| Re: Realism (was: What is Truth?) |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
Group: alt.philosophy · Group Profile
Author: Craig FranckCraig Franck Date: Oct 18, 2006 15:47
"gibbs" wrote
> "Craig Franck" wrote
>> I have no problem with the basic idea of a system of relations,
>> since that is essentially how I conceive of nature. The conceptual
>> problem I have is realism seems to have a justification for itself
>> built right in to the ontology, and not just in some question
>> begging way. An external brain running a mind which runs a
>> framework can explain why the framework looks the way it does
>> (All this may come down to a bias on my part.)
>
> The basic notion of realism, that there is a reality independent of the
> mind, is an intelligibility condition.
The idea that nature existed prior to there being any minds to
experience it is built right into the concept of cosmological
explanation.
The problem is you can't use an empirical argument to
support a metaphysical claim. The representational realism
that the science of visual perception puts forth is not a form
of metaphysics because it is strictly internalistic to reality.
> The concept of existence is basic and cannot be null and is irreducible.
> It cannot be defined by other concepts but is implicit in all other
> concepts and all perceptual experience. It can't be an attribute of what
> exists because it is what exists.
But the relationship between subject and object needs to be
explored. "There are experiences" is metaphysically neutral,
but most people go far beyond that.
| 
