How Can P-Realists Understand Anti-Realism?

[Angelo Cannata]

So, how do you harmonize these two statements of yours:

it can never make sense to try to deal with an absolutely independent reality.

and

"Objective reality" isn't relative, it's a posited absolute.

?

[Atla]

So, how do you harmonize these two statements of yours:

it can never make sense to try to deal with an absolutely independent reality.

and

"Objective reality" isn't relative, it's a posited absolute.

?

Objective reality is a posited absolute, and we are thought to be part of that objective reality, it's not completely independent of us. This is very simple but VA has never been able to grasp it for some reason.

[Angelo Cannata]

Objective reality is a posited absolute

"Absolute" means "independent of us". As a consequence, your statement can be changed into this one:

"Objective reality is a posited independent of us",

This way we reveal a contradiction in what you said:

it's not completely independent of us.

because we get

"Objective reality is a posited independent of us, not completely independent of us",

How do you explain that?

[Atla]

Objective reality is a posited absolute

"Absolute" means "independent of us". As a consequence, your statement can be changed into this one:

"Objective reality is a posited independent of us",

This way we reveal a contradiction in what you said:

it's not completely independent of us.

because we get

"Objective reality is a posited independent of us, not completely independent of us",

How do you explain that?

No, "absolute" does not mean "independent of us". How did you come up with that?

[Angelo Cannata]

No, "absolute" does not mean "independent of us". How did you come up with that?

Here are a few definitions:

In philosophy (often specifically metaphysics), the absolute,[a] in most common usage, is a perfect, self-sufficient reality that depends upon nothing external to itself (Wikipedia)

The term Absolute denotes unconditioned and/or independence in the strongest sense (New World Encyclopedia)

Not dependent on or affected by anything outside oneself (Oxford English Dictionary)

Can you mention any philosophical author or dictionary where “absolute” does not mean or imply “independent of us”?

[Atla]

No, "absolute" does not mean "independent of us". How did you come up with that?

Here are a few definitions:

In philosophy (often specifically metaphysics), the absolute,[a] in most common usage, is a perfect, self-sufficient reality that depends upon nothing external to itself (Wikipedia)

The term Absolute denotes unconditioned and/or independence in the strongest sense (New World Encyclopedia)

Not dependent on or affected by anything outside oneself (Oxford English Dictionary)

Can you mention any philosophical author or dictionary where “absolute” does not mean or imply “independent of us”?

Yes, for example the three you just wrote down. Nowhere does it say "of us". That would maybe even be a self-contradiction since if we aren't part of the absolute, then the absolute isn't absolute.

[Angelo Cannata]

No, "absolute" does not mean "independent of us". How did you come up with that?

What is your definition of "absolute" in the context of this discussion?

[Atla]

No, "absolute" does not mean "independent of us". How did you come up with that?

What is your definition of "absolute" in the context of this discussion?

I'll rephrase it without the "absolute" word:

Objective reality is the posited non-subjective ultimate reality. The which to which there is no whicher. Well the main thing is that it's objective, not fundamentally mind-dependent like in anti-realism.

And imo in today's realism we are usually thought to be part of that objective reality, it's not completely independent of us.

This view is very simple but VA has never been able to grasp it for some reason. Or maybe he doesn't want to. Looks like VA thinks that the opposite of an independent (from us) objective reality is the mind-dependent subjective reality. Even though they are at least two steps apart. That's why he doesn't really understand the realism vs anti-realism discussion.

[Angelo Cannata]

I'll rephrase it without the "absolute" word

You have used the word "absolute", you even specified that it doesn't mean "independent of us": this means that the word "absolute" not only must have a meaning in your mind, but that its meaning must be quite precise in your mind. How is that now you avoid to define it?

[Atla]

I'll rephrase it without the "absolute" word

You have used the word "absolute", you even specified that it doesn't mean "independent of us": this means that the word "absolute" not only must have a meaning in your mind, but that its meaning must be quite precise in your mind. How is that now you avoid to define it?

By "absolute" I meant "absolute", as it is defined in the dictonaries including the ones you quoted. Surprisingly you didn't know what the word means so I avoided using it and now that's a problem too?

[Angelo Cannata]

By "absolute" I meant "absolute", as it is defined in the dictonaries including the ones you quoted. Surprisingly you didn't know what the word means so I avoided using it and now that's a problem too?

You avoided again giving your definition of a word you used. This means that I have no way to work out what you mean when you say anything. Once you try to rephrase, I must expect that you will avoid my next requests for definitions of the new words you used to rephrase. Once you avoid to give your definitions, the discussion becomes impossible and I have no reason to be interested in it.

[Atla]

By "absolute" I meant "absolute", as it is defined in the dictonaries including the ones you quoted. Surprisingly you didn't know what the word means so I avoided using it and now that's a problem too?

You avoided again giving your definition of a word you used. This means that I have no way to work out what you mean when you say anything. Once you try to rephrase, I must expect that you will avoid my next requests for definitions of the new words you used to rephrase. Once you avoid to give your definitions, the discussion becomes impossible and I have no reason to be interested in it.

Btw I already wrote "ultimate reality. The which to which there is no whicher." above to describe what I meant by that objective reality is an absolute.

It's an absolute, an ultimate, there is nothing beyond it, it doesn't depend on anything. So it's not relative.

[Angelo Cannata]

"absolute" does not mean "independent of us".

it doesn't depend on anything

[Atla]

"absolute" does not mean "independent of us".

it doesn't depend on anything

Those are both true. Okay wtf are you doing?