Is everything real something that exists? We are reflexively inclined to answer “of course!” Reality and existence, we will say, are synonyms. What is real, we are used to thinking, must be out there somewhere.
But when we speak of real dangers, real possibilities, or real obligations—what then? None of those are physically existent, in the sense that a table or an apple are. And yet we have no difficulty accepting their reality.
Herewith an essay, published on Philosophy Today (Medium) exploring the metaphysical distinction between reality (what is true, stable, and intelligible, from the Latin res) and existence (what stands out in space and time, from ex-sistere). Drawing on arithmetic, Augustine’s res intelligibiles, universals, and unactualised possibilities, the essay argues that collapsing reality into physical existence results in a ‘flat ontology’.
I’m interested in insights into the distinction between ontology and epistemology in this context. If ideal objects (like numbers or logical principles) are real without existing in space-time, does this distinction hold up under a non-reductive physicalist framework, or does it necessitate a form of Platonism?
Strictly speaking, the mind is not something that exists, but that for which things exist. See for example Husserl’s critique of naturalism (from his Philosophy as a Rigorous Science):
In contrast to the outlook of naturalism, Husserl believed all knowledge, all science, all rationality depended on conscious acts, acts which cannot be properly understood from within the natural outlook at all. Consciousness should not be viewed naturalistically as part of the world, since consciousness is precisely the reason why there was a world there for us in the first place. For Husserl it is not that consciousness creates the world in any ontological sense…but rather that the world is opened up, made meaningful, or disclosed through consciousness. The world is inconceivable apart from consciousness. Treating consciousness as part of the world, reifying consciousness, is precisely to ignore consciousness’s foundational, disclosive role ~ Routledge Introduction to Phenomenology, p144.
But grasping it requires something of a perspective shift, effected by the phenomenological epochē. We’re deeply enculturated to a subject-object ontology mediated by science alone, which is what makes it a difficult thing to see.
Some of us can’t see it you know. We’re not built for the kill so to speak. I’m a materialist by inclination but I have nothing against those who hold a different view. Let a thousand flowers bloom.
Naturalism on mind is like prayer on disaster. We’re going to get nowhere. However neuroscience is making rapid strides. It’s the naturalist’s way of doing things, like how a dog wags its tail. Have you heard of psychonauts and oneironauts? Interesting, worth the while for someone who has experience in meditation.
I’ve heard the term ‘psychonauts’ but not in relation to computer games. (I’m the wrong generation for computer games, they didn’t exist until I was well into adulthood, although I do play chess on my iPhone, badly.) I hadn’t heard the term ‘oneironaut’.
I had a thread earlier this year on the difference between ‘consciousness studies’ and ‘philosophy of mind’. The latter tends to be found mainly in philosophy departments but the former is a mult-disciplinary research field drawing on neuroscience, psychology, and philosophy, particularly phenomenology and enactive cognition. And that is feeding back into neuroscientific perspectives. Science itself is changing and is no longer materialist by default, in my opinion, even if that remains a majority view.
I’m not abreast with science. Lagged behind and never caught up. I wonder if Chlamers and Negal practice meditation and whether they know anything about psychonautics and oneironautics. It would be a killer combo if they did and if there was something substantive in those domains. I’m not recommending anything though. Just speculating. Fits right in with multi-disciplinary methods.
Read the essay linked in the OP. Reminds me of a philosopher who claimed there’s a new fad in religion that one can be Christian without faith. One doesn’t believe so no faith required; however, one is a Christian. I have no clue how this breaks down, real-but-nonexistent seems to be cut from the same cloth. Now, having given it a closer look, it’s quite a revolutionary eidos. Congratulations.
Chalmers is a much more hip cat than stodgy old Nagel. His mother ran a New Age bookstore in Kings Cross (Sydney’s “entertainment” quarter). As a young fellow he won a bronze medal at the Maths Olympiad — so, bright guy! — before turning his attention to philosophy. But he’s still very much at pains to remain within the mainstream, indeed he’s a tenured professor. (You can read his bio here. Also an interesting NY Times article featuring Chalmers among others, on how AI companies are hiring philosophers. Be nice if they hired me : )
It wasn’t intended as any kind of apologetic for Christianity. But then, it’s an historical fact that the Greek–speaking Christian world assimilated a great deal of Greek philosophy in its formative years, which provided it’s philosophical super-structure (indeed, Plato and some other Greek philosophers were posthumously dubbed “Christians before Christ” by some.) And it’s also true that the distinctions we now recognise under the headings of philosophy, theology and science were in the ancient world all grouped under “philosophy”. Platonist philosophy does require a certain kind of ‘openness to the transcendent’, let’s say, but fideism— the belief in ‘salvation by faith alone’ — it ain’t.
The Greeks inaugurated philosophy for the world. Greece was the fountainhead, whose waters we drink of. I recall the Greek connection in Christianity: The gospels were written in Greek and many Greek ideas were transplanted onto Christian doctrine. This may explain why Christianity has a rich history with philosophy, albeit largely focused on placating Plato-Aristotle while anathematizing skepticism?
Your distinction real vs. existence justifiably legitimizes the science of mind. I haven’t kept up with the Joneses so to speak and last I checked the science of mind was considered pseudoscience, a poor cousin scientists were loathe to openly engage with. It now becomes harder to be dismissive of this domain of research.
I’ve explored these methods as well as meditation. They can form a useful part of a spiritual, or mystical journey. But without that angle, or a religious grounding they are dead ends.
Or in other words, it doesn’t provide any intellectual, or conceptual, understanding, or learning. But what it does do is help in the effort to free the self from conditioning, or develop insight into the nature of the self.
Philosophy proper is a distinctively Greek phenomenon, coming from ‘philos’ love ‘sophia’ wisdom. So ‘love-wisdom’. The Gospels were indeed written down in Koine Greek, the lingua franca of the Eastern Mediterranean at the time, although the language of Jesus and the disciples was Aramaic (a Semitic dialect). In the early Common Era, there was a massive ferment of religious and philosophical ideas and belief systems, from which orthodox Christianity emerged. Platonism was definitely a part of that, although there was also a tension between Greek philosophy and the Hebrew prophetic tradition ‘What has Athens to do with Jerusalem?’ said Tertullian, one of the fiercest early defenders of Christian orthodoxy. But other church fathers, such as Origen and Clement of Alexandria, incorporated many platonic ideas and ‘Christian Platonism’ is definitely a major school of thought in Western culture.
My belief is there is a core of insight in Platonism which has gradually become lost to Western culture because of its association with religion to our detriment. Here I’m trying to re-explore it.
There is grist for the mill in Christianity. I daresay Jesus would find himself quite lost in the many debates between theists and theists sponsored by mostly Christian organizations. Philosophized Christianity is what we encounter on stages and podiums. They’re quite interesting to listen to.
For the record I haven’t done any psychonautics, nor any oneironautics. As I said I’m a materialist/physicalist. First and foremost among my difficulties is the terminology. Second, the topic itself is abstruse and esoteric.
Yes it is. A place where we can discuss important issues and the mind is one of them. Over the years I’ve dived in and out of philosophical fora, there’s one takeaway that jumps out at me. Progress! Neuroscience is plodding along but I don’t see how it can crack the puzzle of electrophysiological processes giving rise to (allegedly) consciousness.
It would be true to say: the danger of nuclear war is real and exists
It would not be true to say: the danger of nuclear war is real yet does not exist
It would not be true to say: the danger of nuclear war is not real yet exists
It would be true to say: the danger of nuclear war is not real and does not exist
In other words, there is a logical biconditional between “to be real” and “to exist”. To be real implies to exist and to exist implies to be real. “To be real” IFF “to exist”.
There may be a logical connection between “to be real” and “to exist”, but it does not follow that they mean the same thing. Two different things may be logically connected. For example, a rock is heavy IFF the rock is in a gravitational field.
Reality and existence are logically connected but are not synonyms.
One question is, is reality the consequent or antecedent of existence.
)