Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Have you read any classical western philosophy?
Yes. I dislike Kant. Nietzsche is ok. Marquis de Sade is ok. I love Hakim Bey.
The nominalists, in particular, would object to your needless multiplication of entities, where you posit the existence of a distinct image with each distinct term as somehow required for its understanding. As if a child, exclaiming "horse!" upon seeing a horse in a field should also require an image of a horse to understand what she said. Occam's razor was first formulated to cut through exactly that kind of confusion. All that we require to posit is an act of understanding. In the same way we aren't required to vocalize the words to understand a printed page (consider the deaf).
This is not what I am saying, so the nominalists can sleep well tonight.
Recall the topic:
Q. Do you equate "objectively real" with "physically real"?
A. Sure. Matter without interpretation, which is tough, since we need interpretation to talk about it.
Q. Do you equate "objectively real" with "physically real"?
A. Sure. Matter without interpretation, which is tough, since we need interpretation to talk about it.
In other words, an apple is objectively real, but our opinions on the apple are subjective.
To tell the truth, it reminds me a bit of some DU contributors who claim to be from a "reality based community", and who claim that their political positions (and those who agree with them) are "realist" as opposed to whatever dismissive term they categorize the opinions of those whose opinions differ.
I consider my politics to be value based. I don't make those claims.
But back to your claim. The topic of my question wasn't "matter", you introduced that highly abstract term as the sole focus of your answer and in doing dismissed all other content, in effect denying the existence of "objectivity" except as falls in line with your theories or whatever about what "matter" is. Is Euclidean geometry not objectively real? Is Riemannian geometry not objectively real? If one asks a physicist or mathematician, I daresay most would say that objective truths about these systems of mathematics are much more certain than any statement that a physicist might make about "atoms", or "matter". After all, what we know about the physical world is acquired through our sense perception. Again, read the empiricists if you haven't already. Read what Hume has to say about such a basic "law" as of cause and effect. These topics have been debated by the best.
I used the term "matter" as explained by my 8th grade science teacher. Basically anything that has mass. I probably should have said "matter and energy." I currently believe matter and energy exist outside of the mind. But again, I was talking about the laws of governments, such as a speed limit. The laws of physics are discovered, while the laws of government are created. I'll let physicists debate the laws of physics.
I deny the existence of objective authority, such as the authority of the POTUS, and the objective existence human organizations, such as the US. I believe these "things" only exist in our minds. I believe this type of authority and these types of organizations only exist in our minds. I believe these are examples of subjective social constructs created by persuading people into believing these things are objectively real.
Thanks for discussing this. I'm totally rusty, my mind is half-asleep, so I hope not to have been too much of a bother.
I've enjoyed your posts very much. I've been sick and taking various meds around my house, such as codeine, so my posts may be bothering people too.
I look forward to your reply.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
40 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read