Naive realist - you believe that physical objects exist independently of our perception of them (the way we perceive things is the way they are and thats why we perceive them that way)
Representative realist - you believe that physical objects cause us to experience sensations which represent the object to us (we percieve the world indirectly through our senses)
Idealist - you believe that 'to be is to be perceived' (only things which we immediately perceive exist)
Phenomenalist - you believe that 'to be is to be perceivable' (anything which is capable of being perceived at any time can be said to exist)
__________________ Dont let anyone tell you that you're wrong. If u believe it it's true.
Gender: Male Location: Southern Oregon,
Looking at you.
We do not perceive the real world, only the world through the narrow filter of our senses. We can understand the unknown real world by indirect observations and theoretical models, but these are always flawed.
We can never be certain of anything, of this I am certain.
I am something between Phenomenalist, and Idealist. I think everything that exists is perceptions, explanation : the only way to describe any object is by our perceptions of it, for example, a apple can be round, red, ..., but we cannot describe something that cannot be perceived as there will not be any adjectives or even individual subjective perceptions of it, so we can´t even define that "something" which is not a perception.
What about Idealism, and Phenomenalism ? Do everything which is perceivable exists, or just when we perceive them ? I think that something is real just when it affects the universe somehow, or interact with with it. A totally isolated thing that absolutely makes no difference at all in its enviroment cannot be said to exist, and this happens in quantum mechanics, for example, an electron in which its position is not being measured, is not anywhere, it just have a position when it is measured. Electrons as any other particles just have its characteristics, when they are being measured. Thats what wave-particle duality is about.
But I still believe that reality is not only what we perceive immediately, so I am not exactly an Idealist. I think that there is more that we do not know, and which is real, but this unknow reality(independent of what we immediately perceive) must still be a perception since for me, reality is all about perceptions. Then, to solve this problem I would say that the definition of perception must be changed. I mean, reality is perception, but perception is not so simple as we think. Like for example if every perceivable thing can be actually perceived by us in some subconscient level, or perhaps in some level of perception, everything could be regarded as a single consciousness, and this way reality could be defined by the perceptions of that consiousness.
__________________
Last edited by Atlantis001 on Jan 6th, 2006 at 01:34 AM
has anyone read that japanese book of 5 rings or whatever? about sword fighting? supposedly the last ring (chapter) is about what doesnt exist and it is totally beyond everyone whos told me about it
Gender: Unspecified Location: I'm leaving now, it was real fun ch
You forgot Knowitallist...I run into some of those every now and then.
Seriously though,
I think that our five senses only pick up a fraction of the world around us. We are not advanced enough to have a sense for everything that there is to be sensed it would blow our puny human minds. There is nothing we know of for sure, even for the Knowitallist.
Everything we think we know.....we THINK we know.
For one, post-modernism is an extremely complex ideology! Yet I do not find any truth in it. I do not agree with it, and as a sociologist in particular I have the right to disagree with an ideology, especially if I find that criticisms of that ideology are far plausible than the ideology itself.
Same goes for realism - I am not realist - because such ideology does not bring about plausible explanation of the way we perceive world. I am more positivist then i am a realist, and that says something, since positivism, I rarely agree with too.
Second and last, the great thing about your post is implying that I am in any way suggesting simplicity - Realism - as above is ONE ideology. Those are different branches which disagree in particular field, but they all have a common ground which makes every single person who believes in either of those a 'realist'.
Besides, you are evidently unfamiliar with realism if you think that first post is anything but simplicity. Realist use the above examples of perceiving world in explanation of why certain social phenomenon happen.
Descriptions above NEVER, stand by themselves.
Thats like starting a thread on Feminism and asking, ''what kind of feminist are you: Marxist feminist - where you believe in Marxism adn feminism, Radical feminist where you think the whole world of men is against you, functionalist feminist - when you think womens oppression is necessary...etc''
none of these are the ideologies of feminism - they are WAYS in which feminists perceive world - through marxism, functionalism, radicalism, etc.
Same goes for realism, but since you think that first post is how the realist ideology works, I guess I would have to write another 10 pages of explanation why I do not believe realism is a plausible ideology for looking t the world.
Also, i find it extremely rude, arrogant and ignorant when people assume I reply in a thread with no knowledge of what I am writing.
I know what realism is, so please, I would appreciate less sarcasm. If you would like to ask me WHY i do not agree with realism, then I will be more than happy to do so.
__________________
في هذا العالم ثلاثة أشخاص أفسدوا البشرية : راعي غنم , طبيب و راكب الجمال , و راكب الجمال هو أسوأ نشال و أسوأ مشعوذ بين الثلاثة
No, it was not that what I meant ! I do not agree with realism too. I´m sorry I should have detailed more what I meant. I was refering to realism, not you. Sorry about that.
In any way, I think realism is too simplistic, it is the view that "there is an external world that exists independently of our perception of it", it is the most obvious way that one would think, I find it a very limitating perspective... you know, those who never cared much to think about what reality is are generally realists.
Realism does not explain our perception of the universe, it assumes the existence of an external universe that cannot be measured since it is external, and independent of our perception. But realism is also very accepted in science and between people who think like empirism (to be a fact it must be observed), and this leads to the conclusion that the "external world" of realism is pure metaphysics, it cannot be observed therefore it cannot be true.
Please accept my apologies for my tone. I misread your post.
Ok this is my problem with realism - it assumes that things exist independently of its manifestations. I do not believe this is true.
I believe that when we describe things we create reality, as opposed to describing it (strictly in sociological terms here, may i add).
And what I mean by that is words which we attribute to things or people create certain reality, like for example word ''whore''. When that word is attributed to a certain member, i think it creates reality of what whores are like, rather than that word being the ultimate description of a whore
(bit of a weird analogy, but i cant think of anything better right now)
Much like you already said - i find it simplistic and very straight forward in describing the existence of things (or sociological phenomenon, as i have been introduced with).
I do believe it is written in an extremely complex matter - all realists have a silly habit of doing that, to explain a straight forward view...
Those are just my criticisms, as far as sociology go, as far as philosophy adn realism, I think my examples could be applied, although that is arguable...
__________________
في هذا العالم ثلاثة أشخاص أفسدوا البشرية : راعي غنم , طبيب و راكب الجمال , و راكب الجمال هو أسوأ نشال و أسوأ مشعوذ بين الثلاثة
KMC Community Forums
Dont let anyone tell you that you're wrong. If u believe it it's true.
Jan 5th, 2006 07:50 PM
