Unless subjects necessarily recognise everything, unrecognised objects can exist. — TheWillowOfDarkness
So Sapientia's counter is right. If we are using our ordinary language of knowledge, which admits that subjects don't necessarily know everything, then it is shown that all objects aren't necessarily recognised. — TheWillowOfDarkness
Indeed, but this is only to say that unknown objects might not exist, which does not preclude (as you were arguing) that they can. All you've done is shown it's possible that subjects know everything-- something I've (and Sapientia) never denied.And so, by the same logic, we might say that unknown objects exist and we might believe that unknown objects exist but it might nonetheless be the case that unknown objects don't exist. — Michael
The realist, if he is to be consistent, can't use the fact that most people assert and believe realism as a defence of his position. — Micheal
Indeed, but this is only to say that unknown objects might not exist, which does not preclude (as you were arguing) that they can. All you've done is shown it's possible that subjects know everything-- something I've (and Sapientia) never denied. — TheWillowOfDarkness
For the very reason that false beliefs depend on the independence of things. — TheWillowOfDarkness
Take the cup in the cupboard. What is true if we are wrong about that? Well, not what we thought-- the cup and the cupboard-- but something else.
So what is this something else? If we think there is a cup and a cupboard, then we won't have a bar of any other idea. We will reject there is any other object-- it will be unknown and we are unable to detail it. The absence of the the cup and the cupboard is the one object(s) we cannot admit. — TheWillowOfDarkness
But that's not what the realist is asserting his position on. "Ordinary language" is not a popularity argument, but a logic one. It's to say: "If we are using this language, this meaning, then X is true."
The case is not made on the number of people who use it, but rather than what we are saying if we do not-- in this case, failing to use the "ordinary language" amounts to denying there can be unknown objects.
I've addressed this. The claim is that objects just are things which are recognised as such. Therefore there cannot be unknown objects. Sapientia claimed that ordinary language use and logic can show that this isn't the case; that there can be unknown objects. But given that the realist's claim is that the existence of objects is independent of what we say and believe it is inconsistent to use what we say and belief to justify the claim that there can be unknown objects — Michael
This is false. You don't need for things to exist for the claim "things exist" to be false. In fact, you need for things to not exist for the claim "things exist" to be false. That's straightforward logic. — Michael
I have no idea what you're trying to say here. — Michael
If someone is to be wrong about the cup, the absence of the cup needs to exist. — TheWillowOfDarkness
How can language use and logic be used to show that there can exist objects which haven't been recognised as such by a subject? — Michael
It seems to me that the very premise of realism is that the existence of objects is independent of semantics, which makes using the latter to prove the former a contradiction. Indeed the realist would say that independent objects exist even if ordinary language use implied idealism. — Michael
Or are you just saying that you can use logic to derive the realist's conclusion from some self-evident or otherwise justified premises? Then what are those premises? — Michael
So God is beyond words? Makes for a short thread. — Banno
It is kind of ironic that many theist use the argument that "God" is beyond words/human comprehension in defense of their position when it does more to damage it then support it. If it is true that "God" is beyond words, then it also means that it is a given that even if theists spends their entire life devoted to knowing and understanding God/God's will they don't know anything more about God then the rest of us, and reading the bible won't tell you anything more about God then reading comic books.So God is beyond words? Makes for a short thread. — Banno
Before talking about whether God exists, one must define what God is? — Corvus
It is kind of ironic that many theist use the argument that "God" is beyond words/human comprehension in defense of their position when it does more to damage it then support it. If it is true that "God" is beyond words, then it also means that it is a given that even if theists spends their entire life devoted to knowing and understanding God/God's will they don't know anything more about God then the rest of us, and reading the bible won't tell you anything more about God then reading comic books. — dclements
The more you gain wisdom, either by existential crisis or by observing life itself(or by both of them), more you work yourself towards truth. — ahmad bilal
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.