Teach me some philsosophy, please.

[GrowingSmaller]

Who were the first representational realists (a theory of perception)? Not only in the Western tradition, but in all faiths or schools of thought globally. If you can't answer the global question, what about Westerners? My guess would be someone like Descartes or as he worked on the physiology of vision, or maybe Kant or Locke.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Also could someone explain penduranrtism to me in laymans terms?

 

[quatona]

Ok teach me constructivism. IIRC it is that scientific theories are constructs that are not necessarily true. As for your version of it, go ahead, but I would like to learn mainstream ideas rather than opinions of "unknown" individuals.

Well, since I guess I qualify as an "unknown" individual all I can do is recommend the works of Watzlawick, Glaserfeld and Foerster, for starters.

 

[bricklayer]

When most people speak of philosophy, they actually mean other people's philosophies.

Philosophy is reason, logic and rhetoric,
or more accurately the love of reason, logic and rhetoric.

 

[mzungu]

A lot of the topics on boards like these are done to death (like the problem of evil, epistemology of religion and free will). But they are places where I seem to learn most philosophy as for me books seem to be easily forgotten if not applied to debate. In any case if you are looking for motivation and are secularist I heard that most advanced philosophy students tend to be non-theistic so what better way to probably deconvert me than by teaching me philsosophy? Anything except logic will do. No ironic remarks please.

Teach me Christianity! Anything except God will do!

 

[mzungu]

Who were the first representational realists (a theory of perception)? Not only in the Western tradition, but in all faiths or schools of thought globally. If you can't answer the global question, what about Westerners? My guess would be someone like Descartes or as he worked on the physiology of vision, or maybe Kant or Locke.

Try the Ionian philosophers!

 

[mzungu]

"This cosmos (universe) was neither made by God(s) nor by man; It is like the eternal flame that has and will continue to exist". (Heraclitus of Ephesus, Greek philosopher. c. 535 – c. 475 BCE)

Also look up Pre Socratic Philosophers. They based their ideas on the following foundations:
(excerpt from wiki)
The Presocratic philosophers rejected traditional mythological explanations of the phenomena they saw around them in favor of more rational explanations. These philosophers asked questions about "the essence of things":[4]

• From where does everything come?
• From what is everything created?
• How do we explain the plurality of things found in nature?
• How might we describe nature mathematically?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Well, since I guess I qualify as an "unknown" individual all I can do is recommend the works of Watzlawick, Glaserfeld and Foerster, for starters.

I will do some googling but would like an outline on the forum. After all why bother with a forum unless we are going to use it? But ty anyway I will google away.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Teach me Christianity! Anything except God will do!

That could be non-theistic Christianity, or maybe theological non-realism from a Christian perspective. I have heard secular humanism described sas 'Christianity without God".

My point about logic was that there is history and topics ogf philosophy one can learn about (such as political philosophy) and grasp the ideas without having to learn a symbolic language. I know some traditional logic and informal logic too.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Try the Ionian philosophers!

I have heard of them but I thought there were metaphysicians and ethicists rather thean epistemologists. Didn't Locke "invent" epistemology as a systematic discipline in Essay Concerning Human Understanding?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

What about solipsism. I have heard that it is the theory that I can know of only myself and my perceptions (not other people etc), but then I have heard Descarted described as a solipsist, and he disregarded perceptions with his cogito ergo sum.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

OK constructivism:

Constructivism has roots in chemistry, education and social constructivism. Constructivism criticizes objectivism, which embraces the belief that a human can come to know external reality (the reality that exists beyond one's own mind). Constructivism holds the opposite view, that the only reality we can know is that which is represented by human thought (assuming a disbelief or lack of faith in a superhuman God). Reality is independent of human thought, but meaning or knowledge is always a human construction.

Is this accurate? Supposing it is, I would argue that models are in the mind but they may represent objective reality in some way. As we base our theories on experience, and experience is of an objective reality (albeit primarily via a brain based model i.e. perception), then our theories are based on an objective reality. So I cannot dismiss claims against objectivism just like that. Take evolution for instance, the theory would suggest that species have developed over time, alongside the claim that there are species etc. I do not see why claims of objectivity have to be dismissed. In fact if we look at perceptual knowledge, why would action based on perception be useful if it did not represent reality to us? We can say the same about space ships etc. Knowledge enables us to manipulate or utilise reality because that reality represents it to us, allowing us to fly to the moon etc.

 

[Tinker Grey]

I would like to brush up on coherentism for starters. IIRC its the idea that beliefs are justified by their coherence with others, rather than foundational beliefs being basic and justifying others. But I have not come across many examples of coherentism in practice.

I hadn't heard the term coherent-ism before, but based on this description I'd say it is in practice everyday.

Well, perhaps that isn't fair. But my wrestling with theology before I gave it all up was a struggle to make my theology coherent and consistent with what I knew of reality.

It wasn't until I admitted that my premises had no basis that I gave it up.

I think we see this everyday on these boards. "My theology is coherent therefore I am right. What? Examine my premises? Never!"

But perhaps I misunderstand.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I hadn't heard the term coherent-ism before, but based on this description I'd say it is in practice everyday.

Well, perhaps that isn't fair. But my wrestling with theology before I gave it all up was a struggle to make my theology coherent and consistent with what I knew of reality.

No that sounds like a good example. Maybe you might have thought of the problem of evil. Certain beliefs about God (being all good etc) do not cohere with beliefs about reality (there being evil and suffering).

It wasn't until I admitted that my premises had no basis that I gave it up.

I think that might be more foundationalist. If you are looking for a basic belief by which to justify others, at least.

I think we see this everyday on these boards. "My theology is coherent therefore I am right. What? Examine my premises? Never!"

But perhaps I misunderstand.

Not sure what else to say. There is a brief outline of coherentism and foundationalism here.

 

[Tinker Grey]

No that sounds like a good example. Maybe you might have thought of the problem of evil. Certain beliefs about God (being all good etc) do not cohere with beliefs about reality (there being evil and suffering).

I thought about all those things. Part of my answer was to abandon the idea that God can actualize (I hate jargon, but sometimes it fits) just anything he wants. He is constrained by who and what he is. I conceived of pan-en-theism and was gratified to discover that others had thought of it too. So forth and so on.

I think that might be more foundationalist. If you are looking for a basic belief by which to justify others, at least.

Not sure what else to say. There is a brief outline of coherentism and foundationalism here.

I'll have to look at your link later to discover what I might add to this conversation.

 

[quatona]

GS, two things strike me as confusing:
1. On the one hand you say you don´t want the opinion of "unknown" persons, on the other hand you want to be taught radical constructivism by me of all.
2. You say you want to be taught philosophy, but then you read one wikipedia (or whatever) paragraph, and immediately start disputing the philosophy based on this very limited description.

As I have said before: If you really want to learn about a philosophy you would have to read their protagonists.

OK constructivism:

Is this accurate?

By and large: yes. It´s not inaccurate, but only as accurate as one paragraph can be in describing an entire philosophy.

Supposing it is, I would argue that models are in the mind but they may represent objective reality in some way.

From my knowledge radical constructivism doesn´t dispute that those models may represent the world out there in some way. Those models shape and arrange the world out there in the way we need it and want it.

As we base our theories on experience, and experience is of an objective reality (albeit primarily via a brain based model i.e. perception), then our theories are based on an objective reality.

Depending on what you mean exactly when saying "based on" I suspect radical constructivism wouldn´t necessarily disagree. It´s just that the parts or statements that appear to be particularly objective are at the same time particularly meaningless.

So I cannot dismiss claims against objectivism just like that.

Take evolution for instance, the theory would suggest that species have developed over time, alongside the claim that there are species etc.

And constructivism posits that there aren´t species - but instead that "species" is a human concept; an attempt to categorize the world out there in a useful manner that matches our needs.

I do not see why claims of objectivity have to be dismissed.

Because "possibly representing reality in some way" is not the same as being objective.

In fact if we look at perceptual knowledge, why would action based on perception be useful if it did not represent reality to us?

Because rather than "representing reality" it is important to us that we order, categorize and interprete our perceptions and experiences in a way that is useful and meaningful to us.
We want meaning all the time - but raw data (which would be closest to possibly being "objective" are meaningless.

 

[variant]

I would like to brush up on coherentism for starters. IIRC its the idea that beliefs are justified by their coherence with others, rather than foundational beliefs being basic and justifying others. But I have not come across many examples of coherentism in practice.

I'm not a fan.

I think ideas are justified via a subordinate relationship to physical realities not interrelationships between ideas.

 

[variant]

There were two main types, natural theology (like the ontological, cosmological and design argument) and revealed theology either through scripture or revelatory experience. Is that right? Natural theology was themore philosophical, but since the advent of science such abstractions have been overtaken by a more concrete experimental based knowledge, right? The only contemporary argument I know of is Plantinga's modal argument for a necessary being. Are there any others I may not have heard of?

Platinga is at the forfront, which, should inform you at how sad the state of the buisness.

Perhapse Nagels idealism is the closest you'll get.

What abut Kierkegaard or the 20th C existentialists? Kierkegaard said Christianity "crucified the intellect" (or something similar) because it was irrational to believe in it. What about the likes of Rosenzweig, Buber, Barth, Jaspers etc? How do they stand in relation to epistemology, or philosophy in general (rather than theology)? Were they more concerned with experience rather than attempts at proof of God?

The religious existentialists?

Other attempts have been made, but for all intents and purposes Nietzsche is correct. Serious members of society have turned away from religion on all the important answerable questions, preferring more practical answers.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I would argue that models are in the mind but they may represent objective reality in some way.

That's my view too. We may construct models of reality, but this allows us to understand objective reality from one's perspective. One doesn't need to have a God's-eye view of reality in order to understand reality for what it is. IOWs, having a perspective does not make one unobjective or mistaken.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[mzungu]

That's my view too. We may construct models of reality, but this allows us to understand objective reality from one's perspective. One doesn't need to have a God's-eye view of reality in order to understand reality for what it is. IOWs, having a perspective does not make one unobjective or mistaken.


eudaimonia,

Mark

To each his own reality! For our brains see not, hear not, feel not, but the electrical signals it has LEARNED to interpret in order to make sense of the physical world!