Notices
Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: There is no God’s Eye View of Reality

  1. #1 There is no God’s Eye View of Reality 
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    924
    There is no God’s Eye View of Reality

    Thus spake Mr. Hilary Putnam in Reason, Truth, and History.

    Putnam speaks of metaphysical realism and objectivism, from both an externalist and an internalist point of view.

    Objectivism is a special case of metaphysical realism. Putnam argues that metaphysical realism is incoherent from an internalist perspective. This incoherence results from the impossibility of the externalist view; one cannot place the self outside of reality in order to find a unique perspective in which to view reality.

    Putnam shows that the externalist view is logically impossible because metaphysical realism is formulated within symbol systems. “The metaphysical realist views of meaning, reference, knowledge, and understanding all make presuppositions about symbol systems and their interpretations that are logically incoherent.” Putnam argues that there cannot be “exactly one true and complete description of the ‘the way the world is’…there can be no God’s eye view of reality”.

    Putnam is not arguing that there is no reality, i.e. basic realism, but only that the epistemology of the externalist view is logically incoherent. The problem rests on the assumption of the availability of a “God’s eye view”, which is inherent in the externalist perspective. We can not step outside of reality, we are part of reality. What is needed is an internalist view of reality, i.e. we must develop an epistemology that recognizes that we are functioning as part of reality and that it is impossible for us to just step outside and become an observer with a God’s eye point of view.

    In place of metaphysical realism Putnam proposes another form of realism: internalist realism wherein we take a point of view in accordance with the human functioning within the world of objects and not externally from the object. To quote Putnam:

    “I shall refer to it as the internalist perspective, because it is characteristic of this view to hold that what objects the world consists of? is a question that it only makes sense to ask within a theory of description…‘Truth’, in an internalist view, is some sort of (idealized) rational acceptability—some sort of ideal coherence of our beliefs with each other and with our experiences as those experiences are themselves represented in our belief system—and not correspondence with mind-independent ‘states of affairs’. There is no God’s Eye point of view that we can know or usefully imagine; there are only various points of view of actual persons reflecting various interests and purposes that their descriptions and theories subserve.”


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    172
    Geez.

    I been to two hog calling contests, one turkey gobbling, and one rabble rousing Democrat convention but I've never heard such gobbledegook as I hear from Hilary Putnam.

    Yes, our percieved reality is based on what our senses can input. But this man Hilary knows nothing about the nuances of the English language.

    "God's eye point of view", what tripe!

    Just when I think I've heard the most stupid idea ever, somebody like this idiot Hilary Putnam writes a book and proves me wrong.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    924
    Quote Originally Posted by milum
    Geez.

    I been to two hog calling contests, one turkey gobbling, and one rabble rousing Democrat convention but I've never heard such gobbledegook as I hear from Hilary Putnam.

    Yes, our percieved reality is based on what our senses can input. But this man Hilary knows nothing about the nuances of the English language.

    "God's eye point of view", what tripe!

    Just when I think I've heard the most stupid idea ever, somebody like this idiot Hilary Putnam writes a book and proves me wrong.
    I think that it is always wise to place common sense on hold while beginning to investigate a new domain of knowledge, at least until one starts to learn something about the matter. We are constantly trying to fool our self and common sense is our lawyer.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    172
    Quote Originally Posted by coberst
    Quote Originally Posted by milum
    Geez.

    I been to two hog calling contests, one turkey gobbling, and one rabble rousing Democrat convention but I've never heard such gobbledegook as I hear from Hilary Putnam.

    Yes, our percieved reality is based on what our senses can input. But this man Hilary knows nothing about the nuances of the English language.

    "God's eye point of view", what tripe!

    Just when I think I've heard the most stupid idea ever, somebody like this idiot Hilary Putnam writes a book and proves me wrong.
    I think that it is always wise to place common sense on hold while beginning to investigate a new domain of knowledge, at least until one starts to learn something about the matter. We are constantly trying to fool our self and common sense is our lawyer.
    Maybeso, colberst, but the words of Hilary Putman that you use in your instigating example of his new domain of knowledge defy my studied attempt to integrate his new domain into my current belief system.

    Perhaps if you would paraphrase?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    924
    Quote Originally Posted by milum
    Geez.

    I been to two hog calling contests, one turkey gobbling, and one rabble rousing Democrat convention but I've never heard such gobbledegook as I hear from Hilary Putnam.

    Yes, our percieved reality is based on what our senses can input. But this man Hilary knows nothing about the nuances of the English language.

    "God's eye point of view", what tripe!

    Just when I think I've heard the most stupid idea ever, somebody like this idiot Hilary Putnam writes a book and proves me wrong.
    I think that it is wise to hold back our common sense reactions until we learn something about a domain of knowledge that is new to us.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    924
    Quote Originally Posted by milum
    Quote Originally Posted by coberst
    Quote Originally Posted by milum
    Geez.

    I been to two hog calling contests, one turkey gobbling, and one rabble rousing Democrat convention but I've never heard such gobbledegook as I hear from Hilary Putnam.

    Yes, our percieved reality is based on what our senses can input. But this man Hilary knows nothing about the nuances of the English language.

    "God's eye point of view", what tripe!

    Just when I think I've heard the most stupid idea ever, somebody like this idiot Hilary Putnam writes a book and proves me wrong.
    I think that it is always wise to place common sense on hold while beginning to investigate a new domain of knowledge, at least until one starts to learn something about the matter. We are constantly trying to fool our self and common sense is our lawyer.
    Maybeso, colberst, but the words of Hilary Putman that you use in your instigating example of his new domain of knowledge defy my studied attempt to integrate his new domain into my current belief system.

    Perhaps if you would paraphrase?
    Basically Putnam is saying that that all thought, perceptions, and knowledge have a subjective component. There are no objects for us that are mind-independent.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    usa
    Posts
    9
    Looks to me like Putnam owes Godel some residual fees. Beam me up!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    usa
    Posts
    9
    Good lord, I thought I recognized this driveler.


    http://www.skepticfriends.org/forum/...&TOPIC_ID=3047

    Still enlightening the non-brights, eh Chuck.

    Once more, Mr. Scott, beam me up!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    Wow Coberst you've got stalkers?


    A funny thing about low-level philosophy is that most of it is arm's length revisitation of questions we as children already dealt with matter-of-factly. So your OP for example normal children encounter and resolve on a raw, private, inarticulate level. I remember this one in particular, but most I've forgotten. Later as adults we rediscover questions and handle them like knife and fork on pizza. Sometimes we're just making cutlery sounds while discussing the pepperoni.

    *belch*
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •