garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson) (09/30/86)
In article <2382@utai.UUCP> cbo@utai.UUCP (Calvin Bruce Ostrum) writes: >How about some real philosophy discussion? Like, for example: >Is realism correct? (vs. nominalism/idealism (old style) or >positivism/constructivism (new style)). For the uninitiated (like me), how about a brief definition of the above terms? Off hand, the statement "Realism is correct" sounds like a tautology. Perhaps we can start with what my dictionary has to say (I will quote only those definitions which relate to philosophy): Realism: "2a: a doctrine that universals exist outside the mind; specifically: the conception that an abstract term names an independent and unitary reality. 2b: the conception that objects of sense perception or cognition exist independently of the mind." By the above definition, I am a realist. In fact, I submit that everyone, in practice, is a realist, contrary claims notwithstanding. Does anyone reading this really think, "there seem to be words in front of what I think are my eyes, and even though I can't know that they are really there, I will imagine that I am reading them, and maybe imagine that I am going to write a response..." ? Nominalism: "1: a theory that there are no universal essences in reality and that the mind can frame no single concept or image corresponding to any universal or general term. 2: the theory that only individuals and no abstract entities (as essences, classes, or propositions) exist." This definition cuts the foundation out from under itself. "Nominalism is a theory..." is a proposition about the class of theories. To make a proposition that says there are no propositions is nonsense, and in fact is saying that what is being said is nonsense (which is hard to dispute!). Idealism: "1a(1): a theory that ultimate reality lies in a realm transcending phenomena (2): a theory that the essential nature of reality lies in consciousness or reason; b(1): a theory that only the perceptible is real (2): a theory that only mental states or entities are knowable." Frankly, I don't understand definition 1a(1). Definition 1a(2) seems to say that consciousness or reason exists apart from someone to be conscious or to do the reasoning. (Hmm, could this be supernaturalism in disguise?) Definition 1b(1) implies that what we are accustomed to calling discoveries are really inventions. I.e., before Leeuwenhoek "invented" germs, diseases really were caused by evil spirits -- and in some places in the world, still are. Definition 1b(2) has the same problem that 1a(2) has -- it suggests the question, the mental state of *what*? Positivism: "1a: a theory that theology and metaphysics are earlier imperfect modes of knowledge and that positive knowledge is based on natural phenomena and their properties and relations as verified by the empirical sciences. b: Logical positivism." Logical positivism: "a 20th century philosophical movement that holds characteristically that all meaningful statements are either analytic or conclusively verifiable or at least confirmable by observation and experiment and that metaphysical theories are therefore strictly meaningless -- also called logical empiricism." (I wonder why only the last is dated? It couldn't be that someone is trying to make it sound better because it's more "modern," could it?) First, it is apparent to me that you have to be a realist before you can be a positivist. I submit that "realism" is a metaphysical theory; you have to believe that natural phenomena exist and behave according to real laws. These laws may or may not have been discovered yet -- and they are to be discovered, not invented (cf. comments on idealism, above). Furthermore, positivism itself is a metaphysical theory, and is not subject to verification by its own criteria. The statement "positive knowledge is based on..." is a metaphysical statement. Furthermore, it is not empirically verifiable. It is therefore (according to positivism) meaningless, and therefore positivism, like nominalism, asserts itself to be meaningless (again, hard to dispute). Constructivism, in my dictionary, is not given a definition relating to philosophy (one has to do with art, and the other with stage setting), so I won't attempt a discussion. I've probably set myself up for enough flaming as it is :-). No doubt someone will say that some of the above definitions are inadequate. I will not quarrel with that, but those are what I had to start with. If anyone has better definitions, by all means post them. Gary Samuelson
wex@milano.UUCP (10/02/86)
In article <1211@bunker.UUCP>, garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson) gives dictionary defintions of a number of philosophical concepts, most of which seem pretty good. Rather than discuss them, I will try to answer a question he raised: > Idealism: "1a(1): a theory that ultimate reality lies in a realm > transcending phenomena (2): a theory that the essential nature > of reality lies in consciousness or reason; b(1): a theory that > only the perceptible is real (2): a theory that only mental > states or entities are knowable." > > Frankly, I don't understand definition 1a(1). This definition is derived from the works of Plato who was the first (known) idealist. What happened was basically this: Plato looked around him and saw a group of things that were called "men" and another group that were called "chairs" and another group... He also noted that people had some sense that one member of these groups was better than another. Even though people couldn't always formalize their criteria for ranking or agree on which thing was better, still everyone seemed to do *some* kind of ranking. He then hypothesized that for each group (and indeed, for all groups not yet discovered) there was a "perfect" object that totally exemplified that group. These perfect objects existed in "Plato's heaven" (that is distinct from the Judeo-Christian heaven or the Greek Olympus - it was a theoretical, unreachable place). Plato's heaven contained all and only these objects; this also included objects like numbers - there was an ideal "number 2" of which all others were imperfect copies! This explanation had certain benefits - it explained all the phenomena Plato had observed and it helped explain some of the ways we treat things like numbers (for example, I am not inclined to say "My number 2 is even, how about yours?"). The objects in Plato's heaven were "ideal" objects and thus this sort of belief became known as "idealism". Other, later, philosophies also laid claim to that name, a fact reflected by the four-part dictionary definition. -- Alan Wexelblat ARPA: WEX@MCC.ARPA or WEX@MCC.COM UUCP: {seismo, harvard, gatech, pyramid, &c.}!ut-sally!im4u!milano!wex "True victory is victory over oneself."