Realism

For the love of the pursuit of knowledge

Moderator: Moderators

dio9
Under Probation
Posts: 2275
Joined: Sun Sep 06, 2015 7:01 pm

Realism

Post #1

Post by 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?

dio9
Under Probation
Posts: 2275
Joined: Sun Sep 06, 2015 7:01 pm

Post #31

Post by dio9 »

Consider this:
The theory of evolution alone , reduces our worldview to one where humans can be described as biological chemical and physical entities. This view however is as much a philosophical and metaphysical creation as the view that the idea for humanity preceded the appearance of the first humans and came from the mind of a creator God. Where as like the chair we didn't just happen along and the idea preceded Adam.

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18070
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 19 times

Re: Realism

Post #32

Post by Divine Insight »

This is one reason why I don't care much for philosophy in general. Philosophers tend to become easily confused between reality and ideas of reality.

Let me see if I can address your major concerns:
Blastcat wrote: I don't agree with the way you express yourself. I have trouble understanding propositions that are even the TEENIEST bit ambiguous. And your statement above is making my head zing.

Humans ARE more real than fairies. The CONCEPT of a human is more real than the CONCEPT of a fairy, and the concept of a UNIVERSAL HUMAN is more real than the concept of a UNIVERSAL FAIRY.

Does that make any sense to you? If not, what am I missing? If you can explain it to me so that I can understand it, then you have explained yourself EXCEEDINGLY well, and most people should be able to as well. If you want to reach as wide an audience as possible, then start with the LOWEST common denominator, ME.
Just because humans are more real than fairies doesn't make the idea of humans any more real than the idea of fairies. Both both ideas or concepts are still just thoughts and if thoughts are considered to be real then a thought of a fairy is just as real as a thought of a human. Whether the humans or fairies actually exist is totally irrelevant to whether or not the thoughts of these objects exist.
Blastcat wrote: Ok, you don't think that concepts are real. Now we need a definition for what you think is real, and how concepts don't enter into reality. I think that's a very big task. I think that human thoughts are REAL events, that REALLY happen. Even I have thoughts and can at times, think abstractly. These thoughts I take to be real as any other kinds of thoughts. I think that thoughts are real. You don't seem to agree.

I'd like to know your position on that, if possible.
Sure, I have no problem recognizing that thoughts are real. And therefore the thought of a fairy is just as real as a thought of a human. (assuming it's a human who is thinking of fairies). Insofar as we know there are no fairies that can actually think for themselves. But humans can certainly imagine fairies who can think for themselves. So the THOUGHT of fairies that think for themselves is very real.

In short, if you accept that thoughts are real, then how are you going to deny the reality of the thought of a fairy?

I can think of fairies. And if my thoughts are real, then the concept of a fairy is real. No real fairies need to ever exist.

Blastcat wrote: You seem to be saying a bit more than that. You seem to be saying that:

1) Concepts aren't "objectively real".
2) The concept "universal human" is identical to the concept "universal fairy".
3) The imagined concept of "universal humans" is not real.
4) All imagined abstract objects are false.
[/quote]

1) Concepts aren't "objectively real".

a. Concepts are nothing more than ideas held within the minds of humans.
b. Therefore concepts are only as real as human thoughts.
c. If we want to say that the human concept of "Universal Humans" is real in this way,...
d. then we must necessarily also recognize that the human concept of "Universal Fairies" must also be real in this very same way.
e. In other words, if we recognize than human thoughts are real then all human thoughts must be given equal rights in this regard.

2) The concept "universal human" is identical to the concept "universal fairy".

a. Identical only in that they both constitute human ideas as abstract thoughts.
b. Clearly they do not both constitute the very same idea.
c. But it doesn't matter what idea they represent, if the reason we are calling them "real" is simply because we claim that all human thoughts are real.
d. If all human thoughts are real then, yes, the concept of "universal human" is indeed identical to the concept of "universal fairy" in that both of these concept are nothing more than human thoughts.

3) The imagined concept of "universal humans" is not real.

a. I've never seen a"universal human".
b. I have no reason to believe that such a thing exists in reality.
c. What gender or sex would a "universal human" have? :-k
d. Just because we can make up abstract ideas as thoughts doesn't give them objective reality.

4) All imagined abstract objects are false.

a. Now you are trying to assign truth values to imagined concepts.
c. What's the truth value of the concept of a "universal human"?
d. It's just a vague idea that can't even be well-defined.
e. I never even suggested that abstract ideas can be assigned truth or false values.
d. What we might do is ask whether these ideas could potentially be matched up with objects that DO exist.

You might then argue that we'd have a better chance of doing this with a concept of "universal humans" than with "universal fairies". But why is that the case? It's the case because we created the idea (or concept) of a "universal human" by looking at real humans. So we created that concept from an existing entity (Just the opposite of what Dio9 would like to claim, by the way)

You need to keep in mind that my original position was in response to Dio9's claim that humans were designed AFTER this mysterious "Universal Human" that would necessarily have needed to exist even PRIOR to the evolution of humans.

And my argument is simply that if that were the case, then PRIOR to the existence of humans, an abstract concept of "Universal Fairies" would have been just as good.
Blastcat wrote: Let me re-iterate one of MY main points:

Humans ARE more real than fairies. The CONCEPT of a human is more real than the CONCEPT of a fairy, and the concept of a UNIVERSAL HUMAN is more real than the concept of a UNIVERSAL FAIRY.

I disagree. The CONCEPT of a fairy is every bit as real as the CONCEPT of a human. Whether these objects exist in physical reality has absolutely nothing to do with how real the thought or idea of these objects is.
Blastcat wrote: Put another way:

The concept of a universal human is more real than the concept of a universal fairy BECAUSE the CONCEPT of a human is more real than the CONCEPT of a fairy BECAUSE a human is more real than a fairy.
But the CONCEPT of a human isn't anymore real than the CONCEPT of a fairy.

A CONCEPT is just a thought. If you can THINK of a Fairy then that thought is just as real as a thought of a human. The fact that no fairies actually exist is totally irrelevant. The THOUGHT of a Fairy is still a real thought and therefore the CONCEPT (or idea) of a fairy is just as real as the CONCEPT or idea of a human.

~~~~~~~

And this is especially true if you are attempting to argue as Dio9 is suggesting that this CONCEPT of humans came FIRST and mysteriously existed somewhere else before humans ever evolved.

If that's the case then who could argue that the CONCEPT of fairies isn't just as real and fairies simply have yet to evolve? :-k

It's just a matter of time. ;)
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

User avatar
Haven
Guru
Posts: 1803
Joined: Sun Jan 12, 2014 8:23 pm
Location: Tremonton, Utah
Has thanked: 70 times
Been thanked: 52 times
Contact:

Post #33

Post by Haven »

[color=brown]dio9[/color] wrote:
Consider this:
The theory of evolution alone , reduces our worldview to one where humans can be described as biological chemical and physical entities. This view however is as much a philosophical and metaphysical creation as the view that the idea for humanity preceded the appearance of the first humans and came from the mind of a creator God. Where as like the chair we didn't just happen along and the idea preceded Adam.
The theory of evolution doesn't imply that we are simply biological, chemical, and physical entities. It's compatible with that view, of course, but there's nothing about evolutionary theory (in and of itself) that would rule out a supernatural soul, mental essence, or other non-natural quality to human beings. Many theistic evolutionists (that is, religious believers who accept evolution and believe that God(s) had a hand in the process) accept both the theory of evolution and a spiritual essence to humanity.
♥ Haven (she/her) ♥
♥ Kindness is the greatest adventure ♥

User avatar
Blastcat
Banned
Banned
Posts: 5948
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 4:18 pm
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Realism

Post #34

Post by Blastcat »

[Replying to post 32 by Divine Insight]
Divine Insight wrote: This is one reason why I don't care much for philosophy in general. Philosophers tend to become easily confused between reality and ideas of reality.
I am not a philosopher. I might JUST be confused by the way you express your views.
Blastcat wrote: I don't agree with the way you express yourself. I have trouble understanding propositions that are even the TEENIEST bit ambiguous. And your statement above is making my head zing.

Humans ARE more real than fairies. The CONCEPT of a human is more real than the CONCEPT of a fairy, and the concept of a UNIVERSAL HUMAN is more real than the concept of a UNIVERSAL FAIRY.

Does that make any sense to you? If not, what am I missing? If you can explain it to me so that I can understand it, then you have explained yourself EXCEEDINGLY well, and most people should be able to as well. If you want to reach as wide an audience as possible, then start with the LOWEST common denominator, ME.
Divine Insight wrote:Just because humans are more real than fairies doesn't make the idea of humans any more real than the idea of fairies. Both both ideas or concepts are still just thoughts and if thoughts are considered to be real then a thought of a fairy is just as real as a thought of a human. Whether the humans or fairies actually exist is totally irrelevant to whether or not the thoughts of these objects exist.
WOW... !

That's a LOT of philosophy for someone who isn't a philosopher. You say that philosophers tend to become easily confused between reality and ideas of reality. I have to agree with you that this is sometimes the case.

Let me try to break what you wrote down into MEANINGFUL bits:

1) You concede that humans are more real than fairies: "Just because humans are more real than fairies..."

I am glad that you think that humans are MORE real than fairies. We agree on this.

2) You say that ideas can be false ( or as you say, about something unreal ) : "doesn't make the idea of humans any more real than the idea of fairies."

When you use the word "UNREAL", I can substitute that for "UNTRUE". It's an UNTRUE idea that fairies are real. It's UNTRUE that fairies exist. It's TRUE that humans are real. It's a TRUE idea that humans are real.

As I stated before, some ideas can be FALSE. Ideas of fairies are FALSE. Ideas of fairies are UNTRUE. ALL ideas of fairies are about fictional characters.

So, I agree with you.

3) Ideas and and concepts are thoughts: "Both both ideas or concepts are still just thoughts "

Thoughts are thoughts, so I have to agree with you.

4) IF thoughts are real, then thoughts of humans are as real as thoughts of fairies :"if thoughts are considered to be real then a thought of a fairy is just as real as a thought of a human. "

It's TRUE, and therefore REAL that thoughts occur. So, in a sense, thoughts are REAL and TRUE events. However, that says nothing at ALL about the truth of the CONTENT of the thoughts that are really occurring.

Some thoughts are about REAL things.. ( I use "true" and "real" interchangeably here...)

Thoughts about humans are thoughts about TRUE things. Humans are real things.
Thoughts about fairies are thoughts about FALSE things. Fairies aren't real.

Philosophers tend to become easily confused between reality and ideas of reality.
Lucky for me that I am not a philosopher. ;)

5) The existence of what is thought about is irrelevant to the existence of the thought:"Whether the humans or fairies actually exist is totally irrelevant to whether or not the thoughts of these objects exist. "

I agree. Some thoughts are about FALSE things, and some thoughts are about FALSE things.

Thoughts about FALSE things are LESS true than thoughts about TRUE things.

It's important here that I define clearly what I mean by true, false, real and unreal:

Something that is LESS true, is also LESS real. ( I take something that matches with reality to be TRUE, and something that DOESN'T match with reality to be FALSE )
Divine Insight wrote:Sure, I have no problem recognizing that thoughts are real.
Then we agree. Thoughts are real human mental events.
Divine Insight wrote:And therefore the thought of a fairy is just as real as a thought of a human.
The fact that a thought about a fairy occurs does NOT mean that the fairy is real. It just means that the thought is a real event. Maybe it would be helpful if you defined a a bit what you MEAN by "real". I think your use is ambiguous.
Divine Insight wrote:But humans can certainly imagine fairies who can think for themselves. So the THOUGHT of fairies that think for themselves is very real.
It's getting through a bit... It's a true statement to say that when I think of a fairy, that I am thinking of a fairy. I am having a true event called "Imagining fairies".

AND

It's a true statement to say that when I think of a human, that I am thinking of a human. I am having a true event called "Imagining humans".

Is that close?

Imagining is imagining. But imagining X is not the same as imagining Y.
Divine Insight wrote:In short, if you accept that thoughts are real, then how are you going to deny the reality of the thought of a fairy?
I accept that thoughts occur.. it's true that humans have thoughts. It's real that thoughts occur.

I don't deny the reality of a thought occurring. Thoughts occur. I therefore, have to agree that thoughts of fairies can also really occur.
Divine Insight wrote:I can think of fairies. And if my thoughts are real, then the concept of a fairy is real. No real fairies need to ever exist.
The CONCEPT of a fairy is a real concept of a FALSEHOOD. Of course they don't exist.

Real concepts that are about FALSE things are NOT as "real" as concepts that are about TRUE things.

Ideas about fairies are not as true as ideas about humans.
Blastcat wrote: You seem to be saying a bit more than that. You seem to be saying that:

1) Concepts aren't "objectively real".
2) The concept "universal human" is identical to the concept "universal fairy".
3) The imagined concept of "universal humans" is not real.
4) All imagined abstract objects are false.
Divine Insight wrote:1) Concepts aren't "objectively real".

a. Concepts are nothing more than ideas held within the minds of humans.
Was I wrong to say that you don't believe concepts are "objectively real"?
I thought you said that concepts were real human mental events?
Divine Insight wrote:b. Therefore concepts are only as real as human thoughts.
Concepts ARE human thoughts or mental events. So, yeah, concepts are real human are thoughts or mental events.
Divine Insight wrote:c. If we want to say that the human concept of "Universal Humans" is real in this way,...
d. then we must necessarily also recognize that the human concept of "Universal Fairies" must also be real in this very same way.
Both are thoughts, granted. Both aren't at all TRUE thoughts, that are about REAL things.

The two different thoughts have different TRUTH values.

What does it mean to say that a thought is "real" if what is thought about isn't?
I think we are getting very confused as to the meanings of "true" and "real".

"Philosophers tend to become easily confused between reality and ideas of reality."
Divine Insight wrote:e. In other words, if we recognize than human thoughts are real then all human thoughts must be given equal rights in this regard.
Not all human thoughts are true. Some are false, some are MEANINGLESS.
Divine Insight wrote:2) The concept "universal human" is identical to the concept "universal fairy".
I have NO idea how you EQUATE the concepts "universal human" with "universal fairy". You BAFFLE me.
Divine Insight wrote:a. Identical only in that they both constitute human ideas as abstract thoughts.
Ideas are ideas. The concept of ideas is identical with the concept ideas. Agreed. Only in this ONE sense are ideas about humans identical with ideas about fairies. They are both identically conceptual IDEAS.

A painting is a painting is a painting? They are all just painting in this museum, so all paintings are the SAME? Bad logic if you think that all paintings are the same.

But THAT'S where the similarity ENDS.. in all other respects, ideas about humans and fairies are NOT the same. You seem to have FOUND ONE and only ONE way to make ideas about humans and fairies identical. There are COUNTLESS ways that fairies and humans differ, and of course we have to THINK using our MINDS in order to HAVE these IDEAS.

The fact that both ARE in the category of IDEAS does NOT imply that the ideas are IDENTICAL.
Divine Insight wrote:b. Clearly they do not both constitute the very same idea.
Agreed. There are different ideas. Ideas are NOT all the same, as I have tried to explain above.
Divine Insight wrote:c. But it doesn't matter what idea they represent, if the reason we are calling them "real" is simply because we claim that all human thoughts are real.
Ahhhh.. I find a problem. We do not claim that what humans have ideas about are REAL. We simply claim that ideas are ideas, and it's REAL that humans have all kinds of weird and wonderful ideas.

But not all ideas are equally valid, equally real, or equally true. You seem to be getting confused as to what you are calling "real".

It's TRUE that people have ideas. That's a REALITY.
It's also true that people have BAD ideas some of the time. That's also a reality.

If we are talking about the ontology of beings, SOME ideas are NOT as good as others. SOME beings have NO real ontology. They aren't ever "real" beings.

SOME beings DO have real ontology. Like humans, they DO exist in the real world, humans ARE real.

It's no use to say that both UNREAL things and REAL things are BOTH real.
Both IDEAS might be "real" , but the OBJECT of the ideas aren't both real.

We CAN harbor false ideas.

If you say that ideas about humans are just as REAL as ideas about fairies, then it would also mean that ideas about humans are just as FALSE as ideas about fairies.

And this would be a very MEANINGLESS statement.

"Philosophers tend to become easily confused between reality and ideas of reality."
Yes, indeed.
Divine Insight wrote:d. If all human thoughts are real then, yes, the concept of "universal human" is indeed identical to the concept of "universal fairy" in that both of these concept are nothing more than human thoughts.
If the only criteria you want to look at is the one that will prove your point, then go for it. I think that humans and fairies are MORE than just human thoughts. The concept human and the concept fairy are meant to REPRESENT something that maps to what we call reality. Fairies do a VERY poor job of mapping to reality, whereas we all know about HUMANS.

Fairies are ONLY human ideas.

Humans, by and large are MORE than just human ideas.
Divine Insight wrote:3) The imagined concept of "universal humans" is not real.

a. I've never seen a"universal human".
We don't "see" concepts. We don't "see" the concept of the Eiffel Tower, either. Do you think that the Eiffel Tower is as real as a fairy?
Divine Insight wrote:b. I have no reason to believe that such a thing exists in reality.
If you can't "see" what a concept represents, then it doesn't EXIST.
You can't "see" the concept "humans" , so I might conclude that you don't believe that humans exist, or La Tour d'Eiffel either.
Divine Insight wrote:c. What gender or sex would a "universal human" have? :-k
Both, I suppose. If we are talking in general, about a species, it's GOT to be both.
( and all the rest LGBTQ etc...)
Divine Insight wrote:d. Just because we can make up abstract ideas as thoughts doesn't give them objective reality.
I use the word true and real interchangeably here. I call what is TRUE.. is also OBJECTIVELY REAL.

What I've been saying all along is that some ideas are better at mapping objective reality than others and are, therefore, more REAL than other ideas.

Ideas about fairies are LESS real than ideas about HUMANS because fairies don't MATCH well with reality, whereas ideas about humans DO. And the same applies for the GENERAL CATEGORY of fairies and humans.

Ideas about the general category of humans are MORE real than ideas about the general categories of FAIRIES.

The first ideas are about OBJECTIVELY REAL beings, and the latter are about FICTIONAL beings.
Divine Insight wrote:4) All imagined abstract objects are false.

a. Now you are trying to assign truth values to imagined concepts.
People can.

If I hold the concept " Fairies are dancing on the screen" I can assign a truth value to the thought. It's a true or false imagined concept.

If I hold the concept "Fairies green jump lively on nothingness" I can safely say that that concept is MEANINGLESS. Welcome to theology if you think otherwise.

If I hold the concept "I am a human being", I can assign a truth value to that, too. Yeah, pretty much, people can differentiate between true imagined concepts and false ones.

But as you say, philosophers tend to become easily confused between reality and ideas of reality.
Divine Insight wrote:c. What's the truth value of the concept of a "universal human"?
Depends what the content of the concept IS. I don't think that's been defined here. We are talking in generalities with NO content, so far. We have NO definition of "human" and we have NO definition for "fairy".

If we were to say that the universal human has four legs.. then that statement would be MORE false, than if we said it had two, for example.

If we were to say that the universal human sometimes tend to become easily confused between reality and ideas of reality, I would say that the truth value would be TRUE.
Divine Insight wrote:d. It's just a vague idea that can't even be well-defined.
A lot of things are like that before we try. You don't have to try.
Divine Insight wrote:e. I never even suggested that abstract ideas can be assigned truth or false values.
Ok. I don't think that I suggested that you DID suggest it.
Divine Insight wrote:d. What we might do is ask whether these ideas could potentially be matched up with objects that DO exist.
That's what I did. I ask if humans match with objects that do exist. They do. Fairies don't.

So, let's not waste our time discussing humans and fairies as if they were the same. They aren't.

This is one long, tedious diversion away from the actual topic. If you can't tell the difference between the concept of human and the concept of fairy, then fine. But you won't be very useful in the discussion about what it means to BE a human OR a fairy.
Divine Insight wrote: You might then argue that we'd have a better chance of doing this with a concept of "universal humans" than with "universal fairies". But why is that the case? It's the case because we created the idea (or concept) of a "universal human" by looking at real humans. So we created that concept from an existing entity
Well, its MORE useful to create a concept from a REAL existing being than a FALSE one. I don't see any POINT in creating a concept from thin air and pretend that it's as real as something we all KNOW exists. Fairies are fiction. Humans are real.
Divine Insight wrote:You need to keep in mind that my original position was in response to Dio9's claim that humans were designed AFTER this mysterious "Universal Human" that would necessarily have needed to exist even PRIOR to the evolution of humans.
I don't need to keep that in mind at all.
Your position in regards to the reality of the concept of humans and the concept of fairies is all I have to keep in mind.
Divine Insight wrote:And my argument is simply that if that were the case, then PRIOR to the existence of humans, an abstract concept of "Universal Fairies" would have been just as good.
That is your argument with Dio9, not me. I don't care about that argument. Go for it with Dio9.
Blastcat wrote: Let me re-iterate one of MY main points:

Humans ARE more real than fairies. The CONCEPT of a human is more real than the CONCEPT of a fairy, and the concept of a UNIVERSAL HUMAN is more real than the concept of a UNIVERSAL FAIRY.
Divine Insight wrote:I disagree. The CONCEPT of a fairy is every bit as real as the CONCEPT of a human.
A concept is a concept. But concepts are DIFFERENT in content.
Divine Insight wrote:Whether these objects exist in physical reality has absolutely nothing to do with how real the thought or idea of these objects is.
Thoughts are real. Thoughts about Jabberwockies are real thoughts. Jabberwockies are not as real as humans. So, the THOUGHTS about Jabberwockies are not as REAL as the thoughts about humans.
Blastcat wrote: Put another way:

The concept of a universal human is more real than the concept of a universal fairy BECAUSE the CONCEPT of a human is more real than the CONCEPT of a fairy BECAUSE a human is more real than a fairy.
Divine Insight wrote:But the CONCEPT of a human isn't anymore real than the CONCEPT of a fairy.
A CONCEPT is just a thought. We agree that all concepts are concepts and all thoughts are thoughts.

If you can THINK of a Fairy then that thought is just as real as a thought of a human. The fact that no fairies actually exist is totally irrelevant. The THOUGHT of a Fairy is still a real thought and therefore the CONCEPT (or idea) of a fairy is just as real as the CONCEPT or idea of a human.

A thought is a thought. That's TRUE.
A thought about a false thing isn't as true as a thought about a TRUE thing.

"Philosophers tend to become easily confused between reality and ideas of reality."

You seem to think that universal concepts just aren't real. I have to wonder if you think that the universal concept of concepts is real or not real?

Perhaps it irritates you that we want to discuss what humanity is, what it means and so on. You might not want to discuss something so general.

Maybe the concept of humanity is as unreal to you as the concept of fairies. Some others might want to discuss what it means when we say that we are human. What is a human?

Maybe all of this talk is meaningless to you.
I have no actual problem with that.

Not everyone is interested in philosophy, after all.

You might rather discuss the reality of universal concepts, but not engage in philosophy. Philosophers become easily confused between reality and ideas of reality, after all.

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18070
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 19 times

Re: Realism

Post #35

Post by Divine Insight »

Blastcat wrote: It's TRUE, and therefore REAL that thoughts occur. So, in a sense, thoughts are REAL and TRUE events. However, that says nothing at ALL about the truth of the CONTENT of the thoughts that are really occurring.
Exactly.

And therefore while the thought of "universal humans" is a real thought it says nothing about the reality of such an imagined concept.

And therefore the thought of "universal humans" has no more reality to it than the thought of "universal fairies".

The fact that individual humans actually exist does not make the thought of 'universal humans' anymore true than the thought of 'universal fairies'.
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

User avatar
Blastcat
Banned
Banned
Posts: 5948
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 4:18 pm
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Realism

Post #36

Post by Blastcat »

[Replying to post 35 by Divine Insight]

Blastcat wrote: It's TRUE, and therefore REAL that thoughts occur. So, in a sense, thoughts are REAL and TRUE events. However, that says nothing at ALL about the truth of the CONTENT of the thoughts that are really occurring.
Divine Insight wrote:Exactly.

And therefore while the thought of "universal humans" is a real thought it says nothing about the reality of such an imagined concept.
So, let's talk about what a human is then, and PUT some REAL content into the concept.
Divine Insight wrote:And therefore the thought of "universal humans" has no more reality to it than the thought of "universal fairies".
Sorry, but to some, talk about what it means to be human has a LOT of meaning and "reality".
Divine Insight wrote:The fact that individual humans actually exist does not make the thought of 'universal humans' anymore true than the thought of 'universal fairies'.
It does make talk of humans more real that there are real humans, and talk of fairies less real because because there are no fairies.

I don't know anything about "universal" anything. But I can certainly talk about concepts. Some concepts are about REAL things, and some concepts are about UNREAL things.

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18070
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 19 times

Re: Realism

Post #37

Post by Divine Insight »

[Replying to post 36 by Blastcat]

Are you arguing in support of Dio9's position that an abstract concept of "universal humans" preexisted humans and potentially played a role in how evolution had to "design" humans?

I can't imagine that you are supporting that position.

The fact, that we can look at the collection of individual humans, label that as "humanity" and then consider what properties appear to be common to that existing collection of individuals does not give "reality" to the the abstract concept of a "universal human".

All it amounts to is an attempt to abstractly categorize common traits.

I personally don't even accept the notion that the entire collection of all human individual can be reduced to a single concept labeled "universal human". And even if you did reduce it to that it would be extremely limited as it would necessarily need to ignore traits that are rare in some individual humans.

To begin with a "universal human" would need to be gender-less and sex-neutral. Do you know of ANY individual humans who actually fit that description? '

You would end up already needing to create two abstract categories. One for "universal man" and one for "universal woman". And we could keep going along these same lines until we have so many unique "universal groups" that what we ultimately end with is a "universal group" for every individual.

I don't even buy into the notion that it even makes sense to talk about any "actual real objects" called "universal humans". At best, it's just an abstract idea of trying to categorize the traits that most humans are likely to have.

The same thing could be done with "fairies" even though fairies don't physically exist. Fairies DO EXIST as objects of human imagination and folklore. Therefore there is a lot of information out there that describes what a "fairy" ought to be.

And thus, you could create an abstract "Universal Fairy" in the same way that you could create an abstract "Universal Human", and both concepts would be equally abstract having no counterpart in reality.

So I'm not sure what your point is.
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

User avatar
Blastcat
Banned
Banned
Posts: 5948
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 4:18 pm
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Realism

Post #38

Post by Blastcat »

[Replying to post 37 by Divine Insight]



Divine Insight wrote:Are you arguing in support of Dio9's position that an abstract concept of "universal humans" preexisted humans and potentially played a role in how evolution had to "design" humans?

I can't imagine that you are supporting that position.
I can't imagine either. I've told you a few times now that I don't CARE about Dio9's argument.
Divine Insight wrote:The fact, that we can look at the collection of individual humans, label that as "humanity" and then consider what properties appear to be common to that existing collection of individuals does not give "reality" to the the abstract concept of a "universal human".
Concepts are not as real as what they might represent. Agreed.
Divine Insight wrote:All it amounts to is an attempt to abstractly categorize common traits.
Yes, I take the term "universal" to pretty much mean "general" and "common traits".
Divine Insight wrote:I personally don't even accept the notion that the entire collection of all human individual can be reduced to a single concept labeled "universal human".
Ok, you don't accept the notion. Others might. I don't have a problem with it, myself. I generalize all the TIME... so do most people.
Divine Insight wrote:And even if you did reduce it to that it would be extremely limited as it would necessarily need to ignore traits that are rare in some individual humans.
Sure, a general description isn't a specific one.
Divine Insight wrote:To begin with a "universal human" would need to be gender-less and sex-neutral. Do you know of ANY individual humans who actually fit that description? '
I actually do, but that's besides the point. I don't know why you assume that a general description of a human would have to leave out sexuality or gender characteristics.
Divine Insight wrote:You would end up already needing to create two abstract categories.
One for "universal man" and one for "universal woman". And we could keep going along these same lines until we have so many unique "universal groups" that what we ultimately end with is a "universal group" for every individual.
I don't think that biologists have that much trouble with taxonomy.
Divine Insight wrote:I don't even buy into the notion that it even makes sense to talk about any "actual real objects" called "universal humans". At best, it's just an abstract idea of trying to categorize the traits that most humans are likely to have.
Nobody should think that a concept is an object.
Divine Insight wrote:The same thing could be done with "fairies" even though fairies don't physically exist. Fairies DO EXIST as objects of human imagination and folklore. Therefore there is a lot of information out there that describes what a "fairy" ought to be.
The "information" about fairies is purely fictional.
Divine Insight wrote:And thus, you could create an abstract "Universal Fairy" in the same way that you could create an abstract "Universal Human", and both concepts would be equally abstract having no counterpart in reality.
Humans are real.
Divine Insight wrote:So I'm not sure what your point is.
My point is that when you say that "universal human" is just as REAL as "universal fairy", you are wrong.

ANYTHING human ( that is factual ) is more REAL than anything fairy ( that would have to be all made UP )

dio9
Under Probation
Posts: 2275
Joined: Sun Sep 06, 2015 7:01 pm

Post #39

Post by dio9 »

Would you agree concepts are real is they can be represented ?

User avatar
Blastcat
Banned
Banned
Posts: 5948
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 4:18 pm
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #40

Post by Blastcat »

[Replying to post 39 by dio9]
dio9 wrote: Would you agree concepts are real is they can be represented ?
I THINK you meant :

"Would you agree concepts are real IF they can be represented ?"

Your question is very ambiguous, but I will take a stab at it, in case my answer helps you:

We know that we have concepts. Concepts are REAL human mental events that we can verify. All concepts are REPRESENTATIONS.

Concepts can be about REAL THINGS or FALSE THINGS.

Post Reply