligible.

[tapaticmadness]

Don't know where you get the two views,
1. woman is savior of human race
2. woman is the man's downfall
This has nothing to do with what-is-Philosophy per se.

The fact is, in general, man and woman must work as a team in complementarity to ensure the preservation of the human species. This is so evident.

Nah, you are veering into the woo woo and illusory world without providing evidence, justification and arguments.
This is at most driven by your subjective feeling, fantasy and that is psychological.

When we do philosophy-proper we must always start from real grounds not jump into la la land without evidence and rational argument.

I''m sending you a book, which you will never read, but which you should. Camille Paglia is a radical, lesbian feminist.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/v4z8ypp8t0f0m ... e.pdf?dl=0 Feminism is the idea that Woman, the Natural being, will save the world with her sense of compassion and family togetherness, community. I think you are sort of a feminist.

I like these two guys with their pink angel wings, right out of heaven. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXRAKsVEcXU If you know religious writing, especially the Book of Revelation, you know that it is pure showbiz.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Nah, you are veering into the woo woo and illusory world without providing evidence, justification and arguments.
This is at most driven by your subjective feeling, fantasy and that is psychological.

.

I come from a place you apparently know nothing about. I am driven by art and literature, which you dismiss as negligible.

Don't assume I am that ignorant.
Point is I am very crazy and aggressive in gathering knowledge.

I have inclination for the arts [not fanatical] but not literature.
But what is critical with philosophy is one need to be familiar with the Philosophy of the Arts and Philosophy of Literature.
I have also covered the psychology, evolutionary psychology & neuroscience and other knowledge of the arts.
Therefore I understand why people are driven to the Arts and Literature in preference over say Science, Mathematics, Logic, Engineering and the likes.

It is bit controversial but Howard Garner's Multiple Intelligences will give you and idea why humans tend to gravitate to certain pigeon holes they have a proclivity for.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of ... elligences