What makes our conceptual distinctions 'real'?

[DocWatts]

I thought I might share this write-up from my philosophy book, 7 Provisional Truths. This section is a follow up to a previous post where I distinguish genuine science from scientism, as part of a broader exploration of conceptual distinctions. (That previous write-up is here: Transcendental Illusions- The Scientism Trap )

In this section, I explore the idea that our conceptual categories are indeed 'real', rather than 'imaginary'. But not in the sense that they point to 'objective' features of a mind-independent Reality. Instead, I suggest that conceptual distinctions are 'Interactionally real'. That they have substance because they’re grounded in our shared experience of Reality. I also explore how we can make a meaningful differentiation between 'Interactionally real' phenomena and 'imaginary' experiences (such as dreams and hallucinations).

_________________________________________________________

Categories As Interactional Realities

Our exploration into the nature of categories has carved a path through certain entrenched intuitions about everyday reality. The journey, however, has been fraught with obstacles that have the potential to trip up this newfound understanding. Our first major hurdle was to recognize that human limitations aren’t a bug but an essential feature of how we categorize. And our second was to reconcile this experientially-grounded approach to categories with the scientific method.

Having cleared these obstacles, our task at this juncture is to take a snapshot of our implicit, folk-understanding of what qualifies as ‘real’. Developing this image will reveal how this conventional wisdom shapes our intuitions about what these categories ultimately mean in the grand scheme of things. Right at the outset, however, a perplexing question emerges. This conundrum arises from our rejection of Transcendental  assumptions. In essence, if our conceptual categories aren’t a retrieval of absolute features of a mind-independent Reality, then what, if anything, makes the distinctions they embody ‘real’?

The short answer? These distinctions are ‘real’. Just not in the absolute, mind-independent sense espoused by Transcendental viewpoints. Instead, our conceptual distinctions are ‘real’ in a different way; they’re interactionally real. They have substance because they’re grounded in our shared experience of Reality, distilling actionable generalizations that are attuned to our needs, capacities, and interests. These generalizations matter because they’re how we reflect upon our embodied experience. In essence, they’re the basis for the mental models that allow us to draw inferences, predict patterns, and solve problems. Essentially, they’re the key hallmarks of our distinctly human brand of intelligence; refined yet rooted in our shared evolutionary heritage with other animals.

Crucially, this grounding within a shared, experiential Reality is what allows us to meaningfully differentiate these interactional realities from ‘imaginary' phenomena. Consider dreams and hallucinations, to list a familiar example. Though these mental phenomena may echo aspects of our shared world, their connection to it is inherently tenuous and inconsistent. The erratic nature of what we encounter within these domains renders them too unreliable to serve as a stable conduit to our shared, experiential Reality.

If we return our gaze to the conventional wisdom about categories, the unrealistic assumptions of this familiar folk-theory come more clearly into focus. The crux of the matter is that our conceptual distinctions aren’t a glimpse into a ‘neutral’ Reality that exists apart from us. When this goes unacknowledged, it’s all too easy to treat these distinctions as if they’re variables in a universal equation with one right answer. Where it’s imagined that Reality will spill its secrets to whoever cracks this universal cipher. While this makes for an alluring metaphor, it’s a misunderstanding of our situation within the world. While we certainly have access to a staggering array of stable truths about our universe, the core illusion comes from how this relationship is framed. The crux of the matter is that Reality isn’t a ‘problem’ that can be ‘solved’. We put these distinctions into the world. They exist for us, inseparable from how we interact with Reality.

By dropping this insistence that our categories are only ‘real’ insofar as they correspond to mind-independent features of Reality, we clear the fog that obscures their true purpose. Which is to help us grapple with our existential situation within Reality. Bottom line: ‘Transcendental Categories’, step aside. ‘Interactional Categories’, take the stage. For we conclude by sweeping into an existential tango with our intuitions about the ‘realness’ of the everyday world.

Edited August 28 by DocWatts

[WillCameron]

I enjoyed this a lot, thanks for sharing it. Have you considered sharing to the Metamodern Spirituality group on facebook? I'm not sure if you've read Metamodernism - The Future of Theory by Dr. Jason Storm, but this seems like a natural extension of his thoughts on metamodernism, especially meta-realism and process social kinds. I'm looking forward to the final product!

[DocWatts]

Appreciate it!

And thanks for the book suggestion. 'Metamodernism - The Future of Theory' hasn't been on my radar, but I definitely want to check it out. And the Facebook group as well, would be happy to post there.