Grasping Reality An Interpretation Realistic Epistemology

Grasping Reality addresses the methodology of a sophisticated realistic approach to scientific as well as everyday recognition by using schemes and interpretative constructs to analyze theories and the practice of recognition from a hypothesis-realistic vantage point.The three main theses are: (1) Any “grasping” of real objects, processes, entities etc. is deeply dependent on scheme interpretations and interpretative constructs — in short, on using schemes and constructs; the same applies to any sophisticated actions encroaching on reality; (2) a sophisticated interpretation-dependent realism is sketched out and defended from a methodological, non-foundational, epistemological point of view called pragmatic realism; (3) the most provocative thesis is generalized from the role of the well-known preparationist interpretation of quantum theory to everyday knowledge — the interpretative structuring and preparing of the experimental make-up as known in quantum mechanics is not just a special case but the rather general case of gaining any knowledge in science and everyday recognition.An appendix provides an overview regarding a realistic and pragmatic philosophy of technology, including the so-called new information technologies.

Traditionally, philosophers held that expressions are meaningful which have a mental entity and sentences are true when their meaning corresponds to reality. Wittgenstein is most often read by contemporary philosophers to reject both theses: meanings cannot constrain use of language, and reference to external reality is inconceivable. Zemach is influenced by Wittgenstein as well, but demonstrates the error of a relativistic interpretation of his work, especially when Wittgenstein's later work on the philosophy of psychology is fully considered. Combining his interpretation of Wittgenstein as a mentalist with the use of Substance Logic, and the idea that meanings and their referents are tokens of the same type, Zemach restores the traditional view. The Reality of Meaning presents a clear survey of the major issues in contemporary philosophy of language. A lively, good-humored philosophical argument that is informative, topical, and well seasoned with common sense, it is a book for all readers of philosophy, psychology, and cognitive science.

"A continuation of two earlier series of chronicles, Philosophy in the mid-century (Frienze 1958/59) and Contemporary philosophy (Frienze 1968)"--Pref.

For Descartes, knowledge exists as ideas in the mind that represent the world. In a radical critique, Hubert Dreyfus and Charles Taylor argue that knowledge consists of much more than the representations we formulate in our minds. They affirm our direct contact with reality—both the physical and the social world—and our shared understanding of it.

Were one to characterize the aims of this book ambitiously, it could be said to sketch the philosophical foundations or underpinnings of the scientific world view or, better, of the scientific conception of the world. In any case, it develops a comprehensive philosophical view, one which takes science seri ously as the best method for getting to know the ontological aspects of the world. This view is a kind of scientific realism - causal internal realism, as it is dubbed in the book. This brand of realism is "tough" in matters of ontology but "soft" in matters of semantics and epistemology. An ancestor of the book was published in Finnish under the title Tiede, toiminta ja todellisuus (Gaudeamus, 1983). That book is a shortish undergraduate-level monograph. However, as some research-level chapters have been added, the present book is perhaps best regarded as suited for more advanced readers. I completed the book while my stay at the University of Wisconsin in Madison as a Visiting Professor under the Exchange Program between the Universities of Wisconsin and Helsinki. I gratefully acknowledge this support. I also wish to thank Juhani Saalo and Martti Kuokkanen for comments on the manuscript and for editorial help. Dr Matti Sintonen translated the Finnish ancestor of this book into English, to be used as a partial basis for this work. His translation was supported by a grant from Suomalaisen kirjallisuuden edistamisvarat. Finally, and as usual, I wish to thank Mrs.