Coexistential Realism after the Linguistic Turn

Research record

Coexistential realism — relation-map of reality, language and practice Reality → experience/resistance → concept → naming → statement → social practice/institution → action → re-encountering reality Language is not the sole creator of reality; Language is not passive nameplate either ; The description may be many ; Not all descriptions are equally adequate ; Social reality may depend on linguistic behavior; Natural resistance does not end with linguistic agreement. The first formula of coexistent realism is: reality is multilayered, not uniform. The physical, biological, perceptual, interpersonal, institutional, historical, symbolic and digital levels would be interconnected but not have the same type of dependency. The word “existence” is not the name of the same causal formula at all levels. Second formula: there is a field of resistance independent of language. Not entirely determined by my naming of stones, rain, bodies, pathogens, geography, physical boundaries or biological processes. We can give the wrong name, but objective resistance can eventually get the wrong name into trouble. Third thread: linguistic mediation is real. The outside world Though free, human beings understand them through concepts, comparisons, measurements, memories, stories, calculations and communication. Therefore, “completely unbiased description” would not automatically follow from “independent reality”.

Structured debate

Pūrvapakṣa

First premise: If access to the world is always through language/concept, then talk of language-independent reality is meaningless. Claiming the existence of something that can never be seen without mediation is unnecessary metaphysics. The second premise: “resistance” is also a linguistic interpretation. Calling the experiment a failure, calling the data an anomaly, or calling the object “the same”—all conceptual judgments. So the appeal of resistance could not save realism. Third premise: social categories are clearly power-laden; Therefore, the language of truth can become a way to legitimize power structures. Saying “real” risks provisional social order being declared natural. Fourth premise: Neutral comparison between different conceptual schemes is not possible. Each scheme creates its own criteria, proofs and ontology; So where does the “external” criterion come from to say one is more adequate than the other? Fifth premise: Full respect for linguistic plurality is possible only if truth is considered community-specific. Universal realism often imposes the category of the dominant language on the weaker language.

Uttarapakṣa

First answer: mediation would not prohibit existence. We reach by telescope, microscope, statistics, memory, language and equipment; mediated access does not mean invented object. The question is not “whether there is mediation”, but “how does mediation work and what error does it bring”. Second answer: there are interpretations of resistance, but not all interpretations would yield the same results. A model that fails repeated intervention, a prediction that breaks down repeatedly, a pattern that does not match the archival claim provenance—that pattern of failure puts additional pressure on interpretation. Third answer: realism is not equivalent to naturalization. Social categories can indeed be historical/political, and realism can check their causal effect for precisely this reason. Saying “this category exists” is not saying “it is eternal/just”. ontology and normativity are separate questions. Fourth answer: conceptual schemes are not completely closed islands. shared body, environment, causal interaction, translation practice, successful coordination, prediction, pain, resource constraints and material traces provide a partial basis for cross-scheme comparison. neutrality not complete, equivalence nevertheless possible. Fifth answer: Linguistic justice does not mean communalization of truth. Respect for minority language/local knowledge requires listening to its concepts, sources, experiences and categories; But not every empirical claim is exempt from countertesting. Respect and criticism can coexist.

Parallel conclusion

The lasting achievement of the linguistic turn is that the naïve belief in language as an impartial window was broken. They choose words, form classes, expose/conceal relationships, perform social actions and carry power. Omitting this achievement would re-simplify realism. But when extremist forms of linguistic turn merge reality into language, it is difficult to understand the possibility of resistance, body, nature, causal structure, non-linguistic experience and misrepresentation of the world. Coexistential realism re-establishes the pressure of the “outside” on this boundary. The central thread of this chapter is: reality is multilayered; Language is a powerful level and medium of it, not the entire source. Social facts are real even though they are constructed, natural facts are not language-constructed even though they are described, and individuals/communities are more than categories even though they fall into categories. Realism not monochromaticism here. Many visions, languages ​​and models can capture different relations of the same world. Plurality is not mere relativism, as the criteria of evidence, resistance, consequence, coherence, translation, intervention and revision check the description remains.

Section index

1. Problem and scope · 15 source passages
2. Central thesis · 18 source passages
3. Major arguments · 25 source passages
4. Pūrvapakṣa · 10 source passages
5. Uttarapakṣa · 15 source passages
6. Indian philosophical dialogue · 15 source passages
7. Mithila’s parallel perspective · 10 source passages
8. Contemporary applications · 25 source passages
9. Chapter conclusion · 7 source passages
10. Chapter bibliography · 65 source passages

Cite this record

Gajendra Thakur. “Coexistential Realism after the Linguistic Turn.” Videha Digital Research Archive: Mithila–Vajji–Anga. Videha — https://www.videha.co.in/ · ISSN 2229-547X · GitHub mirror: https://videha-ejournal.github.io/videha/ · Digital Research Archives on GitHub: https://github.com/videha-ejournal. https://videha-ejournal.github.io/mithila-vajji-anga/records/idea/philosophy-v2-91/