How Can P-Realists Understand Anti-Realism?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Whenever P-realists encounter proposals by anti-realists, their first reaction is to condemn the antirealists' views as complete nonsense and in other derogatory terms, e.g.

So, the thing we call reality would exist if there were no humans. It would have 'emerged' and 'realised' since the universe began.

If there were no humans, there would be no emerged & realized reality that exist.
Reality emerged and is realized upon a human-based FSR and is perceived, known, believed and described via FSK.

This is complete nonsense.
It's mistaking what we believe, know and say about reality for reality itself.
And you agree that 'there are things out there (a)waiting to be seen by humans'. So you're asserting two utterly contradictory claims.

If you are philosophically mature, you would not have waved the issue above as complete nonsense but rather fully understand the serious contention between what you believe as a realist is totally in opposite to that of the anti-realists [many types].
If you are philosophically mature, you would have justified why your belief [p-realist] is true and those of the anti-realists are false.

I believe the reasons for the above is p-realist just do not have the philosophical maturity to understand [not necessary agree with] the arguments presented by anti-realists [my focus on the constructivist kind].

I asked ChatGpt [with reservations] on how to get the realists to understand [not necessary agree] with the anti-realists [constructivists] position.

Presenting a compelling argument for anti-realism, specifically of the Kantian kind, to a philosophical realist can be challenging, as these positions often involve deep-seated philosophical commitments.
However, one effective way to engage with realists is to highlight the limitations and challenges faced by realism and then present the key tenets of anti-realism in a way that addresses those issues.
Here are some points you might consider:

Limitations of Human Perception:
Emphasize the role of human perception and cognition in shaping our understanding of reality.
Discuss how our sensory experiences are subjective and limited, suggesting that our access to an absolute, mind-independent reality is mediated through our perceptual faculties.

Role of Conceptual Frameworks:
Argue that our understanding of reality is inherently tied to the conceptual frameworks and categories we use to interpret experiences.
Highlight how Kantian constructivism posits that our minds actively structure and organize sensory data, shaping the reality we perceive.

Inherent Subjectivity:
Stress the subjectivity involved in the process of interpretation and understanding.
Point out that different individuals or cultures may interpret the same phenomena in diverse ways, challenging the idea of a single, mind-independent reality.

Epistemic Considerations:
Discuss epistemic challenges, such as the problem of induction and the underdetermination of theories by evidence.
Highlight how anti-realism, by acknowledging the role of our cognitive processes in shaping reality, provides a more coherent account of these epistemic challenges.

Scientific Revolutions:
Draw parallels with historical scientific revolutions and paradigm shifts, where new scientific frameworks replace old ones.
Argue that these shifts demonstrate the malleability and revisability of our understanding of reality, supporting a constructivist view.

In your discussions, encourage realists to consider the plausibility of anti-realism without necessarily requiring agreement. This approach may foster a more open-minded exploration of different philosophical perspectives.

_________
Some examples of ridicules, insults and condemnations of antirealists from realists:

For this theory, the Principles gives the exposition and the Dialogues the defence. One of his main objectives was to combat the prevailing materialism of his time. The theory was largely received with ridicule,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Berkeley#Biography

It’s ironic that Locke’s commonsense approach to philosophy should have influenced Berkeley to formulate a philosophical position that at first seems so much at variance with common sense. He became the object of severe criticism and ridicule for denying what seemed most obvious to anyone. Berkeley had set out to deny the existence of matter.
https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/qu ... mic-philos

The following two limericks make fun of Berkeley's screwy theory that "to be is to be perceived".

The philosopher Berkeley once said
In the dark to a maid in his bed:
"No perception, my dear,
Means I'm not really here,
But only a thought in your head."
—P. W. R. Foot

A philosophical hippie
Contended "Esse est percipi"
He became much aggrieved
When no longer perceived,
"I'm a gonner!" said he, "Whoa, how trippy!"
—Jeff Defty
https://massline.org/PhilosDog/B/Berkeley.htm


The analytic – continental divide in philosophy is alive and kicking in the academy.
Beyond the exchange of accusations and insults there is little genuine communication between the two traditions.
Accusations of academic fraud regularly arise, with indignant characterizations of the others’ skills as primarily in tricking the gullible into lengthy disquisitions on various emperors’ sartorial status.
A group of leading analytic philosophers, for instance, tried to block Derrida from receiving an honorary degree from Cambridge, loftily issuing the decree that “in the eyes of philosophers” he is not one—meaning, not one of us.
Despite the traditions’ rancorous misunderstandings
While both vitriolic ignorance and baneful neglect are unfortunate, the lack of cross-engagement is understandable.
After all, one of its founding motivations was an abhorrence of idealism among Russell, Moore, and Whitehead.
i) A much ridiculed encounter took place at 2:00am in a Parisian bar, when A.J. Ayer tried and failed to get Merleau-Ponty and Bataille to concede that there had been a sun before humans existed.
What I would give to have been a fly on that wall! (well, one of the flies—this is a Parisian bar we’re talking about).
https://iai.tv/articles/antirealism-and ... -auid-1890


Discuss?? Views??

[Iwannaplato]

Whenever P-realists encounter proposals by anti-realists, their first reaction is to condemn the antirealists' views as complete nonsense and in other derogatory terms, e.g.

I've seen all sorts of civil interactions, in academia and, for example, amongst physicists, around that issue. So, you're generalizing without warrant.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I believe there are more to the above suggestion by ChatGpt;

In the above, ChatGpt, however did not mention
the emergence and realization of reality prior to perceiving, knowing, believing and describing it.
Reality: Emergence & Realization Prior to Perceiving, Knowing & Describing
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40145

What is Emergence & Realization
viewtopic.php?t=40721

VA: Knowledge & Descriptions CANNOT Produce Facts
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39925 Apr 10, 2023

Perceiving, Knowing & Describing a Thing Not Related to Existence of the Thing
viewtopic.php?t=40715

[Veritas Aequitas]

Whenever P-realists encounter proposals by anti-realists, their first reaction is to condemn the antirealists' views as complete nonsense and in other derogatory terms, e.g.

I've seen all sorts of civil interactions, in academia and, for example, amongst physicists, around that issue. So, you're generalizing without warrant.

I agree in certain cases but it has happened in many cases over history.
My OP need some correction at the attention should be directed at the example of the post I included therein.

[Atla]

Whenever P-realists encounter proposals by anti-realists, their first reaction is to condemn the antirealists' views as complete nonsense and in other derogatory terms, e.g.

If there were no humans, there would be no emerged & realized reality that exist.
Reality emerged and is realized upon a human-based FSR and is perceived, known, believed and described via FSK.

This is complete nonsense.
It's mistaking what we believe, know and say about reality for reality itself.
And you agree that 'there are things out there (a)waiting to be seen by humans'. So you're asserting two utterly contradictory claims.

If you are philosophically mature, you would not have waved the issue above as complete nonsense but rather fully understand the serious contention between what you believe as a realist is totally in opposite to that of the anti-realists [many types].
If you are philosophically mature, you would have justified why your belief [p-realist] is true and those of the anti-realists are false.

I believe the reasons for the above is p-realist just do not have the philosophical maturity to understand [not necessary agree with] the arguments presented by anti-realists [my focus on the constructivist kind].

I asked ChatGpt [with reservations] on how to get the realists to understand [not necessary agree] with the anti-realists [constructivists] position.

Presenting a compelling argument for anti-realism, specifically of the Kantian kind, to a philosophical realist can be challenging, as these positions often involve deep-seated philosophical commitments.
However, one effective way to engage with realists is to highlight the limitations and challenges faced by realism and then present the key tenets of anti-realism in a way that addresses those issues.
Here are some points you might consider:

Limitations of Human Perception:
Emphasize the role of human perception and cognition in shaping our understanding of reality.
Discuss how our sensory experiences are subjective and limited, suggesting that our access to an absolute, mind-independent reality is mediated through our perceptual faculties.

Role of Conceptual Frameworks:
Argue that our understanding of reality is inherently tied to the conceptual frameworks and categories we use to interpret experiences.
Highlight how Kantian constructivism posits that our minds actively structure and organize sensory data, shaping the reality we perceive.

Inherent Subjectivity:
Stress the subjectivity involved in the process of interpretation and understanding.
Point out that different individuals or cultures may interpret the same phenomena in diverse ways, challenging the idea of a single, mind-independent reality.

Epistemic Considerations:
Discuss epistemic challenges, such as the problem of induction and the underdetermination of theories by evidence.
Highlight how anti-realism, by acknowledging the role of our cognitive processes in shaping reality, provides a more coherent account of these epistemic challenges.

Scientific Revolutions:
Draw parallels with historical scientific revolutions and paradigm shifts, where new scientific frameworks replace old ones.
Argue that these shifts demonstrate the malleability and revisability of our understanding of reality, supporting a constructivist view.

In your discussions, encourage realists to consider the plausibility of anti-realism without necessarily requiring agreement. This approach may foster a more open-minded exploration of different philosophical perspectives.

Discuss?? Views??

There is probably no such thing as "prior emergence and realization". The brain/mind does some pre-processing, which probably has zero relevance to the prior existence of the external world.

[Veritas Aequitas]

"There is probably no such thing as "prior emergence and realization". The brain/mind does some pre-processing, which probably has zero relevance to the prior existence of the external world."
viewtopic.php?p=682475#p682475

It is not that the brain/mind does some pre-processing.
The fact is the brain/mind has been pre-programmed with neural algorithms inherited from our ancient ancestors from 3.5 billion years ago.
These pre-programmed algorithms dictate the spontaneous emergence and realization of 'what-is-reality' specific to the individuals and species [collectively] out of a "soup-of-particles".

This "soup-of-particles" is also an emergence and realization.
Emerged from what?
This question re 'philosophical realism' is a non-starter because it is an impossibility for any pre-existing mind-independent reality to exists as real.
Why Philosophical Realism is Illusory
viewtopic.php?t=40167

Emergence in this case is a TOP-DOWN affair [based on what is experienced and evident], not a BOTTTOM-UP speculation based on something pre-existing.

It is over billion of years of evolution that living entities via self-referencing construct their own specific reality to facilitate their survival.
Humans are the co-creators of the reality they are in.

How Humans in their inherent nature 'construct' a Mind-Independent Reality
viewtopic.php?t=40749

As such, what is most-real must be interdependent with what is experienced, possible experience and limited up to whatever empirical-evidence is available & coupled with rationality.
To insist on what-is-really-real [mind-independent] which can only be assumed and speculated beyond experience [& possible experience], is delusional.

[Atla]

"There is probably no such thing as "prior emergence and realization". The brain/mind does some pre-processing, which probably has zero relevance to the prior existence of the external world."
viewtopic.php?p=682475#p682475

It is not that the brain/mind does some pre-processing.
The fact is the brain/mind has been pre-programmed with neural algorithms inherited from our ancient ancestors from 3.5 billion years ago.
These pre-programmed algorithms dictate the spontaneous emergence and realization of 'what-is-reality' specific to the individuals and species [collectively] out of a "soup-of-particles".

This "soup-of-particles" is also an emergence and realization.
Emerged from what?
This question re 'philosophical realism' is a non-starter because it is an impossibility for any pre-existing mind-independent reality to exists as real.
Why Philosophical Realism is Illusory
viewtopic.php?t=40167

Emergence in this case is a TOP-DOWN affair [based on what is experienced and evident], not a BOTTTOM-UP speculation based on something pre-existing.

It is over billion of years of evolution that living entities via self-referencing construct their own specific reality to facilitate their survival.
Humans are the co-creators of the reality they are in.

How Humans in their inherent nature 'construct' a Mind-Independent Reality
viewtopic.php?t=40749

As such, what is most-real must be interdependent with what is experienced, possible experience and limited up to whatever empirical-evidence is available & coupled with rationality.
To insist on what-is-really-real [mind-independent] which can only be assumed and speculated beyond experience [& possible experience], is delusional.

You denied that the brain/mind does pre-processing, and then explained in an inept way that the brain/mind does pre-processing. Yes this pre-processing is probably responsible to how our reality is constructed. But the degree of it is unknown, it is probably less then 100%. And again, this probably has zero relevance to the existence of the external world, is only relevant to how we experience it. (Obviously.)

[Iwannaplato]

I agree in certain cases but it has happened in many cases over history.

How did you determine that this is the first reaction to even the majority of cases throughout history? What FSK did you use to determine this?

[Veritas Aequitas]

I agree in certain cases but it has happened in many cases over history.

How did you determine that this is the first reaction to even the majority of cases throughout history? What FSK did you use to determine this?

In situation of hardcore dogmatic beliefs, the believers first reaction is to reject whatever is deemed as a threat to their dogmatic beliefs is to condemn, deny the other belief.
This is a common and very evident psychological response triggered by a defense mechanism.

In psychoanalytic theory, a defence mechanism (American English: defense mechanism) is an unconscious psychological operation that functions to protect a person from anxiety-producing thoughts and feelings related to internal conflicts and outer stressors.[1][2][3]

Defence mechanisms (German: Abwehrmechanismen) are unconscious psychological processes employed to defend against feelings of anxiety and unacceptable impulses at the level of consciousness
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defence_mechanism

The above is from the Psychological FSK.

Note the example of theist's reactions to non-theists position and claims.
At the extreme, some theists might even kill those who oppose and threatened their beliefs or established blasphemy laws to prevent opposing views.

There are so many other situations where realists will quickly shut down antirealist views.
Note PH's view on postmodernism and other antirealist views.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Some examples of ridicules, insults and condemnations of antirealists from realists:

For this theory, the Principles gives the exposition and the Dialogues the defence. One of his main objectives was to combat the prevailing materialism of his time. The theory was largely received with ridicule,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Berkeley#Biography

It’s ironic that Locke’s commonsense approach to philosophy should have influenced Berkeley to formulate a philosophical position that at first seems so much at variance with common sense. He became the object of severe criticism and ridicule for denying what seemed most obvious to anyone. Berkeley had set out to deny the existence of matter.
https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/qu ... mic-philos

The following two limericks make fun of Berkeley's screwy theory that "to be is to be perceived".

The philosopher Berkeley once said
In the dark to a maid in his bed:
"No perception, my dear,
Means I'm not really here,
But only a thought in your head."
—P. W. R. Foot

A philosophical hippie
Contended "Esse est percipi"
He became much aggrieved
When no longer perceived,
"I'm a gonner!" said he, "Whoa, how trippy!"
—Jeff Defty
https://massline.org/PhilosDog/B/Berkeley.htm


The analytic – continental divide in philosophy is alive and kicking in the academy.
Beyond the exchange of accusations and insults there is little genuine communication between the two traditions.
Accusations of academic fraud regularly arise, with indignant characterizations of the others’ skills as primarily in tricking the gullible into lengthy disquisitions on various emperors’ sartorial status.
A group of leading analytic philosophers, for instance, tried to block Derrida from receiving an honorary degree from Cambridge, loftily issuing the decree that “in the eyes of philosophers” he is not one—meaning, not one of us.
Despite the traditions’ rancorous misunderstandings
While both vitriolic ignorance and baneful neglect are unfortunate, the lack of cross-engagement is understandable.
After all, one of its founding motivations was an abhorrence of idealism among Russell, Moore, and Whitehead.
i) A much ridiculed encounter took place at 2:00am in a Parisian bar, when A.J. Ayer tried and failed to get Merleau-Ponty and Bataille to concede that there had been a sun before humans existed.
What I would give to have been a fly on that wall! (well, one of the flies—this is a Parisian bar we’re talking about).
https://iai.tv/articles/antirealism-and ... -auid-1890

[Angelo Cannata]

I think that a bridge can be made between realists and anti-realists, so that they won't talk past each other. Their debate is infinite because everyone speaks from their own perspective. The bridge is created the moment one of them tries to adopt the others' perspective. In other words, this is simply the procedure of "reductio ad absurdum": in this procedure we adopt the perspective we disagree with, to show that it has problems. This builds a bridge, because in that moment both sides adopt the same perspective, the same logic, the same philosophy.

Now let's go to the content of this bridge. I think that realism can be shown as contradictory after adopting it, so that realists themselves cannot disagree about the existence of a contradiction. Let's go into the steps of the bridge.

1) Realists assume that there is a reality that is absolutely independent from any perspective.

2) The second step is to realize that, this way, reality is considered as universal, which is, it has its own existence, its own validity, that is valid from whatever perspective we consider it. Differences in perceptions are due to the differences in perspectives, while reality remains the same. In this context, we can notice that reality is able to take into consideration any perspective, all perspectives. Reality is universal because it is the same for all perspectives, it is able to challenge any difference, showing that any difference depends on the difference of perspective, not on any difference of reality. For example, if a stone is yellow to me and red to you, we will discover that this happens because we are seeing different sides of the same stone. That stone is actually the same for everyone, it is able to prove at any moment that it is universal and it is able to consider, to challenge, to question, every perspective.

3) So, the third step is to realise that, as a consequence, reality is able to take into consideration the perspective of whoever is talking or thinking about it at any moment. In this step we realise that it is impossible to us to think or to talk about reality without introducing a perspective in the process, without making the process conditioned by a perspective, by a subjectivity. In other words, each of us is forced to realize the they are totally unable to think about absolutely independent reality without, at the same time, making it dependent on us who are thinking, us who are talking. I can't imagine any reality existent independently from any thinker, because, as soon as I try this, I have already, instantly, introduced myself as a thinker of it. A world, existing without anybody thinking of it, is impossible to imagine, because, as soon as we try to think of it, we have already introduced our perspective of thinkers. This means that, when we try to imagine, for example, how the planet earth existed when no living being was there, or when we imagine an insect now flying out there, while nobody is noticing its existence, actually, our perception that we are thinking about something that is not thought by anybody is false, is an illusion, because we have already introduced ourselves thinking about it. This way, the planet we are thinking about is not the planet thought by nobody, because it is already being thought by us, now. We imagine that, in that past, nobody was thinking about it, but we must admit that it is impossible to us to think about that moment in the past without introducing instantly our perspective of thinkers of it in this moment, in the present. We have no way of getting an idea of the planet as it was at that moment, without automatically polluting it with the presence of our perspective now.

This makes us realise that actually nobody in this world has ever been able to think of the concept of "absolute reality", because, whenever they tried to do it, they automatically destroyed that absoluteness by making it dependent on their perspective of thinkers of it. This means that, whenever we think that we are thinking of an object in its own independent existence, actually we aren't, because what we are really thinking of is that object already conditioned by our thinking of it. So, whenever we are talking about reality, we are never talking about it as an independent object: nobody has ever been able to do this. What we are talking about is our illusion of an independent object.

In this context, we can say that independent objects never existed, because nobody has ever been able to think of them. They existed only as illusions of people who thought that they were able to think about them, while actually they weren't.

Now we can consider that our starting point in all of this reasoning was the assumption that reality exists independently. This very starting point has brought us to the conclusion that reality existing independently never existed, because it has always been an illusion of thinkers.
In short, we, as realist philosophers, are forced to conclude that, if reality exists, then it doesn't exist. If reality is, then it is not.

This is a fully realistic reasoning and, as such, realists cannot deny it without automatically denying their being realists. If you are a realist philosopher, you are a philosopher who denies the existence of reality as independent from you.

[Veritas Aequitas]

We imagine that, in that past, nobody was thinking about it, but we must admit that it is impossible to us to think about that moment in the past without introducing instantly our perspective of thinkers of it in this moment, in the present.
We have no way of getting an idea of the planet as it was at that moment, without automatically polluting it with the presence of our perspective now.

I agree with you on the above and the earlier points.
I have stated humans are in "entanglement" with the reality that is emerging and realized.

This makes us realise that actually nobody in this world has ever been able to think of the concept of "absolute reality", because, whenever they tried to do it, they automatically destroyed that absoluteness by making it dependent on their perspective of thinkers of it.
This means that, whenever we think that we are thinking of an object in its own independent existence, actually we aren't, because what we are really thinking of is that object already conditioned by our thinking of it. So, whenever we are talking about reality, we are never talking about it as an independent object: nobody has ever been able to do this. What we are talking about is our illusion of an independent object.

Anyone should be able to think of the concept of an 'absolutely independent reality' which is at most fictitious [illusory], but they should not reify [claim it to be really real] it as an absolutely mind independent reality.

As Kant had stated, there is a critical necessity [evolutionary wise] to think of an 'absolutely independent reality' and this impulse is an evolutionary default.
For example this illusory concept is useful to drive science forward in chasing an impossible ideal like the "stick and the impossible to get carrot" example.
The illusory idea is useful as God to soothe inherent psychological angsts of the majority.
It has other purposes, just like the idea of Santa and 'invisible friends' are useful for children.

The limitation is all the above useful illusions should not be insisted as really real to the extent that it is reified as a real entity that sent had its divine sons and prophets to humans with divine doctrines and a promised of eternal life in paradise. The extreme [very evident] is where the illusory-entity-deemed-real commands believers to kill non-believers.

In this context, we can say that [absolutely] independent objects never existed, because nobody has ever been able to think of them. They existed only as illusions of people who thought that they were able to think about them, while actually they weren't.

I agree with the above, but note I qualify 'absolutely' because we can also think and verify relative mind-independent things and entities within common and conventional sense. Relative in the sense, they are entangled with the human condition thus cannot be absolutely mind-independent.

Now we can consider that our starting point in all of this reasoning was the assumption that reality exists independently. This very starting point has brought us to the conclusion that reality existing independently never existed, because it has always been an illusion of thinkers.
In short, we, as realist philosophers, are forced to conclude that, if reality exists, then it doesn't exist. If reality is, then it is not.

I had argued the assumption of an absolute mind-independent is driven by an evolution default of external_ness necessary to facilitate basis survival.
The problem is realists [philosophical] do not realize it is an inherent assumption, but insist it is very real as an ideology and p-realists clung on to it dogmatically.

This is a fully realistic reasoning and, as such, realists cannot deny it without automatically denying their being realists.
If you are a realist philosopher, you are a philosopher who denies the existence of reality as independent from you.

I am not sure of the above point.
A philosophical realist is one who dogmatically insist reality and things are absolutely mind-independent, period!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

ANTI-philosophical_Realists [there are many kinds] are those who oppose the above claim in general. They reject the idea of an absolutely mind independent reality.
ANTI-philosophical_Realists claim reality is somehow entangled [related] with the human conditions.

One point to note is ANTI-philosophical_Realists never claimed reality is DEPENDENT on humans, as if, humans literally created reality and things out of thin air.

I believe the effective solution for philosophical realists to understand the ANTI-philosophical_realists' position is to reflect on the psychological reasons why they are philosophical realists in the first place. Thus they need to understand how the related evolutionary default has entrapped them into an ideological and dogmatic slumber in the first place.

This what Kant - one of the greatest of philosopher of all times - a one time p-realist, admitted he was woken from his dogmatic slumber by Hume and he turned to be an anti-philosophical_realist.

[Iwannaplato]

In this context, we can say that independent objects never existed, because nobody has ever been able to think of them.

So, what was there, in existence, if anything, before the first organism thought of things?

You're saying that we can't think about something that we aren't thinking about. Sure.

Let's say someone dives into the Mariana trench, and way down there they see a lifeform no one has seen before.
The realist model: it was there, before someone looked at it. Then someone went there and saw it.
The anti-realist model: (generally) we don't know if it was there before.

I can't see how one can disprove (yet, at least) the realist model.
I can't, yes, see how one can disprove the antirealist model's conclusion.

(VA takes this further and says we know that there is nothing that exists independent of human minds)

So, what's the problem with the realist model?

Because what you are saying isn't really disproving realism - though it's unclear if that was your intent. It's just saying we can't think of anything without it having been thought of. Which is not the same issue.

[Angelo Cannata]

You are reinterpreting what I said in a way that ignores again the subject, the perspective. We can say that you are stepping back from my stepping forward: I went forward, you reinterpreted my step forward by putting it back again. I am going to show you the issue.

Let’s consider your starting question:

So, what was there, in existence, if anything, before the first organism thought of things?

In this question you are ignoring what I already said: when you say “what was there” you are ignoring that the concept of this “what” is already conditioned by your perspective, your thinking about it. So, apparently you are talking about something thought by nobody, but actually you aren’t, because there is you now talking about it.

This means that your next statement only apparently reflects what I said. You wrote:

You're saying that we can't think about something that we aren't thinking about

Apparently you are taking into consideration the fact that whatever we talk about is always thought by somebody, but actually you aren’t, because you are ignoring again yourself talking about the “something” that you mentioned.

In other words, the mistake made by realists is ignoring their own perspective. You paint the object and somebody thinking about the object, but, in doing this, you ignore yourself as the painter of the whole painting.

In other words, you apparently take into consideration the subject, but only after having objectified it, only after having put it outside your perspective, in front of you.

What you cannot really objectify is yourself while talking about anything, but this is the repeated continuous mistake made by realists: they continuously ignore the conditioning presence of themselves into the scene. They recall other people’s and their own attention towards the scene, while hiding themselves behind the scene. It’s like when we watch a film and we forget that there is somebody with a camera in that scene, hidden behind the camera. Even when I watch a real landscape, there is all the same somebody behind a camera: it is me, behind my eyes, behind my thoughts. Even when I try to think of myself, I cannot do it without recreating a film, where I am an object and I am also the operator behind the camera. This is not evidence that there is a reality and there is a camera operator, because the camera operator is always already behind the action of filming the whole happening: it is an infinite meta- filming, filming of the filming, so that it is impossible to think of anything finally independent from any camera operator.

In this context, your description of the anti-realist model is wrong, because you ignore again yourself as the painter of the whole painting. When you say

The anti-realist model: (generally) we don't know if it was there before

you are considering the object (“it”), the subject (“we”, that actually is objectified), but you are ignoring that the whole picture is under the subjective conditioning effect of you talking about it.

You described my thought this way:

we can't think of anything without it having been thought of.

Would you be able to talk about the “anything” and the “it” without conditioning it with your perspective? If you aren’t able to do this, how can you convince me that, in writing those words, you have been able to think of a reality distinct from your subjective concept of it?

If you are unable to conceive a reality distinct from your perspective, how can you think that you have been able to object something about what I said?

[Iwannaplato]

In this question you are ignoring what I already said: when you say “what was there” you are ignoring that the concept of this “what” is already conditioned by your perspective, your thinking about it. So, apparently you are talking about something thought by nobody, but actually you aren’t, because there is you now talking about it.

And yet you know what I am referring to. I saw your argument and have seen similar ones before. I don't accept its framing of the issue and I'm not a realist.

In other words, the mistake made by realists is ignoring their own perspective. You paint the object and somebody thinking about the object, but, in doing this, you ignore yourself as the painter of the whole painting.

You're taking language rather literally. That it recreates what it talks about rather than points.

What you cannot really objectify is yourself while talking about anything, but this is the repeated continuous mistake made by realists: they continuously ignore the conditioning presence of themselves into the scene. They recall other people’s and their own attention towards the scene, while hiding themselves behind the scene. It’s like when we watch a film and we forget that there is somebody with a camera in that scene, hidden behind the camera. Even when I watch a real landscape, there is all the same somebody behind a camera: it is me, behind my eyes, behind my thoughts. Even when I try to think of myself, I cannot do it without recreating a film, where I am an object and I am also the operator behind the camera. This is not evidence that there is a reality and there is a camera operator, because the camera operator is always already behind the action of filming the whole happening: it is an infinite meta- filming, filming of the filming, so that it is impossible to think of anything finally independent from any camera operator.

Again all within the container/conduit model of language and seeing language as a mirror/representation of reality.

In this context, your description of the anti-realist model is wrong, because you ignore again yourself as the painter of the whole painting. When you say

The anti-realist model: (generally) we don't know if it was there before

you are considering the object (“it”), the subject (“we”, that actually is objectified), but you are ignoring that the whole picture is under the subjective conditioning effect of you talking about it.

Same assumptions about what language is and what communication is doing.

You described my thought this way:

we can't think of anything without it having been thought of.

Would you be able to talk about the “anything” and the “it” without conditioning it with your perspective?

I dunno. Did you feel conditioned by me. I talked about you above. Did you experience a change in yourself? Was it related to what I wrote? Did you now seem like how I described you?

If you aren’t able to do this, how can you convince me that, in writing those words, you have been able to think of a reality distinct from your subjective concept of it?

I've never asserted that I can. Your confused about about what realism is, though I'm not a realist.

If you are unable to conceive a reality distinct from your perspective, how can you think that you have been able to object something about what I said?

I'm part of reality and I can see that you can only think about me from your perspective. One lives and hopes.