Anti-realism is often a way to soothe an inherent existential crisis

[Atla]

Realism isn't all rainbows and lollipops. You exist in an objective reality that you have very little influence over. You are insignificant. Your existence carries little to no meaning. The world was there before you, and the world will be there after you, your short existence never really mattered in the grand scheme of things.

That can make the inherent existential crisis worse. So people tried a thousand different kinds of escapisms, one of them being the anti-realism. Now in a strange sense, you have placed yourself into a central position within existence. The world somehow depends on you and maybe other beings. Without you, there is no world. Without you, there are no features of the world. You are significant, what you do and what you are is meaningful. You get to write the rules, at least to same degree.

Views??
Discuss??

Thanks. That's an interesting angle. And I think you're right about the many other kinds of escapism, among which I'd include religion.

And along with meeting individual need, there's the anthropocentric exceptionalism built into most religious myths - which carried and carries over into the kind of antirealism that VA promotes: reality is what humans experience and know.

Guess VA isn't an animal person. For example cats are awesome, what about the reality that cats know? In some things, I'd value our cat's opinion higher than VA's anyway.

[Angelo Cannata]

Realism isn't all rainbows and lollipops. You exist in an objective reality that you have very little influence over. You are insignificant. Your existence carries little to no meaning. The world was there before you, and the world will be there after you, your short existence never really mattered in the grand scheme of things.

That can make the inherent existential crisis worse.

This is an interesting exploration, an interesting attempt to turn things upside down, which is something that philosophy frequently does. But it just doesn’t work, it is hard to believe.
Those who have absolute certainty that existence has no meaning do not need any escapism, because they know perfectly how things are. You cannot escape certainty and there is no reason to escape certainty. If meaning does not exist, there is no reason to look for one and there is no reason to build a false one, it doesn’t make sense.
There cannot be any existential crisis for those who have absolute certainty that existence doesn’t have any sense.
Animals do not believe in any sense of existence and they do not enter any existential crisis because of that.
Science and technology can make people masters of a lot of things, so realism, science and technology are all good reasons to live and die peacefully without any existential crisis.
In the realist perspective, even when we face suffering, tragedies, violence, what we need to do is just to exploit all the resources that science, psychology, technology, medicine are able to give us. There is no reason to cultivate despair, sadness, existential crisis, pessimism: things are just what they are.

So people tried a thousand different kinds of escapisms, one of them being the anti-realism. Now in a strange sense, you have placed yourself into a central position within existence. The world somehow depends on you and maybe other beings. Without you, there is no world. Without you, there are no features of the world. You are significant, what you do and what you are is meaningful. You get to write the rules, at least to same degree.

This is anti-realism seen from the realist perspective, which is a misintepretation. Anti-realist cannot place themselves into a central position within existence, because this would be a realist way of conceiving ourselves and our central position. In anti-realism there is not a central self from which everything comes from. When anti-realists say that everything is subjective, it is a misinterpretation to interpret it in a realist way, as if this was the new certainty. Once we realize that everything is subjective, is goes without saying that the statement needs to be applied to itself as well: applying everything to itself is one of the most elementary and obvious operations on philosophy.
In anti-realim there is no certainty, no truth: this is what really makes existence problematic. You cannot even be pessimist, because pessimism would mean relying on a negative certainty, but we have no certainty. This is the real existential crisis, sadness, despair: in anti-realism you are forced to face the absolute lack of certainty, you don’t know what to do, what to think, what to criticise, how to criticise, you don’t even know what is that you don’t know, so that you cannot even say that you know that you don’t know. That’t the crisis, the really fruitful crisis.

[Atla]

This is an interesting exploration, an interesting attempt to turn things upside down, which is something that philosophy frequently does. But it just doesn’t work, it is hard to believe.
Those who have absolute certainty that existence has no meaning do not need any escapism, because they know perfectly how things are. You cannot escape certainty and there is no reason to escape certainty. If meaning does not exist, there is no reason to look for one and there is no reason to build a false one, it doesn’t make sense.
There cannot be any existential crisis for those who have absolute certainty that existence doesn’t have any sense.
Animals do not believe in any sense of existence and they do not enter any existential crisis because of that.
Science and technology can make people masters of a lot of things, so realism, science and technology are all good reasons to live and die peacefully without any existential crisis.
In the realist perspective, even when we face suffering, tragedies, violence, what we need to do is just to exploit all the resources that science, psychology, technology, medicine are able to give us. There is no reason to cultivate despair, sadness, existential crisis, pessimism: things are just what they are.

I wasn't talking about absolute certainty that existence has no meaning, I was talking about existence having little to no meaning in the realist-scientific world as experienced. So people try to escape that kind of world, the experienced world has to be changed.

This is anti-realism seen from the realist perspective, which is a misintepretation. Anti-realist cannot place themselves into a central position within existence, because this would be a realist way of conceiving ourselves and our central position. In anti-realism there is not a central self from which everything comes from. When anti-realists say that everything is subjective, it is a misinterpretation to interpret it in a realist way, as if this was the new certainty. Once we realize that everything is subjective, is goes without saying that the statement needs to be applied to itself as well: applying everything to itself is one of the most elementary and obvious operations on philosophy.
In anti-realim there is no certainty, no truth: this is what really makes existence problematic. You cannot even be pessimist, because pessimism would mean relying on a negative certainty, but we have no certainty. This is the real existential crisis, sadness, despair: in anti-realism you are forced to face the absolute lack of certainty, you don’t know what to do, what to think, what to criticise, how to criticise, you don’t even know what is that you don’t know, so that you cannot even say that you know that you don’t know. That’t the crisis, the really fruitful crisis.

I don't think this has to do with anti-realism. Giving up on certainty and having to question everything, with no ground beneath your feet, can equally be found in realism.

[Iwannaplato]

In anti-realim there is no certainty, no truth: this is what really makes existence problematic. You cannot even be pessimist, because pessimism would mean relying on a negative certainty, but we have no certainty. This is the real existential crisis, sadness, despair: in anti-realism you are forced to face the absolute lack of certainty, you don’t know what to do, what to think, what to criticise, how to criticise, you don’t even know what is that you don’t know, so that you cannot even say that you know that you don’t know. That’t the crisis, the really fruitful crisis.

If this is true, then VA is not an antirealist. It also seems to contradict itself, unless you find yourself criticizing anything and everything. Because here you have criticized what you are calling a realist view of antirealism. Unless you also criticize, for example, antirealist views, and all sides of any issue, in equal and/or random ways, it seems like you do think you know what to criticize and how to criticize. Unless you are taking the word know to mean absolute knowledge.

But if you do mean know that way, well, you should also be aware that realists can be realists without considering their knowledge absolute.

In any case, if that's what antirealists are like, if you are correct, I've never met one or encountered one online. And the antirealist works I've read have not been written in very much the same format, in terms of certainty, that works by realists I have read are written.

Personally I think antirealists and realists both need not have a particular personality, attitude or degree of certainty. And both groups have members who seem to think they know how to criticize and what to criticize: hence the debates between realists and antirealists. So, I wouldn't rule out VA, for example, being an antirealist because he oftens presents his conclusions as extremely certain.

[Atla]

In anti-realim there is no certainty, no truth: this is what really makes existence problematic. You cannot even be pessimist, because pessimism would mean relying on a negative certainty, but we have no certainty. This is the real existential crisis, sadness, despair: in anti-realism you are forced to face the absolute lack of certainty, you don’t know what to do, what to think, what to criticise, how to criticise, you don’t even know what is that you don’t know, so that you cannot even say that you know that you don’t know. That’t the crisis, the really fruitful crisis.

If this is true, then VA is not an antirealist. It also seems to contradict itself, unless you find yourself criticizing anything and everything. Because here you have criticized what you are calling a realist view of antirealism. Unless you also criticize, for example, antirealist views, and all sides of any issue, in equal and/or random ways, it seems like you do think you know what to criticize and how to criticize. Unless you are taking the word know to mean absolute knowledge.

But if you do mean know that way, well, you should also be aware that realists can be realists without considering their knowledge absolute.

In any case, if that's what antirealists are like, if you are correct, I've never met one or encountered one online. And the antirealist works I've read have not been written in very much the same format, in terms of certainty, that works by realists I have read are written.

Personally I think antirealists and realists both need not have a particular personality, attitude or degree of certainty. And both groups have members who seem to think they know how to criticize and what to criticize: hence the debates between realists and antirealists. So, I wouldn't rule out VA, for example, being an antirealist because he oftens presents his conclusions as extremely certain.

Ironically, I think I would more or less qualify as an anti-realist in this case, and yes VA would easily be a realist. Except of course this state of total uncertainty is unsustainable, so I've decided to work out for myself, how to approach everything with a sort of "relative" certainty anyway, while knowing that it could all be dead wrong.

[Iwannaplato]

Ironically, I think I would more or less qualify as an anti-realist in this case, and yes VA would easily be a realist. Except of course this state of total uncertainty is unsustainable, so I've decided to work out for myself, how to approach everything with a sort of "relative" certainty anyway, while knowing that it could all be dead wrong.

And how do we recognize the antirealist lack of certainty related to what to criticize and how to criticize in his posts:

These things seemed simple to you because they made a magician trick at your school: they distracted your attention from noticing their activity on what they called "objects". This is actually the essential trick that all magicians do: they hide their intervention from what they introduce to you as "object".

This behaviour actually is consistent with the metaphysical mentality of realism and objectivism, so that it's not so much you, but your philosophy driving you to this behaviour: metaphysics, realism, objectivity, means conclusion, things that are definitive, perspective-free, discussion-free, criticism-free, certainty, truth, power.

This way, it's a fact that metaphysics is not just about theory: it has causes and consequences that are psychological, social, political, historical, anthropological.

All of this isn't so much in favour of metaphysics: usually metaphysicians don't like so much to take into consideration all things involved in their ideas; on the contrary, they like to close and avoid questions and discussions by saying things like "that's it" or "believe or not".
Top

He may well be very uncertain of these things. But for readers who are realists and for readers who are antirealists, this uncertainty takes on a for us mind independendent existence. We cannot sense it, in any case.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Realism isn't all rainbows and lollipops. You exist in an objective reality that you have very little influence over. You are insignificant. Your existence carries little to no meaning. The world was there before you, and the world will be there after you, your short existence never really mattered in the grand scheme of things.

That can make the inherent existential crisis worse. So people tried a thousand different kinds of escapisms, one of them being the anti-realism. Now in a strange sense, you have placed yourself into a central position within existence. The world somehow depends on you and maybe other beings. Without you, there is no world. Without you, there are no features of the world. You are significant, what you do and what you are is meaningful. You get to write the rules, at least to same degree.

This OP is dumb and ignorant. You are kicking your own ass and insulting your own intelligence.

All humans are exposed to an existential crisis. The ideology of Philosophical [metaphysical] realism [mind independence] (along with theism) is an ineffective way [with its inherent negatives] to soothe the existential crisis.

Thus to counter the negatives of realism, anti-realism is against [anti-] the ideology [negativity] of metaphysical or philosophical realism and not realism-in-general.

The approach is no different from anti-Nazism, anti-communism, anti-theism [atheism] or anti-whatever-ideology.
The point is those who are the in the anti-realist group have their own personal philosophical stance to deal with the inherent existential crisis, e.g. the various kinds of idealism, non-theistic religions [Buddhism], etc.

In another perspective an anti-realist in one sense may be a 'realist' in another sense.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Antirealism isn't a stance against reality. It's a stance against the shortsightedness of realism.

Suppose that the project of realism, ultimately, succeeds. Suppose that the project of realism - the task of mirroring/representing nature comes to a fruitful end.

And now we have two copies of nature. One in nature and one in the heads of realists.
There's nature. There's the realists mirroring nature.

OK. And then what happens?

Follow this up with the philosophical idiocy of pursuing truth. OK. You lets say you found it! Now what?

Yes, the ideology of philosophical realism [absolute mind independence] is philosophical idiocy of chasing after [reifying an illusion] out there beyond the human factor, i.e. it is delusional.
The moment p-realist mirrors nature, there is a inevitable reality gap between reality and what is supposedly mirrored and that reality-gap is impossible to be bridged.

Atla should read,
Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosoph ... _of_Nature

[Atla]

This OP is dumb and ignorant. You are kicking your own ass and insulting your own intelligence.

All humans are exposed to an existential crisis. The ideology of Philosophical [metaphysical] realism [mind independence] (along with theism) is an ineffective way [with its inherent negatives] to soothe the existential crisis.

Thus to counter the negatives of realism, anti-realism is against [anti-] the ideology [negativity] of metaphysical or philosophical realism and not realism-in-general.

The approach is no different from anti-Nazism, anti-communism, anti-theism [atheism] or anti-whatever-ideology.
The point is those who are the in the anti-realist group have their own personal philosophical stance to deal with the inherent existential crisis, e.g. the various kinds of idealism, non-theistic religions [Buddhism], etc.

In another perspective an anti-realist in one sense may be a 'realist' in another sense.

Of course everything you've written on realism on this forum is dumb and ignorant. You've always been kicking your own ass and insulting your own intelligence. Understanding my OP would at least require that you have a clue what realism even is. For example:

By existential crisis I mean: people having to face mortality, impermanence, pain, suffering, loss, meaninglessness and so on. Is the main purpose of philosophical realism to soothe the existential crisis?

Philosophical realism is a broad term that encompasses various perspectives within philosophy, and its main purpose is not necessarily to soothe existential crises. Philosophical realism generally refers to the belief that reality exists independently of our perceptions and thoughts about it. Realists argue that there is an objective reality that exists whether or not we are aware of it.

Existential crises, on the other hand, often involve grappling with profound questions about the nature of existence, mortality, meaning, and purpose. While philosophical realism may provide a framework for understanding the external world, it doesn't necessarily address the emotional and existential concerns that individuals face.

Existentialist philosophy, associated with thinkers like Jean-Paul Sartre and Albert Camus, is more directly concerned with these existential issues. Existentialism explores questions related to human existence, freedom, responsibility, and the search for meaning in a seemingly indifferent or absurd universe.

People may turn to various philosophical perspectives, including realism or existentialism, in an attempt to make sense of their experiences and find meaning. However, the choice of philosophy is highly individual, and different philosophical approaches can provide different insights into the complexities of existence. Some individuals may find comfort in the idea of a stable and objective reality (realism), while others may find meaning in the subjective and individual experience (existentialism).

In summary, while philosophical realism can offer a framework for understanding the external world, addressing existential crises often involves delving into existentialist philosophy or other perspectives that directly engage with the profound questions surrounding human existence and meaning.

[FlashDangerpants]

Realism isn't all rainbows and lollipops. You exist in an objective reality that you have very little influence over. You are insignificant. Your existence carries little to no meaning. The world was there before you, and the world will be there after you, your short existence never really mattered in the grand scheme of things.

That can make the inherent existential crisis worse.

This is an interesting exploration, an interesting attempt to turn things upside down, which is something that philosophy frequently does. But it just doesn’t work, it is hard to believe.

You do understand that it's satire, right? Sadly the target won't because he doesn't really pick up on subtext.

[Iwannaplato]

Realism isn't all rainbows and lollipops. You exist in an objective reality that you have very little influence over. You are insignificant. Your existence carries little to no meaning. The world was there before you, and the world will be there after you, your short existence never really mattered in the grand scheme of things.

That can make the inherent existential crisis worse.

This is an interesting exploration, an interesting attempt to turn things upside down, which is something that philosophy frequently does. But it just doesn’t work, it is hard to believe.

You do understand that it's satire, right? Sadly the target won't because he doesn't really pick up on subtext.

Clearly
VA:

This OP is dumb and ignorant. You are kicking your own ass and insulting your own intelligence.

He doesn't realize that while he'd never assert the content, he has asserted the logic and form of the argument. So, he just insulted his own reasoning. But it was nicely worded that Atla was insulting his own intelligence. This implies that Atla could do better. And he can.

But the interesting thing is that Angelo did assert some emotional/attitudinal qualities to realists and anti-realists as necessary.

I do think one's philosophical position can entail, or be entailed by, one's attitude, but with realism/antirealism, I'm very skeptical we can come up with anything but wild speculation.

[Flannel Jesus]

He doesn't realize that while he'd never assert the content, he has asserted the logic and form of the argument. So, he just insulted his own reasoning.

Satire goes over some peoples heads I guess.

[Iwannaplato]

He doesn't realize that while he'd never assert the content, he has asserted the logic and form of the argument. So, he just insulted his own reasoning.

Satire goes over some peoples heads I guess.

I have to admit that it goes over my head sometimes also. Especially if someone is satirizing me.

There's a great video of Bill O'Reilly on the Stephen Colbert show where the latter was doing his satire of a conservative pundit. O'Reilly was definitely knew that Colbert was satirizing conservatives - he'd been doing this character for years. But nevertheless he couldn't really keep up. Because Colbert was arguing as a conservative (but underneath against their positions). But since it was satire, his persona was for the conservative position, but he was making it sound silly. That extra layer made it very hard for OReilly and he couldn't really blow up in rage at it either, one of his tools at the time. It was very funny.

I have tried that online a few times. It's very freeing.

[God]

Philosophical realism is a broad term that encompasses various perspectives within philosophy, and its main purpose is not necessarily to soothe existential crises.

Not this God.

[Iwannaplato]

Realism isn't all rainbows and lollipops. You exist in an objective reality that you have very little influence over. You are insignificant. Your existence carries little to no meaning. The world was there before you, and the world will be there after you, your short existence never really mattered in the grand scheme of things.

That can make the inherent existential crisis worse. So people tried a thousand different kinds of escapisms, one of them being the anti-realism. Now in a strange sense, you have placed yourself into a central position within existence. The world somehow depends on you and maybe other beings. Without you, there is no world. Without you, there are no features of the world. You are significant, what you do and what you are is meaningful. You get to write the rules, at least to same degree.

Views??
Discuss??

Anti-realism, certainly one like Von Frassen's, does not consider unobservables to be certain. Some of our local antirealists use this when it suits them but not when it doesn't. Other minds are T-terms. Theoretically posited entities, perhaps useful for prediction, but nothing we have demonstrated to be real. Why? Because other minds are unobservable. Likewise morals. We cannot observe objective morals. We can infer them. We can infer the existence of other minds, but I can't look at you and see morals or mind.

One can either look at this as hypocrisy or escapism. An unconsciousness ruling out of other selves that the conscious mind is not aware of for emotional purposes.

The local antirealists deny they have said this - correct - but fail to consciously understand that it is entailed.

Unconsciously it's the relief at categorizing this also as an evolutionary default so one can, for example, only participate in a discussion forum for oneself, since, in the end, one doesn't really believe the others exist, given the criteria so hard fought for.

As Chatgpt responded when I pointed this out:

You're absolutely correct. In the context of van Fraassen's constructive empiricism, the categorization of "other minds" as T-terms would extend not only to our understanding of their mental states but also to their existence itself. This means that we would consider the existence of other minds as a theoretical postulate inferred from observable behavior rather than as a directly observable fact.

Hence VA is an unwilling solipsist - at the conscious level unwilling that is.

An one can imagine the existential crisis he is trying to avoid here.

Remember he considers realists to be primitive and cowardly and is not merely agnostic about unobservables, like Von Frassen, but has repeatedly denied their existence.