Brainpolice

So, does this table really exist?

__________________
http://mises.com/blogs/brainpolice/

Environment Man

Yeah but no pictures. Boring.

Brainpolice

But the radical subjectivist would claim that the table does not really exist, that it is a representation/illusion created by our minds, or that it does exist but its existance is a product of our minds.

Of course, I think they're loopy.

__________________
http://mises.com/blogs/brainpolice/

Environment Man

Well the table does exist just as the tree in the woods with a human makes a sound when it falls. The atoms in the table are clear evidence of its existence. It is matter. It is energy. It is structure. The table also indicates a table maker. The table maker is evidence of the table. The tree that the table came from is more evidence of the table.

nroberts

Subjectivism is just plain inconsistent. If reality is subjective then this is an objective reality. Furthermore that or since my subjective view says that there's an objective reality means that my objective reality is real and affects even those that deny it. Since, according to subjectivism my subjective reality IS real to ME and since according to MY reality it's OBJECTIVE then it can't be real even for me if it's not.

But the question of objectivity vs. subjectivity is really quite uninteresting. Fact is that both exist.

The more interesting question is whether the table is objectively real. Since it's really well over 90% nothing leaving only those small bits of matter that are themselves possibly nothing...and furthermore that each of these bits are regularly replaced such that the table is under constant reconstruction...it leads one to question just what real even means.

The matter that forms that table is not the same matter that formed it yesterday. Is it the same table? The odds are very high that NONE of the particles that made up the wood when it was formed into a table are in the table now if that tables got any amount of age to it (wasn't built yesterday).

So maybe the question isn't whether the table is real, but whether it's really a table after all. Or what exactly is the table? If you answered yes to the question above it can't be the matter it's composed of. So if the table is not it's parts then what is it? Where is the table? Why is it a table?

Then further we could even say that the table only exists at a certain level...that level being your relative viewpoint. If we get too small....where's the table? If we get too large...where's the table? The very concept of "table" only exists in the minds of humans. To a dog there's some thing there but it has no real purpose. We could program a computer to recognize the table concept, maybe...but it would be a very, very expensive R&D project.

So maybe we can say it's not a table unless you think it is. Certainly unless you recognize it as serving the purpose of, or being an instance of the concept of, "table" then the fact that it is a table is rather questionable. Maybe it's a sled. If there's a twin earth and on that earth there are people who speak English and refer to a particular grouping of molecules as water...such that it looks like our water and serves the very same purpose...do they actually mean the same thing as we do? Are they really speaking the same language? If you were transported to this world and didn't know it...would you be wrong to refer to their "water" as water?

Or maybe it could be considered in degrees. The table is kinda there...and kinda not. Certainly it can be said that the table is temporary. Maybe it really is completely arbitrary and relative whether the table you refer to exists outside your own mind. Perhaps it depends totally on what you mean by "table".

Then again, maybe there isn't any table and you're pointing at a ball. How would I know? Maybe you aren't even referring to anything in objective reality but only an imagined thing in your mind. Maybe there really IS no table. Whether it even exists ontologically might very well depend on how detailed your imagination was when you pictured it. Maybe you only have an idea of a table.

Environment Man

Note that Eman was much more definitive in his answer.

LeisureChrist

Phosphorescents, actually.

Gaia

>>> A Tree in the Woods with a Human <<<

Actually, it's: "if a tree falls in the forrest, and noone is there to hear it, will it make a sound?"

I remember this discussion from Philosophy Class. The Tree falling, and is the Table real or not. I couldn't believe we were all sitting there pondering these things. I told my Teacher "if I hit you over the Head with this Table, you would know it was real, 'cause you'd have a knot on your Noggin". He gave me a C for the Quarter. Sorehead!

Environment Man

NEVER 'chump' your teacher in front of the whole class or you will get a C - - Eman Postulation Number 6.

I meant to write 'without' in my original. The point is that youare correct about pounding the teacher's head. Just as in establishing that one cannot doubt that they are doubting, one can then proceed to acknowledge that reality is real and the 'things' in existence are real. Yet proving it can lead to negative consequences for you if the postulator is insulted by your correctness.

Gaia

I was just trying to make a point, I wasn't actually going to brain him with said Table (until 'after' he gave me a C that is) I just said, we could then discuss/ponder, wether his headache was real or not. geesh! He was a peculiar little man anyway, always walked around with a Pipe in his mouth, had brown Teeth, and the Tobacco he smoked smelled nauseating. Yuk!

Oh, and I (in jest) called him Plato once in passing, he didn't appreciate that either. I guess Plato wasn't his favorite Philosopher. Live and learn...