Intelligent Judging — Evolution in the Classroom and the Courtroom

And that historically, the opposite of Realism is, as I earlier suggested, Nominalism; and the distinguishing criterion between them is the manner in which the different "isms" regard the problem of universals. I'll stand by that observation.

Fine. I've already agreed with this. But "realism" (WITH A DIFFERENT CONNOTATION) is also the opposite of "idealism".

IIRC, my initial interjection was in response to your claim that Plato was a realist as opposed to an idealist. It was only later that you brought up nominalism.

In more recent times, it has become fashionable (for whatever reason -- probably Ayn Rand had something to do with it) to set up Realism in opposition to Idealism

You're simply wrong about this. And it has nothing to do with Ayn Rand. Lordy! (Look, you made me say, "Lordy!" Nevertheless I forgive you.)

If this distinction is "recent," why does the famous 11th Edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica, published nearly a hundred years ago in 1910-1911, have an entry on "Realism," opposing it to Idealism? The article makes exactly the point I've been making: That the meanings of "realism" as versus nominalism, and "realism" as versus idealism, are different and even opposite.

NOTE: this source is (apparently, actually obviously) an OCR generated text and doubtless contains attendant errors.
http://86.1911encyclopedia.org/R/RE/REALISM.htm Partial quote below; emphasis, a paragraph break, and obvious corrections to OCR artifacts added by me:

REALISM ... a philosophical term used in two opposite senses. The older of these is the scholastic doctrine, traceable back to Socrates, that universals have a more real existence than things. Universals are, in scholastic language, ante res, in rebus and pose res. Behind all numerous types of chairs there is in the mind the ideal chair of which particular chairs are mere copies. In the most extreme form realism denies that anything exists in any sense except universals. It is opposed to nominalism (q.v.) and conceptualism (q.v.). For the history of the doctrine, see SCHOLASTICISM. ... Realism in. this sense has been. called an assertion of the rights of the subject (cf. the Protagonean maxim, Man is the measure of all things ).
The modern application of the term is to the opposing doctrine that there is a reality apart from its presentation to consciousness. In this sense it is opposed to idealism (q.v.), whether the purely subjective or that more comprehensive idealism which makes subject and object mutually interdependent.

The entry on IDEALISM, clearly written by the same author, also lists "realism" as an opposing view, and makes reference to "Platonic idealism".

In your favor the author does indentify "realism" as opposed to nominalism as the historically older usage, but of course the realism versus idealism distinction has been applied retrospectivly -- back to Plato, Socrates and even beyond -- by numerous philosophers over the last couple hundred years.

Also the Britannica author does agree with you in the following exchange (from my post #398)...

The Realist position holds that universals have a reality of their own, an extra-mental and extra-physical existence. The more definite, fixed, and eternal the status of the universals, the more absolute is the Realism.
Uh, what you're calling "realism" here is precisely what the rest of the English speaking world calls "idealism".

... in that the author identifies Idealism with insistence on subject/object interdependency (see the Idealism entry). I instead view idealism as (usually) including anti-nominalist realism.

Been fun, but sorry to get so caught up in a merely semanatic debate. Terms aren't really all that important, but I thought there was an equivocation regarding "realism" that needed clearing up. BTW (as I should have said earlier) I don't disagree importantly with the substance of your characterizations of Plato and Aristotle.

Terms aren't really all that important

To the contrary, they are vital. Language is worthless if we don't have a clear understanding of the words.

Jeepers, between the media and the Democrats they have tortured the English language so badly it's hard to figure out what they are saying (if anything!)

When betty boop uses the term "Realist", I know exactly what she means. When I hear it in a discussion of math or physics, it means the same thing.

But when someone tells me a person is being realistic, they mean the reverse. Sigh... bad is good, good is bad.

We've discussed some other words that are not used cautiously to the peril of the correspondent: complexity, randomness.

And to those I would add the word "creationism" - which is thrown around all the time without qualification. There are many different kinds of creationism which are not compatible among themselves.

I guess my point is that we would all benefit by making the effort to be precise.

The thread may be cold by now but I am just now getting an opportunity to reply.

...irrational/rational. Could you please define one or the other in reference to the universe and to mind?

By irrational, in relation to brute physical forces of either chance or mechanical necessity, I mean not endowed with reason.

The PHEPH is in your connection between the rationality of the universe and the rationality of mind. In what way is it necessary for the rationality, or lack thereof, of mind to be caused by the rationality of the universe?

What I am asking for is an account of how reason is derived from, or originates from mere physical force; how does reason issue forth from what is by definition, "non-reason"?

You are hinging your argument on some sort of determinism where the material construction of the mind is completely determined by the 'matter in motion' of the universe...

That does seem like a logical conclusion to the physicalist view, doesn't it? You seem to confirm it with your next sentence:

...Our rationality stems from our brains and any differences in our 'rightness' is also based in our brains. Rational thought is a process. The outcome of that process may be qualifiable but only in relation to the goals of the process

The problem is, there are no "goals" of a purely materialistic "process". What teleology do electricity and chemicals possess? Your brain (on this view) is nothing but a materialistic process.

What does a 'property' of matter have to do with rational thought? Thought is the result of a series of increases in the rate of synaptic firings where each synapse can 'turn on' or 'turn off' a linked neuron. This sequence occurs along multiple parallel lines. It is a complex analog to the workings of a computer. The main difference between the mind and a computer is that the software of the mind is determined by the hardware which constantly changes the placement and number of connections and consequently the paths. Rationality is not a consequence of a single 'property' of matter but is rather a consequence of the serial/parallel interactions of matter (based on many properties).

But there is no "software"! What is this "software" that your're talking about? IT'S ALL HARDWARE! Remember, "...synaptic firing as we 'think'"?

Software is thoughtware, the product of mind, or intelligence, which, as far as I can tell, can only come from a prior intelligence. Hardware does not write software by itself.

...you have yet to spell out how the physical makeup of the mind cannot produce reason and rationality.

Well, I am asking you how in the world it could, without presupposing mind and rationality in the first place. If you were driving along in a rainstorm and you were to see an arrangement of raindrops hit your windshield that spelled out, "DANGER - TURN LEFT!" would you ascribe any meaning to or rationality to it?

Cordially,

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.