And can you point out where I said that.
Or did YOU simply presume the reality of it?
Yeah, no problem. Here’s only one example among a slew of many:
In order to know that, by way of real understanding, reality really is simple, you’d have to really know reality.
Nope, I think the implication is pretty clear that you know the simplicity of reality. Otherwise, on what do you base the claim that a real understanding of reality reveals its simplicity? You’re a weird one, James. So very defensive.
And, as always, I do thank you for ignoring the bulk of my post to polemicize a single sentence—and misguidedly at that.
There is a subtle but remarkably relevant distinction between seeking error and seeking to blame.
This is what I had said;
You seemed to need an explanation, so I broke it down to simplify it for you;
So in the childish effort to blame, you take it out of context and state;
I never said that I understood it, whether I think that I do or not.
And of course, you aren’t interested in whether anyone does or not, because you are merely seeking to blame. And as always, accuse of your own guilt;
And as always when you base your hostility on a false premise childishly derived out of that “need to blame” bit, you can expect the rest of your post to be pointless and ignored.
I’m really lost now. Clarify for me: your point, then, is that reality might either appear to be simple or complex, depending on whether we “really” understand it? You seem pretty reticent, for what reasons I know not.
Anyway, let’s move on. What is the distinction, for you, between complexity and simplicity? What is the distinction between presumption and understanding? By articulating those differences more pointedly, I think you’ll be able to clear up exactly what it is you’re trying to say here. After that, I’ll reintroduce the points that were evidently covered over by my insinuation that you implied to understand reality in its simplicity.
“Appear to be simple or complex” depending on whether we presume to understand it whether we really understand it or not. And until we really understand it, our presumptions will continue to lead to the rising of a complexity beyond what we had presumed was a complete understanding.
Thus it can’t actually be simple to us until it is really understood, not merely presumed. And of course, it might not really be simple even then, although the mind generally functions in such a way as to cause a sense of simplicity as long as the components are consistent. When you work with anything long enough, it seems simple regardless of how complex it might be to a beginner.
In this, I am merely referring to the sense of simplicity for a mind dealing with reality. I am not concerned with mathematical definitions of “objective simplicity” or entropy.
Presumption is the act of deciding before investigating or ensuring. It is the very “seed of all sin/misjudgment”. It is caused by impatience or carelessness. It is “leaping before looking”.
Understanding refers to an ontological construct which underlies a higher architecture of knowledge. It is that upon which one stands (“under-standing”) in his decision making efforts. Thus to be successful with decisions, one needs a good understanding concerning the subject matter.
Maybe this is the cause of my confusion, then. Are you articulating a problem, posing a question, presenting an argument? You seem only to be making a big deal of a few obvious trivialities: to wit, that reality seems complex in the absence of understanding, and that only understanding it will make it seem simple (though, you’ve conceded, maybe not even then). Cool, yeah. But why dedicate a thread to this?
Have you seen some of the threads lately?
What the OP presents is the basic idea that history displays a tendency for Man to presume a complete understanding based on a simple concept of one type or another. Man keeps insisting on the simplicity issue. But one cannot presume comprehensive understanding based merely on the simplicity of the thought involved, because that typifies all of the prior errors. Thus if Man wants simplicity, he must accept reality on its own terms, not Man’s lust for simple solutions.
The solutions and reality might in fact be simple. But wanting it to be and even seeing evidence that it is, has proven to be insufficient evidence.
Bottom line: Stop Presuming.
You’ll forgive me for saying that this is all pretty uninteresting, almost platitudinous stuff. But I’ve a few minutes to waste.
I wonder what it means to you to accept reality on its own terms. I don’t take it you intend that we describe it only poetically, as if to approach it peripherally, catching it as it shows itself prior to, or in the absence of, the nets of our conceptual categories. But, then, what could it mean to accept reality on its own terms?
Based on my own rather extensive experience with objectivists over the years, it means accepting reality solely on terms that the objectivists propose. And “terms” is the key here because that largely encompasses the manner in which the objectivists define those terms.
Objectivists then become a “species” of philosopher – obsessed with the internal logic of an argument that is predicated by and large on the meaning that must be subscribed to if [and only if] one is willing to accept the definitions they give to the terms.
It is then almost futile to try to persuade them otherwise because there is really nothing more substantial than the definitions to point to by way of either agreeing or not agreeing with them.
Or, as I have come to speculate, it is less about philosophy than the predisposition of human psychology to ground I in one or another Whole Truth.
It seems to me catching it in the nets of our conceptual categories is a good way to ‘find’ simplicity. I Think a lot of people do this. If their conceptual categories are simple, and they manage to Catch reality in these nets - which, it seems to me, people are pretty good at doing - then you got that simpliticity. Others may argue that you are suppressing counter-evidence or confusing perception with reality or extremely affected by expectation, hindsight bias, cultural distortion, (and other ‘things’). But one can also Catch these critiques in one’s conceptual categories. Which people do. Accepting reality on its own terms - sounds kinda ding an sich-ish - would get you simplicity if reality is simple. Brains don’t seem to be, nor ecosystems, nor particles, but perhaps reality is, ultimately, or ‘really’. But then we are left with what the seemingly simple, neo-self help bookish phrase ‘accepting reality on its own terms’ means and entails. Whatever explanation is essentially at least also a claim that one has extricated oneself from a variety of biases, including those I mentioned. I Think this is possible and certainly is a direction one can move in, but describing that process will be where the Dirty, controversial stuff will come up.
I am understandable.
By looking within, I can decipher all that is of relevance.
All my understanding of the external, is a projection of my understanding of the internal.
If I have clarity internally, so will I externally.
That is all I require.