Most of us have heard and many of us understand the philosophy behind the idea that everyone gets to create their own reality, but further that we do this through using and manipulating discourse. ￼ I am going to offer two small rebuttals against this idea.
I am walking my dog down the sidewalk in banked with snow filled trees and Icy grass￼￼. Picture that.￼ despite the need to translate that same phrase into other languages, I would make an educated and simple guess that everyone can picture what I’m talking about. Is it real? What else is it if it is not real? The same scene say that I use the following phrase: my dog is walking at the end of the leash that I am holding as both of us are strolling down a winter pathway through a hilly meadow. Picture that; is that real? What else is it?
Now, has my reality changed because I used two different phrases to describe the situation? I think One would have to ask how it is that I’m defining reality. But then I could use the same qualifiers for those definitions that I am using to describe this thing called reality.
So that’s the first rebuttal. There is no different reality or different world that I’m constructing through any of my use of discourse. I am simply using different terms to describe the same real situation.￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼
The second rebut has to do with the condition In which I find￼ I find myself￼, The one where I have to apply the same conditions to the term “reality” as I would have to apply to the phrase-term I use to describe the Wintery episode that I’m currently involved with￼.
Because I have to do that, we have the two conditions, I might add the two “post-” Modern philosophical argumentative positions that despite what anyone wants to say I do not believe we are even close to getting anywhere beyond. Hence the reason for this comment this post right now.
The second rebuttal hast to do with the fact that if I keep applying my philosophically questioning thinking apparatus to the various terms to try to get to some sort of “reality” of the phrase term that I may use, and the repeated application of that philosophical protocol inevitably I find myself in the case where there is either nothing which supports the discourse, or that discourse is indeed the ground￼.￼￼￼
The second rebuttal has to do with the results here. First off, in any other condition that I might be trying to solve some sort of equation, trying to reduce to solve to some variables or control for some variables, if the answer I got was nothing, I would throw away the formula. Of course, I might back up just a little bit and then give the formula to a bunch of friends and colleagues and have them rework the same formula, but if all of us got the result as nothing we would throw away the formula.
But somehow in philosophy we don’t do this. Instead, through some sort of magical apparatus, in philosophy we are allowed to say the formula must be correct and we just stay with the formula and continue to use it. In this case the formula is “discourse”. The formula is incorrect and yet philosophy continually uses the formula and say that the formula is producing reality, (and all of us individually despite any good reason why we should be able to interact) and then we have basically all the philosophies of at least the 20th century up till now.
Any thoughts on that?￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼