Ontology: AntiRealist relativism vs Sophisticated Realism (Ep 7.4)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 24 ก.ค. 2024
- Metaphysics - why Philosopher’s talk about being in “Different Worlds” - this video covers one big problem in ontology, a discussion under the branch of metaphysics… one that leads us into a wonderful discussion of REALISM vs ANTI-REALISM . So exciting stuff!
THIS VIDEO IS NOT BEING PERFECTLY CITED DOWN TO THE LINE which is my standard M.O. so forgive me for that but the reason is because I wasn’t initially going to cover it. It general talks about the issues in a surface level way and from the framing of philosophy Paul O’Grady’ book, his chapter 3 on Ontological Relativism, but it’s still a fun video even if you don’t care about that.
If you like my work do follow
Twitter:
philobattle
To support me
patreon.com/Drecom
or
paypal.me/DrecomInc
If you are reading this, I mean shouldn’t you SUBSCRIBE then :)
If you would like to start this playlist / series from the beginning click here!
• Relativism - the power...
LAST VIDEO:
LOGICS in Philosophy Can there be Alternatives?
• The POWER of RELATIVIS...
NEXT VIDEO:
Quine?
and EPISTEMOLOGY
TBA
SCIENCE STUFF --- KUHN
• Episode 3 and 4 KUHN
Note
1. Kant is not the first to make that kind of so called skeptical defense mentioned in the video, it’s just that O’Grady mentioned it and I would guess because he is figuring this discussion with a pre and Post Kantian philosophic view about ontology and Kant’s more interested in investigating the categories themselves as the work of ontology. Though, I think most famous for this kind of move might be Hume, but this type of skeptical defense traces back even to ancient skeptics being agnostic about things beyond perception,
2. My point about the inconsistency should not be confused as a confusion as the like of the riddle of Plato’s beard at least as was discussed by Quine. The ontological relativist -anti-realist (ORAR) is not merely denying mind-independent reality ‘exists’, but the very meaningfulness of that term, and the ability to speak of it in certain ways. So the issue isn’t about whether some entity exists or not, in terms of this inconsistency; there is not a presumption of correspondence invoked for benefit the realist here as if a counter. Rather the seeming inconsistency is from the ORAR’s own preferences that disallow the realist from doing what the ORAR allows themselves. (What really is happening is a difficulty of engagement that will be discussed in the Rationality video. But to be clear, this was more an inconsistency I found, O’Grady on the other is more pointing out the other one - the desire to not be idealists.
-----------------
MUSIC:
Open and end cards
Track: Last Heroes - Dimensions [NCS Release]
Music provided by NoCopyrightSounds.
Watch: • Last Heroes - Dimensio...
Free Download / Stream: ncs.io/DimensionsYO
Other music :
Kevin Macleod
Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 4.0 License
creativecommons.org/licenses/b...
Screen Saver
Industrial Cinematic
Shadowlands 4 - Breathe
Anguish
Crypto
Welcome to HorrorLand
Black Vortex
This House
Tenebrous brothers Carnival - Prelude
Nonstop
------------
Works Cited / Reference list
O’Grady, Paul. Relativism. McGill-Queens University Press, 2002.
Kirk, Robert. Relativism and Reality: A Contemporary Introduction. 1999.
Phillips, Patrick J.J.. The Challenge of Relativism. Continuum, 2007.
Wittgenstein, Ludwig, G E. M. Anscombe, and G H. Wright. On Certainty. , 1972.
#Philosophy
#Ontology
#Relativism
#Metaphysics
Great video again the problems you said about anti-realism and sophisticated realism aren't an issue as O'Grady says it doesn't cut much ice I think that was very funny btw, so it must be noted in the case of anti-realism even if the anti-realist needs to use concepts that are supposedly non-relative to explain his view this would not entail that these non-relative concepts are true it would only mean that they need it to explain their view because it may be the case that these concepts are more intuitive and or conceptually prior to the concept that the anti realist is putting forward it doesn't commit them to the reality of these non-relative concepts the anti-realist will simply say we need these terms to understand it and so there isn't any inconsistency. As for sophisticated realists even if it is the case that info can only be expressed through a language this would not invalidate it would only mean that whatever info is out there is inexpressible meaning their view is inexpressible what's it called again climbing up the ladder then kicking it down.
I didn't expect this going into this video, But my perception Of my own perspective is that I don't entirely land into any camp on this issue. To me, it all comes down to epistemology. Ultimately yeah you can't be totally certain about what actually is. But you can construct ontological models based on experience that Are formed from apparently reliable epistemologies. So what one can do is form conclusions that are "justified from your perspective" about this issue. This doesn't deny the fact that any of these ontologies are contingent on a thinking mind, And that, sans a mind, it does appear difficult to formulate what may actually be, but also its the perspective that these ontologies, following Occam's razor, Are grounded in a justified belief that something exists outside of the mind. TL;DR Ontologies do appear to be mind-contingent constructs, but Occam's razor Implies that something other than the conceiving mind is necessary to comprehensively explain them.
Keep the great work
Awesome. Thanks you.
30:00 well, la guaje does not come from "us". It's not individual, it's interactive. I comes presicesly from interacting with the world 🤔
Anyway, this whole problem comes from the idea that such a thing as "mind" exists.
11:57 is where the video actually starts. You'll thank me later.