The Legendary Guest
Nerdologist
The Legendary Guest
Nerdologist
The Legendary Guest
Of course our perceptions can be wrong, ever seen a "magic show"? That's why skeptics ask for outside verification and peer reviews and all that good stuff.
If the pipe exists, it is a pipe regardless of our perceptions. If you don't want to get into a discussion about surrealism, it might make more sense not to reference a
surrealist artist, silly.
wink
Only weak skeptics ask for verification. Strong skeptics like me do not accept verification. I recommend reading
this article to familiarize yourself with epistemological skepticism. I'm somewhere inbetween Pyrrhonian skepticism and Academic skepticism.
Like I said, I agree that an existent pipe is a pipe. That's just an analytic truth. It's basically the law of identity. I honestly don't think surrealism promotes an anti-realist philosophy. Where did you get that impression?
I'm not under that impression? I was merely commenting on the reference and wasn't going anywhere with it. I am now of the opinion that I should not have posted at all.
Oh, okay. You made it sound like surrealism was a philosophy that rejected realism. Don't give up on the discussion yet; it was just getting interesting (to me at least). I really want you to take a look at that article. Not enough people know or care about epistemological skepticism. And you might want to start at section #1 (even though the link takes you straight to the second one), because it is relevant to what we were talking about.
Saw this and it reminded me of this exchange:
Wish it had ended like this:
As for the discussion, I don't think I'd be able to offer much. The only study I did on surrealism was theatrical surrealism, and I don't remember any of it because I hated it so much as a theatrical art form (among others in terms of modern art styles).
However, the answer to whether the pipe goes into the "a rock" category or a "not a rock" category, in realistic terms, would be like this: An item is not identified by the components that comprise it. We don't identify a house as "brick." Sure, it may be a brick house, but brick just describes an aspect of the item...not the entirety of the item. So what it comes down to is function. While it is made of a rock (and glass...let's not forget the glass), it's function is a pipe, which is why it would go in the "not a rock" category. And I realize I went on a pretty long rant for what is, essentially, a joke...but, for those who take it seriously, there's my rebuttal.