Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Sy Borg]

🤣🤣🤣

You are so brainwashed that you can't see that you are in Marx's thrall.

🤣🤣🤣This just gets better...🤣🤣🤣

You say that stratification does not exist in reality.
...
You are confused. The territory may or may not be stratified and observers may or may not notice it.

You still misunderstand. There are two things here, mixed together. I am trying to separate them, for our mutual clarity and understanding.

First, there is the (scientific) observation; what we observe. Then there is our explanation for it; why we observe what we observe.

Our observation, the 'what', is actual, and part of reality; it exists. Our explanation, the 'why', is our invention; it is not actual; it does not exist.

I see your point, and it is very valid. However, science is a process, and there are no absolute truths in science so far. Anything can change with the expansion of human knowledge and the technology to test the scientific explanations. But, is it reasonable to righ away mark these explanations as subjective, as many of them are supported by experiments and man-made models, or even mathematics? Even the evidence is ordered in an hierarchical manner because of this, in my opinion. What do you say?

There are many truths that are either absolute or human perception is out of step with the ontology. For instance, the Sun, the Earth and the Moon all exist and there is a clear hierarchy between these bodies. I doubt that future findings will change the relativities.

Look at nature and you'll see hierarchies everywhere. How about a consciousness hierarchy? Rocks. Microbes. Plants. Fungi. Animals. Human animals.

In human societies, hierarchy and structure have been selected, with organised groups out-competing unorganised groups. That's why all societies today are hierarchic. If a society wants to experiment with the removal of hierarchies, they will then be out-competed by hierarchic societies, which will be more organised and efficient.

[Pattern-chaser]

I see your point, and it is very valid. However, science is a process, and there are no absolute truths in science so far. Anything can change with the expansion of human knowledge and the technology to test the scientific explanations. But, is it reasonable to righ away mark these explanations as subjective, as many of them are supported by experiments and man-made models, or even mathematics? Even the evidence is ordered in an hierarchical manner because of this, in my opinion. What do you say?

What do I say? I say what I've been saying, pretty much unchanged. Reality is what it is, and we can verify it empirically, by looking, or using our other senses. Reality is actual. Our explanations for/about reality are, in contrast, nothing more or less than speculation.

[Pattern-chaser]

Look at nature and you'll see hierarchies everywhere.

Oh? Where are they? Can you post a photograph of such a "hierarchy"? Have you any reason at all to suppose this "hierarchy" is actual, that it exists (outside your mind and mine)?

No, you don't. And that's my point. Nature and its creatures are actual. Your suppositions about them, what they do, and how they do it — they're all speculation, nothing more.

That is my one and only point. [It's a point that most philosophers would label "metaphysical", but so what?]