Combining Texts

Ideas for 'Conditionals', 'Apology for Raymond Sebond' and 'The Question of Realism'

unexpand these ideas     |    start again     |     choose another area for these texts

display all the ideas for this combination of texts


5 ideas

7. Existence / D. Theories of Reality / 3. Reality
What is real can only be settled in terms of 'ground' [Fine,K]
     Full Idea: Questions of what is real are to be settled upon the basis of considerations of ground.
     From: Kit Fine (The Question of Realism [2001], Intro)
     A reaction: This looks like being one of Fine's most important ideas, which is shifting the whole basis of contemporary metaphysics. Only Parmenides and Heidegger thought Being was the target. Aristotle aims at identity. What grounds what is a third alternative.
Reality is a primitive metaphysical concept, which cannot be understood in other terms [Fine,K]
     Full Idea: I conclude that there is a primitive metaphysical concept of reality, one that cannot be understood in fundamentally different terms.
     From: Kit Fine (The Question of Realism [2001], Intro)
     A reaction: Fine offers arguments to support his claim, but it seems hard to disagree with. The only alternative I can see is to understand reality in terms of our experiences, and this is the road to metaphysical hell.
Why should what is explanatorily basic be therefore more real? [Fine,K]
     Full Idea: We may grant that some things are explanatorily more basic than others, but why should that make them more real?
     From: Kit Fine (The Question of Realism [2001], 8)
     A reaction: This is the question asked by the 'quietist'. Fine's answer is that our whole conception of Reality, with its intrinsic structure, is what lies at the basis, and this is primitive.
We lack some sense or other, and hence objects may have hidden features [Montaigne]
     Full Idea: We may all lack some sense or other; because of that defect, most of the features of objects may be concealed from us.
     From: Michel de Montaigne (Apology for Raymond Sebond [1580], p.0666)
     A reaction: This strikes me as simple, straightforward common sense, and right. I cannot make sense of the claim that reality really is just the way it appears. We do not have a built-in neutrino detector, for example.
In metaphysics, reality is regarded as either 'factual', or as 'fundamental' [Fine,K]
     Full Idea: The first main approach says metaphysical reality is to be identified with what is 'objective' or 'factual'. ...According to the second conception, metaphysical reality is to be identified with what is 'irreducible' or 'fundamental'.
     From: Kit Fine (The Question of Realism [2001], 1)
     A reaction: Fine is defending the 'fundamental' approach, via the 'grounding' relation. The whole structure, though, seems to be reality. In particular, a complete story must include the relations which facilitate more than mere fundamentals.