The realism[philosophical] vs antirealism [many types] is one of the most fundamental philosophical contention within philosophy per se.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sat Dec 16, 2023 10:16 amAgreed. Maybe another way to show the fallacy is this - and it's staggeringly obvious:Atla wrote: ↑Sat Dec 16, 2023 9:25 am I think it's time to give it a rest. VA simply doesn't seem to be capable of distinguishing between reality and our description of reality.
It's a monumental claim that those two are one and the same thing, a claim overwhelmingly contradicted by scientific knowledge. Yes there is such a philosophical position, but there is a philosophical position for anything.
But VA can't even entertain the possibility that he's wrong. He doesn't seem to be capable of the above distinction between the description and the described.
Looks like he's not simply rejecting this kind of "realism", but can't even comprehend it. He seems to have a major cognitive deficit that makes him incapable of critical thinking, and incapable of ever participating in any more serious philosophical discussion.
P: A human description of reality cannot be 'independent from the human conditions'. [sic]
C: Therefore, reality is not 'independent from the human conditions'. [sic]
But to confess - I have a perverse desire to reach a million hits, even if it's from bots. And also - maybe - our determination to counter VA's argument is a minor contribution to the wider discussion. I've certainly learnt stuff along the way.
Realism [philosophical] is driven by an evolutionary default, thus as an ideology it is very primal and proto.
Kant, one of the greatest philosopher of all times, had exposed the falseness of the philosophical realists claim as illusory while accepting it is nevertheless a useful illusion.
Since Kant, there has been a lot of antirealist who had demonstrated that philosophical realism is just not tenable to be realistic.
For realists to brush off the counter arguments is due to psychological desperations and ignorance.
You keep yelping the above strawman a million times despite my explanations of my position.Agreed. Maybe another way to show the fallacy is this - and it's staggeringly obvious:
P: A human description of reality cannot be 'independent from the human conditions'. [sic]
C: Therefore, reality is not 'independent from the human conditions'. [sic]
But to confess - I have a perverse desire to reach a million hits, even if it's from bots. And also - maybe - our determination to counter VA's argument is a minor contribution to the wider discussion. I've certainly learnt stuff along the way.
VA: Knowledge & Descriptions CANNOT Produce Facts
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39925 Apr 10, 2023
You seem to shameless [philosophically] in ignoring it
and keep repeating your strawman.
I had already gained a lot from what I have posted herein.But to confess - I have a perverse desire to reach a million hits, even if it's from bots. And also - maybe - our determination to counter VA's argument is a minor contribution to the wider discussion. I've certainly learnt stuff along the way.
I will not be contributing any posts in this thread from herefrom.