[lit-ideas] Re: Realism/Geary on Unreal Temperature

  • From: Mike Geary <jejunejesuit.geary2@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2010 22:14:05 -0500

: )


Mike Geary


On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 5:21 PM, carol kirschenbaum <carolkir@xxxxxxxxx>wrote:

> Ya take the table to the guy who took your wife, when you said, "Take my
> wife...please!"
>
> ck
>
> On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 2:25 PM, Mike Geary <jejunejesuit.geary2@xxxxxxxxx
> > wrote:
>
>> Or as Lenny says:
>> "…I’ve got a couple of friends of mine, we often sit around the Ritz Bar
>> having a few liqueurs, and they’re always saying things like that, you know,
>> things like: Take a table, take it. All right I say, take it, take a table,
>> but once you’ve taken it, what you going to do with it? Once you’ve got hold
>> of it, where are you going to take it?"
>>
>> Mike Geary
>> Memphis
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 9:27 AM, Donal McEvoy 
>> <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx>wrote:
>>
>>> Clarifying what may in any case remain unclear:-
>>>
>>> > when I see a table, the content of
>>> > what I see is not an actual table but my perception of a
>>> > table. [Try setting down supper on the content of what I see
>>> > and you'll see Kant's point].
>>> >
>>> > But surely even if we accept this, it leaves open the
>>> > question of whether that content accurately corresponds to
>>> > some non-p R that lies beyond it?
>>> >
>>> > If so, we may accept "one can’t perceive R" without
>>> > having to accept the view that 'One can never compare p with
>>> > R, for there is no way of perceiving R.’
>>>
>>> Though the quotations are lifted from RP's post, given the distinction
>>> drawn between pR (the aspects of Reality that are perceived) and non-pR (the
>>> aspects of Reality that lie beyond or outside of what exists in perception),
>>> it should be emphasised that in the paragraph above the meaning of R is
>>> "non-pR" - for clearly we can and do perceive what exists as a matter of our
>>> perception e.g. what is presented to me now as my visual field is something
>>> that exists as a presented visual field and so is part of pR which can be
>>> perceived.
>>>
>>> Amplified further:- the contention of the above paragraph is that, from
>>> the assumption that we cannot perceive non-pR, it does not follow that we
>>> cannot compare [or contrast] the content of p with a [conjectured] non-pR.
>>> For example, while my senses may deceive me that the table I am writing
>>> at is a certain colour in its 'non-pR' ding-an-sich state, they may be on
>>> better ground in telling me that its solidity is such that it would hurt my
>>> forehead more than writing this post were I to smash my head down on it.
>>>
>>> Whether we regard this as a definitional truism or a truth of substantive
>>> metaphysics may be left aside for the moment.
>>>
>>>
>>> Donal
>>> Shropshire
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
>>> digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
>>>
>>
>>
>

Other related posts: