Richard, I think the stick appearing bent in the water is a great example. We
can know a lot about sticks and water and light refraction and still, we won't
see the stick as straight! Even if we dip our hand into the water and touch the
straight stick, we still won't see it straight! Can all these experiences and
knowledge be unified?
On Wednesday, January 29, 2014 8:59 AM, Richard J. Williams
<pundits...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/27/2014 8:01 PM, s3raph...@yahoo.com wrote:
This is elementary. I know I exist. That is only thing of which I am
*absolutely* certain.
>
Most people when asked this question, would reply using a naive
realist position that because we are conscious and can perceive
things and events with the senses so, we conclude that there must be
an existence. This answer is based on observation - perception is
reality. If we are a realist we see things and experience things
just the way they are.
People don't usually get the notion that there is a transcendental
field that is hidden from view - they just accept things as they
are and as they seem - with common sense a realist just understands
that gravity sucks and all human excrement flows downstream. Most
people just use common sense in order to explain existence.
According to my Professor, A.J. Bahm, there are six statements that
summarize the realist view:
1. Objects which are known exist independently of their being known.
2. Objects have qualities or properties, which are parts of the
objects.
3. Objects are not affected merely by being known.
4. Objects seem as they are and are as they seem.
5. Objects are known directly.
6. Objects are public.
The problem with the naive realist position is that the senses don't
reveal everything that can be known - things and events are not
always exactly as they seem. For example, a straight stick when
immersed half way into water may appear to be bent. Things and
events appear to be real, but if appearances derived through one
sensory channel appear contradictory, it is natural to appeal to
other senses for corroboration. When they contradict, which sense
shall we accept as reliable?
