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. 

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

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 imp source 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'.

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?