Philosophy Now Forum

tapaticmadness wrote: ↑Sun Apr 12, 2020 8:27 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Apr 12, 2020 7:28 am Show me other philosophers at present who are still following the ideas [ontology] of Bergmann?

I will definitely read whatever books you recommend if you can present their arguments in simple form that show they have a strong arguments against my philosophical views, especially that of philosophical anti-realism of Kant.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/1alssf4w7g4ft ... 9.pdf?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/xy61l7tgg04bg ... 2.pdf?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/4ifsg1giperyd ... 3.pdf?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/28lwk9zmoa7yl ... 4.pdf?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/znlep117vn96g ... 5.pdf?dl=0

Here is Reinhardt Grossmann, The Existence of the World. He was a close associate of Bergmann. At the beginning of his career, Bergmann wrote papers on the foundation of psychology. He was an early proponent of Experimental Psychology, which basically means you hook up electrical meters to the human nervous system and then place the person is various situations to see what readings you get. It is purely materialistic. His psychology was materialistic, but his philosophy was not.

I come from the University of Iowa, where Bergmann taught. His successors are still there and they still operate from out of his ideas. His ideas are not outdated.

Reinhardt Grossmann died in 2010, thus not present and he was inactive long before that.

One of the fundamental of philosophical discussion is to get to its proximate essence, i.e. which is "Realism versus Idealism".

All Philosophies Reduced to Realism vs Idealism
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=28643

• P1. I have argued soundly 'Realism' i.e. Philosophical Realism is not realistic.
  P2. I noted Grossmann is a realist [philosophical realist].
  3. Therefore Grossmann's philosophical realism is not realistic.

In this case, it saves me a lot of time, where it is noted Grossmann is a philosophical-realist from his books or elsewhere, I don't have to waste time reading the whole of Grossmann's books to dispute his philosophy as not realistic because re P1, philosophical realism is not realistic in terms of reality.

If a philosopher is into Idealism, it is not automatic his/her philosophy is realistic.
In this case, I will find out what is the specific idealism the s/he is representing.
Note the types of idealism here;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism

I do not agree with;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism# ... e_idealism
where God is brought into the picture as the final argument.

P2. I noted Grossmann is a realist [philosophical realist].
This is verified from Chapter One of his book.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/1alssf4w7g4ft ... 9.pdf?dl=0

• Per Grossmann,
  Realists = color [whiteness] of billiard ball A same as B are the same.
  Those who deny are nominalists.

P2. I noted Grossman is a realist [philosophical realist].
This is verified from Chapter One of his book.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/1alssf4w7g4ft ... 9.pdf?dl=0

Here are the notes I extracted from Chapter One which substantiate Grossmann was a philosophical realist. Some of my comments are in red.
It is noted there are so many holes in his views that support Philosophical Realism and thus not realistic.

Note Grossmann as with other hijacked the term 'ontologist' for himself but note the general meaning of 'what is ontology';
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology

Plato [as with Grossmann] assumes 'property' and abstract things belong to the World [philosophers] in contrast to the universe [science].
There no real World out there, abstract things, universals are emerged from the collective minds of humanity as driven by the inherent faculty of pattern recognition to facilitate survival and preservation of the human species.

Grossmann stated the following;
"The battle between the naturalist and ontologist is an emotional one."
He should have dug deeper and note the this ultimate [i.e. emotional] falls back on the human conditions collectively.

There are so many holes [typical of Philosophical Realism] in the Chapter One below, I won't bother to go into the details.

• The Existence of the World: An Introduction to Ontology (1992).
  Chapter One
  Reinhardt Grossman
  
  Ontology – What are the categories of the world?
  Categories – the basic building block of the universe.
  Categorization
  Individual things
  Properties of individual things
  Plato differentiated
  Individual things -changing
  Properties of individual things – unchanging
  Change of color of The apple but not the color-red itself
  
  Abstract properties are unchanging, individual things changes
  
  Individual changes at different times of its existence – duration – temporal
  Individuals must exist in time.
  Properties are atemporal
  Plato
  Realm of temporal things
  Realm of atemporal things – do not exist in time
  
  Spacial?
  Grossman believed – there are individual things which are not spatial
  e.g. thought -occur in time but not in space – no length or diameter
  thought = mind dependent.
  
  Color has no shape or size – so not located in space.
  Are properties located in space?
  
  Ontologist -Entity
  Individual – are temporal and spatial
  Property – are atemporal and non-spatial – do not change – abstract things
  
  Naturalist: - entity
  Individual – temporal and spatial
  Property – temporal and spatial
  
  Abstract things – neither temporal nor spatial
  Concrete – temporal and/or spatial
  (thought temporal but not spatial)
  
  Ontology [per Grossman] – are there abstract things
  
  Plato – The universe is a concrete thing, and so it every part of it.
  Make fundamentally of elementary particles,
  What about energy, wave-particle dilemma?
  Properties = abstract things – not spatial-temporal.
  Do not belong to the universe, not part of the universe.
  All there is belong to the World – Plato.
  Properties belong to the World but not the universe.
  World is richer than the universe.
  
  Naturalist – deny abstract things.
  
  Structure of Universe – studies by scientists.
  Structure of the world – studied by philosophers.
  These philosophers are Ontologists.
  
  Naturalist: what is not scientific smack of mysticism.
  Ontologist: to abandon ontology = desert a field of the flowers of truth.
  
  The battle between the naturalist and ontologist is an emotional one.
  
  Equality an abstract thing, but it is not a property, it is a Relation between things,
  Relation connect individual with their properties – Exemplication
  Relation represented by copula “is”.
  
  Without exemplication, Plato’s world split into two parts, i.e. universe and realm of properties.
  Plato could not explain exemplication – actually psychological.
  Plato refute existence of relations.
  
  Fact?
  The fact that Tom has a certain height. Nah! – relative-objectivity, intersubjectivity
  The fact 2 + 2 = 4 [to me] but it is collective mind dependent.
  If relation and facts are abstract, they do not belong to the universes but to the World.
  
  The World comprised Particulars and Universals.
  
  Realists = color [whiteness] of billiard ball A same as B are the same.
  Those who deny are nominalists.
  
  Naturalist cannot help but be a nominalist.
  
  A Naturalist can be a realist;
  Things located in space can exist at many different places simultaneously.
  Ball-A has same whiteness as Ball-B – located in space.
  
  To Naturalist – properties are located in space and time. They are concrete. Only universe exists, not the World of universals. Ontologists deny this and claim properties are abstract things.
  
  Pure Naturalism is refuted, i.e.
  Even everything is an individual, there are two kinds of individual, i.e.
  -those that can exist at one place at a time
  -those that can have multiple location at the same time.
  
  Argument: to admit things can exist at many places at the same time is to admit a Category of things not of ordinary individual.
  
  Pure Naturalism = naturalism + nominalism
  Impure Naturalism = naturalism + realism
  
  Pure Naturalism = individual in space and time
  Impure Naturalism = individual in single location and Property in multiple locations.
  
  Assumption: Axiom of Localization
  No entity whatsoever can exist at different places at one or at interrupted time intervals.
  
  Impure Naturalism is forced upon the Naturalist because of the nominalism-realism issue.
  
  A refutation of nominalism leads to either
  Collapse of naturalism or
  -the abandonment of the axiom of localization.
  
  The ontologist will attack the naturalist vulnerable spot, i.e. nominalism.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Apr 13, 2020 8:00 am

• Per Grossmann,
  Realists = color [whiteness] of billiard ball A same as B are the same.
  Those who deny are nominalists.

You wrote in your linked reply ""Materialism" is Philosophical Materialism aka Philosophical Realism." I just want to clear something up about your understanding of just what realism is. Are you actually saying that realism and materialism are the same thing?

tapaticmadness wrote: ↑Mon Apr 13, 2020 8:28 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Apr 13, 2020 8:00 am

• Per Grossmann,
  Realists = color [whiteness] of billiard ball A same as B are the same.
  Those who deny are nominalists.

You wrote in your linked reply ""Materialism" is Philosophical Materialism aka Philosophical Realism." I just want to clear something up about your understanding of just what realism is. Are you actually saying that realism and materialism are the same thing?

Note,

In metaphysics, [Philosophical] Realism about a given object is the view that this object exists in reality independently of our conceptual scheme. In philosophical terms, these objects are ontologically independent of someone's conceptual scheme, perceptions, linguistic practices, beliefs, etc.

In some contexts, realism is contrasted with idealism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

[Philosophical] Materialism is;

[Philosophical] Materialism is a form of philosophical monism that holds that matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and that all things, including mental states and consciousness, are results of material interactions. According to philosophical materialism, mind and consciousness are alternate descriptions of material processes (such as the biochemistry of the human brain and nervous system), without which they cannot exist.

This concept directly contrasts with idealism, where mind and consciousness are first-order realities to which matter is subject and material interactions are secondary.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism

Thus Philosophical Realism is the same as Philosophical Materialism is the same sense/context where both are in contrast with idealism.

Thus;
One of the fundamental of philosophical discussion is to get to its proximate essence, i.e. which is "Realism versus Idealism".

All Philosophies Reduced to Realism vs Idealism
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=28643

Therefore whatever the philosophy is presented,
the first question to ask is;
It is Realism [philosophical] or Idealism [philosophical],
and one will avoid beating around the bushes.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Apr 13, 2020 9:03 am

tapaticmadness wrote: ↑Mon Apr 13, 2020 8:28 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Apr 13, 2020 8:00 am

• Per Grossmann,
  Realists = color [whiteness] of billiard ball A same as B are the same.
  Those who deny are nominalists.

You wrote in your linked reply ""Materialism" is Philosophical Materialism aka Philosophical Realism." I just want to clear something up about your understanding of just what realism is. Are you actually saying that realism and materialism are the same thing?

Note,

In metaphysics, [Philosophical] Realism about a given object is the view that this object exists in reality independently of our conceptual scheme. In philosophical terms, these objects are ontologically independent of someone's conceptual scheme, perceptions, linguistic practices, beliefs, etc.

In some contexts, realism is contrasted with idealism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

[Philosophical] Materialism is;

[Philosophical] Materialism is a form of philosophical monism that holds that matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and that all things, including mental states and consciousness, are results of material interactions. According to philosophical materialism, mind and consciousness are alternate descriptions of material processes (such as the biochemistry of the human brain and nervous system), without which they cannot exist.

This concept directly contrasts with idealism, where mind and consciousness are first-order realities to which matter is subject and material interactions are secondary.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism

Thus Philosophical Realism is the same as Philosophical Materialism is the same sense/context where both are in contrast with idealism.

What do you call a philosophy that asserts that both mind and matter exist, but mind is not the result of material interactions?

tapaticmadness wrote: ↑Mon Apr 13, 2020 9:14 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Apr 13, 2020 9:03 am

tapaticmadness wrote: ↑Mon Apr 13, 2020 8:28 am

You wrote in your linked reply ""Materialism" is Philosophical Materialism aka Philosophical Realism." I just want to clear something up about your understanding of just what realism is. Are you actually saying that realism and materialism are the same thing?

Note,

In metaphysics, [Philosophical] Realism about a given object is the view that this object exists in reality independently of our conceptual scheme. In philosophical terms, these objects are ontologically independent of someone's conceptual scheme, perceptions, linguistic practices, beliefs, etc.

In some contexts, realism is contrasted with idealism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

[Philosophical] Materialism is;

[Philosophical] Materialism is a form of philosophical monism that holds that matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and that all things, including mental states and consciousness, are results of material interactions. According to philosophical materialism, mind and consciousness are alternate descriptions of material processes (such as the biochemistry of the human brain and nervous system), without which they cannot exist.

This concept directly contrasts with idealism, where mind and consciousness are first-order realities to which matter is subject and material interactions are secondary.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism

Thus Philosophical Realism is the same as Philosophical Materialism in the same sense/context where both are in contrast with idealism.

What do you call a philosophy that asserts that both mind and matter exist, but mind is not the result of material interactions?

If one claim "mind and matter exist" in whatever the description,
then the question,
is the existing mind and matter ULTIMATELY entangled with the human conditions collectively,
if no, then that is realism,
if yes, then that is idealism.

If one claim, mind is not the result of material interactions,
then the question,
is that existing mind entangled ULTIMATELY with the human conditions collectively,
if no, then that is realism,
if yes, then that is idealism.

The same is asked of the material and material interactions,
is that existing material entangled ULTIMATELY with the human conditions collectively,
if no, then that is realism,
if yes, then that is idealism.

The term "Ultimately" is critical here.
For example, within Transcendental Idealism [Kant's] what exists is not entangled with the human conditions in one of its phases, but Ultimately there is the inevitable entanglement with the human conditions collectively.

Note, here is the clue [do not expect you to understand, but nevertheless] from Kant;

If Intuition must conform to the constitution of the Objects, I do not see how we could know anything of the latter [the objects] a priori
but if the Object (as Object of the Senses) must conform to the constitution of our [human-entangled] Faculty of Intuition, I have no difficulty in conceiving such a possibility.
-B xvii

Whatever the mixture of philosophy one adopt, if there is an ultimate tincture smell of philosophical realism, then it is infected overall as philosophical realism which is not realistic.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Apr 13, 2020 9:30 am

tapaticmadness wrote: ↑Mon Apr 13, 2020 9:14 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Apr 13, 2020 9:03 am
Note,



[Philosophical] Materialism is;



Thus Philosophical Realism is the same as Philosophical Materialism in the same sense/context where both are in contrast with idealism.

What do you call a philosophy that asserts that both mind and matter exist, but mind is not the result of material interactions?

If one claim "mind and matter exist" in whatever the description,
then the question,
is the existing mind and matter ULTIMATELY entangled with the human conditions collectively,
if no, then that is realism,
if yes, then that is idealism.

If one claim, mind is not the result of material interactions,
then the question,
is that existing mind entangled ULTIMATELY with the human conditions collectively,
if no, then that is realism,
if yes, then that is idealism.

The same is asked of the material and material interactions,
is that existing material entangled ULTIMATELY with the human conditions collectively,
if no, then that is realism,
if yes, then that is idealism.

The term "Ultimately" is critical here.
For example, within Transcendental Idealism [Kant's] what exists is not entangled with the human conditions in one of its phases, but Ultimately there is the inevitable entanglement with the human conditions collectively.

Note, here is the clue [do not expect you to understand, but nevertheless] from Kant;

If Intuition must conform to the constitution of the Objects, I do not see how we could know anything of the latter [the objects] a priori
but if the Object (as Object of the Senses) must conform to the constitution of our [human-entangled] Faculty of Intuition, I have no difficulty in conceiving such a possibility.
-B xvii

Whatever the mixture of philosophy one adopt, if there is an ultimate tincture smell of philosophical realism, then it is infected overall as philosophical realism which is not realistic.

I don't believe there is such a thing as entanglement, therefore I guess I would say that mind and matter are not ULTIMATELY entangled with anything. That makes me a realist, I suppose, according to your definition. Right?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Apr 13, 2020 9:30 am
Whatever the mixture of philosophy one adopt, if there is an ultimate tincture smell of philosophical realism, then it is infected overall as philosophical realism which is not realistic.

As for Kant, have a look at the paintings os Cezanne and you will see how I think the writings of Kant all fit together. Cezanne was a slow painter. His models had to sit for a long time. They got tired and everyone needed a break. So they got up and walked around a bit. Then when they all got in place again, they were not quite in the same place. Cezanne didn’t care. He just started painting the new arrangement. The result is a mash-up. You could say his paintings don’t hang together. Something is off. And with that he created modern art.

Kant is the same. He studied Aristotle. Basically, he wanted to rewrite Aristotle and fix it up. The problem, apparently, is that he misunderstood Aristotle. .His early writings show that. His later writings, which were an extension of his earlier writings show that he misunderstood those earlier writings. It’s all a big mess. There is no unified Kantian philosophy. It all a mash-up like Cezanne. Nothing quite fits together. It is multiple philosophies jammed into one place. Nonetheless, that hasn’t stopped later Kant scholars from trying to unify his ideas. They haven’t succeeded, just as they haven’t succeeded with Plato and the Bible and Hindu/Buddhist philosophies. It’s all a big, but glorious, mess. I love all of it, including Cezanne.

Now I want to talk about entanglement. Let’s say that you are writing something. There is you and there are the words you have written. I think you might say that you are entangled with the English language while getting the finished product out there to be read. You ware in the entanglement of writing. More than that you are in a struggling entanglement with what you are writing about. The relationship is difficult. I want to focus in on the relation in that relationship.

My contention (another great word) is that relations exist and they are universals. I also think they exist external to what they relate. That is Russell’s Doctrine of External Relations.

So here you are writing. Writing is a universal, a thing, and you are momentarily possessed by that. Writing has come to you and taken over. You are not doing the writing, but rather the writing is doing you. You are now “in” a structure of Writing. You are related to your topic by that relation. So here we now have three structures: there’s You and there’s the Topic you are writing about and there is your writing up that topic. Three separate structures. Can we unite all those three things into one super-structure. NO! You are a multiple ant that is the end of it. You are you and you are in the relating called writing. You and the writing are two, not one. You are other. You are a multiple. I think your idea of an Entanglement is an attempt to deny the multiplicity and find a unity. But the unity isn’t there.

It’s, of course, the same in physics, where Quantum theory and Relativity don’t fit together and the Unified Field Theory is elusive. My guess is that it isn’t there. Physical reality is not one harmonious thing. Nor is your physical body. Every thing that we think of as one thing is really a multiple. So is my writing, as you will see, if you ever try to read it.

So I as a thinking mind am not entangled with the material world. There is however another structure in me - there's no "me" there - that a Relation has possessed. I? am not one thing. Yes, this is anti-substantialism.

tapaticmadness wrote: ↑Mon Apr 13, 2020 9:48 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Apr 13, 2020 9:30 am

tapaticmadness wrote: ↑Mon Apr 13, 2020 9:14 am

What do you call a philosophy that asserts that both mind and matter exist, but mind is not the result of material interactions?

If one claim "mind and matter exist" in whatever the description,
then the question,
is the existing mind and matter ULTIMATELY entangled with the human conditions collectively,
if no, then that is realism,
if yes, then that is idealism.

If one claim, mind is not the result of material interactions,
then the question,
is that existing mind entangled ULTIMATELY with the human conditions collectively,
if no, then that is realism,
if yes, then that is idealism.

The same is asked of the material and material interactions,
is that existing material entangled ULTIMATELY with the human conditions collectively,
if no, then that is realism,
if yes, then that is idealism.

The term "Ultimately" is critical here.
For example, within Transcendental Idealism [Kant's] what exists is not entangled with the human conditions in one of its phases, but Ultimately there is the inevitable entanglement with the human conditions collectively.

Note, here is the clue [do not expect you to understand, but nevertheless] from Kant;

If Intuition must conform to the constitution of the Objects, I do not see how we could know anything of the latter [the objects] a priori
but if the Object (as Object of the Senses) must conform to the constitution of our [human-entangled] Faculty of Intuition, I have no difficulty in conceiving such a possibility.
-B xvii

Whatever the mixture of philosophy one adopt, if there is an ultimate tincture smell of philosophical realism, then it is infected overall as philosophical realism which is not realistic.

I don't believe there is such a thing as entanglement, therefore I guess I would say that mind and matter are not ULTIMATELY entangled with anything. That makes me a realist, I suppose, according to your definition. Right?

You may insist there is no such thing an entanglement.
Note my point;

• "whatever of reality is entangled ULTIMATELY with the human conditions collectively"

The arguments;

• 1. Reality is All-there-is.
  2. Things within All-there-is are a part and parcel of Reality.
  3. All things cannot stand apart from Reality
  4. Therefore all things are entangled within Reality.

Thus

• A1. All humans collectively [& individually] are part and parcel within reality.
  A2. All humans collectively [& individually] cannot stand apart from Reality.
  A3 Therefore all humans collectively [& individually] are entangled within Reality.

Conclusively,

• Mind and matter are part and parcel within reality - [4]
  B1 Therefore all mind and matter are entangled within Reality.
  B2 All humans collective are entangled within Reality
  B3 Therefore mind and matter are entangled with human collectively [& individually]

Note Realists are human beings,
All humans collectively [& individually] are entangled within Reality. - A3
Therefore, there is no way realists as human beings can extricate themselves from the reality they are part and parcel of [entangled with] to stand out from reality then to make an independent objective view of reality they are part and parcel of.

tapaticmadness wrote: ↑Tue Apr 14, 2020 2:26 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Apr 13, 2020 9:30 am
Whatever the mixture of philosophy one adopt, if there is an ultimate tincture smell of philosophical realism, then it is infected overall as philosophical realism which is not realistic.

As for Kant, have a look at the paintings os Cezanne and you will see how I think the writings of Kant all fit together. ...

Nah! there is no comparison in the case of Philosophy which is like Science.

Philosophers like any one else do change their views in the light of new evidences and arguments.
Therefore whatever Kant represent would be all his philosophical theories that was not abandoned nor superseded by his latest views.

Now I want to talk about entanglement. Let’s say that you are writing something. There is you and there are the words you have written. I think you might say that you are entangled with the English language while getting the finished product out there to be read. You ware in the entanglement of writing. More than that you are in a struggling entanglement with what you are writing about. The relationship is difficult. I want to focus in on the relation in that relationship.

The basis of Entanglement is relationship, i.e. in this case, the inevitable relationship of humans are part and parcel of reality which comprised all-there-is.

My contention (another great word) is that relations exist and they are universals. I also think they exist external to what they relate. That is Russell’s Doctrine of External Relations.

Relationship between particulars exist but they are not universal they are NOT independent of what they are related with.
Relationship are conceptualized out of human minds individually or collectively.

• Take the relationship between a father and son.
  This is purely driven by human psychology and the human knowledge of biology, genetics, etc. and abstracted by humans as a convenience to facilitate survival.

So here you are writing. Writing is a universal, a thing, and you are momentarily possessed by that. Writing has come to you and taken over. You are not doing the writing, but rather the writing is doing you. You are now “in” a structure of Writing. You are related to your topic by that relation. So here we now have three structures: there’s You and there’s the Topic you are writing about and there is your writing up that topic. Three separate structures. Can we unite all those three things into one super-structure. NO! You are a multiple ant that is the end of it. You are you and you are in the relating called writing. You and the writing are two, not one. You are other. You are a multiple. I think your idea of an Entanglement is an attempt to deny the multiplicity and find a unity. But the unity isn’t there.

"Writing" is merely a concept invented by humans collectively as I had argued is from the pattern recognition faculty inherent within the human brain/mind from similarity of actions and results.
Yes, me and my writing are two as perceived within common sense.
But at a meta-level of consideration, they are reduced to one common thing, i.e. "me".

There is diversity and there is unity - from common sense,
and from the higher philosophical sense, there is unity within diversity.
You cannot sense "unity within diversity" due to a lack of competence in thinking more deeply and widely.

It’s, of course, the same in physics, where Quantum theory and Relativity don’t fit together and the Unified Field Theory is elusive. My guess is that it isn’t there. Physical reality is not one harmonious thing. Nor is your physical body. Every thing that we think of as one thing is really a multiple. So is my writing, as you will see, if you ever try to read it.

So I as a thinking mind am not entangled with the material world. There is however another structure in me - there's no "me" there - that a Relation has possessed. I? am not one thing. Yes, this is anti-substantialism.

Whatever is Quantum Theory and Relativity, they [as in principles] are all entangled with the human conditions collectively.

• Note, say, as an analogy, we take a drop of water,
  there are individual H2O molecules,
  there is no way to claim the H2O molecules are independent of each other within that drop of water.
  As such, it is natural, all the individual H2O molecules are entangled together to form that drop of water.

We replace the analogy of water with Reality.
there are individual particulars within that reality which are seemingly independent,
but like the H2O in that drop of water, all the individual things are entangled together as Reality.
Note my arguments in the previous posts.
Therefore whatever individual things you pick which you from a narrow perspective think are independent of each other,
from a WIDER PHILOSOPHICAL PERSPECTIVE, they like the individual H2O molecules in that drop of water, all those individual things are entangled together as Reality.

You need to buy a more sophisticated higher perspective glasses to view reality from a more realistic perspective.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Apr 14, 2020 4:33 am

• 1. Reality is All-there-is.

There is no such thing as "All-there-is". There is no one thing that is Reality. We deal only in fragments. That don't fit together into one whole.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Apr 14, 2020 5:07 am
You need to buy a more sophisticated higher perspective glasses to view reality from a more realistic perspective.

You might like this book. I love this book. It is about Deleuze. You said you like continental philosophy. And most important, I think he is still alive.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/l115g1jqk5hlu ... u.pdf?dl=0

https://www.amazon.com/Isolated-Experie ... =8-1-fkmr0

tapaticmadness wrote: ↑Tue Apr 14, 2020 5:16 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Apr 14, 2020 4:33 am

• 1. Reality is All-there-is.

There is no such thing as "All-there-is". There is no one thing that is Reality. We deal only in fragments. That don't fit together into one whole.

I have just given you the example of a drop of water where it is a totality of all the relevant number of H20 molecules entangling among itself and the human conditions enabling the emergence of what-is-water.

Are you saying when you look at a drop of water, you referring to it in terms of identifying each H20 molecule in terms of space and time.
Surely this is a ridiculous option.

It is the same with reality as all-there-is, i.e. all the particulars entangled as what we called reality as conditioned upon human conditions.
Note I am not claiming there is an ontological whole of reality as what the Philosophical Realists would claim.

Note Realists like Plato claimed [as mentioned in Grossmann's] there is an independent World out there comprising of the universe and properties. Grossmann claimed they are in a relationship, i.e. entangled.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Apr 14, 2020 7:29 am

tapaticmadness wrote: ↑Tue Apr 14, 2020 5:16 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Apr 14, 2020 4:33 am

• 1. Reality is All-there-is.

There is no such thing as "All-there-is". There is no one thing that is Reality. We deal only in fragments. That don't fit together into one whole.

I have just given you the example of a drop of water where it is a totality of all the relevant number of H20 molecules entangling among itself and the human conditions enabling the emergence of what-is-water.

Are you saying when you look at a drop of water, you referring to it in terms of identifying each H20 molecule in terms of space and time.
Surely this is a ridiculous option.

It is the same with reality as all-there-is, i.e. all the particulars entangled as what we called reality as conditioned upon human conditions.
Note I am not claiming there is an ontological whole of reality as what the Philosophical Realists would claim.

Note Realists like Plato claimed [as mentioned in Grossmann's] there is an independent World out there comprising of the universe and properties. Grossmann claimed they are in a relationship, i.e. entangled.

A drop of water is just a drop of water. It has nothing to do with H2O molecules Just as this desk I am sitting at is not at all the same as wood molecules. There is a radical difference between an everyday object and scientific, theoretical things. Difference, difference, difference.

tapaticmadness wrote: ↑Tue Apr 14, 2020 7:50 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Apr 14, 2020 7:29 am

tapaticmadness wrote: ↑Tue Apr 14, 2020 5:16 am

There is no such thing as "All-there-is". There is no one thing that is Reality. We deal only in fragments. That don't fit together into one whole.

I have just given you the example of a drop of water where it is a totality of all the relevant number of H20 molecules entangling among itself and the human conditions enabling the emergence of what-is-water.

Are you saying when you look at a drop of water, you referring to it in terms of identifying each H20 molecule in terms of space and time.
Surely this is a ridiculous option.

It is the same with reality as all-there-is, i.e. all the particulars entangled as what we called reality as conditioned upon human conditions.
Note I am not claiming there is an ontological whole of reality as what the Philosophical Realists would claim.

Note Realists like Plato claimed [as mentioned in Grossmann's] there is an independent World out there comprising of the universe and properties. Grossmann claimed they are in a relationship, i.e. entangled.

A drop of water is just a drop of water. It has nothing to do with H2O molecules Just as this desk I am sitting at is not at all the same as wood molecules. There is a radical difference between an everyday object and scientific, theoretical things. Difference, difference, difference.

You have a weird sense of what is real and truth.

Note this thread I raised;

• What is Really Real?
  viewtopic.php?f=5&t=28996

What are your views on the above, if it is the same as your above, it will reflect your very weird thinking.

If a group of people came across an old chopped and flattened tree stump and write notes on paper using a pen, is that a desk or an old tree stump?
We can call that a desk.
Someone could have taken that old tree trunk and put it in his hall for writing, etc. which is a way is a desk.
The point here is what is desk is merely conceptualized in the human mind[s].

It is not false to label that thing as;

1. An old tree stump
2. A desk
3. A piece of wood
4. A pack of cellulose
5. A bundle of molecules of C, H and O.

What grounds do you have to insist the above are false?