Hi all, some more points about mind-independence. (01)
> The realism I was referring to is the doctrine that there is an
> objective, external world in virtue of which our scientific theories
> are true or false. (02)
The first step of Kant’s thought —the first moment of it, if you like
that phraseology— is to recognize that all our knowledge is, and
forever must be, relative to human experience and to the nature of the
human mind. ... At this point, the idealist appears before the
tribunal of your reason with the suggestion that since these
metaphysical conceptions are ... only valid for experience and since
all our knowledge is relative to human mind, they are not valid for
things as they objectively are; and since the conception of existence
is pre-eminently a conception of that description, it is a mere fairy
tale to say that outward objects exist, the only objects of possible
experience being our own ideas. Hereupon comes the third moment of
Kant’s thought ... I may say that it is the very sun round which all
the rest revolves. This third moment consists in the flat denial that
the metaphysical conceptions do not apply to things in themselves.
Kant never said that. What he said is that these conceptions do not
apply beyond the limits of possible experience. But we have direct
experience of things in themselves. Nothing can be more completely
false than that we can experience only our own ideas. That is indeed
without exaggeration the very epitome of all falsity. Our knowledge of
things in themselves is entirely relative, it is true; but all
experience and all knowledge is knowedge of that which is,
independently of being represented. Peirce, Collected Peirce 6.95 (03)
A constant, unified world-picture is ... the fixed goal which true
natural science, in all its forms, is perpetually approaching; our
present word-picture ... contains certain features which can never be
affected by any revolution, either in nature or in the human mind.
This constant element, independent of every human (and indeed of every
intellectual) individuality, is what we call “the Real.” ... the
recognition of this reality is nowadays a prerequisite for winning any
scientific repspect. Max Planck, The Unity of the Physical
World-Picture. (04)
Ontological realism can be distinguished from solipsism by the
following thesis: At least part of reality is ontologically
independent of human minds. Ilkka Niiniluoto. Critical Scientific
Realism, 1999. (05)
Solipsism is just a naive position, "my mind is all that exists", and
blah blah. It is also useless, because in order to explain normal
things, concepts that are operationally identical to realist concepts
have to be used in any case, like the concrete-abstract dichotomy.
Realism is an economical attitude in ontology, although one can always
claim that everything is just his own mind. The only utility of the
solipsism-related doctrines (phenomenalism, existentialism,
relativism, skepticism, et cetera) is that they in the end strengthen
realism, because realists have to show just why realism is better than
the solipsist-related doctrines. Realism is better because it explains
all that the other doctrines explain, but in a simpler way. (06)
-Avril (07)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (08)
|