Rorty - No Mind-Independent Reality

[Veritas Aequitas]

Do you realize the realist vs antirealist debate has been ongoing since philosophy first emerged [10,000 years ago -Vedas]?
So you just cannot ignore it nor will it go away as long as there are humans.
I have explained those who are dogmatic on p-realism had induced evil and violent acts, e.g. religious evils and hindered humanity's progress.
P-realism can be studied from the evolutionary, neuroscience, genetics, psychological perspective to find solutions to prevent its related evil acts. I am not saying antirealists are saints, but two wrongs do not make one right.
Your moral skepticism is a hinder to moral progress.

So overblown and foolish. If I tell you my position is that the whole question is a misunderstanding that needn't be taken seriously, that is a perfectly sensible position. People have argued about which religion is best for 10,000 years as well, that's also a silly question, I am not obliged to become a Zoroastrian and take part in that silly debate. You asinine belief that that the realism problem has moral importance is exasperating.

All of this indicates that you think you can just refuse me permission to hold the philosophical position that I do. And that is just dumb.

You can hold whatever position you like.

However as a matter of discussion with relation to reality, we need to take into account the p-realist vs antirealist dichotomy because it is so fundamental and unavoidable.

The point is p-realist is a natural emergence out of the evolution of living things and human evolution.
This is why >90% of humans are p-realist in the sense of being theists and philosophical or metaphysical realists who attempt to impose their beliefs onto the minority.
The features of p-realists are very evident, i.e. they believe that reality and things are mind-independent to the extreme, the moon existed or exists regardless of humans.
Within p-realists, there are subsets, e.g. theists, philosophical realists, metaphysical realists, direct realists, indirect realists, scientific realists, etc.

Then we have those who oppose the instinctual primordially driven p-realists and they are by definition called ANTI-p_realists [not philosophical anti-realists], like anti-communists, anti-Nazi and the like.
Like atheists, anti-p_realists have their own specific philosophical beliefs, the only they have in common is their opposition to the ideology of p-realism.

In this case, if you are not with the p-realists then you are automatically an ANTI-p_realist with your own specific philosophical beliefs.

Why this p-realist vs anti-p_realist is still critical at present because the majority >90% of people are p-realist and their belief has a significant impact on the minority anti-p_realists.

One of the feature of effective problem-solving is to segregate them into manageable patterns or units.
So, I have argued;
All Philosophies are Reducible to ‘p-Realism’ vs ‘Idealism’ [anti-p-realism]
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=28643
so as to facilitate discussion and resolutions.

The above is the reason why I find it critical to determine your philosophical position in terms of p-realism vs anti-p-realism.

Note there is the exception where a realist can be an anti-realist at the same time in different contexts, but that is not relevant for an initial differentiation.

[Veritas Aequitas]

My stance is not cryptic. I have been making it clear, but you think you can overrule me. You don't need to place me within a hiearchy of FSK things, that sorting game you insist on doesn't really matter, it is a psychological crutch for you and has zero importance to the world around you.

The whole debate really is nonsense.
Reality is what you see when you look around and that is what the concept is for.
You are exactly as real -- no more, no less -- than the things you see when you look around. You have no outsider position to look at reality from.
You are fooling yourself that you can meaningfully talk of something being more real than reality is (look around you... that thing right there is reality in case you have forgotten). That reality you see around you is paradigm, imagined alternate realities are fictions.

All this stuff is the start of the chain of errors that Rorty warns against, running from Descartes who did the doubting that the real world is reality, through Locke who insterted extra nonsense about perception that separates us further from "reality", inviting additional solipsisms or Berkeleyan idealism, through to Kant, who does nothing to fix that divide itself, instead trying to magic away just the problems that Locke and Descartes created.

So quit "guessing" and just read my words.

There is a need for debate between what you meant by reality and my definition.

My usual definition:
Whatever is reality, truth, facts, existence, knowledge and objectivity is contingent upon an embodied human-based FSRC.

All Knowledges are Grounded on a Specific FSK [FSRC]
viewtopic.php?t=41915

If you disagree with the above, then your sense of reality is mind-independent which Rorty abhor.

FDP: Reality is what you see when you look around and that is what the concept is for.
You mentioned "Russell's Not Table At ALL"
Russell: There is No Real Table??
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=27599
I don't know whether you agree with him or not?

According to Russell your
Reality is what you see when you look around and that is what the concept is for.
is false.
The fact that illusions and hallucination [as seen] are possible and exists is a counter example to your claim.

This is why there is a need for objective verification and justification of the reality that emerged, is realized, seen, experienced, known and described must be conditioned upon a specific embodied human-based FSRC of which the scientific FSRC is the Gold Standard.

How do you counter the above and argue your view is the true one?

[Veritas Aequitas]

But corrected for the phenomena mistake the point I made still stands and your counter misses the mark. Firstly you dragged me into this thread to chastise me about Rorty, I have "updated your database about the meaning in Rorty" unless you have paids specatularly little attention today. So the point stands just for that reason. But it happens to be the main thing I agree with Rorty over and that is that he and I agree that Kant got this thing wrong.

If you are still making use of the distinction between noumenal and phenomenal (and you refer back to that stuff so often that obviously you are) you are making the same mistake as Kant. Kudos for being so very very accurate in the making of the mistake. You might well be the very very best at making Kant's exact mistake, and maybe you are correct in asserting that everyone else misunderstands how to do this mistake correctly. But it remains a mistake.

I agree with Rorty's views against foundationalism and absolute representation.

I have explained many times and you did not counter effectively but merely repeat your stance that Rorty insisted Kant made a mistake based on Strawson's half-cook reading of Kant.
I argued Rorty misinterpreted Kant.

I challenge you to understand Kant's philosophy thoroughly and thereupon you will understand where Rorty was mistaken, just like how Blackburn was mistaken about Kant's ethics.
So I am awaiting with my challenge.

[FlashDangerpants]

Do you realize the realist vs antirealist debate has been ongoing since philosophy first emerged [10,000 years ago -Vedas]?
So you just cannot ignore it nor will it go away as long as there are humans.
I have explained those who are dogmatic on p-realism had induced evil and violent acts, e.g. religious evils and hindered humanity's progress.
P-realism can be studied from the evolutionary, neuroscience, genetics, psychological perspective to find solutions to prevent its related evil acts. I am not saying antirealists are saints, but two wrongs do not make one right.
Your moral skepticism is a hinder to moral progress.

So overblown and foolish. If I tell you my position is that the whole question is a misunderstanding that needn't be taken seriously, that is a perfectly sensible position. People have argued about which religion is best for 10,000 years as well, that's also a silly question, I am not obliged to become a Zoroastrian and take part in that silly debate. You asinine belief that that the realism problem has moral importance is exasperating.

All of this indicates that you think you can just refuse me permission to hold the philosophical position that I do. And that is just dumb.

You can hold whatever position you like.

Ok then, I hold the postion I have already explained, and I don't give a fuck about 10,000 years of bullshit about any stupid question. Whether that question is which squirrel to worship, or whether the squirrel is really really really there or not are equally dumb questions as far as I am concerned.

However as a matter of discussion with relation to reality, we need to take into account the p-realist vs antirealist dichotomy because it is so fundamental and unavoidable.

The point is p-realist is a natural emergence out of the evolution of living things and human evolution.
This is why >90% of humans are p-realist in the sense of being theists and philosophical or metaphysical realists who attempt to impose their beliefs onto the minority.
The features of p-realists are very evident, i.e. they believe that reality and things are mind-independent to the extreme, the moon existed or exists regardless of humans.
Within p-realists, there are subsets, e.g. theists, philosophical realists, metaphysical realists, direct realists, indirect realists, scientific realists, etc.

Then we have those who oppose the instinctual primordially driven p-realists and they are by definition called ANTI-p_realists [not philosophical anti-realists], like anti-communists, anti-Nazi and the like.
Like atheists, anti-p_realists have their own specific philosophical beliefs, the only they have in common is their opposition to the ideology of p-realism.

In this case, if you are not with the p-realists then you are automatically an ANTI-p_realist with your own specific philosophical beliefs.

Why this p-realist vs anti-p_realist is still critical at present because the majority >90% of people are p-realist and their belief has a significant impact on the minority anti-p_realists.

One of the feature of effective problem-solving is to segregate them into manageable patterns or units.
So, I have argued;
All Philosophies are Reducible to ‘p-Realism’ vs ‘Idealism’ [anti-p-realism]
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=28643
so as to facilitate discussion and resolutions.

The above is the reason why I find it critical to determine your philosophical position in terms of p-realism vs anti-p-realism.

Note there is the exception where a realist can be an anti-realist at the same time in different contexts, but that is not relevant for an initial differentiation.

Nope. All that stuff is dumb. I will explain this last thing, this one time....

Whether you talk about the world as not being really really truly real or you talk about the world as being really really truly real, you are making the same error either way. It is meaningless to try and doubt whether the world is really really really truly real. The conceptual freakout involved is gibberish and the idea that you can meaningfully express the propositions involved is just an error of jusdgment caused by overactive imaginations and an illusion involving the plasticity of language and grammar. The only way out of this foolishness is to see that the concept of reality refers to the reality as I have already explained, that includes you and all the stuff you experience, no Cartesian nonsense about perception coming between you and that reality, you are in the reality right now.

I am not interested in your endless claims to be the only person who understands Kant. All the professors you think are inferior to you can all definitely read better than you do, and then they teach courses about him to students at Harvard, Oxford and Cambridge, who also can read better than you can. So I'm never, ever going to take that shit seriously from you. Here's a snippet from the intro to the mirror and it covers what I said and I don't really need to know what this shit about Strawson is even supposed to tell anyone.

First Bit.JPG (19.98 KiB) Viewed 354 times

Second Bit.JPG (84.63 KiB) Viewed 354 times

[Veritas Aequitas]

Nope. All that stuff is dumb. I will explain this last thing, this one time....

Whether you talk about the world as not being really really truly real or you talk about the world as being really really truly real, you are making the same error either way. It is meaningless to try and doubt whether the world is really really really truly real. The conceptual freakout involved is gibberish and the idea that you can meaningfully express the propositions involved is just an error of jusdgment caused by overactive imaginations and an illusion involving the plasticity of language and grammar. The only way out of this foolishness is to see that the concept of reality refers to the reality as I have already explained, that includes you and all the stuff you experience, no Cartesian nonsense about perception coming between you and that reality, you are in the reality right now.

I am not interested in your endless claims to be the only person who understands Kant. All the professors you think are inferior to you can all definitely read better than you do, and then they teach courses about him to students at Harvard, Oxford and Cambridge, who also can read better than you can. So I'm never, ever going to take that shit seriously from you. Here's a snippet from the intro to the mirror and it covers what I said and I don't really need to know what this shit about Strawson is even supposed to tell anyone.

You quoted Rorty's

• We owe the notion of a "theory of knowledge" based on an understanding of "mental processes" to the seventeenth century, and especially to Locke.
  
  We owe the notion of "the mind" as a separate entity in which "processes" occur to the same period, and especially to Descartes.
  
  We owe the notion of philosophy as a tribunal of pure reason, upholding or denying the claims of the rest of culture, to the eighteenth century and especially to Kant,
  but this Kantian notion presupposed general assent to
  Lockean notions of mental processes and
  Cartesian notions of mental substance.
  pg. 3

I have already countered the above many times.

Here's AI's [with reservation] counter;

You're right to question Rorty's claim in this instance. Here's why:

Rorty's Argument:
Rorty suggests Kant uncritically accepted Lockean and Cartesian ideas about the mind:

Descartes: "The mind" as a separate entity with mental processes.
Locke: Mental processes operating on ideas received through the senses.
Kant and the Mind:

While Kant did acknowledge the role of sensory experience (influenced by Locke), his view of the mind is more nuanced:

Transcendental Idealism: Kant argued that the mind actively shapes our experience of the world through categories like space and time.
The "Thing-in-itself" (Noumenon): Kant believed there exists a reality beyond our experience, the "thing-in-itself," but we can only access it through our structured minds (phenomena).
Kant's Critique:

Kant wasn't simply accepting Locke and Descartes. He was critiquing them:

Descartes' "Cogito, ergo sum" (I think, therefore I am): Kant argued we can't isolate the mind from experience in this way.

Locke's "blank slate" mind: Kant disagreed that the mind is a passive receiver of information.

Further Considerations:
Kant drew on aspects of both Locke and Descartes but offered his own unique perspective on the mind.
Rorty's focus might be on the historical context that influenced Kant, simplifying Kant's actual position.

Overall:
While there are connections between Kant and these earlier thinkers, Rorty's statement oversimplifies Kant's views on the mind.

There are two main camps in the interpretation of Kant.
Camp 1 - e.g. Allison and others, which I agree with
Camp 2 - comprised mostly of Anglo-American analytic philosophers.

So it is not me but those who belong to camp 2, e.g. Rorty, Blackburn, Strawson, etc. misinterpreted Kant's philosophy in its proper context.

[FlashDangerpants]

Nope. All that stuff is dumb. I will explain this last thing, this one time....

Whether you talk about the world as not being really really truly real or you talk about the world as being really really truly real, you are making the same error either way. It is meaningless to try and doubt whether the world is really really really truly real. The conceptual freakout involved is gibberish and the idea that you can meaningfully express the propositions involved is just an error of jusdgment caused by overactive imaginations and an illusion involving the plasticity of language and grammar. The only way out of this foolishness is to see that the concept of reality refers to the reality as I have already explained, that includes you and all the stuff you experience, no Cartesian nonsense about perception coming between you and that reality, you are in the reality right now.

I am not interested in your endless claims to be the only person who understands Kant. All the professors you think are inferior to you can all definitely read better than you do, and then they teach courses about him to students at Harvard, Oxford and Cambridge, who also can read better than you can. So I'm never, ever going to take that shit seriously from you. Here's a snippet from the intro to the mirror and it covers what I said and I don't really need to know what this shit about Strawson is even supposed to tell anyone.

You quoted Rorty's

• We owe the notion of a "theory of knowledge" based on an understanding of "mental processes" to the seventeenth century, and especially to Locke.
  
  We owe the notion of "the mind" as a separate entity in which "processes" occur to the same period, and especially to Descartes.
  
  We owe the notion of philosophy as a tribunal of pure reason, upholding or denying the claims of the rest of culture, to the eighteenth century and especially to Kant,
  but this Kantian notion presupposed general assent to
  Lockean notions of mental processes and
  Cartesian notions of mental substance.
  pg. 3

I have already countered the above many times.

Here's AI's [with reservation] counter;

You're right to question Rorty's claim in this instance. Here's why:

Rorty's Argument:
Rorty suggests Kant uncritically accepted Lockean and Cartesian ideas about the mind:

Descartes: "The mind" as a separate entity with mental processes.
Locke: Mental processes operating on ideas received through the senses.
Kant and the Mind:

While Kant did acknowledge the role of sensory experience (influenced by Locke), his view of the mind is more nuanced:

Transcendental Idealism: Kant argued that the mind actively shapes our experience of the world through categories like space and time.
The "Thing-in-itself" (Noumenon): Kant believed there exists a reality beyond our experience, the "thing-in-itself," but we can only access it through our structured minds (phenomena).
Kant's Critique:

Kant wasn't simply accepting Locke and Descartes. He was critiquing them:

Descartes' "Cogito, ergo sum" (I think, therefore I am): Kant argued we can't isolate the mind from experience in this way.

Locke's "blank slate" mind: Kant disagreed that the mind is a passive receiver of information.

Further Considerations:
Kant drew on aspects of both Locke and Descartes but offered his own unique perspective on the mind.
Rorty's focus might be on the historical context that influenced Kant, simplifying Kant's actual position.

Overall:
While there are connections between Kant and these earlier thinkers, Rorty's statement oversimplifies Kant's views on the mind.

There are two main camps in the interpretation of Kant.
Camp 1 - e.g. Allison and others, which I agree with
Camp 2 - comprised mostly of Anglo-American analytic philosophers.

So it is not me but those who belong to camp 2, e.g. Rorty, Blackburn, Strawson, etc. misinterpreted Kant's philosophy in its proper context.

My only point in discussing Rorty at all was to explain what the phrase 'Mirror of Nature' means and to show how he links that back to Kant. This is complete.

I don't care about extraneous discussion of whether Rorty has read Kant as well as you have. Your ability to interpret the ideas others relay to you via written word is so unimpressive that nobody in their right mind wouild take seriously the notion that you have special talent for reading one specific philosopher.

[Veritas Aequitas]

There are two main camps in the interpretation of Kant.
Camp 1 - e.g. Allison and others, which I agree with
Camp 2 - comprised mostly of Anglo-American analytic philosophers.

So it is not me but those who belong to camp 2, e.g. Rorty, Blackburn, Strawson, etc. misinterpreted Kant's philosophy in its proper context.

My only point in discussing Rorty at all was to explain what the phrase 'Mirror of Nature' means and to show how he links that back to Kant. This is complete.

Noted.

I don't care about extraneous discussion of whether Rorty has read Kant as well as you have. Your ability to interpret the ideas others relay to you via written word is so unimpressive that nobody in their right mind wouild take seriously the notion that you have special talent for reading one specific philosopher.

One of the main point is you assumed those philosophers and professors from Oxford, Cambridge and other reputable Universities interpreted Kant correctly in thoroughness.
But your assumption is wrong and one example is Rorty in addition to Blackburn and most of the Anglo-American analytic philosophers who relied on Strawson.

Earlier I was condemned for referencing Kant based on a superficial knowledge of Kantianism, so I took extra effort to understand Kant thoroughly and seek consensus with those in camp1 above.
I did not profess to be an expert on Kant but dare say has 80/100 expertise. I do not agree with Kant 100% but 90/100%.

You on the other hand is worse; you are relying on your own effort and brain.
Do you claim for yourself that you are a genius philosopher?
My assessment is you are a 'bee' relative to most of the 'gnat' philosopher here.

[Atla]

You on the other hand is worse; you are relying on your own effort and brain.

Ha! Take that. Thinking for yourself, are you now?

[FlashDangerpants]

There are two main camps in the interpretation of Kant.
Camp 1 - e.g. Allison and others, which I agree with
Camp 2 - comprised mostly of Anglo-American analytic philosophers.

So it is not me but those who belong to camp 2, e.g. Rorty, Blackburn, Strawson, etc. misinterpreted Kant's philosophy in its proper context.

My only point in discussing Rorty at all was to explain what the phrase 'Mirror of Nature' means and to show how he links that back to Kant. This is complete.

Noted.

I don't care about extraneous discussion of whether Rorty has read Kant as well as you have. Your ability to interpret the ideas others relay to you via written word is so unimpressive that nobody in their right mind wouild take seriously the notion that you have special talent for reading one specific philosopher.

One of the main point is you assumed those philosophers and professors from Oxford, Cambridge and other reputable Universities interpreted Kant correctly in thoroughness.

No it isn't. I would be looking for that if I was reading a book by them that was about Kant. I am reading a book about something else and Kant is getting mentioned, all I assume is that they are speaking truly enough about Kant for this point they are making within this book that is about something other than just Kant.

You are totally obsessed with Kant and just assume he is the point of everything.

But your assumption is wrong and one example is Rorty in addition to Blackburn and most of the Anglo-American analytic philosophers who relied on Strawson.

Earlier I was condemned for referencing Kant based on a superficial knowledge of Kantianism, so I took extra effort to understand Kant thoroughly and seek consensus with those in camp1 above.
I did not profess to be an expert on Kant but dare say has 80/100 expertise. I do not agree with Kant 100% but 90/100%.

You on the other hand is worse; you are relying on your own effort and brain.
Do you claim for yourself that you are a genius philosopher?
My assessment is you are a 'bee' relative to most of the 'gnat' philosopher here.

Of course I don't claim to be a genius. The people who think that way on this site are all demonstrably mad. They all think they can answer the greatest questions of philosophy, they all think that they are being unfairly ignored, they all think that nobody who counters their arguments is wise enough to understand them.... does any of this sound familiar to you?

[Veritas Aequitas]

My only point in discussing Rorty at all was to explain what the phrase 'Mirror of Nature' means and to show how he links that back to Kant. This is complete.

Noted.

I don't care about extraneous discussion of whether Rorty has read Kant as well as you have. Your ability to interpret the ideas others relay to you via written word is so unimpressive that nobody in their right mind wouild take seriously the notion that you have special talent for reading one specific philosopher.

One of the main point is you assumed those philosophers and professors from Oxford, Cambridge and other reputable Universities interpreted Kant correctly in thoroughness.

No it isn't. I would be looking for that if I was reading a book by them that was about Kant. I am reading a book about something else and Kant is getting mentioned, all I assume is that they are speaking truly enough about Kant for this point they are making within this book that is about something other than just Kant.

You are totally obsessed with Kant and just assume he is the point of everything.

But your assumption is wrong and one example is Rorty in addition to Blackburn and most of the Anglo-American analytic philosophers who relied on Strawson.

Earlier I was condemned for referencing Kant based on a superficial knowledge of Kantianism, so I took extra effort to understand Kant thoroughly and seek consensus with those in camp1 above.
I did not profess to be an expert on Kant but dare say has 80/100 expertise. I do not agree with Kant 100% but 90/100%.

You on the other hand is worse; you are relying on your own effort and brain.
Do you claim for yourself that you are a genius philosopher?
My assessment is you are a 'bee' relative to most of the 'gnat' philosopher here.

Of course I don't claim to be a genius. The people who think that way on this site are all demonstrably mad. They all think they can answer the greatest questions of philosophy, they all think that they are being unfairly ignored, they all think that nobody who counters their arguments is wise enough to understand them.... does any of this sound familiar to you?

Most of the time I am not asserting it is my own views but I am sitting on the giant shoulders of Kant and others. This is why I often quote from various authors.

You?
You hardly quote seriously from any reputable philosopher and cannot even made reference with conviction to any philosophy that support your views.
You are so arrogant to condemn my views based on ignorance.
It may not be explicit but your surely behave as if you are a genius.

[FlashDangerpants]

Noted.


One of the main point is you assumed those philosophers and professors from Oxford, Cambridge and other reputable Universities interpreted Kant correctly in thoroughness.

No it isn't. I would be looking for that if I was reading a book by them that was about Kant. I am reading a book about something else and Kant is getting mentioned, all I assume is that they are speaking truly enough about Kant for this point they are making within this book that is about something other than just Kant.

You are totally obsessed with Kant and just assume he is the point of everything.

But your assumption is wrong and one example is Rorty in addition to Blackburn and most of the Anglo-American analytic philosophers who relied on Strawson.

Earlier I was condemned for referencing Kant based on a superficial knowledge of Kantianism, so I took extra effort to understand Kant thoroughly and seek consensus with those in camp1 above.
I did not profess to be an expert on Kant but dare say has 80/100 expertise. I do not agree with Kant 100% but 90/100%.

You on the other hand is worse; you are relying on your own effort and brain.
Do you claim for yourself that you are a genius philosopher?
My assessment is you are a 'bee' relative to most of the 'gnat' philosopher here.

Of course I don't claim to be a genius. The people who think that way on this site are all demonstrably mad. They all think they can answer the greatest questions of philosophy, they all think that they are being unfairly ignored, they all think that nobody who counters their arguments is wise enough to understand them.... does any of this sound familiar to you?

Most of the time I am not asserting it is my own views but I am sitting on the giant shoulders of Kant and others. This is why I often quote from various authors.

You?
You hardly quote seriously from any reputable philosopher and cannot even made reference with conviction to any philosophy that support your views.
You are so arrogant to condemn my views based on ignorance.
It may not be explicit but your surely behave as if you are a genius.

I quote relevant philosophy perfectly adequately, I have cited many philosophers and unlike you I can cite an argument when I want to. I did that multiple times yesterday when Jacobi was pretending to be a Platonist but hasn't read Plato so I helped him out, he is surely most grateful for my assistance.

I do not "condemn your views based on ignorance", I provide counter arguments to the arguments you present. It isn't very difficult because you never learned the basics of argument construction (against advice I gave you at least 5 years ago). I just don't bother to debate the realism/antirealism thing, both sides are mistaken and the question doesn't work. I don't see much hope of you understanding that given what you just posted at Pete about external worlds.

I don't need to be or to feel like a genius to do what I do. I am competent , that is all I need to be. You cannot do better. At my most glorious, I might be the weak end of level 1 boss before you get into the real game and fight the proper bosses.... but you will never play the real game because you have never mastered the basics and you cannot make your way out of the tutorial level.

Was there any point to this name-calling and whining?