Anti-realism is often a catch-22

[Atla]

1. The evil realists - driven by an inherent, crippling existential crisis - cling to the belief that there exists an objective reality, independent of the human conditions.

2. But the wise anti-realists point out that it is pointless and delusional to really posit anything beyond the appearances, which are always dependent on, shaped by the human conditions.

3. But in order to have this dichotomy of the independent world vs the dependent world to begin with, we first need a realist picture, in which the human conditions have a certain existence at a certain place. That's where and how we make our cut. Without realism, anti-realism can't make any sense.

4. So every time we throw out realism, we also throw out anti-realism. But if we don't throw out realism, we also don't throw out anti-realism.

Views??
Discuss??

[Atla]

Notes: KIV

[Iwannaplato]

1. The evil realists - driven by an inherent, crippling existential crisis - cling to the belief that there exists an objective reality, independent of the human conditions.

2. But the wise anti-realists point out that it is pointless and delusional to really posit anything beyond the appearances, which are always dependent on, shaped by the human conditions.

3. But in order to have this dichotomy of the independent world vs the dependent world to begin with, we first need a realist picture, in which the human conditions have a certain existence at a certain place. That's where and how we make our cut. Without realism, anti-realism can't make any sense.

4. So every time we throw out realism, we also throw out anti-realism. But if we don't throw out realism, we also don't throw out anti-realism.

Views??
Discuss??

Well, first of all, you cannot observe antirealism. You can see words about antirealism. You can hear people assert antirealism. But the 'having a philosophical position' 'the belief in antirealism' or realism for that matter, cannot be observed, only inferred.

And this is not just regarding other people. One cannot observe one's own belief, but a scattering of set of feelings/internal images and sensations/ words THAT ARE NEVER THE SAME BETWEEN INSTANCES.

You have to infer that this batch of cognitive events is 'the belief in antirealism' 'the having of that philosophical position' or realism, again 'for that matter.'

So, I do not believe either realism or antirealism exist.

Further all steps in any process of 'observing' except the very minute present one are "in the past" which is not observable.

Oh, yeah, your argument works as well. I think they are in superposition.

[Atla]

1. The evil realists - driven by an inherent, crippling existential crisis - cling to the belief that there exists an objective reality, independent of the human conditions.

2. But the wise anti-realists point out that it is pointless and delusional to really posit anything beyond the appearances, which are always dependent on, shaped by the human conditions.

3. But in order to have this dichotomy of the independent world vs the dependent world to begin with, we first need a realist picture, in which the human conditions have a certain existence at a certain place. That's where and how we make our cut. Without realism, anti-realism can't make any sense.

4. So every time we throw out realism, we also throw out anti-realism. But if we don't throw out realism, we also don't throw out anti-realism.

Views??
Discuss??

Well, first of all, you cannot observe antirealism. You can see words about antirealism. You can hear people assert antirealism. But the 'having a philosophical position' 'the belief in antirealism' or realism for that matter, cannot be observed, only inferred.

And this is not just regarding other people. One cannot observe one's own belief, but a scattering of set of feelings/internal images and sensations/ words THAT ARE NEVER THE SAME BETWEEN INSTANCES.

You have to infer that this batch of cognitive events is 'the belief in antirealism' 'the having of that philosophical position' or realism, again 'for that matter.'

So, I do not believe either realism or antirealism exist.

Further all steps in any process of 'observing' except the very minute present one are "in the past" which is not observable.

Oh, yeah, your argument works as well. I think they are in superposition.

Ah but this batch of cognitive events - feelings, imagery, sensations, self-observation - is the problem. A batch of cognitive events is the human conditions at work. Whenever we talk about cognitive events, we presuppose the human conditions.

And we got the idea of the human conditions from the evil realists, who divided their so-called "world" into the human conditions and the things outside humans.

When we throw out the things outside humans, the human conditions stop making any sense because they can't be contrasted with anything. What is a feeling, an image, a sensation, what is a self, what is observation? All these are meaningless gibberish. The idea of "cognition" makes no sense whatsoever.

[Iwannaplato]

Ah but this batch of cognitive events - feelings, imagery, sensations, self-observation - is the problem. A batch of cognitive events is the human conditions at work. Whenever we talk about cognitive events, we presuppose the human conditions.

And we got the idea of the human conditions from the evil realists,

See, there's a problem here. My wife just went to be in another room and as such is unobservable now. I cannot see, hear, feel, smell any realists. I can only infer that some people 'I' 'met' 'in' 'the' 'past' - all T-terms, describing unobservables. IOW realists are not real, much as I would blame them if I could, but I can't because they are not around.

Perhaps tomorrow I will be near a realist, but then tomorrow is a T-term. Tomorrow does not exist.

who divided their so-called "world" into the human conditions and the things outside humans.

So, I must postulate, au contraire, that non-existant entities cannot divide a world. Heck, they can't make breakfast or take a shower. But they do not exist, given that they are not observable.

When we throw out the things outside humans, the human conditions stop making any sense because they can't be contrasted with anything. What is a feeling, an image, a sensation, what is a self, what is observation? All these are meaningless gibberish. The idea of "cognition" makes no sense whatsoever.

Precisely, I have never observed and observation. I have observed, but if I look at my wife looking into a microscope, I don't observe her observation. I observe, will, what I said...my wife leaning over a microscope.

So, I have never observed an observation, so that is yet another T-term, a la Von Frassen.

[Angelo Cannata]

1. The evil realists - driven by an inherent, crippling existential crisis - cling to the belief that there exists an objective reality, independent of the human conditions.

2. But the wise anti-realists point out that it is pointless and delusional to really posit anything beyond the appearances, which are always dependent on, shaped by the human conditions.

3. But in order to have this dichotomy of the independent world vs the dependent world to begin with, we first need a realist picture, in which the human conditions have a certain existence at a certain place. That's where and how we make our cut. Without realism, anti-realism can't make any sense.

4. So every time we throw out realism, we also throw out anti-realism. But if we don't throw out realism, we also don't throw out anti-realism.

Views??
Discuss??

I agree. I think that human language has been shaped, over ages, over the whole human history, by realist structures. As a consequence, realism cannot be removed from the structures of our language and thoughts, the same way you cannot remove numbers from maths.
From a content point of view, I think that this is true about ideas as well. It is impossible to talk about relativism without adopting realist structures of ideas.
This does not mean that realism is true, is truth, the same way that the fact that we are made with flesh and bones does not mean that the true essence of the world is flesh and bones.

[Skepdick]

I agree. I think that human language has been shaped, over ages, over the whole human history, by realist structures.

Is this expressing truth; or is it expressing your own, personal realist biases? Whatever shape you think language has - it's all in your head.

The grammar that appears on your screen is largely shaped by the nature of human experience.
One predominant feature of our experiences is the direction and arrow of time.
And so it goes with language. Stories, sentences and paragraphs have beginnings and end. Arguments have premises and conclusions.

Language is linear. Like time.

Do you think time is a "realist structure"?

It is impossible to talk about relativism without adopting realist structures of ideas.

Could you realtivize/juxtapose this a bit by giving some example of realist and non-realist structures?

[Iwannaplato]

I agree. I think that human language has been shaped, over ages,

Are you referring to the hypothetical, unobservable past?

[Angelo Cannata]

is it expressing your own, personal realist biases?

It's my opinion, my way of interpreting my experience.

Do you think time is a "realist structure"?

Yes, I think our first, instinctive way, of interpreting time, is realist. After critical reflection we can realize that it depends on our mental structures.

Could you realtivize/juxtapose this a bit by giving some example of realist and non-realist structures?

I think that, for example, whenever we use the verb "to be", we are automatically using realist structures. Instead, when we say "I think", this can be an example of an effort to communicate a non-realist view, but, if we analyse the language, it is still realist, because "I think" implies that we believe that we think: there is still a structural realist belief.

[Angelo Cannata]

Are you referring to the hypothetical, unobservable past?

Yes.

[Iwannaplato]

Are you referring to the hypothetical, unobservable past?

Yes.

So, antirealism depends on realist assumptions. It's not just a language issue. You need to consider a mind independent past to justify antirealist conclusions.

And of course this is true in the more humble, short time period processes of analyzing, deducing, etc. Here we depend on assuming that unobservables, those previous moments and their contents are real.

Unlike say how someone might use 'quark' as a kind of phantom placeholder.

Certainlly, at least in VA's schema where he says there are no unobserved real things. He's not agnostic, so to speak.

[Skepdick]

So, antirealism depends on realist assumptions. It's not just a language issue. You need to consider a mind independent past to justify antirealist conclusions.

No, you don't.

Realists can't even determine whether the arrow of time is going forwards or backwards without pre-supposing the answer.

For all we know the Big Bang is the end of the universe, not the beginning.
We remember the future but not the past.

You have no clue what time is or how it works. Being a realist about time leads to the usual problems in physics.

[Angelo Cannata]

So, antirealism depends on realist assumptions. It's not just a language issue. You need to consider a mind independent past to justify antirealist conclusions.

And of course this is true in the more humble, short time period processes of analyzing, deducing, etc. Here we depend on assuming that unobservables, those previous moments and their contents are real.

I agree. I think that realism precedes anti-realism. In my opinion, anti-realism is a consequence of realism. I mean, we begin by being realists; then we realize that realism has contradictions; these contradictions force us to be anti-realist. But, once we decide to be anti-realist, our language, ideas and mental structures have already been so deeply shaped, that we can express our anti-realism by using realist language, ideas and structures only.

[Angelo Cannata]

No, you don't.
...
Being a realist about time leads to the usual problems in physics.

You said "You don't", but your conclusion shows that actually you agree: we have the usual problems in physics exactly because we cannot get rid of our old realist categories.

[Skepdick]

No, you don't.
...
Being a realist about time leads to the usual problems in physics.

You said "You don't", but your conclusion shows that actually you agree: we have the usual problems in physics exactly because we cannot get rid of our old realist categories.

The same old philosophical self-congratulatory navel-gazing.

I agree that my conclusion shows you can't get rid of your categories.
I disagree that the categories (that you can't get rid of) are "realist".

Of course, you are pre-supposing that to be the case, but that's just begging the question.

Show me a category outside of a human mind. Categorisation is what minds do. Not reality.