--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
<curtisdeltabl...@...> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "PaliGap"
<compost1uk@> wrote:
> >
> > <anatol_zinc@> wrote:
> >
> > >> Existence itself is your own direct experience in the
> > >> here and now.
> >
> > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote:
> >
> > > It is a concept, a conclusion we draw from our actual
> > > perceptions and sensations and mental awareness. It is
not
> > > a self supporting ontological identity like matter.
> >
> > ..."a self supporting ontological identity". That puzzles
me!
> > What does that mean? And how does matter get to have this
> > property?
>
>
[snip]
> With existence the question is "where do we start?"
> What are your first principles of experience. I have
> chosen matter as my starting place and by kicking a stone
> or skipping 13 consecutive meals you might join me.
This sounds like the Cambridge philospher G.E. Moore. Not to
be bothered by pesky concerns about the *existence of the
external world*, he offered a *handy* "proof":
"He gave a common sense argument against scepticism by raising
his right hand and saying "Here is one hand," and then raising
his left and saying "And here is another," then concluding
that there are at least two external objects in the world, and
therefore that he knows (by this argument) that an external
world exists. Not surprisingly, not everyone inclined to
sceptical doubts found Moore's method of argument entirely
convincing;"
> Now there is a position in philosophy that is used as
> a thought exercise called extreme skepticism which says
> that since we only experience the outside world through
> our own minds and not directly, we have reason to doubt
> that anything exists as separate from our consciousness.
I think we're talking about "idealism" here (not scepticism).
(The above is after all based on a claim about "how things
are"!).
The opposite of idealism though is realism - not materialism.
Materialism is to realism as southern comfort is to grain
spirits: just one of the options. The philosopher Peirce was a
realist - but also believed Plato-like in the reality of
abstract entities (as did Popper).
So..just curious.. why be a "materialist"? Even idealists and
platonists get bruised feet when they kick stones...
When you say you "choose it as a starting place", I wonder.
Aren't those Frenchies and continentals on to something when
they argue that if you put aside all assumptions and
preconceptions, especially our conditioning towards
"naturalism", then you MUST start with *your own being* (or
something more esoteric in German!).
We arrive in this world - we know not why - and prior to
EVERYTHING I would have thought, our starting point is "being-
for-itself" (that's me, and, I surmise, you too), and "being-
in-itself" (the stones and stuff that stand against us). How
do you get to negate yourself in favour of the "being-in-
itself" as an *assumption*?
