Embodied Realism vs Disembodied Realism

[Flannel Jesus]

My point is those who oppose my FSRK principles [mind-related] adopt disembodied realism [mind-independence] re point ii, iii. iv.
I am currently re-reading the book 'Philosophy in the Flesh', so I know what I am talking about.

No you don't lmfao. Reading a book doesn't make you competent. If you wanted to show the least signs of intellectual competence, you would immediately acknowledge "not all p-realists believe the things I've laid out here". Anybody who is not brain dead knows that. You can quite easily prove you're not brain dead, just say the words.

[Veritas Aequitas]

My point is those who oppose my FSRK principles [mind-related] adopt disembodied realism [mind-independence] re point ii, iii. iv.
I am currently re-reading the book 'Philosophy in the Flesh', so I know what I am talking about.

No you don't lmfao. Reading a book doesn't make you competent. If you wanted to show the least signs of intellectual competence, you would immediately acknowledge "not all p-realists believe the things I've laid out here". Anybody who is not brain dead knows that. You can quite easily prove you're not brain dead, just say the words.

You are the one who is brain dead.

I have already demonstrated my point;

1. All philosophical realists believe in an absolutely mind-independent external reality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

2. My FSRK is based on embodied realism and not believing in an absolutely mind-independent external reality [disembodied realism re ii, iii iv re OP].
Disembodied realism believes in an absolutely mind-independent external reality.

3. Therefore those who oppose my FSRK based reality, i.e. are p-realists share the same beliefs of disembodied realism.
All p-realists by definition aligns with disembodied realism [OP's ii, iii & iv]

[Veritas Aequitas]

Embodied Realism is close to the direct Realism of the Greeks in its denial of a mind-body Gap.
It [Embodied Realism] differs from direct Realism and Symbol-System Realism in its epistemology, since it denies that we can have objective and absolute knowledge of the world-in-itself.
7.1 Philosophy in the Flesh

Embodied Realism denies the existence of a mind-independent external reality.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The Direct Realism of the Greeks can thus be characterized as having three aspects:

1.The Realist Aspect: The assumption that the material world exists and an account of how we can function successfully in it.
2.The Directness Aspect: The lack of any mind-body Gap.
3.The Absoluteness Aspect: The view of the world as a unique, absolutely objective structure of which we can have absolutely correct, objective knowledge.

Symbol-System Realism of the sort found in Analytic Philosophy accepts (3), denies (2), and claims that (1) follows from (3), given a scientifically unexplicated notion of "correspondence.”
Embodied Realism accepts (1) and (2), but denies that we have any access to (3).
All three of these views are "realist" by virtue of their acceptance of (1) [assumption of an external world]. Phil in the Flesh 7.1

The critical point here is Embodied Realism ASSUMES there a material world exists that science seeks to discover.
Re 3. Embodied Realism denies there is an absolute mind-independent external world.

[Flannel Jesus]

According to PhilPapers 2020 survey, nearly 80% of philosophers are non-skeptical realists (what you call a p-realist)

https://survey2020.philpeople.org/survey/results/all

According to the same survey, nearly 52% of philosophers are physicalists about the mind

https://survey2020.philpeople.org/survey/results/4874

That gives us an explicit minimum percent for philosophers who are counter-examples to your argument here.

AT LEAST 32% of philosophers are simultaneously physicalists about the mind AND are p-realists. (That's a lower bound, I suspect the number is closer to 50% - I expect the vast majority of philosophers who are physicalists about the mind are also realists, but I gave you as much statistical wiggle room as possible which is why 32% is lthe lower bound)

So the claim that p-realists must believe the things you say they believe is clearly factually incorrect. There are many many counter examples. At least 32% of professional philosophers are concrete counter-examples.

[Atla]

My point is those who oppose my FSRK principles [mind-related] adopt disembodied realism [mind-independence] re point ii, iii. iv.
I am currently re-reading the book 'Philosophy in the Flesh', so I know what I am talking about.

No you don't lmfao. Reading a book doesn't make you competent. If you wanted to show the least signs of intellectual competence, you would immediately acknowledge "not all p-realists believe the things I've laid out here". Anybody who is not brain dead knows that. You can quite easily prove you're not brain dead, just say the words.

Read: for reasons unknown, VA is only capable of dividing people into two categories: those who REaLIZe the ABsoLUtE TRutH of the 100% unknowable noumenon, and those who don't REaLIZe this ABsoLUtE TRutH because they're stupid.

He sees everything through this lens. He can read a hundred books and misunderstand them all because he processes everything he reads through this lens.

[Flannel Jesus]

He sees everything through this lens. He can read a hundred books and misunderstand them all because he processes everything he reads through this lens.

He's not the only one on the forum with such an extremely restrictive lens that the meaning of everything they read turns into absolute mush. Iambiguous treats literature like that too. "How can I consume these words in a way that sucks all the meaning out of anything that makes me feel uncomfortable?"

[Veritas Aequitas]

My point is those who oppose my FSRK principles [mind-related] adopt disembodied realism [mind-independence] re point ii, iii. iv.
I am currently re-reading the book 'Philosophy in the Flesh', so I know what I am talking about.

No you don't lmfao. Reading a book doesn't make you competent. If you wanted to show the least signs of intellectual competence, you would immediately acknowledge "not all p-realists believe the things I've laid out here". Anybody who is not brain dead knows that. You can quite easily prove you're not brain dead, just say the words.

Read: for reasons unknown, VA is only capable of dividing people into two categories: those who REaLIZe the ABsoLUtE TRutH of the 100% unknowable noumenon, and those who don't REaLIZe this ABsoLUtE TRutH because they're stupid.

He sees everything through this lens. He can read a hundred books and misunderstand them all because he processes everything he reads through this lens.

Above is a philosophical gnat's view.

All Philosophies are Reducible to ‘p-Realism’ vs [anti-p-realism]‘Idealism’
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=28643

Pragmatism may be not so clear-cut
but most pragmatists are ANTI-p-realists.
e.g.
Rorty - No Mind-Independent Reality
viewtopic.php?t=32188

Other than pragmatism, how me which philosophy do not fall into either p-realism or anti-p-realism?

[Atla]

No you don't lmfao. Reading a book doesn't make you competent. If you wanted to show the least signs of intellectual competence, you would immediately acknowledge "not all p-realists believe the things I've laid out here". Anybody who is not brain dead knows that. You can quite easily prove you're not brain dead, just say the words.

Read: for reasons unknown, VA is only capable of dividing people into two categories: those who REaLIZe the ABsoLUtE TRutH of the 100% unknowable noumenon, and those who don't REaLIZe this ABsoLUtE TRutH because they're stupid.

He sees everything through this lens. He can read a hundred books and misunderstand them all because he processes everything he reads through this lens.

Above is a philosophical gnat's view.

All Philosophies are Reducible to ‘p-Realism’ vs [anti-p-realism]‘Idealism’
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=28643

Pragmatism may be not so clear-cut
but most pragmatists are ANTI-p-realists.
e.g.
Rorty - No Mind-Independent Reality
viewtopic.php?t=32188

Other than pragmatism, how me which philosophy do not fall into either p-realism or anti-p-realism?

You seem to be randomly mixing at least 4 concepts, realism, anti-realism, idealism, materialism and present them as 2 concepts. And you base all of that on Kant's 100% unknowable noumenon view, that makes no sense either. Who is the gnat again?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Read: for reasons unknown, VA is only capable of dividing people into two categories: those who REaLIZe the ABsoLUtE TRutH of the 100% unknowable noumenon, and those who don't REaLIZe this ABsoLUtE TRutH because they're stupid.

He sees everything through this lens. He can read a hundred books and misunderstand them all because he processes everything he reads through this lens.

Above is a philosophical gnat's view.

All Philosophies are Reducible to ‘p-Realism’ vs [anti-p-realism]‘Idealism’
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=28643

Pragmatism may be not so clear-cut
but most pragmatists are ANTI-p-realists.
e.g.
Rorty - No Mind-Independent Reality
viewtopic.php?t=32188

Other than pragmatism, how me which philosophy do not fall into either p-realism or anti-p-realism?

You seem to be randomly mixing at least 4 concepts, realism, anti-realism, idealism, materialism and present them as 2 concepts. And you base all of that on Kant's 100% unknowable noumenon view, that makes no sense either. Who is the gnat again?

Don't insult your intelligence with the above.

Materialism is covered within philosophical realism.

Idealism [to be specified] is generally anti-realism.
Kant 100% unknowable noumenon is anti-p-realism.

• In some contexts, [p]-realism is contrasted with idealism. Today it is more often contrasted with anti-realism, for example in the philosophy of science. WIKI

[Atla]

Above is a philosophical gnat's view.

All Philosophies are Reducible to ‘p-Realism’ vs [anti-p-realism]‘Idealism’
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=28643

Pragmatism may be not so clear-cut
but most pragmatists are ANTI-p-realists.
e.g.
Rorty - No Mind-Independent Reality
viewtopic.php?t=32188

Other than pragmatism, how me which philosophy do not fall into either p-realism or anti-p-realism?

You seem to be randomly mixing at least 4 concepts, realism, anti-realism, idealism, materialism and present them as 2 concepts. And you base all of that on Kant's 100% unknowable noumenon view, that makes no sense either. Who is the gnat again?

Don't insult your intelligence with the above.

Materialism is covered within philosophical realism.

Idealism [to be specified] is generally anti-realism.
Kant 100% unknowable noumenon is anti-p-realism.

• In some contexts, [p]-realism is contrasted with idealism. Today it is more often contrasted with anti-realism, for example in the philosophy of science. WIKI

These are just word salads period. No way to even attempt to make sense of them.

"All Philosophies are Reducible to ‘p-Realism’ vs [anti-p-realism]‘Idealism’"

what is this?

There are various realisms vs anti-realisms. Overall, philosophies can't be divided into simply realism or anti-realism.
Your Kantian anti-p-realism is not necessarily an idealism. Didn't Kant try to refute idealism?

Kant wasn't even an anti-realist, had more like a since then partially refuted kind of mixture of realism and anti-realism, but he was getting close.