Realism and anti-realism I: Absolutism and relativism
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 6 ธ.ค. 2011
- This is the first tutorial on the realism debate. "Realists" believe that some "reality" exists independently of our mind or our thinking about this reality. Often realists add that our mind has access to this reality. "Anti-realists" deny this. In this tutorial, I discuss one particular kind of anti-realism, namely "relativism". Relativists deny that absolute truth is possible but claim that truth is always relative to some perspective. I discuss different kinds of relativism: conceptual relativism, moral relativism, cultural relativism and historical relativism. Enjoy Jan Academy!
Who's here after Grej's videos?
Me
same
Thanks! This is going to help me pass my college philosophy course
There are a lot of introduction to philosophy TH-cam videos but this series i have found to be the clearest and most understandable. I also like the way of doing it in 10-15 minute blocks rather than wading my way through a video that's an hour or more long. Thank you, Jan. I haven't looked yet but have you done a series on Kant ? I gather he and Plato are the two most influential philosophers in history.
An excellent introduction to the debate. Thanks.
Thank you so much. I love the slow pace and visuals.
Is that you Bob Ross?
Beautiful! Just Beautiful!
We have Grej fans marching here because this video has "Anti-realism" in the title.
You made me understand everything well and easy.
Hello
I have never before heard of 'anti-realism'. Whenever we doublespeak, talk indicating we are on both sides of the fence, we have taken the anti-realism position.
Yes, it's only an assumption. I agree. We cannot really be certain of it.
Thank you so much!
my head is gonna fucking pop!
Is that fiction/reality dependent or independent of the thoughts in your head? lol
I'm not sure if one could say that Realism has to correspond necessarily to absolutistism.
Is it possible that you might be conflicting philosophical absolutism with moral absolutism?
Good point. Only the old "naiv" realism of the early 20th century still had an absolutist worldview. There is a new movement today called "New Realism," which now includes the axiom that no system of knowledge can explain everything.
Look out for Markus Gabriel.
thankyou so much this helped alot
Definition of Anti-Realism: *B A S E D*
I would be interested to know if conspiracy theorists can be considered anti-realists
but i do not like the idea that claiming that there is a reality independent of our minds [ a realist 's view ] is a metaphysical claim
Bedankt :)
Truth & Realism
Realism = Duality
Anti-realism = Non duality, realism is dual to anti-realism.
Thesis is dual to anti-thesis -- the time independent Hegelian dialectic.
Hegel's cat:- Alive (thesis, being) is dual to not alive (anti-thesis, non being) -- Schrodinger's cat.
Subjective is dual to objective, absolute is dual to relative, dependent is dual to independent.
Gravitation is equivalent or dual to acceleration -- Einstein's happiest thought.
Potential energy is dual to kinetic energy, energy is implicitly, inherently dual.
Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein
Dark energy is dual to dark matter
Certainty is dual to uncertainty -- the Heisenberg certainty/uncertainty principle.
Syntropy is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics!
Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non-teleological physics (information, energy).
Action is dual to reaction -- Newton.
"To be or not to be? that is the question!" -- William Shakespeare
How do you know that matter exists?
The word "matter" is just a convention to refer to Being in a passive mode. Conversely, The word "consciousness" is the conventional term we apply to active Being.
Can you be a cultural absolutists but a historical relativist? How is that compatible?
I think it's not cultural relativist rather ethnocentric.
I'm kind of in that camp
we understand better with graphics, visually
moral relativism v absolute truth.......enter stage left theories of progress [ and religion unfortunately] that can defeat moral relativism
Moral truths are realistic
4:40 'Corresponds'. Corresponds implies two things. What are the two things? One is our expectation and two is our experience. I get out of bed, I expect to feel the floor beneath my feet. Reality of worldview. Verification of such every morning. One day I get out of bed .....there is no floor!! It's four inches lower than I am used to. Reality of experience has overridden reality of worldview.
like si estas acá por basan
This is why people laugh at philosophy! They say things like the humanities are where stupid people go to study, coz they weren't good enough to do actual science.
did u go do actual science
@@chairwood yes. I have a masters in biomedical sciences
@@TheBengalDragon philosophy is still kinda fun tho, right?
@@chairwood oh you bet. It still has a lot to offer. I just feel that it is a little misguided nowadays
@@TheBengalDragon Wittgenstein be like: metaphysics is language games
Ontological relativism seems to me about the most stupid idea humans have ever came up with. How can someone defend the idea that reality does not exist independent of our mind? It is really simple to demonstrate the existence of reality independent of a subject: you tell two different person to go inside that room and write down in a piece of paper what they see inside it. When they come out you check what they've written if it is the same thing then it means reality does exist independently of the subject who perceives it.
I think it means more. Our understanding of an object or things can only be interpreted using the mind. The objects meanings are appropriated based on learning. For instance, for one to recognise something as a chair, one needs to recognise that is a chair. Similarly, one needs the appropriate senses to tell if somethings exists, e.g. a chair, a table. You need to be able to see & touch. It's a recognition of the fact we cannot know our world except through the body in which we reside. Another example being, there are still scientific discoveries to be made about the nature of our reality but because we have no knowledge of them we cannot say that they exist. That is my understanding of it.
Wait, how do you know that the two people are real?
lol all this example proves is that all 3 agents have he same conceptual/linguistic map. back 2 the arm chair with you!
You're not very well read on metaphysics are you?
I think, therefore I exist. What is the problem on this? I'm certain I exist.... Think you should study more buddy
your senses may be tripping, you may be in a dream etc
I may be whatever you said, still existing.
Vanderson Tonus Junior if a film can come up with artificially constructed [hint] matrices in which life forms do, not, know that they are constructed, artificial, then I am sure philosophers [some] can do a lot better than that
I provide egs...; someone entered my room last night and scanned my body [and brain ] creating a new me. I am that he. [ P Mumford Short Intro to Metaphysics] Or the same effect induced by a faulty transporter upon Capt Kirk producing 2 Kirks....would they both be real? [again Mumford]
gda295 Neither of them are real. You're missing the point. You are whatever is saying you exist. You only believe you are more than that. You believe you are your possessions, your body, your name, Captain Kirk, this or that history. Understand you are none of that and become a light to it all.
Well- you are w/e is saying you exist- is too far for me...I 'm only up to wearing green tinted glasses which changed my every perception since born w/o me knowing it [Kant]...
There is only one absolute reality ... it's LOVE, ... everything else is an (persistent) illusion.
ALL MATTER IS ILLUSION, ILLUSIVE, ... ALL MATTER IS EVIL ...
WRONG! Do you know what causes "love"?GLANDS AND HORMONES! Remove all those glands and hormones, along with the necessary receptors, and there is no love.
Yikes, sounds like a pretty fun dogma you've got there...
MCTanman1 I think it’s much deeper than that. You can love someone you don’t particularly have good feelings towards, for example: I have a rocky relationship with my mom bc mental illness, I know I love her but I don’t like being around her and being with her does not bring good emotions, no “good chemicals” are released and if so in addition to far more bad ones or just nothingness. More positive chemicals are released w/ most other people which I don’t love or particularly care for more than her. I think it’s in part hormones sure, but also brain structure and neuropathic connection which vary and in term form chemicals reactions that when mixed define a mix of emotions depend on the neuropathic connections amongst other things. So basically the chemicals make you feel something but the connection to them does as well. Example: some people when raped had pleasure hormones released even tho hated being raped therefore might be confused after and associated the “pleasure” hormones as a negative. I say this cause personally my thoughts, physical internal feelings, and emotions are in totally different wavelengths a lot of times. The best explanation I’ve heard of the word love tho has been *selflessness* being it requires putting aside our natural “selfish” nature of putting our needs first, and instead putting the those we love needs first in whatever aspect, above our own.