+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 5 of 5

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    374

    There is no God’s Eye View of Reality

    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.”

  2. #2
    LogicallyYours's Avatar
    LogicallyYours is offline Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings. User Rank
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    6,352

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

    How about starting Philosophy thread?...There where these post belong.
    "Religion is a heavy suitcase: all you have to do is put it down."
    -----------------------------------------------------------
    "I have read the bible...more than once. I was not impressed nor was I so moved to give up my ability to think for myself and surrender my knowledge of facts for the unfounded belief in a mythical sky-fairy." - Me.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    26,302

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

    Quote Originally Posted by coberst View Post
    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.”
    did he forget the "third eye" view!?or is it just to "unknown" to be of any practical use!?:freak3: :judges::spin2: : heeh!!....just askn....
    i do not endorse/recommend any advertising on scam.com associated with my name /posts or otherwise. thank you

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    374

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

    Quote Originally Posted by LogicallyYours View Post
    How about starting Philosophy thread?...There where these post belong.

    This post is about cognitive science.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    26,302

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

    is this a plea/argument for a subjective/rational reason to develop an atmosphere/paradigm of social/mental pragmatism!?a morality better fitting to progress for man's understanding and the social/physical implementations born of that understanding!?WADDA MOUTHFUL!?: :spin2::judges: heeh!!....just askn...
    i do not endorse/recommend any advertising on scam.com associated with my name /posts or otherwise. thank you

Similar Threads

  1. Which view of MLM is the sensible one?
    By ChrisDoyle in forum MLM Scams
    Replies: 83
    Last Post: 04-10-2015, 03:57 PM
  2. political view
    By mahabub hasan in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 08-17-2011, 09:28 AM
  3. Aussie View of USA
    By Thorgrimm in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 04-27-2008, 10:58 PM
  4. A Japanese View Of The Palestinians
    By mars3000 in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 71
    Last Post: 01-05-2007, 10:50 AM
  5. A Simplistic view, but....
    By DeeDee1965 in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-18-2006, 04:13 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

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