0

[Please bear in mind that I may use different definitions of terms here, than you might know, since I’m a layman/hobbyist. Suggesting other terms for those definitions, that are established in the community, as well as general meta-problems, is highly welcome of course.]

Given the definitions of

  • the particle “-ism” as denoting an ideology,
  • an “ideology” as a belief,
  • a “belief” as an idea/mindset/meme that is held, even in the face of contradicting experience/observation,

and defining

  • the particle “real-“ as “based on experiences/observations (presumably from ‘the real world’)” …

.
.
Can “realism” still exist?

It seems to me, that the whole point of the definition of “real-“ here is that it excludes things like “-ism”s.
But that is what I’m wondering:
Could somebody still make realism into an ideology (or into a religion)?
Or is it just a case of “Just because you can say it, doesn’t mean it can be.”, at least for those definitions?

Improve this question
12
  • 1
    See Realism and Scientific Realism.
    – Mauro ALLEGRANZA
    Commented Oct 25, 2022 at 6:34
  • So yes, “realism” exists, but it is not a religion.
    – Mauro ALLEGRANZA
    Commented Oct 25, 2022 at 6:35
  • 2
    Can you clarify this question? If we take your definitions, which are constructed to produce a contradiction, then there is a contradiction. However, in normal discourse, the word "belief" doesn't imply that the belief is held contrary to counterevidence, and "real" doesn't mean "based on experiences/observations". It seems like you are trying to equivocate on the meanings of the words.
    – David Gudeman
    Commented Oct 25, 2022 at 8:06
  • @DavidGudeman: Regarding “belief” and “real”: I never heard anybody claim those aren’t the definitions. So I’m curious: What other definitions would you suggest?
    – anon
    Commented Oct 26, 2022 at 18:46
  • 1
    As to this: "I take the answer to my question to be: Sure, one can come up with a “realism” anyway, if one just drives the cognitive dissonance hard enough...": there is a technical term for this; it is called a "straw man" argument. What you are doing here is rhetoric, not philosophy. In philosophy, you engage with your opponent's arguments in a good-faith attempt to show him that his argument is not good. Instead, you are crafting an argument that no one has made so that you have something easy to defeat. There is no point to that practice other than self-aggrandizement.
    – David Gudeman
    Commented Oct 26, 2022 at 19:26

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
0

Yes but it's very unpopular opinion. If we consider our awareness and purpose real because we are certain that we have both, yet accept that neither awareness nor purpose are mathematical, then what we have is the exact opposite of existing mathematically as a definition to both purpose and awareness.

The opposite in every way, means even the laws of physics are now defined in reverse to explain our awareness and our purpose. We are talking about a real affect that isn't mathematical, and contains nothing that even exists mathematically.

We seem to think of consciousness as more than awareness, and part of our intelligent thoughts. This cannot be true and would have to be simply the result of our brains playing tricks on us. We could simply be aware of something that is not true being true, if our brains provide that false information to us.

This also means our mathematical universe, could be entirely mathematical because our awareness and purpose, would simply be a real affect that is not part of the mathematical equation.

Can “realism” still exist?

In this example, sort of but not really. It doesn't exist mathematically, but does exist non-mathematically. A non mathematical effect is all there is. It can't exist as part of our mathematical universe because it would have to obey our mathematical laws. Being outside of space time, is not mathematically possible but is that relevant for a non-mathematical affect.

Zero information, only contains enough information for awareness to be real when multiplied by infinity. I tried defining infinity, and it does require 0 to behave as though it is aware of everything that happens to it, otherwise ambiguities become inevitable. Could quantum fluctuations being infinite, bring infinity into the equation? Is a multiplication by infinity definitely required?

Improve this answer

You must log in to answer this question.