Speculative Realism and Thinking of Things Regardless of Human Comprehension

Discussion in 'Philosophy' started by ReturnFire333, Jun 26, 2018.

  1. Speculative realism - Wikipedia



    The video is a brief explanation of the basics of speculative realism.

    Speculative realism is a newer branch of philosophy coined in 2007. It asserts that we can think of things without being limited to human perception. This in my mind is a very enlightening point of view, as it allows up to not be limited by our own train of thoughts and existence. A person who embraces speculative realism no longer would be restrained to not thinking of aliens, or thinking of God or Gods, the universe, what these things can or can not be or do.

    I view speculative realism as having an open mind, considering more possibilities, and not being limited strictly to evidence and the material world around us. I think it's accurate to say that any time you are asking yourself "I wonder what aliens are like" or "what can a God do" you are using speculative realism.

    Speculative realism is either in slight accordance with correlationism or in direct opposition to it. I tend to agree with Quentin Meillassoux who says that we can think of things regardless of human consciousness, through our consciousness. While it may sound contradictory, think about it and it might make sense. Obviously, we as humans are using our consciousness to think of things, but the things that Speculative Realists think of are regardless of human consciousness. I view a huge amount of things that this point of view allows us to theorize, instead of being limited by human consciousness and our reality.

    If this "speculative realism" viewpoint becomes mainstream we could see schools revive some elements of classical education, namely the liberal arts. The real liberal arts which were mostly in relation to mathematical truths rather than what they call liberal arts now.

    Thoughts? Opinions? Is it viable?
     
  2. I didn't really follow this too well. I read this, https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-main-ideas-of-Speculative-Realism, and it basically made this idea seem to be that reality does not require us to exist. May not even kind of be close to what any of this is saying, but that's the short hand of what I got from it.

    You mind clarifying what this is speaking of for someone that doesn't speak the lingo?
     
  3. Read up on Kantian philosophy. Speculative realism goes against Kantian philosophy which basically asserts that nothing exists without the human mind to conjecture it, so we can't talk about anything besides what is in our reality. If I'm not mistaken, that is an accurate basic summary of Kantian philosophy.

    Speculative realism says we can discuss things that Kant, or the scientific community, wouldn't typically discuss, and be logically valid and reasonable, because we have the ability to think of things regardless of our existence or the need for our reality, and thus conjecture of things like God and creations of the universe can be thought of following a logically valid train of thought.
     
  4. I don't understand how this would differ from metaphysics.

     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. Isn't metaphysics just a house that all these different branches of philosophy are in.
     
  6. I was just doing some reading trying to understand it a bit better, it does seem like it would fall under metaphysics.



     
  7. "Speculative realism says we can discuss things that Kant, or the scientific community, wouldn't typically discuss, and be logically valid and reasonable, because we have the ability to think of things"

    I'm not aware that we weren't allowed to discuss things. It doesnt matter if its logically valid, you can have whatever ideas you want. Now whether or not those ideas you're discussing are valid or even reasonable is something else entirely.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  8. Perhaps they just mean that it is more accepted in academia?

    I don't see why people would restrict themselves though, whether or not speculative realism can tell us anything definite or not, entertaining novel possibilities is always a good thing IMO.

    In fact, perhaps they are both right in a sense. The only reality that exists to me is in my mind, which is subjective, but is there an objective reality? I would ask, objective to who? I always use the analogy of a video game world, is it objectice or subjective, and does it exist if nobody is perceiving it, and if so where does it exist?

    Ultimately I think if there is an objective reality then there must be an omnipresent perceiver.

     
    • Like Like x 1
  9. Just do about 500 mics of LSD and all this speculative reality BS will be revealed for what it really is.

    BS.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  10. I think if you did that, you'd be the one disheveled.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  11. I think what matters is the level of thought.
    There's ours the higher and the lower. In the higher your nothing but a thought in ours you're you and in the lower you can be god.
    No idea whether or not you understand my thinking but I see the universe as a scale from - infinity to +infinity.
    We might be +2 or -69 depending on the individual
     
  12. Can't quite say I do.
     
  13. Understandably so. I developed this theory while hanging with Lucy in the sky with diamonds. (Abbreviate it and disregard I t and w)
    Every one of us is able to create a whole universe in his head. Like Lord of the rings. I think it's possible a higher consciousness invented us the same way Tolkien invented Frodo and gandalf.
    That pattern of writing a book if you wanna compare it to that goes in both directions infinitely. Like i said the scale goes from -infinity to + infinity with you being 0.
    That shit is difficult to explain because to me it's little more than a guitar riff
     
  14. Sounds very similar to how I think I just word it differently.

    Basically there is infinite potential, and we, as creative minds, can pull things out of the realm of potential and make them mental or physical. We start with nothing (infinite potential) and tap into it, we can daydream about an invention (mentally realizing it) and we can build the invention (physically realizing it).

    Would you say that is similar to what you mean?

     
  15. Perhaps this is where speculative realism comes in. Is it possible for us to materialize the mental realm in a less rudimentary way?

    Nikola Tesla surely believed so

    "What has the future in store for this strange being, born of a breath, of perishable tissue, yet Immortal, with his powers fearful and Divine? What magic will be wrought by him in the end? What is to be his greatest deed, his crowning achievement?
    Long ago he recognized that all perceptible matter comes from a primary substance, or a tenuity beyond conception, filling all space, the Akasha or luminiferous ether, which is acted upon by the life-giving Prana or Creative Force, calling into existence, in never ending cycles, all things and phenomena. The primary substance, thrown into infinitesimal whirls of prodigious velocity, becomes gross matter; the force subsiding, the motion ceases and matter disappears, reverting to the primary substance.
    Can man control this grandest, most awe-inspiring of all processes in nature? Can he harness her inexhaustible energies to perform all their functions at his bidding? more still cause them to operate simply by the force of his will?
    If he could do this, he would have powers almost unlimited and supernatural. At his command, with but a slight effort on his part, old worlds would disappear and new ones of his planning would spring into being. He could fix, solidify and preserve the ethereal shapes of his imagining, the fleeting visions of his dreams. He could express all the creations of his mind on any scale, in forms concrete and imperishable. He could alter the size of this planet, control its seasons, guide it along any path he might choose through the depths of the Universe. He could cause planets to collide and produce his suns and stars, his heat and light. He could originate and develop life in all its infinite forms."

    "To create and to annihilate material substance, cause it to aggregate in forms according to his desire, would be the supreme manifestation of the power of Man's mind, his most complete triumph over the physical world, his crowning achievement, which would place him beside his Creator, make him fulfill his Ultimate Destiny."

     
  16. Yeah that seems fitting. It's difficult to put that stuff into words sometimes
     
    • Like Like x 1
  17. Can we run faster than the speed of light like the Flash? Be as strong as the Hulk? If that's speculative realism then I've already taken part of it. Maybe that's the reason I gravitate towards Sci-Fi. The whole concept seems 'unrealistic' but I have a feeling this planet has seen its fair share of impossibles and unrealistic already. I just think that history has been swept under the rug or forgotten, and maybe that's for the best considering the mind state of us human beings.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  18. There is plenty to support your last sentence.

     
  19. Practice practice practice.

    Becoming good at anything you do requires repetition.

    J
     
  20. #20 blazed2today, Sep 3, 2018
    Last edited: Sep 3, 2018
    Kant said we can’t have any knowledge beyond our experience or perception and so the debate about such things is pointless because none of it’s provable.

    He didn’t say, nor does what I just said come close to amount to saying, “nothing exists without the human mind”; it would be a mistake to summarize his philosophy as either saying or suggesting that, because that would make it a subjective idealism philosophy, when his is a famously self-proclaimed transcendental idealism. Transcendental idealism maintains that since our knowledge is bounded to experience and its possibility, and the possibility of experience itself depends on conditions like the transcendental forms of perception, certain knowledge of that which is beyond what's conditioned or conditionable in experience or perception is unobtainable; while the former idealism is the kind maintaining all is mind dependent.

    Can one think anything that isn’t logical, which is logically contradictory? So for sure it matters if what one reasons about is valid in the most basic logical form because the possibility of understandability depends on it.
     

Share This Page