Talk:Philosophical realism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details. | ||||||||||||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. | ||||||||||||
| Mid | This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale. | ||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
Contents |
[edit] Straightforwardness
-- "Despite the straightforwardness of the realist position, there has been a lot of debate about what is real and what is meant by the term 'real'."
I find this statement very humourous, seeing that realism is defined by having beliefs that corrospond to 'reality' or 'real life', and is constantly redefined by new observations about life by living people. Therefore, wouldn't the definition of the word 'real' always be under constant redefinition due to the fact that there are constantly new observations being made by those people?
This is the reciprical relationship that I admire about realism - those who follow it seek to define the self and the world through an ever-maturing and self-critical self-awareness. 69.138.62.148 20:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
philosophy's not really about life as we know it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.70.50.117 (talk) 06:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] In physics
I added a section on realism in physics, in part because some of the articles in quantum mechanics point at this page. I hope the addition of such a section is not objectionable. Please note that the QM debate is very different than scientific realism, which is an unrelated idea. linas 15:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
hello, just a casual reader ... don't really know the formalism of the discussion pages, so I hope I'm not being rude or disruptive. A small but significant point is that Bell's theorem does not prove local realist theories are impossible. It gives an experimentally testable consequence of a theory being local and real. Quantum mechanics has so far failed this test (and therefore seems to be either non-local, or not real). But the accuracy of these experiments is still debated. While quite convincing, Bell's theorem is far from a proof 205.211.160.1 (talk) 18:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)Daniel
[edit] Realist Philosophers?
Can someone add a list of prominent realist philosophers or links to their wikipedia pages? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.7.7.199 (talk) 06:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC).
It might be possible to give a list of some philosophers who have been prominent in the realist-antirealist debate (on the realist side), but it would need to be made clear that, at least as far as contemporary analytic philosophy is concerned, most philosophers can be considered realists. It would be possible to give a list of prominent anti-realists, but this might be better off on a different page. Many use the term, but without a univocal definition, this is an amorphous category.Willg1000 18:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] cite-ism
Just noticed a typical example of cite-ism: "It can also be argued that the 'realism' of physics is a much more specific notion than general philosophical realism." It not only can argued, but it is predominant view of those working in this area. But it is backed up by cite of Travis Norsen, someone who for good reason not even is important enough to a Wikipedia article. Without further knowledge, a reader knowing Norsen, but not the current discussions in philosophy of physics would be inclined to believe, that it is a fringe view in this area... --Pjacobi 07:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Who Won?
"This particular dispute over realism is largely moot in contemporary philosophy, and has been for centuries." The dispute in question (between realism, nominalism and conceptualism in regards to Universals) has been rendered moot, it would appear. Unfortunately, the reader is left to decide for him/herself just which of those three came out on top. Perhaps the author would deign to enlighten we poor lesser beings?
In all seriousness, while I get the impression this is quite obvious to those more familiar with the standard presentation of philosophy, shouldn't the implied answer be made explicit in an encyclopedia context? Cyclone77 (talk) 23:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
sorry about the double edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.70.50.117 (talk) 06:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Contention with postmodernism?
"In recent times, debates concerning realism have become quite contentious due mostly in part to the influence of postmodernism"
Perhaps this can be explained in more detail in a section. What exactly are the relevant issues here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.240.178 (talk) 11:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
