[MD] Realism and anti-realism

[david buchanan]

DMB said:
Let me be more specific, [Matt] and/or Bernstein are characterizing an idea that I basically agree with; that our philosophical positions are psychologically motivated.


Mark replied:
... but of course the psyche has been discussed for as long as humans discussed and questioned motivations.  But the term psychological would seem to give a modern scientific sense to this interpretation of philosophy.  If indeed, psychology was created as a discipline not too long ago, I wonder if it is appropriate to apply this label to philosophies that occurred before its creation.


Matt replied:
...I wanted to clarify my own relation to your point in your post about psychology. I find Dave's formulation, "our philosophical positions are psychologically motivated," a little unhappy, but in the same way as my "psychology and concepts dovetail" is a little unhappy,..  I'm not concerned with a discipline called "psychology," exactly,..    I have no wish to suggest, as you put it Mark, that "all philosophy can be eventually reduced (with data) to some fundamental urges, just like belching."

dmb says:
Right, I just following Matt's use of terms and wasn't thinking of the scientific discipline known as psychology so much as the temperamental, emotional, personal motives. (Although James did help to found the discipline.) The idea could be expressed just as well without the term. We could say that our philosophies are motivated by our biographies, for example. We could simply say philosophy is a matter of taste. In each case, the result is an admission that feelings and motives play a role in which philosophical visions attract or repel us. That's the main point, I think; that philosophy is and should be a personal, human thing.