Problem of Universals

[Koldo]

You had to 'answer' the question just to ask it.

What you're really trying to ask, I think, is what is the relationship between "reality" and "existence". So I am asking you this. What do you think is the relationship between "reality" and "existence"?

Without qualifying the terms, they are identical. But just to make myself clear: I don't merely consider my perspective when asking questions.

 

[PureX]

Without qualifying the terms, they are identical. But just to make myself clear: I don't merely consider my perspective when asking questions.

But this question is the crucial one for this discussion. Some people think existence defines reality, while other people understand that reality is a conceptual representation of existence as we humans experience it. That it is not synonymous with existence, but is only an artificial representation of it. And then to add to this confusion, some of those people believe that because conceptual reality is not synonymous with existence, it's not really real.

I would submit that our conceptual reality is a part of existence, and therefor it "exists" to the same degree that anything else does. Especially since "non-existence" is itself just a conceptual counterpoint that has no content.

 

[Kfox]

Why is the physical world the baseline for what is 'real'?

It is the baseline for all physical entities, because all physical entities will have the same experience concerning that which is physical.

 

[Kfox]

Anything we can conceive is real.

So according to you, Santa Clause is real? What's the difference between real, and make-believe?

 

[Ostronomos]

Objective reality is the world external to the self. Gods are not found there, otherwise we'd have photos, interviews, blood (ichor?) samples for the genetics lab, and a place on the tree of evolution for them.

But if you can show me an uninstantiated two running around in the wild, that would be a start.

Are you saying subjective reality exists only as an illusion? This would result in Cartesian mind-matter duality due to the split in reality. That is the height of atheist delusion. You tend to assume that there is no such reality in the subjective. Yet the subjective world is ultimately the only reality, because it merges with the external during non-local consciousness. A quantum mechanical phenomenon you dismiss altogether.

P.S. God only reveals Himself to a chosen few. Especially during non-local awareness.

 

[vulcanlogician]

Yep. And now we really disagree and I think this time @vulcanlogician will be on my side.

Yeah, @Rival I concur that "anything that can be conceived of" is too broad a definition. The concept of unicorns is real as a concept. But unicorns aren't real. When we say something is real, we must mean that the concept has a referent that exists in the world. So "unicorn" fails in that case. But the pythagorean theorem, laws, countries and the like ARE real. We can define what a country is (a piece of land with arbitrary borders that people use to separate themselves from other peoples) and see that countries really DO exist. They are, in some manner of speaking, a reality. Countries have explanatory power in describing human behavior.

 

[PureX]

So according to you, Santa Clause is real? What's the difference between real, and make-believe?

The concept of Santa Clause exists. The concept of mountains exists. Neither exist without their respective concepts to give our experience of them some form of cognitive reality. Even the concept of existence itself is an idea we use to cognate reality. No cognition; no Santa, and no mountains, and not 'existence', even.

 

[Heyo]

Yeah, @Rival I concur that "anything that can be conceived of" is too broad a definition. The concept of unicorns is real as a concept. But unicorns aren't real. When we say something is real, we must mean that the concept has a referent that exists in the world. So "unicorn" fails in that case. But the pythagorean theorem, laws, countries and the like ARE real. We can define what a country is (a piece of land with arbitrary borders that people use to separate themselves from other peoples) and see that countries really DO exist. They are, in some manner of speaking, a reality. Countries have explanatory power in describing human behavior.

I am a bit confused. The post you responded to was about constructs and you are not with me on those ones? Your threshold is at fantasies as it seems. I guess "genuine feature of existence" is not synonym with "objectively existing". Or do you argue that constructs do objectively exist?

 

[Koldo]

But this question is the crucial one for this discussion. Some people think existence defines reality, while other people understand that reality is a conceptual representation of existence as we humans experience it.

But that's mistaking the map for the territory. Our personal conceptions of what is real, given a more traditional understanding of the term, is not reality per se. It is rather akin to a map.

That it is not synonymous with existence, but is only an artificial representation of it. And then to add to this confusion, some of those people believe that because conceptual reality is not synonymous with existence, it's not really real.

I would submit that our conceptual reality is a part of existence, and therefor it "exists" to the same degree that anything else does. Especially since "non-existence" is itself just a conceptual counterpoint that has no content.

The distinction between real and unreal is the distinction between real and imaginary. Likewise, the distinction between existent and non-existent, in a traditional manner, is the distinction between that which is beyond (or outside of) imagination and that which resides strictly in imagination.

While I can certainly understand why the latter feels inadequated in certain contexts because it genuinely seems improper to say the imaginary doesn't exist in any way whatsoever (particularly because we can effectively experience it, such as in dreams), I definitely can't relate with the need to completely discard the concept of reality as standing in opposition to the imaginary. I wonder if this trend is characteristic of the liquid modernity.

 

[exchemist]

Are you a Realist or a Nominalist?

Problem of Universals: Nominalism vs. Realism | Highbrow

The Problem of Universals posits two theories about the nature of reality: nominalism and realism, that oppose each other and argue the question of whether “universal” things are in fact “real.”

gohighbrow.com

I incline more towards William of Ockham than to Aquinas. And not just because Sean Connery played him in "The Name of the Rose".

 

[PureX]

But that's mistaking the map for the territory. Our personal conceptions of what is real, given a more traditional understanding of the term, is not reality per se. It is rather akin to a map.

But that map is OUR reality. It's reality as we experience and understand it. It's the only reality we know. Whatever 'other' reality there may or may not be, is beyond our comprehension. Literally.

The distinction between real and unreal is the distinction between real and imaginary.

But reality IS imaginary. That "map" is made up in our minds for us so that we would have some image-idea of the world that we are experiencing.

Likewise, the distinction between existent and non-existent, in a traditional manner, is the distinction between that which is beyond (or outside of) imagination and that which resides strictly in imagination.

Existence is all that is. Non-existence is all that isn't. We don't have to know the "all" of either of these ideas to make sense to us. Because without them, there is (re)cognition at all.

There is no "strictly imaginary". Imagination is something that is. It falls into the category of 'all that exists'. Imagination exists like speed exists. Or like weight exists.

While I can certainly understand why the latter feels inadequated in certain contexts because it genuinely seems improper to say the imaginary doesn't exist in any way whatsoever (particularly because we can effectively experience it, such as in dreams), I definitely can't relate with the need to completely discard the concept of reality as standing in opposition to the imaginary. I wonder if this trend is characteristic of the liquid modernity.

I blame it on scientism.

 

[Kfox]

The concept of Santa Clause exists. The concept of mountains exists. Neither exist without their respective concepts to give our experience of them some form of cognitive reality. Even the concept of existence itself is an idea we use to cognate reality. No cognition; no Santa, and no mountains, and not 'existence', even.

If mankind disappeared immediately, Santa would disappear along with them, but mountains would remain. That's because mountains are real, Santa is make-believe; IOW concepts are not necessary for mountains to exist.

 

[Koldo]

But that map is OUR reality. It's reality as we experience and understand it. It's the only reality we know. Whatever 'other' reality there may or may not be, is beyond our comprehension. Literally.

The map is what we regard as reality in practice, as in what objects we consider to populate it. But the concept of reality, as in that which exists outside/beyond our imagination is not at all beyond our comprehension.

But reality IS imaginary. That "map" is made up in our minds for us so that we would have some image-idea of the world that we are experiencing.

The map is indeed imaginary, but the territory is not.

Existence is all that is. Non-existence is all that isn't. We don't have to know the "all" of either of these ideas to make sense to us. Because without them, there is (re)cognition at all.

There is no "strictly imaginary". Imagination is something that is. It falls into the category of 'all that exists'. Imagination exists like speed exists. Or like weight exists.

For all practical purposes, it is relevant to make a distinction between that which is strictly imaginary and that which is not. If you didn't make this distinction, you would be completely screwed up.

I blame it on scientism.

Can you elaborate?

 

[blü 2]

Are you saying subjective reality exists only as an illusion? This would result in Cartesian mind-matter duality due to the split in reality. That is the height of atheist delusion. You tend to assume that there is no such reality in the subjective. Yet the subjective world is ultimately the only reality, because it merges with the external during non-local consciousness. A quantum mechanical phenomenon you dismiss altogether.

P.S. God only reveals Himself to a chosen few. Especially during non-local awareness.

It's a mix of concepts with real counterparts ─ mother father your car my pen sky that cloud this bottle &c ─ and concepts that are abstractions ─ justice love indigestion politics &c, including numbers and mathematical objects and much more.

To have objective existence is to exist in the world external to the self.

 

[PureX]

If mankind disappeared immediately, Santa would disappear along with them, but mountains would remain.

No, they wouldn't. Only matter would remain. A mountain is a particular human experience of matter.

And please explain why you think this should matter? And to whom.

That's because mountains are real, Santa is make-believe; IOW concepts are not necessary for mountains to exist.

"Real" is a human concept about states of being. Not a state of being that can exist on it's own.

Please explain how you think this is not so.

 

[PureX]

The map is what we regard as reality in practice, as in what objects we consider to populate it. But the concept of reality, as in that which exists outside/beyond our imagination is not at all beyond our comprehension.

Of course it is. Think about infinity. It's an idea that "fits in" with our imaginary reality, and yet we cannot possibly comprehend it. The same is true of God, by the way. And how we know that we cannot comprehend it is that we cannot possibly verify that it exists as a state or condition. It only exists as an idea that fits in with our theories about existence.

The map is indeed imaginary, but the territory is not.

We have no way of knowing that because we cannot experience the 'territory' without the 'map'. PERCEPTION IS CONCEPTION. I don't know why this is so difficult for some people to recognize.

I recognize that you really and truly believe in a material reality that transcends our imagined reality. But it's no different from someone really and truly believing in a God that transcends out imagined reality. Because ultimately they are both incomprehensible to us. We can imagine them being "real", but we can't experience them as such. Like infinity, they are beyond the human ability to experience.

For all practical purposes, it is relevant to make a distinction between that which is strictly imaginary and that which is not.

We have no possible way to do that. All we have are ideas about what is real that fit with all our other ideas about what is real, and ideas that do not fit, that we then consider "unreal". But "fitting in" does not make our ideas about what is real any more or less real apart from our own imaginary reality. Whatever exists apart from this, is simply beyond our comprehension. And therefor CANNOT POSSIBLY MATTER TO US.

 

[Ostronomos]

"Santa Clause" IS real because reality is a conception.

However, God is even more real BECAUSE He was proven using logic.

 

[Kfox]

No, they wouldn't. Only matter would remain. A mountain is a particular human experience of matter.

No. All animated beings experience the existence of a mountain; not just humans

"Real" is a human concept about states of being. Not a state of being that can exist on it's own.

No. “Real” is a description of things that exist on their own.

 

[Kfox]

"Santa Clause" IS real because reality is a conception.

However, God is even more real BECAUSE He was proven using logic.

What logic do you know of that proves God real?

 

[Koldo]

Of course it is. Think about infinity. It's an idea that "fits in" with our imaginary reality, and yet we cannot possibly comprehend it. The same is true of God, by the way. And how we know that we cannot comprehend it is that we cannot possibly verify that it exists as a state or condition. It only exists as an idea that fits in with our theories about existence.

We have no way of knowing that because we cannot experience the 'territory' without the 'map'. PERCEPTION IS CONCEPTION. I don't know why this is so difficult for some people to recognize.

I recognize that you really and truly believe in a material reality that transcends our imagined reality. But it's no different from someone really and truly believing in a God that transcends out imagined reality. Because ultimately they are both incomprehensible to us. We can imagine them being "real", but we can't experience them as such. Like infinity, they are beyond the human ability to experience.

We have no possible way to do that. All we have are ideas about what is real that fit with all our other ideas about what is real, and ideas that do not fit, that we then consider "unreal". But "fitting in" does not make our ideas about what is real any more or less real apart from our own imaginary reality. Whatever exists apart from this, is simply beyond our comprehension. And therefor CANNOT POSSIBLY MATTER TO US.

*sigh*

And yet, you refuse to do anything that would bring about your material destruction, if matter exists, don't you?

This is what I find boring about skepticism concerning the material world itself. You guys talk the talk but don't walk the walk.