Philosophy Now Forum

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Feb 04, 2020 7:38 am

tapaticmadness wrote: ↑Tue Feb 04, 2020 7:16 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Feb 04, 2020 6:57 am
This is odd.

Do you have any interest in how I see the world, in my view of reality? If so I can describe it to you. I would love to be able to see the world as you see it. If you want you can describe it to me. I am tired of reading excerpts about other people's world out of internet encyclopedias. I am neither a scholar nor an academician who needs to annotate his thoughts.

You have stated your views are those of Direct Realism.
I have produced what is generally described as Direct Realism above.
Is your description different from the above?
If different, you cannot claim your views are of Direct Realism.

BTW, my understanding of direct realism is the opposite of indirect realism. There are no mediators or representatives or vicars or deputies between my awareness and the object of that awareness. I do not see the world through sense data, no matter how faithful to what it out there.

If you claim, there are no mediators or representatives or vicars or deputies between my awareness and the object of that awareness, then that is neither direct realism nor indirect realism.

Kantian empirical realism [my view] do make such a claim,
there are no mediators or representatives or vicars or deputies between my awareness and the object of that awareness.
In this case the realization of reality emerges spontaneously with the subject without anything in between in its initial emergence of reality.
It is only thereafter that there is a sense of internal and external reality.

The philosophers I follow, all of whom describe themselves as direct realists, would be mighty surprised to read that their views are not really direct realism. I think your propensity to bow to a certain type of dictionary maker has led you astray. Bergmann in his book spends a lot of time attacking representational realism, which is the idea that there is a concept or mental construct that the awareness must go through to get at the world. You are ever making a distinction between what the mind immediately knows and the external that it represents. You have no direct contact with the world. That strikes me as frightening. It's like a lover who only has a picture of his beloved, not the real thing.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Feb 04, 2020 7:38 am

tapaticmadness wrote: ↑Tue Feb 04, 2020 7:16 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Feb 04, 2020 6:57 am
This is odd.

Do you have any interest in how I see the world, in my view of reality? If so I can describe it to you. I would love to be able to see the world as you see it. If you want you can describe it to me. I am tired of reading excerpts about other people's world out of internet encyclopedias. I am neither a scholar nor an academician who needs to annotate his thoughts.

You have stated your views are those of Direct Realism.
I have produced what is generally described as Direct Realism above.
Is your description different from the above?
If different, you cannot claim your views are of Direct Realism.

BTW, my understanding of direct realism is the opposite of indirect realism. There are no mediators or representatives or vicars or deputies between my awareness and the object of that awareness. I do not see the world through sense data, no matter how faithful to what it out there.

If you claim, there are no mediators or representatives or vicars or deputies between my awareness and the object of that awareness, then that is neither direct realism nor indirect realism.

Kantian empirical realism [my view] do make such a claim,
there are no mediators or representatives or vicars or deputies between my awareness and the object of that awareness.
In this case the realization of reality emerges spontaneously with the subject without anything in between in its initial emergence of reality.
It is only thereafter that there is a sense of internal and external reality.

You didn’t ask me to describe my view of the world but, what the hell, I’m going to do it anyway. First I should say that I am a theist and it is toward to gods of my vision that I will be directing you. And yes, as a direct realist I do believe that we can be directly aware of them and, of course they are real, i.e they exist separate from and independent of any awareness or thought of them.

I see the world as consisting of bare particulars exemplifying universal Forms. There are also sets and quantifiers and all the forms of logic. So for example. Consider a bed or bicycle or loaf of bread. The universal forms of bed and bicycle and loaf of bread are in our world exemplified by various bare particulars. By “bare” I mean that those particulars have not properties of themselves. That is obviously a philosopher’s vision of reality, no ordinary man in the street sees such things. The things of philosophy are separate from ordinary things. Nonetheless, the things of philosophy are real; they are not mere conceptual abstractions. There are no concepts in my ontology.

Now I’’m going to talk about the gods. There was a topic on this forum that asked if Platonic Forms are spiritual entities. The universals I mentioned above are Platonic forms. And yes they are spiritual entities, gods and demi-gods. Of course if you see universals as just concepts in the mind that makes no sense. It’s important that one sees them as real. Likewise, one must look at the universals as universals, but how?

Imagine that you go into a museum and you see one exhibit that consists of a bicycle, a picture of a bicycle and a copy of a dictionary definition of a bicycle. That is conceptual art. https://www.moma.org/collection/works/81435 . Where is the bicycle itself? It transcends all three. Now go outside and you will see many many bicycles. Repetition. By becoming aware of that repetition repeating, by staring at it, you become aware of the Bicycle god staring at you with ten thousand eyes. Or if you have a philosophical poetic spirit, you will. Or a boy in love with his bike.

The ordinary man sees only many bicycles, rather boring.

And then there are the gods of logic. Consider the quantifiers: all, any, each, every, something, nothing, thing, fact, relationality, universality, particularity, this, this-ness, etc. What is there in existence that those words point to? The ordinary person will say that they are just abstract concepts, nothing real. A realist will say that there are things in existence away from thought and language that they point to. In my philosophy they are gods. They exist in eternal formal stillness. They are dreadful, frightening, decadent, sexual, alluring things. My obsession. The world possesses me. I am possessed.

Now don’t bring out your f*cking philosophical dictionary in order to show me that that isn’t what the word “god” means. I’m saying that those are the gods of the real world, not of some academic glossary. I deal in the real, not bookish shadows.

tapaticmadness wrote: ↑Tue Feb 04, 2020 3:29 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 04, 2020 2:56 am

tapaticmadness wrote: ↑Tue Feb 04, 2020 12:52 am

The relations in that description are "in", "connects", "with", and "between". Grass is not a relation. You haven't said whether or not you think relations exist.

Grass connects the ball to the field and is the position between the ball and the field. Relation is the inversion between one phenomenon and another. The ball relates to the field through the grass, the grass is the point of inversion between one phenomenon and another.

What does this mean - "Relation is the inversion between one phenomenon and another"

One phenomenon exists, then another exists as the backdrop of the other phenomenon. For example a ball in a field observes a ball existing with the field as not the ball. Dually the ball exists as not the field. Each phenomenon exists as not a phenomenon in itself except through the other phenomenon.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 04, 2020 5:01 pm Each phenomenon exists as not a phenomenon in itself except through the other phenomenon.

I think you are trying to get rid of relations as things themselves. Rather you have a system of phenomena being reflected in other phenomena - or something. It is a great interconnection of reflectivity. Why don't you want to simply say that relations exist and they are basic, irreducible things?

tapaticmadness wrote: ↑Tue Feb 04, 2020 7:15 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 04, 2020 5:01 pm Each phenomenon exists as not a phenomenon in itself except through the other phenomenon.

I think you are trying to get rid of relations as things themselves. Rather you have a system of phenomena being reflected in other phenomena - or something. It is a great interconnection of reflectivity. Why don't you want to simply say that relations exist and they are basic, irreducible things?

Because if I have a line between two points the relationship is a thing.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 04, 2020 8:29 pm

tapaticmadness wrote: ↑Tue Feb 04, 2020 7:15 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 04, 2020 5:01 pm Each phenomenon exists as not a phenomenon in itself except through the other phenomenon.

I think you are trying to get rid of relations as things themselves. Rather you have a system of phenomena being reflected in other phenomena - or something. It is a great interconnection of reflectivity. Why don't you want to simply say that relations exist and they are basic, irreducible things?

Because if I have a line between two points the relationship is a thing.

Yes, but is the relation a thing. I think you are making a distinction between relation and relationship. As I see it a relationship is a complex structure consisting of two points and a line between them. The line is between the two points. Between is a relation.

Repeat

tapaticmadness wrote: ↑Wed Feb 05, 2020 12:10 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 04, 2020 8:29 pm

tapaticmadness wrote: ↑Tue Feb 04, 2020 7:15 pm
I think you are trying to get rid of relations as things themselves. Rather you have a system of phenomena being reflected in other phenomena - or something. It is a great interconnection of reflectivity. Why don't you want to simply say that relations exist and they are basic, irreducible things?

Because if I have a line between two points the relationship is a thing.

Yes, but is the relation a thing. I think you are making a distinction between relation and relationship. As I see it a relationship is a complex structure consisting of two points and a line between them. The line is between the two points. Between is a relation.

The relation is a thing. Take for example a ball rolling on a field, the movement of the dust is the thing which shows the relation. The relation always occurs through a thing that mediates between things. The medial thing exists in multiple states (such as the grass or dirt existing in multiple positions as the ball rolls in the field).

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 05, 2020 12:23 am

tapaticmadness wrote: ↑Wed Feb 05, 2020 12:10 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 04, 2020 8:29 pm

Because if I have a line between two points the relationship is a thing.

Yes, but is the relation a thing. I think you are making a distinction between relation and relationship. As I see it a relationship is a complex structure consisting of two points and a line between them. The line is between the two points. Between is a relation.

The relation is a thing. Take for example a ball rolling on a field, the movement of the dust is the thing which shows the relation. The relation always occurs through a thing that mediates between things. The medial thing exists in multiple states (such as the grass or dirt existing in multiple positions as the ball rolls in the field).

"The relation always occurs through a thing that mediates" Ok, but you just introduced another relation, namely "through". You still haven't said whether or not you think relations exist as things, Or are they just conceptual abstractions and exist only in thought?

tapaticmadness wrote: ↑Wed Feb 05, 2020 1:44 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 05, 2020 12:23 am

tapaticmadness wrote: ↑Wed Feb 05, 2020 12:10 am

Yes, but is the relation a thing. I think you are making a distinction between relation and relationship. As I see it a relationship is a complex structure consisting of two points and a line between them. The line is between the two points. Between is a relation.

The relation is a thing. Take for example a ball rolling on a field, the movement of the dust is the thing which shows the relation. The relation always occurs through a thing that mediates between things. The medial thing exists in multiple states (such as the grass or dirt existing in multiple positions as the ball rolls in the field).

"The relation always occurs through a thing that mediates" Ok, but you just introduced another relation, namely "through". You still haven't said whether or not you think relations exist as things, Or are they just conceptual abstractions and exist only in thought?

They exist as things and these things are thought for all relations, as a series of movements, exist as part of the memory. Because of continual change we only see change through memory considering the present state is always one image. We observe change through memory, hence abstraction, therefore things are memory and memory is a thing. Things exist through things and this "throughness" necessitate a point of inversion from one image to another.

tapaticmadness wrote: ↑Tue Feb 04, 2020 9:30 am You didn’t ask me to describe my view of the world but, what the hell, I’m going to do it anyway. First I should say that I am a theist and it is toward to gods of my vision that I will be directing you. And yes, as a direct realist I do believe that we can be directly aware of them and, of course they are real, i.e they exist separate from and independent of any awareness or thought of them.

I see the world as consisting of bare particulars exemplifying universal Forms. There are also sets and quantifiers and all the forms of logic. So for example. Consider a bed or bicycle or loaf of bread. The universal forms of bed and bicycle and loaf of bread are in our world exemplified by various bare particulars. By “bare” I mean that those particulars have not properties of themselves. That is obviously a philosopher’s vision of reality, no ordinary man in the street sees such things. The things of philosophy are separate from ordinary things. Nonetheless, the things of philosophy are real; they are not mere conceptual abstractions. There are no concepts in my ontology.

Now I’’m going to talk about the gods. There was a topic on this forum that asked if Platonic Forms are spiritual entities. The universals I mentioned above are Platonic forms. And yes they are spiritual entities, gods and demi-gods. Of course if you see universals as just concepts in the mind that makes no sense. It’s important that one sees them as real. Likewise, one must look at the universals as universals, but how?

Imagine that you go into a museum and you see one exhibit that consists of a bicycle, a picture of a bicycle and a copy of a dictionary definition of a bicycle. That is conceptual art. https://www.moma.org/collection/works/81435 . Where is the bicycle itself? It transcends all three. Now go outside and you will see many many bicycles. Repetition. By becoming aware of that repetition repeating, by staring at it, you become aware of the Bicycle god staring at you with ten thousand eyes. Or if you have a philosophical poetic spirit, you will. Or a boy in love with his bike.

The ordinary man sees only many bicycles, rather boring.

And then there are the gods of logic. Consider the quantifiers: all, any, each, every, something, nothing, thing, fact, relationality, universality, particularity, this, this-ness, etc. What is there in existence that those words point to? The ordinary person will say that they are just abstract concepts, nothing real. A realist will say that there are things in existence away from thought and language that they point to. In my philosophy they are gods. They exist in eternal formal stillness. They are dreadful, frightening, decadent, sexual, alluring things. My obsession. The world possesses me. I am possessed.

Now don’t bring out your f*cking philosophical dictionary in order to show me that that isn’t what the word “god” means. I’m saying that those are the gods of the real world, not of some academic glossary. I deal in the real, not bookish shadows.

Noted your views.

I won't bore you with my "f philosophical dictionary" but here is my take on God and gods.

• God is an Impossibility to be Real Empirically and Philosophically
  viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704&p=367812&hil ... ty#p367812

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Feb 05, 2020 3:57 am

I won't bore you with my "f philosophical dictionary" but here is my take on God and gods.

• God is an Impossibility to be Real Empirically and Philosophically
  viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704&p=367812&hil ... ty#p367812

Thanks for the link. I enjoyed reading your argument. Yes, I am a theist and I am trying to think of an example of how I might think of God as Absolute Perfection. One easily comes to mind. I am gay and I have ever before my mind’s eye the perfect form of the Boy. I have cruised the streets of the world always on the lookout for that. I am not at all interested in individual boys, only in the perfect form they come so close to exemplifying. Of course there is always some little or big imperfection which I have to either ignore or, like an artist, mentally change it. That’s easy to do because the perfection I desire is ever with me.

I think what you are saying in your argument is that the perfect form I see in my mind’s eye is only something my mind concocts and isn’t real. I obviously would never say that. It’s ever-present intensity penetrating me militates against such a thought.

Mohammed said that if you want to see God, look for a curly headed boy. In early Christianity Jesus was portrayed in art as a rather effeminate, pretty twink holding a magic wand. It was only after Constantine that he because imperial.

I frankly don’t understand why you say, “Absolute perfection is an idea, ideal, and it is only a thought that can arise from pure reason and never the empirical at all. Absolute perfection is an impossibility in the empirical, thus exist only theoretically.” As I use the word “empirically”, it seems perfectly correct to say that I empirically see that perfect form ever before my mind’s eye. I obviously don’t see it with my biological senses, but the mind isn’t limited to those instruments. I see many things non-sensually.

I think you know that I am not a materialist. I think the mind and the brain are separate things. Nor are the thoughts I think, the feelings I feel or the images I see in my thinking and feeling generated by my brain.

tapaticmadness wrote: ↑Wed Feb 05, 2020 6:26 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Feb 05, 2020 3:57 am

I won't bore you with my "f philosophical dictionary" but here is my take on God and gods.

• God is an Impossibility to be Real Empirically and Philosophically
  viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704&p=367812&hil ... ty#p367812

Thanks for the link. I enjoyed reading your argument. Yes, I am a theist and I am trying to think of an example of how I might think of God as Absolute Perfection. One easily comes to mind. I am gay and I have ever before my mind’s eye the perfect form of the Boy. I have cruised the streets of the world always on the lookout for that. I am not at all interested in individual boys, only in the perfect form they come so close to exemplifying. Of course there is always some little or big imperfection which I have to either ignore or, like an artist, mentally change it. That’s easy to do because the perfection I desire is ever with me.

I think what you are saying in your argument is that the perfect form I see in my mind’s eye is only something my mind concocts and isn’t real. I obviously would never say that. It’s ever-present intensity penetrating me militates against such a thought.

Mohammed said that if you want to see God, look for a curly headed boy. In early Christianity Jesus was portrayed in art as a rather effeminate, pretty twink holding a magic wand. It was only after Constantine that he because imperial.

I frankly don’t understand why you say, “Absolute perfection is an idea, ideal, and it is only a thought that can arise from pure reason and never the empirical at all. Absolute perfection is an impossibility in the empirical, thus exist only theoretically.”
As I use the word “empirically”, it seems perfectly correct to say that I empirically see that perfect form ever before my mind’s eye.
I obviously don’t see it with my biological senses, but the mind isn’t limited to those instruments. I see many things non-sensually.

I think you know that I am not a materialist. I think the mind and the brain are separate things. Nor are the thoughts I think, the feelings I feel or the images I see in my thinking and feeling generated by my brain.

As stated, perfection, empirical or by reason is merely a thought.
You can think [thought] of an empirical related perfect circle.
You may be able to trigger an image of a circle in your mind, but that image is never a perfect circle and you cannot prove it at all as 'perfect', thus not absolute nor unconditional.
As you have stated, your imagined 'boy' cannot never attained perfection but you have to intervene humanly with adjustments and compromised. It is the same with a perfect circle in mind that can never be absolutely perfect.
Your act-of-thinking can be inferred as "empirically" but what is thought of [i.e. the perfect circle] cannot be realized empirically as real.

The above applies to empirically related perfection, but God's perfection is not empirical but merely based on thought only.
The idea of God is like the idea of a "square-circle".
Like the idea 'square-circle' the idea of 'God as real' is a contradiction.
If God is a contradiction, God cannot be real and more so, the perfect God cannot be imagined as an image in the mind.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Feb 06, 2020 5:23 am
As stated, perfection, empirical or by reason is merely a thought.
You can think [thought] of an empirical related perfect circle.
You may be able to trigger an image of a circle in your mind, but that image is never a perfect circle and you cannot prove it at all as 'perfect'.
Your act of thinking can be inferred as "empirically" but what is thought of [i.e. the perfect circle] is not empirical.

The above applies to empirically related perfection, but God's perfection is not empirical but merely based on thought only.
The idea of God is like the idea of a "square-circle".
Like the idea 'square-circle' the idea of 'God as real' is a contradiction.
If God is a contradiction, God cannot be real and more so, the perfect God cannot be imagined as an image in the mind.

You are such a strong philosophical Idealist. Does it irritate you that others aren't? Since I reject your very first premise would you like to try and prove it? Probably not. I think you think it is obvious. You seem to have been totally indoctrinated by popular belief.

tapaticmadness wrote: ↑Thu Feb 06, 2020 5:38 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Feb 06, 2020 5:23 am
As stated, perfection, empirical or by reason is merely a thought.
You can think [thought] of an empirical related perfect circle.
You may be able to trigger an image of a circle in your mind, but that image is never a perfect circle and you cannot prove it at all as 'perfect'.
Your act of thinking can be inferred as "empirically" but what is thought of [i.e. the perfect circle] is not empirical.

The above applies to empirically related perfection, but God's perfection is not empirical but merely based on thought only.
The idea of God is like the idea of a "square-circle".
Like the idea 'square-circle' the idea of 'God as real' is a contradiction.
If God is a contradiction, God cannot be real and more so, the perfect God cannot be imagined as an image in the mind.

You are such a strong philosophical Idealist. Does it irritate you that others aren't? Since I reject your very first premise would you like to try and prove it? Probably not. I think you think it is obvious. You seem to have been totally indoctrinated by popular belief.

Actually you are the fanatical idealist, i.e. merely playing with ideas and ideal [of perfection] in your mind rather than with empirical reality.