Epistemology: How Does Realism Overcome Idealism?

[MindOverMatter]

We find something beautiful because it is in harmony with some of our inner mind-states. The golden ratio (square root of five minus 1 divided by two - approximately 0.618) is “beautiful”, because we see it all around us. Some people find a certain music beautiful, because music resonates with mind-states. Music is not about sounds, it is how our mind relates to the sounds. Not everyone will find Wagner’s music beautiful. (I cannot resist quoting the old saying: “Wagner’s music is actually much better than it sounds”. )

If there is no such thing as objective beauty, then where does it come from? I see no justified reason to deny the existence of beauty when in fact our acceptance of an objective universe is based on belief. Both perceptions are sense based perceptions. Why accept one and reject the other?

 

[Spock]

If there is no such thing as objective beauty, then where does it come from?

What do you mean? If you poke someone with a sharp needle, where does the scream come from? Pain is just a description of our response, there is no objective pain. If you poke the same needle into a tree, you will get no response, since the tree has no nervous system.

I see no justified reason to deny the existence of beauty when in fact our acceptance of an objective universe is based on belief. Both perceptions are sense based perceptions. Why accept one and reject the other?

The difference is that the universe exists, whether there is someone to perceive it or not. Beauty does not exist if there is no one to perceive it. The universe is objective, beauty is subjective. That is the difference.

 

[MindOverMatter]

The difference is that the universe exists, whether there is someone to perceive it or not.

You know this how?

 

[Spock]

You know this how?

The opposite would be solipsism. One may assert that he adheres to this world-view, but as soon as he performs any action, speaks to someone, then he himself will reveal that he does not believe it. As long as he is consistent in his belief, that is refrains from any acton, he will soon die. One’s own body refutes this world-view. Breathing is an involuntary action, not subject to control. Once you breathe, you admit that there is objectively existing air. Is that not sufficient for you? It is for me.

The fact that you answer my posts proves beyond any doubt that you accept my objective existence.

 

[MindOverMatter]

The opposite would be solipsism. One may assert that he adheres to this world-view, but as soon as he performs any action, speaks to someone, then he himself will reveal that he does not believe it.

Its a matter of principle not belief. In principle i do not know that anything i experience is real as in objective. The fact that my experience is so compelling that i choose to believe in it is beside the point. The point is, ones experience of the universe could be just as much a product of the mind as beauty. You have presented no reason to suggest that either one is more likelier then the other. They are all perceived from a subjective point of view. Sometimes people perceive the same event differently.

 

[Spock]

…when in fact our acceptance of an objective universe is based on belief

.
MindOverMatter;5585217:

Its a matter of principle not belief

.

Nice contradiction. Which one will it be?

In principle i do not know that anything i experience is real as in objective.

If you don’t call this knowledge, I cannot help you.

The fact that my experience is so compelling that i choose to believe in it is beside the point.

Is it? I don’t think so.

The point is, ones experience of the universe could be just as much a product of the mind as beauty. You have presented no reason to suggest that either one is more likelier then the other. They are all perceived from a subjective point of view. Sometimes people perceive the same event differently.

The **perception **of the universe is the product of the mind. The **existence **of it is not. Just because some people incorrectly interpret a mirage to be a lake and not just the reflection of the heat in a desert does not make their incorrect perception become real.

You argue here for universal skepticism, which says that everything is just a product of the mind. You can believe that a glass of sulphuric acid is actually a nutritious drink, but the objective reality will prove you wrong, as soon as you take a sip of it. No, we do not accept the reporting of our senses based on belief (or faith), we accept them because we act on those perceptions and we stay alive. The proof of the pudding is that it is edible. No further proof is needed.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Nice contradiction. Which one will it be?

Can you please stop taking my words out of context.

If you don’t call this knowledge, I cannot help you.

Explain to me how you know for a fact that the universe exists outside of your mind? To see, feel, touch or taste, is not proof that you are in fact seeing, feeling, touching or tasting that which exists outside of your mind.

Is it? I don’t think so.

It is beside the point when it comes to truth. I accept the existence of the universe, not because i know its real or true, but because i “believe” its true.

The **perception **of the universe is the product of the mind.

Correct.

The **existence **of it is not.

prove it!

Just because some people incorrectly interpret a mirage to be a lake and not just the reflection of the heat in a desert does not make their incorrect perception become real.

Just because we perceive a universe does not mean it exists objectively.

You argue here for universal skepticism,

I am not arguing for universal skepticism, and neither have i stated in any post that this is what i am arguing for. Please read my posts properly.

Like you said, we have knowledge of the perception of a universe, but we do not have any knowledge concerning the objective truth of such a universe in terms of its actual existence.

which says that everything is just a product of the mind. You can believe that a glass of sulphuric acid is actually a nutritious drink,

I never said that i did believe this.

but the objective reality will prove you wrong, as soon as you take a sip of it.

The experience of sulphuric does not prove that there is an objective reality in which sulphuric acid actually exists outside of our minds.

No, we do not accept the reporting of our senses based on belief (or faith), we accept them because we act on those perceptions and we stay alive.

This is not proof that the objective universe exists. Neither do you know that you will die just because you experience that other people die. This has been explained above.

The proof of the pudding is that it is edible.

No it is not.

No further proof is needed.

Then i think i will just keep on believing that beauty exists.

 

[Spock]

The experience of sulphuric does not prove that there is an objective reality in which sulphuric acid actually exists outside of our minds.

Just apply the “proof of the pudding”, and you will see that it exists.

Spock:

The proof of the pudding is that it is edible.

No it is not.

This pretty much sums up the differences between the materialist (realist) and the idealist. At the end of this post I will recite a conversation which I conducted before about the same subject. It will not be a verbatim quote, but the gist of it will be there. However, I would appreciate if you would elaborate on just “what is the real proof of the pudding?”.

Then i think i will just keep on believing that beauty exists.

That is your prerogative. Of course I doubt that you can even define what beauty is…

Here is the conversation:

Realist: The universe objectively exists regardless of our prerception.
Idealist: How do you know that?
Realist: I experience it with my senses.
Idealist: How do you know that you can rely on your senses?
Realist: I act on result of what they report to me and my continued existence is the proof that those perceptions are correct. If I would be mistaken and my senses would not report the state of the external world correctly, I would cease to exist.
Idealist: How do you know that you are still alive?
Realist: Cogito, ergo sum.

So you can see that my actual existence is the proof that my senses accurately report the external reality. The proof of the pudding is what counts, and nothing else matters.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Here is the conversation:

Realist: The universe objectively exists regardless of our prerception.
Idealist: How do you know that?
Realist: I experience it with my senses.
Idealist: How do you know that you can rely on your senses?
Realist:*** I act on result of what they report to me and my continued existence is the proof that those perceptions are correct. If I would be mistaken and my senses would not report the state of the external world correctly, I would cease to exist.***
Idealist: How do you know that you are still alive?
Realist: Cogito, ergo sum.

So you can see that my actual existence is the proof that my senses accurately report the external reality. The proof of the pudding is what counts, and nothing else matters.

Is it just me, or can anyone else see the fallacy that i have highlighted in spocks post?

Spock, your existing or ceasing to exist has no bearing on the epistemological truth concerning the objectivity of your experiences in respect of the universe. Showing us that you can possibly perceive a correlation between the fire burning your hand and the pain you experience as a result, has done nothing to prove that the fire is objectively real. You have only proven that you have experienced something. No matter how hard you try to escape the mind you can never overcome the fact that your experience of the universe could be nothing more then a subjective phenomenon. There is no epistemological proof, and there can be no epistemological proof that the universe is objectively real.

 

[Spock]

Is it just me, or can anyone else see the fallacy that i have highlighted in spocks post?

Let me reassure you, it is only you.

Spock, your existing or ceasing to exist has no bearing on the epistemological truth concerning the objectivity of your experiences in respect of the universe. Showing us that you can possibly perceive a correlation between the fire burning your hand and the pain you experience as a result, has done nothing to prove that the fire is objectively real. You have only proven that you have experienced something. No matter how hard you try to escape the mind you can never overcome the fact that your experience of the universe could be nothing more then a subjective phenomenon. There is no epistemological proof, and there can be no epistemological proof that the universe is objectively real.

The important part is highlighted. As soon as you say that I **experienced **something, you admit the reality of the external world. Instead of “experienced” you should have said “imagined”. We are back to solipsism. If you only “imagined” my existence, you should not attempt to talk to me. Also, what I say is clearly something that you find incorrect. Your only option is to accept my actual existence, or believe that you are insane. The choice is easy.

By the way, you still did not give a definition of “beauty”. Can you define it?

 

[MindOverMatter]

The important part is highlighted. As soon as you say that I **experienced **something, you admit the reality of the external world. Instead of “experienced” you should have said “imagined”.

No. You know exactly what i mean. To say that you experience something does not necessarily mean to say that one experiences the objective universe. We experience an image that appears to be objective, but it cannot be proven to be anything more then a projection of the mind. I mean experience in the sense that i am aware of something. That constant stream of information that i perceive could still be nothing more then a product of the mind. But if you want to say imagined, thats fine as-long as its kept within the context of my arguement.

We are back to solipsism. If you only “imagined” my existence, you should not attempt to talk to me.

I don’t know that its an imagination. It appears real, but i can’t prove that its epistemologically real. I have knowledge only of my self. I think therefore i am. I believe that its real.

Also, what I say is clearly something that you find incorrect. Your only option is to accept my actual existence, or believe that you are insane. The choice is easy.

You can choose which ever you want, but you cannot prove that the objective universe exists.

By the way, you still did not give a definition of “beauty”. Can you define it?

I don’t know what it is. I experience that things are beautiful just as much as i experience that there is an objective reality.

 

[Chiral]

(from dictionary.com)
Beauty: the quality present in a thing or person that gives intense pleasure or deep satisfaction to the mind, whether arising from sensory manifestations (as shape, color, sound, etc.), a meaningful design or pattern, or something else (as a personality in which high spiritual qualities are manifest).

I actually find the above definition overly subjective. Whose mind? Is “beauty” really only in the eye of the beholder? Majority opinion? Do differing perceptions of “beauty” mean that beauty is relative? Or does “might make right”?
An “objectivist” would insert that “beauty” is a quality which “gives pleasure or satisfaction to the well-trained or correctly educated mind”.

I see MoM’s point with regard to the Cartesian “dreamer’s paradox” - I cannot prove that i am dreaming, I take it on faith. However, Descartes (and all reasonable minds) make the leap that it doesn’t matter if this is only a dream so long as the dream continues. Thus, even idealists live as realists, the realists have simply allowed their faith in “reality” to carry them forward…

 

[Spock]

You can choose which ever you want, but you cannot prove that the objective universe exists.

It would be helpful if you could specify what do you mean by “prove”? In an axiomatic system (like math) to prove something is to reduce it to the axioms. In the real world, we prove something if there is no reasonable doubt about it.

The existence of the universe is not asserted within a formal system. Therefore a reduction to some axioms is not possible. The existence of the universe is proven by our senses - without any reasonable doubt. To assert the opposite is solipsism, which is refuted by the person who actually asserts it. There is nothing else to be said about this subject.

As soon as you say that the (name removed by moderator)ut which we receive via our senses might be incorrect, or it might be a trick played by our own mind, you are stating sheer nonsense. On what ground can you assert something like that? Based upon other sensory data? Then you contradict yourself. Based upon sheer speculation? Then you are being nonsensical.

I don’t know what it is. I experience that things are beautiful just as much as i experience that there is an objective reality.

If you cannot even define what “beauty” is, then it is irrational to believe in its existence.

Realist: Do you believe in the objective existence of “beauty”?
MoM: Yes, I do.
Realist: Can you define what beauty is?
MoM: I cannot.
Realist: Then **what **do you believe in? If you don’t even know **what **you believe in, then your belief is irrational. At the very least you should be able to define just **what **do you beleive in.

 

[Spock]

(from dictionary.com)
Beauty: the quality present in a thing or person that gives intense pleasure or deep satisfaction to the mind, whether arising from sensory manifestations (as shape, color, sound, etc.), a meaningful design or pattern, or something else (as a personality in which high spiritual qualities are manifest).

I actually find the above definition overly subjective. Whose mind? Is “beauty” really only in the eye of the beholder? Majority opinion? Do differing perceptions of “beauty” mean that beauty is relative? Or does “might make right”?
An “objectivist” would insert that “beauty” is a quality which “gives pleasure or satisfaction to the well-trained or correctly educated mind”.

I see MoM’s point with regard to the Cartesian “dreamer’s paradox” - I cannot prove that i am dreaming, I take it on faith. However, Descartes (and all reasonable minds) make the leap that it doesn’t matter if this is only a dream so long as the dream continues. Thus, even idealists live as realists, the realists have simply allowed their faith in “reality” to carry them forward…

The definiton is subjective, because the concept is subjective. And, yes, beauty is only in the eyes of the beholder.

 

[MindOverMatter]

If you cannot even define what “beauty” is, then it is irrational to believe in its existence.

Realist: Do you believe in the objective existence of “beauty”?
MoM: Yes, I do.
Realist: Can you define what beauty is?
MoM: I cannot.
Realist: Then **what **do you believe in? If you don’t even know **what **you believe in, then your belief is irrational. At the very least you should be able to define just **what **do you beleive in.

Not being able to define or rather “describe” something does not necessarily mean that such a thing does not exist, or doesn’t exist objectively. Everybody experiences beauty, just like they experience the universe. There is such a thing as beauty, and most of the time people agree on what is beautiful and what isn’t; which certainly suggests that there is objectivity to it. And there are those that disagree, just like there are those who disagree on the nature of objective events; and yet we all agree that events exist.

 

[MindOverMatter]

The existence of the universe is proven by our senses - without any reasonable doubt. To assert the opposite is solipsism, which is refuted by the person who actually asserts it. There is nothing else to be said about this subject.

There is one more thing to be said. The objectivity of the universe is not proven by our senses.

As soon as you say that the (name removed by moderator)ut which we receive via our senses might be incorrect, or it might be a trick played by our own mind, you are stating sheer nonsense. On what ground can you assert something like that? Based upon other sensory data? Then you contradict yourself. Based upon sheer speculation? Then you are being nonsensical.

I am not stating sheer nonsense. Neither am i claiming that the universe is not objective. Instead i am simply accepting the truth. Which is, I don’t know if the universe exists objectively or is objectively real.

 

[Spock]

Not being able to define or rather “describe” something does not necessarily mean that such a thing does not exist, or doesn’t exist objectively.

So far, so good. Now substitute “beauty” with “hurrugh” in the above conversation, and you will see that the idealist position will dissolve into sheer madness. Besides, “beauty” can be defined, but only as a “concept”, and not as an “object”.

Everybody experiences beauty, just like they experience the universe.

Not at all. Nobody experiences an abstract “beauty”, they experience actual objects which evoke an inner feeling, because the observed object is somehow pleasing. The universe, or rather actual physical objects outside us are expereinced totally differently. If you put your hand close a hot object, it will evoke an unpleasant feeling, and if you touch it, it will leave marks on your body, which cannot be explained away, as being just a figment of your imagination.

However, you forgot to tell me just what is the “proof” you are looking for the objective existence of the universe. Until you can do that there is not much I can do.

There is one more thing to be said. The objectivity of the universe is not proven by our senses.

That is your opinion. Again, what kind of “proof” are you looking for?

 

[MindOverMatter]

So far, so good. Now substitute “beauty” with “hurrugh” in the above conversation, and you will see that the idealist position will dissolve into sheer madness. Besides, “beauty” can be defined, but only as a “concept”, and not as an “object”.

Beauty is the appearance of an objective reality. We perceive some realities as beautiful. Such a perception is just as real as the fact that we perceive the universe. You provided no reason to doubt its objectivity. You have just dogmatically argued that beauty is not real; but you haven’t said anything that would suggest that beauty is any less real then the objects which express it. Its not some concept that we invented. We experience it just like we experience the universe.

Not at all. Nobody experiences an abstract “beauty”, they experience actual objects which evoke an inner feeling

We experience that some things, which we perceive as objective reality, are beautiful. The same is true of the universe in terms of it actual existence. We perceive a universe and this provokes or invokes within us an inner feeling that this universe is objective/exists outside of our minds.

That is your opinion.

Its not an opinion; its an epistemological fact. Its true in principle, not in opinion.

 

[Sarpedon]

The **perception **of the universe is the product of the mind. The **existence **of it is not. Just because some people incorrectly interpret a mirage to be a lake and not just the reflection of the heat in a desert does not make their incorrect perception become real.

How do you know this thing you call “existence?” Do you know it without referencing your personal capacity to know (i.e. personal experience)?

You are assuming the accuracy of our perception here. You have no knowledge of “existence” except through your own capacity to know, which is your general perception. You can’t say that you know the objective truth of some existence without using your capacity to know. You can’t say that you know something is objectively real without using your personal ability to know.

Knowledge of the external world can only come through our personal capacity to know, which is perception in general. If you disagree with this, I challenge you to come up with something that you know to be true without using your ability to know in the process.

So, all knowledge of the external world is mediated through our personal perception and capacity to know. As such, it is firmly in the domain of epistemology. Now, science says that our perception of the material world in congruent with the external world. That is not a bad position, but it can only be a philosophical position. Since this whole question takes place before science has been established as a reliable method, we cannot use science as evidence here. We need to prove that science is a valid way of knowing before we can use it as evidence. Now the important part comes into play.

For science to be a valid way of knowing, we must prove its validity. We cannot use science and material observation to prove the validity of science and material observation. Nevertheless, we still hold science and material observation as reliable and valid. Thus, we implicitly acknowledge that it is possible to have adequate evidence for something without referencing science or material observation. If non-material evidence cannot be valid, then we cannot establish science. If non-material evidence can be valid, then we can establish science, but we have also destroyed the idea that material evidence is the only valid form of evidence.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Now the important part comes into play.

For science to be a valid way of knowing, we must prove its validity. We cannot use science and material observation to prove the validity of science and material observation. Nevertheless, we still hold science and material observation as reliable and valid. Thus, we implicitly acknowledge that it is possible to have adequate evidence for something without referencing science or material observation. If non-material evidence cannot be valid, then we cannot establish science. If non-material evidence can be valid, then we can establish science, but we have also destroyed the idea that material evidence is the only valid form of evidence.

Thanks Sarpedon.