Philosophy Now Forum

Would it be right to say that philosophy studies perspectives? A form of "perspectivology", not to say of course that it's what philosophy is all about, but would it be right to say it's a major component of philosophical study?

I have an idea that perspectives can be reduced to sets of references to real-world objects, a kind of assignment of a limit with specified content to what the notion of "reality" should mean to us, an assignment, which upon acquiring a new perspective to fill "reality", is washed out to be replaced by a new assignment.

I also have an idea that philosophical "production" consists of two stages, 1) the spawn of creativity which derives from exposing oneself to a greater and greater diversity of things in the greatest number of ways (quality being decided by prioritizations, so that good creativity can be separated from bad creativity by its utility), 2) is the recurring comparing of perspectives, as perspectives are initially and continuously created in different "piles of knowledge and experience", these piles are then worked by procedures in our mind, these procedures compare the structure of our "pile perspectives" towards already established perspectives such as those we find in logic and common sense and the likes, but they are also compared towards each other after they've been worked for a while, as after they've been worked for a while they will have a link with the established perspectives that allows them to work each other (established perspectives function as technical consultants if you'd like).

ask Nietzsche

-Imp

The Voice of Time wrote:Would it be right to say that philosophy studies perspectives? A form of "perspectivology", not to say of course that it's what philosophy is all about, but would it be right to say it's a major component of philosophical study?

I have an idea that perspectives can be reduced to sets of references to real-world objects, a kind of assignment of a limit with specified content to what the notion of "reality" should mean to us, an assignment, which upon acquiring a new perspective to fill "reality", is washed out to be replaced by a new assignment.

Hi Voice,

Perhaps philosophy should be studying perspectives. Most philosophical study concerns itself with reducing everything to the logical simplicity of a model of universal dichotomies: things that are or are not, related or unrelated, true or false, moral or immoral, and so on. To achieve this simplicity, perspectives, which are many, are ignored.

The notion of reality and being, which are deeper and broader than existence are left by the wayside. Perspectives introduce different contexts, each of which is its own realm of reality. What exists in one context is meaningless in another.

One problem with this is that instead of a single, universal, objective reality, we are now asking for a multiplicity of realms of reality with possibly diverse logics. I don't have the faintest how one would go about listing, classifying, or structuring such an assemblage.

So, how would you propose to reduce perspectives to a set of references that connects to an objective world?

YehYeh wrote:The notion of reality and being, which are deeper and broader than existence are left by the wayside.

Being is not deeper, I'm finding it increasingly difficult to accept people talking about "being" as if it is anything else than existing, in fact, the words are synonyms. I'm wondering if people who talk about "being" are not referring to the experience of being alive and function in the ordinary manners of humans, because to call it "being" then would be a confusing and useless way of terminology.

If they are talking about being as in the transcendent way in which you can study the characteristics and composition of any "thing", then I don't understand why one just say "transcendent thing", and "transcendent thing study".

YehYeh wrote:Perspectives introduce different contexts, each of which is its own realm of reality. What exists in one context is meaningless in another.

Well said, I made a point about this somewhere else on the forum, in a thread of mine, talking about the way in which different scientific disciplines cannot always meaningfully take information/data from one discipline to another. For instance, there's no "metabolism of gravity", or purely physical structures.

YehYeh wrote:One problem with this is that instead of a single, universal, objective reality, we are now asking for a multiplicity of realms of reality with possibly diverse logics. I don't have the faintest how one would go about listing, classifying, or structuring such an assemblage.

I have been working on that question for a while, at least something along the lines of it. The answer is in my next answer.

So, how would you propose to reduce perspectives to a set of references that connects to an objective world?[/quote]

Answer: any perspective can be reduced to something experienced, in one way or the other. An experience can be reduced to a procedure for finding an object for which we can be exposed to, and so we perform the given procedure, which is for instance arriving at a physical location and watching, listening, or touching something, and by such expose ourselves in the appropriate degree towards it. At this, you have the same reference, when it comes to personal mental phenomena, somewhat shared mental phenomena is usually achieved by synchronized contemplation and exposure in thought. You can never get completely the same perspectives, but you get a good deal on the way towards it, and maybe the important part is not to have the exact same knowledge, but to have knowledge pointing in the same direction.

The Voice of Time wrote: Being is not deeper, I'm finding it increasingly difficult to accept people talking about "being" as if it is anything else than existing, in fact, the words are synonyms. I'm wondering if people who talk about "being" are not referring to the experience of being alive and function in the ordinary manners of humans, because to call it "being" then would be a confusing and useless way of terminology.

Yes and no. For modern philosophy, you're quite right. In objective philosophy, which is pretty much all what we have, reality and existence are synonymous, so there is no need for reality or being. Unless you want to complicate things and distinguish potential existents from actual existents. Then, a unicorn might be called a being.

What I understand as an 'antirealist' metaphysics might allow for many other philosophies. In that case, what exists in one reality will not exist in another. Richard III exists only in the play, Harry Potter only in its movie. More disturbingly, numbers and ideas actually exist only in their own metaphysical realms or domains, and not physically.

If we accept conventional realism, then there is only one metaphysics, that of the real world. However, then we can talk about antirealist or plural ontologies of existence that somehow fit into objective realism. I'll assume this is what you have in mind.

The Voice of Time wrote:talking about the way in which different scientific disciplines cannot always meaningfully take information/data from one discipline to another. For instance, there's no "metabolism of gravity", or purely physical structures.

Scientists pretty much agree that they have a tower of babel. They don't understand each other's words, methods, and even the facts. This should be a great test case for your inquiry, because it's easier to understand than numbers, aesthetics, or ethics.

The Voice of Time wrote: any perspective can be reduced to something experienced, in one way or the other. An experience can be reduced to a procedure for finding an object for which we can be exposed to, and so we perform the given procedure, which is for instance arriving at a physical location and watching, listening, or touching something, and by such expose ourselves in the appropriate degree towards it. At this, you have the same reference, when it comes to personal mental phenomena, somewhat shared mental phenomena is usually achieved by synchronized contemplation and exposure in thought. You can never get completely the same perspectives, but you get a good deal on the way towards it, and maybe the important part is not to have the exact same knowledge, but to have knowledge pointing in the same direction.

Then you would standardize each perspective of observation to reproduce the experience? That works. That would be scientific experience capable of producing scientific facts. After a while, you'd classify your list of facts as physical, chemical, biological, astronomical. Wht you would discover is that these classes can be structured by level of magnification of the observing instruments. Then, in reverse, at some level of magnification there might be a bunch of sciences, each with its own perspectives.

What you now have is many (antirealist) spheres of knowledge. Some are deterministic, some probabilistic, some a combination, some neither. Even their facts might be in conflict. Economists might disagree with sociologists or political scientists.

YehYeh wrote:Yes and no. For modern philosophy, you're quite right. In objective philosophy, which is pretty much all what we have, reality and existence are synonymous

No, that's incorrect, because existence is derived from the verb "to exist", and therefore things that exist are existences. To exist does not mean you exist "within THE reality", but only that you exist "somewhere", maybe in a potential world. It also does not say "how" you exist, so saying that unicorns exist is only false if you say "they exist in the real world", to be accurate. Normally one assumes that is meant of course, but also unicorns might exist in ways that are not typical, for instance, humans can easily start talking about pictures in short-hand by what they depict, and not what they are. They can call a picture "the unicorn", and it exists for them, what is omitted is the "how" of their existence, and it truly would be a unicorn, because at its most basic a unicorn is a concept, and applied to a picture the concept could very well exist in the picture, but not in the typical fashion of "existing", which is when it's an animal outside in the garden with a huge spear on its head and maybe a rainbow coloured tail.

YehYeh wrote:, so there is no need for reality or being. Unless you want to complicate things and distinguish potential existents from actual existents. Then, a unicorn might be called a being.

No, then you just say "potential unicorn", or parallel universe unicorns, or whatever is appropriate. To call it "being" is still confusing and not providing much reason for its own use.

YehYeh wrote:What I understand as an 'antirealist' metaphysics might allow for many other philosophies. In that case, what exists in one reality will not exist in another. Richard III exists only in the play, Harry Potter only in its movie. More disturbingly, numbers and ideas actually exist only in their own metaphysical realms or domains, and not physically.

Numbers are natural phenomena, as patterns exist outside of our minds. Ideas are also natural phenomena, as they are patterns in our brain. If numbers weren't real, it wouldn't be possible for anything to exist in plural, for instance. The phenomena of plurality is inherent to numbers, even their symbols are natural phenomena as print or carving is patterns applied unto matter, in fact, it's just matter applied unto other matter that creates shapes and forms. When you learn to read, you do so in interaction with real world phenomena, from text, and not from some secret entrance into your mind from some extra-reality. One should be careful using medieval philosophy jargon, as, especially to me, it's mostly all just useless or half-useless crap, and it's beyond me it ever survived to our days.

YehYeh wrote:If we accept conventional realism, then there is only one metaphysics, that of the real world. However, then we can talk about antirealist or plural ontologies of existence that somehow fit into objective realism. I'll assume this is what you have in mind.

Not sure what to say, not sure what you mean.

YehYeh wrote:Then you would standardize each perspective of observation to reproduce the experience?

Not exactly, because the thing in question might change. So it's not about "confirmation", but about having the equivalent source (which is not "the exact same" source, but a working comparison of sources). It's also a way for the same person to re-expose her-/himself to something as it changes, so as to keep in synch with the equivalent source.

YehYeh wrote:That works. That would be scientific experience capable of producing scientific facts. After a while, you'd classify your list of facts as physical, chemical, biological, astronomical.

No, then you'd not get it. That's highly inflexible. Instead, each perspective would itself be a science (to work along your thoughts), and therefore there would be a practically infinite amount of "sciences" (though that's not really a point). Each perspective is a list of some, possibly random, selection of sources, so when you are about to make a decision, you will have a selection of knowledge to work with. To acquire an equivalent perspective you must acquire equivalent sources. Then you'd be able to land at the same result. The key is not just "information" though, not that being informed of anything allows you to make a judgement, the key-word is "exposure", and the way in which your mind will undergo the same procedure of adaptation towards integrating some experience, as another person would, for which you want to acquire an equivalent perspective with.

YehYeh wrote:Wht you would discover is that these classes can be structured by level of magnification of the observing instruments. Then, in reverse, at some level of magnification there might be a bunch of sciences, each with its own perspectives.

What you now have is many (antirealist) spheres of knowledge. Some are deterministic, some probabilistic, some a combination, some neither. Even their facts might be in conflict. Economists might disagree with sociologists or political scientists.

You are being too taxonomical about it, the real world is not taxonomical, that's just a human obsession. Perspectives probably have some patterns as to how they are generated, but not so rigid, certainly not, and far more flexible and random than this.

But personal experience and scientific observations are not the same. Experience is emotional. Observation is counting and measuring. That's the major difference between amateur and professional scientists. People enjoy the scene, the scientists survey it.

People don't have to enjoy it to experience it. Scientists, yes, "try" to stick to some boundary of what they can extract from what they see, but ultimately they are also "affected", but trying helps to discern something in a different manner than merely experiencing.