Realism

[dio9]

What is real ? In the 12th century realism was the ancient doctrine of Plato. The universal is real, the general idea denoting a class. Man is more real than Socrates. What do you think is more real the universal Man or the individual man?

[Divine Insight]

I've told you a few times now that I don't CARE about Dio9's argument.

Then you're in the wrong thread. Start your own thread on whatever it is that you would like to debate.

In the OP Dio9 asks:

What do you think is more real the universal Man or the individual man?

In his context, my answer is that individual men are physically real. They physical exist.

The abstract concept of "universal man" is just a vague idealism invented by the imagination of men. It has nor more "physical reality" than the abstract concept of "universal fairies".

Just because real physical individual men exist, does not in any way give physical reality to the abstract concept of an imaginary idealized "Universal Man".

@Blastcat, if your position is that imagined thoughts are "more real" if there can be shown to exist something physical that is somewhat similar to the imagined thought, then that's a different argument entirely.

In this thread, I would suspect that you are actually in agreement with me. Individual physical men are "more real" than even the imagined thoughts of those very same individual physical men, let alone any abstract imagination of a "universal man".

My mother died over ten years ago. She was a very real person. The fact that I'm still here is a testament to that.

So is the thought of my mother today as real as my actual physical living mother was when she was alive?

I don't think so. The thought of her today isn't anymore real than the thought of a fairy. Neither of them exist in reality. The fact, that my mother did exist at one time is irrelevant. How can we be so certain that fairies didn't actually exist in some time?

According to Dio9's arguments, if evolution created humans because of a preexisting abstract concept of "Universal Human", then there is no reason why evolution can't also create fairies because of some preexisting abstract concept of "Universal Faerie"

Based on Dio9's position the concept of "Universal Humans" must have been REAL long before any humans ever existed.

So your argument that "universal humans" has some sort of reality because humans already exist, isn't in harmony with the topic proposed by Dio9 thread anyway.

You are using existing humans to give "reality" to the abstract concept of "universal humans".

Dio9 is attempting to suggest the exact opposite. He's suggesting that the abstract concept of "universal humans" came first, and was used by evolution as a "design template" for creating humans from scratch.

My arguments is based on that context.

If we can claim that some abstract concept of "universal humans' came BEFORE any physical humans existed, then the claim that an abstract concept of "universal fairies" should be considered just as real makes perfect sense. After all, if "universal humans" doesn't require humans to actually exist in order to be a "real concept" then why should the concept of "universal fairies" require fairies to actually exist in order to be a "real concept" in this same context?

[Blastcat]

I've told you a few times now that I don't CARE about Dio9's argument.

Then you're in the wrong thread. Start your own thread on whatever it is that you would like to debate.

I was MORE interested in your argument that "universal human" is as real as "universal fairy".

I could NOT see how that made any sense.
Now that I see that I am discussing with you something that is very PERIPHERAL to the op, I will stop now. I read your post and responded to it. I did NOT read the OP, and that was my mistake.

I don't agree at all with your line of reasoning, but it has only marginal relevance to the OP, so I bow out now.

I don't think the OP is very interesting, so I have not much to say about it. I think the question is... trivial. Like I said before, I have no interest in Dio9's argument.

[Divine Insight]

I was MORE interested in your argument that "universal human" is as real as "universal fairy".

If you want to begin that argument with the premise that concepts that are closer to real life physical things have more "merit" than concepts that have no realization to actual physical objects, then I would be forced to agree with you. Given that as a premise for the "merit" of ideas, then of course your position is going to stand.

But all of my statements in this thread were in relation to the premise being suggested by the OP of this thread. The idea that an abstract concept of "universal human" could have been "more real" even before humans ever existed.

That's a whole different premise.

I see the point you were attempting to make. I just don't see how it applies to the topic of this thread that's all.

[Blastcat]

I was MORE interested in your argument that "universal human" is as real as "universal fairy".

If you want to begin that argument with the premise that concepts that are closer to real life physical things have more "merit" than concepts that have no realization to actual physical objects, then I would be forced to agree with you. Given that as a premise for the "merit" of ideas, then of course your position is going to stand.

But all of my statements in this thread were in relation to the premise being suggested by the OP of this thread. The idea that an abstract concept of "universal human" could have been "more real" even before humans ever existed.

That's a whole different premise.

I see the point you were attempting to make. I just don't see how it applies to the topic of this thread that's all.

Right....I clicked on a direct link to your post from the message digest .. never occurred to me to read the OP. I just commented on the human=fairy thing...

sorry.. I just couldn't wrap my head around that one... and it is irrelevant to the OP...

Oh by the way, CONCEPTS are not as "real" as what they are supposed to represent.
The finger pointing at the moon is NOT the moon.

So, I agree with your conclusion. I just didn't like your line of reasoning.. just sounded weird to me. I think it's the way that you put it.. It almost makes it sound as if you were saying that humans were as real as fairies. IF you take the "universal concept of " out of the picture.

I think I've digressed from the OP enough for now.
Thanks for being so patient.

[dio9]

In the axial age of Plato there were also Indian philosophers thinking about the same thing. Samkhya had a theory that said every manifestation was already present in the cause. And Vaisheshika said every class of objects have a permanent ideal generality which is independent of all the particulars. In a nutshell they are saying there is an independent cause of every class of things.
For a theist, this idea should not be problematic. But if not , the ancient idea of interconnected change and emptiness also makes the independent reality of each person non existent. In the latter We are not real because we are always changing,
existing only moment to moment, albeit, relative to all things , whether there is a God or not, we are less real than a class or a permanent ideal generality.

[Divine Insight]

whether there is a God or not, we are less real than a class or a permanent ideal generality.

Question:

Where does this proposed class of ideal generality exist?

[dio9]

Ideal generality is not a class. Reality is either God or Void . I am saying God is reality. And if you were to ask , where does God exist ? I'd have to say , Possibly everywhere , because God does not exist in the minds of some.

[Divine Insight]

Reality is either God or Void . I am saying God is reality.

So is that your definition of "God"? Anything that is not void?

How does this differ from Secular Materialism that recognizes that material is not void? Other than the obvious fact that they don't bother labeling material as "God".

[dio9]

[Replying to Divine Insight]

Well I don't limit God to the material world. We also have an internal world of mind. I would say our point of contact is in this internal world. Nobody ever said God is material. God has always been non material. Tradition says God is spiritual. Ancient philosophers of India as well as Greeks held there is an original cause , like an idea, of which we are all unique effects. Getting back to the chair the idea precedes the fact. I think the idea lasts longer. So in this sense the idea will last as long as there are chairs where as each individual chair will not. The universal exists in the realm of ideas.
Getting back to our question about secular materialism , the universal is non material, more like the idea of a chair than the chair.

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 49 by dio9]

If that's the case, then God must be some sort of "mind" that can hold or imagine ideas. If that's the case, then surely this God must be able to imagine the idea of fairies. Therefore, if this is the true nature of reality, then there is no reason why fairies cannot exist, unless the "mind of God" is limited in what ideas God can imagine.

Are you suggesting that "God" is limited in only being able to think about a concept of universal humans then? Especially when it come to imagining sentient beings? Why could God not imagine universal fairies, when mere mortal humans seem to have no trouble imagining fairies?

Your proposal seems problematic in that if all things are not possible then the "mind of God" must be limited. And conversely if all things are possible, then there's no need to imagine a "mind of God" at all, since all things being possible does not require any restrictions or preexisting templates.

I guess what I'm really trying to get at is the following question:

What does postulating the existence of a "mind of God" solve in terms of explaining why some things exist and other things do not?

Also, doesn't the natural evolution of a materialistic world already explain why some things exist and others do not? Why is there any need to introduce something more when the theory of natural evolution already explains everything?

Occam's Razor would favor the simpler explanation. What does evolution fail to explain in this situation?