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?

[Miles]

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?

Define your "universal Man."

And, first you ask, "what is real," and then claim "the universal is real." In order to understand this claim we have to know what you mean by "real." So, whatcha got?

[dio9]

Will Durant wrote; ancients believed the universal is a general idea denoting a class of objects; with beauty more real than Helen of troy and Justice more real than the chief justice of the supreme court.

We moderns still debate whether there is a group mind apart from the desires ideas and feelings of the individuals composing the group. Is the sum greater than it's parts? Is the church more than the individual members. Is God a trinity above Father Son and Holy Ghost?

Is the idea of a chair more real than a chair?

[Divine Insight]

Is the idea of a chair more real than a chair?

Where do ideas reside?

A chair appears to be made from physically tangible phenomena.

So do brains.

Do ideas require brains in order to exist?

If so, then an idea cannot be anymore real than a brain. And a brain cannot be anymore real than a chair.

The only way that ideas could be more real than a brain (or a chair) is if ideas could exist independent from brains.

Is there any evidence that suggests that ideas can exist independent from brains?

Where would an idea that is independent from a brain reside?

And where is the evidence for the existence of this mysterious place?

[dio9]

What came first, the idea of the chair or the chair? Chairs don't happen by chance.

[Divine Insight]

What came first, the idea of the chair or the chair? Chairs don't happen by chance.

Well, you're using an example of a man-made object.

If I go out and sit on a stump does that stump qualify as a "chair". Same thing could be said of a rock.

If you want to get as abstractly philosophical as you appear to be getting, then no "chair" can exist until there is an "idea" of a chair. And that included all manufactured "chairs".

"Chair" is just a label that we have placed on objects that we sit on. As I say, what constitutes a chair? Is a log that is comfortable to sit on a "chair"?

Or must a "chair" be purposefully manufactured by a human? In which case, of course the idea would need to come first since humans can't even manufacture a chair until they first have the idea of what it is they want to build.

This is one reason why I personally don't think too much of pure philosophy. People think of things like this without truly thinking about them.

For me it's not a problem at all. Designed and manufactured chairs cannot exist until they are designed and manufactured. But this is not a problem because brains first evolved that were able to think about designing and manufacturing chairs. The brain itself was not designed, because it evolved. And that has already been explained by the theory of evolution.

That's what a good "theory" does. It explains things.

So yes, chairs that are designed purposefully by humans require that humans must exist first. However, humans were not designed in this way, and therefore the "idea" to design a human did not need to exist prior to humans evolving.

So, for me, this line of philosophical thinking is uninteresting. It amounts to nothing more than a misguided notion that just because humans think about things before they design them that this must then be true of everything that exists. And that is the failure of this line of thinking.

Everything that exists was not designed beforehand and then purposefully manufactured according to predesignated plans. There is no reason to assume that this would need to be the case for everything that exists.

This is why this line of thinking doesn't produce any meaningful results.

[dio9]

Don't reject the possibility of universals . Each individual is derived from an astronomical gene pool. the possibilities of combinations with two people , parents , becomes even more countlessly astronomical bordering on the edge of universal.
I'm reading a history of the middle ages around the year 1100. A professor of dialectics, William of Champeaux, and teacher of the more famous Abelard , presented the idea that all humanity is present in each individual. As somewhere in each of us is the vast reservoir of DNA. We are not only individuals , we embody universal humanity. So humanity like the idea is more real than an individual human being.

[Divine Insight]

Don't reject the possibility of universals . Each individual is derived from an astronomical gene pool. the possibilities of combinations with two people , parents , becomes even more countlessly astronomical bordering on the edge of universal.
I'm reading a history of the middle ages around the year 1100. A professor of dialectics, William of Champeaux, and teacher of the more famous Abelard , presented the idea that all humanity is present in each individual. As somewhere in each of us is the vast reservoir of DNA. We are not only individuals , we embody universal humanity. So humanity like the idea is more real than an individual human being.

But the very notion of "philosophical universals" is already an ideal that relies upon a mystical notion that some imagined Platonic Universe actually exists "out there" somewhere over the rainbow.

To begin with DNA combinations alone do not make up a human. We know this for a fact, because much of a human's thinking, beliefs, and behaviors are heavily dependent upon the environment in which they live.

Secondly, DNA combinations that don't actually physical exists are no more "real" than Platonic Numbers that don't actually represent any real quantities.

This is the problem with pure philosophical thinking, you can actually imagine anything you so desire existing in this imaginary "Platonic World". Therefore, not only all of humanity must exist in this Platonic World, but so must everything else that you can imagine to exist.

Also as I mentioned above, humans are not merely the result of combinations of DNA, but instead they are also a result of their entire life's experiences.

So for you to imagine a copy of yourself existing in this imaginary Platonic World, you would necessarily need to also imagine your entire life's situation also existing in this Platonic World. This imaginary Platonic World would need to contain every possibility, not only combinations of DNA, but also every possible world configuration.

Moreover, this doesn't lead to any specialized design. After all, we already know that the combinations of DNA are (as you say) "countless astronomical". Not only would this imaginary Platonic World need to contain all possible humans, (not merely the ones who have actually existed on earth, but every possible human that could ever exist), but it would also need to contain all possible humans that were never born. Think of how many sperm cells never make it to an egg, and how many eggs are never fertilized. All of those potential combinations must exist in this imagined Platonic World.

And if you want to imagine every individual human personality existing in this imaginary Platonic World you would need to imagination "countless astronomical" lives and environments also existing in this imaginary Platonic World in order to produce these "countless astronomical" personalities.

The concept of "specific design" certainly loses any meaning here since all possibilities must be realized. No design required. All that's required is that all possibilities be realized. That's not design.

Moreover, you better be prepared to do a whale of a lot of imagining, because you would need to do the very same thing for every species of animal that ever existed on Earth. And, in addition to this, the imaginary Platonic World would also need to contain a "countless astronomical" number of species that have never even evolved on Earth. Many of them being far superior to humans I might add.

In fact, you would no doubt end up with a "countless astronomical" number of living beings that are far superior to humans.

Humans would be lost in the ocean of this imagined Platonic World.

In fact, all this really amounts to is imagining that everything that ever could potentially happen does happen in this imagined Platonic World. Once again, that certainly doesn't suggest design. On the contrary all it suggests is that everything that's possible must occur.

And ironically you don't even need to imagine a Platonic World to do this. All you need to do is realize that OUR WORLD would be nothing more than since very tiny slice of this imagined Platonic World that is currently being manifest as a physical reality.

Let's assume that this is true? And that somehow every possible "slice" of this imagined Platonic World is being manifest physical somewhere.

What does this lead to? Purposeful Design? No, not at all. On the contrary all it leads to is the realization that everything that is possible must ultimately occur. That would hardly be "design". This would amount to nothing more than an extension of Secular Realism.

All that you are suggesting is that orthodox Secular Realism considers only our current physical manifestation of this particular slice of your proposed imagined Platonic World, and that your proposed Platonic World actually allows for "countless astronomical" secular realism to occur.

But none of this would suggest "design" in any case.

So you''re just taking secular realism to the unbounded imagination of a Platonic World.

Your Platonic World would itself be nothing more than an astronomically unbounded unfolding of secular realism.

Moreover, this philosophical idea of Platonic Universe of all possibilities actually FORBIDS design. How can there be any design involved if all possibilities must become realized? What would there be for a designer to do?

[dio9]

I am not suggesting there is a Platonic you somewhere.
And as for design, logic does imply design, even though it may be beyond our horizon.

[dio9]

There really is a human design. Brains, hips and shoulders hands and feet are recognizable as human. our species is Homo Sapient, Erectus , Habilus , and we all stand upright. Before any of us was born there was this design. The fact is the species is constantly improving. We may not even be the end of the line. There may appear more complete Homo Ofthefutureus. We certainly didn't think up the design. Shall we call evolution God? Evolution seems to have our best interests in mind , (if Evolution has a mind) we might even say evolution loves us. Any which way, the design , precedes us and like the chair we didn't just happen. We didn't create the idea of Mankind or even ourselves. Mankind existed before any of us.