--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "PaliGap" <compost...@...> wrote:
ME: What an excellent response! I will try to keep up. <snip> > [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;" I do get confused on all the levels of thought in play here. One one hand (pun intended) I tend to agree. > > > 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"!). I was referring to the position that is skeptical of the existence of the outside world. It is a different angle than idealism but maybe they meet at one end of the extreme. But in either case I still want my burger rare and my beer cold. > > The opposite of idealism though is realism - not materialism. Nice distinction. > 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). Excellent, thanks for furthering the distinctions. > > So..just curious.. why be a "materialist"? Even idealists and > platonists get bruised feet when they kick stones... I'm not sure I am a complete materialist but I am pretty close. The problem arises when we apply these ideas to all the level we actually live on. I am also a romantic so that doesn't really fit any extreme materialist model. And I believe that the arts are one of the best things we do on earth, even though I wish the more earnest types would cure cancer already. > > 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!) It is hard for me to go there. The stuff I live with seems every bit as real as my sense of Self but if my brain stops functioning someone else is going to be playing my guitars. . > > 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*? I guess I believe in both on a practical level. The entity that has been created by my brain functioning is as real to me as it needs to be. And I still need to keep my guitars in tune. So I'm not sure that these theoretical questions are in conflict in my life. However it is also entirely possible that I am just not really able to understand the challenge of the ideas you have presented and am completely missing your point. >
