Post-realism

Approaching an unknown world

While philosophers such as Timothy Williamson reassert realism as the solution to our post-truth age, the key problem of self-reference, the open-ended nature of reality and realism’s blunt approach to disagreement mean that it cannot be the future of philosophy. Post-realism, without abandoning empiricism and rationalism, makes sense of our relationship to an unknown world and provides a way forward to a more inclusive and effective means to intervene, writes Hilary Lawson.

 

Timothy Williamson's defence of realism is to be commended for its rhetorical punch, but the flaws in the realism project are deeper than he supposes.

At the conclusion of his article Timothy Williamson makes the political argument that realism is needed to stand up to the falsehoods and the tyrannies of power.  Citing recent events in the US Presidential election, he makes the case that anti-realist philosophers are at least in part responsible for this toxic outcome.  As if the trusty sword of truth is the way to down dictators and confront the misapprehensions of the mob. 

It is a fine idea, but a few moments of reflection uncover its illusions.  The proponents of political outlooks, be they leaders or followers, elite intellectuals or salt of the earth labourers, tend to be convinced of the truth of their outlook.  Commentators alike, whether writing for the New York Times or Fox News, the Telegraph or the Guardian, are typically assured of the correctness of their view.  Encouraging belief in a single objective truth seems as likely to lead to ever more conflict than to an outbreak of reasoned conversation.  The sword of truth is as likely to lead to crusading wars between those who have an unswerving belief in their own rightness, as it is to lead to a utopian democracy of the good and well meaning.

The core of the issue regarding realism is not to be found in jousting over the political impact of realism but in the deep philosophical problem of self-reference, as Isabelle Thomas-Fogiel proposed in her original article to which Timothy Williamson was responding.  It is this central flaw that undermines realism and the associated project of describing the relationship between language and the world.

Encouraging belief in a single objective truth seems as likely to lead to ever more conflict than to an outbreak of reasoned conversation.

Continue reading

Enjoy unlimited access to the world's leading thinkers.

Start by exploring our subscription options or joining our mailing list today.

Start Free Trial

Already a subscriber? Log in

Latest Releases
Join the conversation

Broun Stock 17 January 2023



Thanks your information

Torri Lloyd 11 August 2021

Great article, I've learned a lot from it, and I wish I had read it a few months ago when I needed to write a book report about post realism. I couldn't find much information that's why I turned to [url=https://www.grabmyessay.com/producing-book-report]imp source[/url] to find help with my paper. I can't say the price was very low, but the quality of their work was really impressive, so I don't regret I applied to this service. 

David Morey 1 March 2021

Is there a cake or biscuit in the tin? Give it a shake, definitely something in there. Shall we open it and see? What is the hidden reality in the box? Damn it, another Jaffa cake!

David Morey 1 March 2021

De-script-ions always contain scripts, no denying that limitation.




David Morey 1 March 2021

The word 'test' here is perhaps doing some significant work.

David Morey 1 March 2021

'complex' not 'comples' I mean.

David Morey 1 March 2021

Rationality and empiricism certainly includes scientists making models, doing experiments and agreeing about or interpreting data and results. See Nicholas Maxwell's books on the scientific method. But is there not a sort of conversation with reality or nature? Scientists consider their assumptions, make the models, etc, decide on what questions to ask, but they then have to listen to the data, the answers that are given back, the machines click or they don't click, such is the use of data, and why scientists can achieve consensus, however temporary, more easily than in the humanities, although the humanties equally seek to express and understand regularities and patterns but in more comples processes like psychology, history and the social activity. So we ask reality questions and in controlled experiments we get a kind of answer. Robert Pirsig in his two bboks is interesting on this as he takes the approach of an engineer but one with an non-dualist Eastern rather than a dualist Western metaphysics, Heidegger is another non-dualist approach.

David Morey 1 March 2021

Closer to pragmatism than utilitarianism, but more open than pragmatism, sure there is use value, but also many other values to structure our reasons by: equality, beauty, discovery, kindness, power/s, etc.

David Morey 1 March 2021

Adopting post-realism has many advantages, it strongly emphasises openness which is great, but there are endless regularities in the world, up to us to articulate, model and value these, but they are still there, if there were no regularities and repetitions there could be no matter, life, thought, language. Robert Pirsig discusses this in his book Lila. The endless regularities should make us see truth as more about embellishment than 'uncovering'.

sacara eddric 26 February 2021

Solitaire Spider game online - https://solitairespider.co/

Minnie_S 17 February 2021

As an approach to resolving disputes about what is true/ right/ wrong this sounds very good but isn't this just utilitarianism? Apart from making it clear that objective truth is being abandoned, what difference does this have from 'do what works best'? Then how does one define 'best?' Aren't we back where we were before?