Advantages of ANTI-Philosophical_Realism over P-Realism

[Veritas Aequitas]

Here are the points why ANTI-Philosophical_Realism has much advantages over Philosophical-Realism.

What is the point of reinventing the realist wheel with this "emergence and realization" thing, when the realist wheel was round and your reinvented wheel is rectangular and magical? Why would people adopt your views?

I am not here to expect any one to adopt my views, but rather I am here to refresh express what I have learned for my selfish interests.

The fact is the sense-of-externalness which is critical to facilitate survival had been embedded in all living things since the first cell living things since 3.5 billion years ago.
This is an adapted evolutionary default that has evolved within the self-conscious human being as the existence of mind-independence external things.
This sense of externalness and mind-independence [body or self independence] is still critical to facilitate survival and well-being to enable humanity to flourish.
So, I am not insisting humanity should do away with this sense-of-externalness in understanding external reality in one perspective.

The problem is realists insist on the philosophical view of realism [philosophical and metaphysical as an ideology and clinging to it dogmatically and fundamentalistically, i.e. my way or the highway without compromise.
Unfortunately this is very natural, instinctual for the majority since it is an adapted evolutionary default to clasp on this sense-of-externalness as an ideological belief.

As human evolved further, it is noted that some old truths need to be abandoned, e.g. the flat-Earth and geocentric beliefs, and some others need to be complemented with alternative theories without being dogmatic to any old theories.

While the sense of externalness had been grasp as a dogmatic ideology, perhaps necessary to some extent, a % of more evolved humans had noticed the pros of realism is outweighed by its cons.
For example theistic realism, i.e. the belief of an absolutely mind-independent God exists external to the human self is waning as more people are able to wean off the belief of a God. It is undeniable that while the belief in a God has provided therapeutic soteriological states, theistic realism had also brought forth a load of terrible evils, hindering progressive knowledge and it is still doing so at present.
Philosophical realists had abetted in the progress of morality with the moral relativism and moral skepticism.
Realism had also hindered progress in many other fields of knowledge, e.g. Quantum Physics, cognitive sciences, etc.

In view of the above, the small % of more enlightened individuals and groups has introduced various counters of philosophical realism, i.e. grouped as ANTI-philosophical_realism which do not represent any group belief but has their own approach in countering realism. What is common with them is that they OPPOSE, thus are ANTI-philosophical_realism, just like groups who are ANTI-communism having their own specific beliefs. For example the anti-realism of Berkeley, i.e. Subjective Idealism is in total contrast to Kant's Transcendental Idealism.

Being ANTI-philosophical_realism is not easy for many, because with the insight of the limits of realism, some may have to go through a phase of 'cold turkey' to overcome the old instinct of realism or sense-of-external_ness.

What are the advantage of Kantian ANTI-philosophical_Realism over philosophical-realism:
There are a tons and I have a long list of it.
Here is some from ChatGpt* [with reservations].
* In this case, I prompted ChatGpt to answer as a Kantian ANTI-Philosophical Realist.

Kantian anti-philosophical realism, specifically Transcendental Idealism, presents several advantages over traditional philosophical realism in various domains such as epistemology, morality, social sciences, and more. Here are some key advantages:

Epistemology: Kantian anti-philosophical realism provides a coherent framework for understanding the nature of knowledge. By emphasizing the role of the mind in structuring experience through categories such as space, time, and causality, it offers a solution to the problem of how we can have knowledge of the external world despite the limitations of our senses. This framework acknowledges the active role of the mind in shaping our perception of reality, leading to a more nuanced understanding of how we acquire knowledge.

Morality: Kantian anti-philosophical realism offers a robust foundation for moral philosophy. Kant's emphasis on rational autonomy and the categorical imperative provides a framework for moral decision-making that is grounded in the inherent dignity and autonomy of human beings. Unlike some forms of philosophical realism that may struggle to account for the objectivity of moral principles, Kantian ethics provides a universalizable basis for ethical judgments, which can guide individuals and societies in navigating moral dilemmas.

Social Sciences: Kantian anti-philosophical realism offers insights into the nature of human society and social institutions. By emphasizing the role of human reason and autonomy, it provides a framework for understanding social phenomena such as politics, law, and culture. Kantian ethics, with its emphasis on respect for persons as ends in themselves, can inform theories of justice and human rights, offering a normative foundation for social and political analysis.

Sciences: Kantian anti-philosophical realism can enhance our understanding of the natural sciences by providing a framework for understanding the relationship between empirical observations and theoretical concepts. Kant's distinction between phenomena and noumena acknowledges the limitations of our empirical knowledge while also affirming the possibility of scientific inquiry into the underlying structures of reality. This perspective encourages scientists to critically reflect on the epistemological assumptions underlying their research and to recognize the role of human cognition in shaping scientific theories.

Overall, Kantian anti-philosophical realism offers a rich and nuanced framework for understanding the nature of reality, knowledge, and morality. By emphasizing the active role of the mind in shaping our understanding of the world, it provides a foundation for addressing key questions in epistemology, ethics, social sciences, and the natural sciences.

The above from ChatGpt is merely a short list of advantage ANTI-Philosophical Realism has over Philosophical Realism.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes: KIV

[Atla]

I am not here to expect any one to adopt my views, but rather I am here to refresh express what I have learned for my selfish interests.

The fact is the sense-of-externalness which is critical to facilitate survival had been embedded in all living things since the first cell living things since 3.5 billion years ago.

See, two sentences into your comment and you're already so wrong, and this was pointed out before. What could be more obvious than that a single-celled organism can't have a sense of externalness? Don't you know what a cell is?

This is an adapted evolutionary default that has evolved within the self-conscious human being as the existence of mind-independence external things.
This sense of externalness and mind-independence [body or self independence] is still critical to facilitate survival and well-being to enable humanity to flourish.
So, I am not insisting humanity should do away with this sense-of-externalness in understanding external reality in one perspective.

The problem is realists insist on the philosophical view of realism [philosophical and metaphysical as an ideology and clinging to it dogmatically and fundamentalistically, i.e. my way or the highway without compromise.
Unfortunately this is very natural, instinctual for the majority since it is an adapted evolutionary default to clasp on this sense-of-externalness as an ideological belief.

As human evolved further, it is noted that some old truths need to be abandoned, e.g. the flat-Earth and geocentric beliefs, and some others need to be complemented with alternative theories without being dogmatic to any old theories.

That's something Age would say. But the flat-Earth and geocentric beliefs were disproven, realism wasn't. Do you see the difference?

While the sense of externalness had been grasp as a dogmatic ideology, perhaps necessary to some extent, a % of more evolved humans had noticed the pros of realism is outweighed by its cons.
For example theistic realism, i.e. the belief of an absolutely mind-independent God exists external to the human self is waning as more people are able to wean off the belief of a God. It is undeniable that while the belief in a God has provided therapeutic soteriological states, theistic realism had also brought forth a load of terrible evils, hindering progressive knowledge and it is still doing so at present.
Philosophical realists had abetted in the progress of morality with the moral relativism and moral skepticism.
Realism had also hindered progress in many other fields of knowledge, e.g. Quantum Physics, cognitive sciences, etc.

In view of the above, the small % of more enlightened individuals and groups has introduced various counters of philosophical realism, i.e. grouped as ANTI-philosophical_realism which do not represent any group belief but has their own approach in countering realism. What is common with them is that they OPPOSE, thus are ANTI-philosophical_realism, just like groups who are ANTI-communism having their own specific beliefs. For example the anti-realism of Berkeley, i.e. Subjective Idealism is in total contrast to Kant's Transcendental Idealism.

Being ANTI-philosophical_realism is not easy for many, because with the insight of the limits of realism, some may have to go through a phase of 'cold turkey' to overcome the old instinct of realism or sense-of-external_ness.

That's where we disagree the most, the pros of realism outweigh the cons.
First of all, realism is probably true and anti-realism is probably false. Having to live another lie globally could lead to more trouble.

Also, switching to your anti-realism globally would probably lead to mental illness worldwide as the human brain/mind would be forced to operate contrary to its design.

Theism would probably get worse as now people would simply switch to non-mind-independent gods, those who didn't already. Atheism would probably decrease globally as there would be no godless objective reality to compare things to. In particular, Islam would probably get stronger and in time become the dominant religion on the planet.

90%+ of people wouldn't understand the rest of your anti-god system. If they could, it would still be easier to implement in realism.

In short you would probably doom humanity further. So much for "more evolved" humans.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I am not here to expect any one to adopt my views, but rather I am here to refresh express what I have learned for my selfish interests.

The fact is the sense-of-externalness which is critical to facilitate survival had been embedded in all living things since the first cell living things since 3.5 billion years ago.

See, two sentences into your comment and you're already so wrong, and this was pointed out before. What could be more obvious than that a single-celled organism can't have a sense of externalness? Don't you know what a cell is?

WTF.
You are only exposing your ignorance.
An unicellular organism definitely have a sense-of-externalness to facilitate its survival optimally. You are stupid to think 'sense-of' must mean sense organs like those the higher animals.

Whatever it is called, there is neural algorithm that enable the unicellular organism to differentiate what is within its plasma membrane [its boundary] from what is external to its body.

It is this basic algorithm of externalness that is adapted via evolutions till we have a sense of externalness in our human nature. see below.

This is an adapted evolutionary default that has evolved within the self-conscious human being as the existence of mind-independence external things.
This sense of externalness and mind-independence [body or self independence] is still critical to facilitate survival and well-being to enable humanity to flourish.
So, I am not insisting humanity should do away with this sense-of-externalness in understanding external reality in one perspective.

The problem is realists insist on the philosophical view of realism [philosophical and metaphysical as an ideology and clinging to it dogmatically and fundamentalistically, i.e. my way or the highway without compromise.
Unfortunately this is very natural, instinctual for the majority since it is an adapted evolutionary default to clasp on this sense-of-externalness as an ideological belief.

As human evolved further, it is noted that some old truths need to be abandoned, e.g. the flat-Earth and geocentric beliefs, and some others need to be complemented with alternative theories without being dogmatic to any old theories.

That's something Age would say. But the flat-Earth and geocentric beliefs were disproven, realism wasn't. Do you see the difference?

You missed my point.
I stated
VA: "So, I am not insisting humanity should do away with this sense-of-externalness in understanding external reality in one perspective"
The ANTI-Philosophical_realism in this case is like the emergence of Quantum Physics over Einsteinian Physics where the more advance new theory do not discard or eliminate the old. This is not a case of disproving but rather the attempt to remove the blinkers from realists insisting their belief as an uncompromised ideology.

While the sense of externalness had been grasp as a dogmatic ideology, perhaps necessary to some extent, a % of more evolved humans had noticed the pros of realism is outweighed by its cons.
For example theistic realism, i.e. the belief of an absolutely mind-independent God exists external to the human self is waning as more people are able to wean off the belief of a God. It is undeniable that while the belief in a God has provided therapeutic soteriological states, theistic realism had also brought forth a load of terrible evils, hindering progressive knowledge and it is still doing so at present.
Philosophical realists had abetted in the progress of morality with the moral relativism and moral skepticism.
Realism had also hindered progress in many other fields of knowledge, e.g. Quantum Physics, cognitive sciences, etc.

In view of the above, the small % of more enlightened individuals and groups has introduced various counters of philosophical realism, i.e. grouped as ANTI-philosophical_realism which do not represent any group belief but has their own approach in countering realism. What is common with them is that they OPPOSE, thus are ANTI-philosophical_realism, just like groups who are ANTI-communism having their own specific beliefs. For example the anti-realism of Berkeley, i.e. Subjective Idealism is in total contrast to Kant's Transcendental Idealism.

Being ANTI-philosophical_realism is not easy for many, because with the insight of the limits of realism, some may have to go through a phase of 'cold turkey' to overcome the old instinct of realism or sense-of-external_ness.

That's where we disagree the most, the pros of realism outweigh the cons.
First of all, realism is probably true and anti-realism is probably false. Having to live another lie globally could lead to more trouble.

Show me proofs.
I don't deny there are disadvantages within ANTI-realism [Kantian] but if we are to list all known differences and given the appropriate weightings, ANTI-realism [Kantian] will prevail within a view toward the future.

Also, switching to your anti-realism globally would probably lead to mental illness worldwide as the human brain/mind would be forced to operate contrary to its design.

Theism would probably get worse as now people would simply switch to non-mind-independent gods, those who didn't already. Atheism would probably decrease globally as there would be no godless objective reality to compare things to. In particular, Islam would probably get stronger and in time become the dominant religion on the planet.

90%+ of people wouldn't understand the rest of your anti-god system. If they could, it would still be easier to implement in realism.

In short you would probably doom humanity further. So much for "more evolved" humans.

You are just blabbering without detailed arguments.
Why don't you ask ChatGpt with reference to the Kantian ANTI-realism re Transcendental Realism, his moral project and other aspects of humanity?

[Atla]

WTF.
You are only exposing your ignorance.
An unicellular organism definitely have a sense-of-externalness to facilitate its survival optimally. You are stupid to think 'sense-of' must mean sense organs like those the higher animals.

Whatever it is called, there is neural algorithm that enable the unicellular organism to differentiate what is within its plasma membrane [its boundary] from what is external to its body.

It is this basic algorithm of externalness that is adapted via evolutions till we have a sense of externalness in our human nature. see below.

A single-celled organism has no neural algorithms. WHAT are you talking about? Neural "algorithms" evolved much later in organisms that evolved neurons..
A single-celled organism doesn't differentiate and doesn't know what a body is. Doesn't understand inside and outside. It doesn't know what survival is, doesn't facilitate and doesn't know about optimality. It's basically just a little biomachine.

You missed my point.
I stated
VA: "So, I am not insisting humanity should do away with this sense-of-externalness in understanding external reality in one perspective"
The ANTI-Philosophical_realism in this case is like the emergence of Quantum Physics over Einsteinian Physics where the more advance new theory do not discard or eliminate the old. This is not a case of disproving but rather the attempt to remove the blinkers from realists insisting their belief as an uncompromised ideology.

Not much of a point, only fools blindly insist on uncompromised ideologies.

Show me proofs.
I don't deny there are disadvantages within ANTI-realism [Kantian] but if we are to list all known differences and given the appropriate weightings, ANTI-realism [Kantian] will prevail within a view toward the future.

You are just blabbering without detailed arguments.
Why don't you ask ChatGpt with reference to the Kantian ANTI-realism re Transcendental Realism, his moral project and other aspects of humanity?

ChatGPT will tell every time that Kant doesn't even agree with you on anti-realism as he was agnostic and you aren't. Kant's position is between yours and mine. Until you have that sorted out, you don't even know what you're talking about.

And show proof for what? As if you had any proof yourself?

[Iwannaplato]

The fact is the sense-of-externalness which is critical to facilitate survival

And it's still not explained why a falsehood is critical to survival if it in no way reflects reality.
In the past VA has pointed to things like belief in God can assuage anxiety even if it is a falsehood and other such examples.
But the problem here is that we are talking about a model, this sense of externalness that is directly connected to practical behavior. Not merely to attitudes and emotions. VA thinks that it is critical to survival to have this model of reality, which at the same time it is false.
A false belief about the mechanics and layout of reality is a MUST to survive.
Which means the correct model is a worse model for making practical decisions and interacting with the world.
And not only that,
but not having a particular model is off the table.
We are supposed to believe that animals are of utter necessity for their survival proto-realists, because this model leads to correct behavior and the truth would not lead to that.
But that's silly, since animals would through instintive actions hunt and tackle and flee and they are not consulting models when they do this. They are not ontologists, deciding there is a mind independent reality. They do what their ancestors have done with subtle adjustments, behavior outward, not giving a shit about whether they are being subjective or objective or if the Moon is still there when they sleep.

And why would a realist model work better than an antirealist one if the latter is binarily correct and the former is binarily false.

[Atla]

Why don't you ask ChatGpt with reference to the Kantian ANTI-realism re Transcendental Realism, his moral project and other aspects of humanity?

Like this?

Is Kant's moral project related to philosophical realism or philosophical anti-realism (or neither or both)?

Immanuel Kant's moral philosophy is generally considered to be independent of the traditional debates between philosophical realism and anti-realism. Kant's moral project is often associated with deontological ethics, which emphasizes moral duties and principles rather than consequences.

Kant's moral philosophy is grounded in his categorical imperative, a universal moral law that individuals must follow regardless of personal desires or circumstances. The focus is on the rational determination of moral principles rather than the existence of external moral facts.

In terms of metaphysics, Kant is known for his transcendental idealism, which is a form of constructivism. He argued that our knowledge is shaped by the structures of our own minds, and we cannot have direct access to an objective reality independent of our mental faculties.

While Kant's moral philosophy is not directly aligned with either philosophical realism or anti-realism, his epistemological views lean towards a form of anti-realism, particularly in his rejection of direct access to an external reality. However, it's important to note that the categorization of philosophical positions can be complex, and different aspects of a philosopher's work may align with different philosophical traditions.

[Iwannaplato]

Why don't you ask ChatGpt with reference to the Kantian ANTI-realism re Transcendental Realism, his moral project and other aspects of humanity?

Like this?

Is Kant's moral project related to philosophical realism or philosophical anti-realism (or neither or both)?

Immanuel Kant's moral philosophy is generally considered to be independent of the traditional debates between philosophical realism and anti-realism. Kant's moral project is often associated with deontological ethics, which emphasizes moral duties and principles rather than consequences.

Kant's moral philosophy is grounded in his categorical imperative, a universal moral law that individuals must follow regardless of personal desires or circumstances. The focus is on the rational determination of moral principles rather than the existence of external moral facts.

In terms of metaphysics, Kant is known for his transcendental idealism, which is a form of constructivism. He argued that our knowledge is shaped by the structures of our own minds, and we cannot have direct access to an objective reality independent of our mental faculties.

While Kant's moral philosophy is not directly aligned with either philosophical realism or anti-realism, his epistemological views lean towards a form of anti-realism, particularly in his rejection of direct access to an external reality. However, it's important to note that the categorization of philosophical positions can be complex, and different aspects of a philosopher's work may align with different philosophical traditions.

I would just like to point out that when we are not reading Kant, his ideas don't exist. And VA keeps using Kant as an authority. But according to his antirealism, we cocreate reality. Kant is dead, so his version of Kant is of his own making. Which is what you are saying, but VA, oddly, despite his antirealism, refuses to admit. He seems to think he understands the real Kant. Which is a form of realism.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The fact is the sense-of-externalness which is critical to facilitate survival

And it's still not explained why a falsehood is critical to survival if it in no way reflects reality.
In the past VA has pointed to things like belief in God can assuage anxiety even if it is a falsehood and other such examples.
But the problem here is that we are talking about a model, this sense of externalness that is directly connected to practical behavior. Not merely to attitudes and emotions. VA thinks that it is critical to survival to have this model of reality, which at the same time it is false.
A false belief about the mechanics and layout of reality is a MUST to survive.
Which means the correct model is a worse model for making practical decisions and interacting with the world.
And not only that,
but not having a particular model is off the table.

We are supposed to believe that animals are of utter necessity for their survival proto-realists, because this model leads to correct behavior and the truth would not lead to that.

But that's silly, since animals would through instintive actions hunt and tackle and flee and they are not consulting models when they do this.
They are not ontologists, deciding there is a mind independent reality. They do what their ancestors have done with subtle adjustments, behavior outward, not giving a shit about whether they are being subjective or objective or if the Moon is still there when they sleep.

And why would a realist model work better than an antirealist one if the latter is binarily correct and the former is binarily false.

Note this:
Reality is an Illusion - How Evolution Hid the Truth
Donald Hoffman:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=reYdQYZ9Rj4&t=6186s

Hoffman did not discount objective reality [mine is human based objective reality], but that is not the issue here.

IWP: A false belief about the mechanics and layout of reality is a MUST to survive.
I did not use the term "MUST".
Evolution will enable a false or truer belief based on the optimal conditions that will facilitate survival.
E.g. evolution enable the proposition the Sun exists as 'real' but at the same time 'delude' with the perception of a larger Sun at the horizons [which has utility value] in comparison to the mid-day Sun. This happens in all aspects of human life to achieve optimality that facilitate survival.

This evolutionary conception of false vs truer beliefs also vary with various conditions, time and age of humanity.
Compared to 10,000 years ago, we now know evolution is deluding us and that in "reality" [FSK] the Sun has the same size regardless of which time of the day. This is the same with many other illusions and realization-of-reality where the ratio of falsehood to truth has changed over time as human evolved in time.

When human intelligence, rationality and wisdom was much lower 100,000 to 10,000 years ago, the degree of falsehoods was necessary higher than it is at present.
However, as human has greater self-awareness and intelligence to be aware of greater global and galactical threats, humans will need to be influenced by the falsehoods that were optimal for the past but not for the present.
This is why science need to have greater and more refined polished conjectures to tackle say the covid pandemics and other greater threats.

While many of the one time critical necessary falsehoods needed to optimize survival has been exposed, there remain the very subtle sense-of-externalness which is still necessary e.g. in the case of theism to soothe the existential crisis within the majority.
My contention and very serious is realists adopt this sense of externalness as an uncompromising ideology within philosophy and theism, i.e. 'my way or the highway'.
I repeat: it is the adoption of that sense-of-reality as an ideology and imposed it on all others without compromise; in the extreme SOME [theists] will even those who oppose their realism.

I personally recognize the need for that sense-of-externalness [Kantian empirical realism] which is adapted from my animal ancestors via evolution but I do not adopt it as an ideology. It is the act and word 'ideology' that is critical.
I need to repeat this so it sinks in: 'ideology' , 'ideology' , 'ideology' .

Animals do have an adapted sense-of-externalness, but they don't have the fortunate/unfortunate self-awareness to turn it as an 'ideology' .

[Atla]

Humans are a social species, how would humanity even function without the ideology of externalness? Other people aren't actually outside me nor inside me, we are all in some sort of a nonsensical jumble or what? I can't tell myself apart from others?

Or will we always have to pretend externalness, even though it's wrong?

(Can we test this first please? I and VA will pretend for a week that we are in an unintelligible jumble, together with VA's bank account.)

[Iwannaplato]

I did not use the term "MUST".

Here's what Chatgpt has to say on this issue. You said it was critical to survive:

Yes, when something is critical or essential in order to do something, it can be described as a "must." This implies that it is necessary or obligatory for the successful completion or achievement of a particular task or goal.

Evolution will enable a false or truer belief based on the optimal conditions that will facilitate survival.
E.g. evolution enable the proposition the Sun exists as 'real' but at the same time 'delude' with the perception of a larger Sun at the horizons [which has utility value] in comparison to the mid-day Sun.

And notice that believing the sun is bigger at the horizon has nothing to do with survival. Nothing. Which was precisely what I pointed out, your examples are never equivalent.. They do not lead to practical choices. Having this false belief of externalness is actually better directly for the organism in its interaction with reality. And yet it is false. And for some reason no organism evolved with the correct view. Is it possible that the correct view isn't necessary because there's a problem with it? Why wouldn't the correct, according to you, model work?

This happens in all aspects of human life to achieve optimality that facilitate survival.

And why would a false model lead to the correct actions and behaviors? All you're done is remake your claim.

This evolutionary conception of false vs truer beliefs also vary with various conditions, time and age of humanity.
Compared to 10,000 years ago, we now know evolution is deluding us and that in "reality" [FSK] the Sun has the same size regardless of which time of the day. This is the same with many other illusions and realization-of-reality where the ratio of falsehood to truth has changed over time as human evolved in time.

Again, nothing here explains why the false model leads to better actions.

When human intelligence, rationality and wisdom was much lower 100,000 to 10,000 years ago, the degree of falsehoods was necessary higher than it is at present.
However, as human has greater self-awareness and intelligence to be aware of greater global and galactical threats, humans will need to be influenced by the falsehoods that were optimal for the past but not for the present.
This is why science need to have greater and more refined polished conjectures to tackle say the covid pandemics and other greater threats.

Same claim again, not addressing how the false model leads to better practical behavior.

While many of the one time critical necessary falsehoods needed to optimize survival has been exposed, there remain the very subtle sense-of-externalness which is still necessary e.g. in the case of theism to soothe the existential crisis within the majority.
My contention and very serious is realists adopt this sense of externalness as an uncompromising ideology within philosophy and theism, i.e. 'my way or the highway'.
I repeat: it is the adoption of that sense-of-reality as an ideology and imposed it on all others without compromise; in the extreme SOME [theists] will even those who oppose their realism.

And nothing here that explains why a false model would lead to a more effective organism in its direct actions.

I personally recognize the need for that sense-of-externalness [Kantian empirical realism] which is adapted from my animal ancestors via evolution but I do not adopt it as an ideology. It is the act and word 'ideology' that is critical.
I need to repeat this so it sinks in: 'ideology' , 'ideology' , 'ideology' .

And again, nothing to explain why my objection is false.

Animals do have an adapted sense-of-externalness, but they don't have the fortunate/unfortunate self-awareness to turn it as an 'ideology' .

And that is not on point either.

Zero actual engagement with my post.

Why would a false model be better for all the daily activities of animals that the correct model? A model that is intimately involved in every decision and action? Not only better in practical, physical terms, than antirealism (critical as you say for survival) but better than not having a model and simply following instincts?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Why don't you ask ChatGpt with reference to the Kantian ANTI-realism re Transcendental Realism, his moral project and other aspects of humanity?

Like this?

Is Kant's moral project related to philosophical realism or philosophical anti-realism (or neither or both)?

Immanuel Kant's moral philosophy is generally considered to be independent of the traditional debates between philosophical realism and anti-realism. Kant's moral project is often associated with deontological ethics, which emphasizes moral duties and principles rather than consequences.

Kant's moral philosophy is grounded in his categorical imperative, a universal moral law that individuals must follow regardless of personal desires or circumstances. The focus is on the rational determination of moral principles rather than the existence of external moral facts.

In terms of metaphysics, Kant is known for his transcendental idealism, which is a form of constructivism. He argued that our knowledge is shaped by the structures of our own minds, and we cannot have direct access to an objective reality independent of our mental faculties.

While Kant's moral philosophy is not directly aligned with either philosophical realism or anti-realism, his epistemological views lean towards a form of anti-realism, particularly in his rejection of direct access to an external reality. However, it's important to note that the categorization of philosophical positions can be complex, and different aspects of a philosopher's work may align with different philosophical traditions.

Typical of a philosophical gnat; Don't get too carried away.
Note 'with reservations' and it is understood ChatGpt has limitations.

Note from ChatGpt [with reservations] and pending the presentation of the actual text references mentioned.

Yes, that inference could be drawn. If Kant's moral philosophy allows for varying interpretations and perspectives, and if your interpretation emphasizes continuous improvement and the application of moral principles within a broader framework of rationality and autonomy rather than strict adherence to fixed moral duties, then it suggests that Kant's morality might not fit neatly into the category of "typical" deontological morality.

While deontological ethics traditionally emphasizes adherence to moral duties and principles over consequences, your characterization introduces a broader understanding of how individuals engage with moral principles and strive for moral development over time. This approach aligns with a system-based morality that emphasizes the dynamic nature of moral decision-making and the importance of rational reflection and self-development.

Therefore, if Kant's moral philosophy accommodates such interpretations and perspectives, it suggests that his morality goes beyond a strict deontological framework and incorporates elements of a system-based approach that emphasizes continuous improvement and rational autonomy in moral decision-making.

[Atla]

Why don't you ask ChatGpt with reference to the Kantian ANTI-realism re Transcendental Realism, his moral project and other aspects of humanity?

Like this?

Is Kant's moral project related to philosophical realism or philosophical anti-realism (or neither or both)?

Immanuel Kant's moral philosophy is generally considered to be independent of the traditional debates between philosophical realism and anti-realism. Kant's moral project is often associated with deontological ethics, which emphasizes moral duties and principles rather than consequences.

Kant's moral philosophy is grounded in his categorical imperative, a universal moral law that individuals must follow regardless of personal desires or circumstances. The focus is on the rational determination of moral principles rather than the existence of external moral facts.

In terms of metaphysics, Kant is known for his transcendental idealism, which is a form of constructivism. He argued that our knowledge is shaped by the structures of our own minds, and we cannot have direct access to an objective reality independent of our mental faculties.

While Kant's moral philosophy is not directly aligned with either philosophical realism or anti-realism, his epistemological views lean towards a form of anti-realism, particularly in his rejection of direct access to an external reality. However, it's important to note that the categorization of philosophical positions can be complex, and different aspects of a philosopher's work may align with different philosophical traditions.

Typical of a philosophical gnat; Don't get too carried away.
Note 'with reservations' and it is understood ChatGpt has limitations.

Note from ChatGpt [with reservations] and pending the presentation of the actual text references mentioned.

Yes, that inference could be drawn. If Kant's moral philosophy allows for varying interpretations and perspectives, and if your interpretation emphasizes continuous improvement and the application of moral principles within a broader framework of rationality and autonomy rather than strict adherence to fixed moral duties, then it suggests that Kant's morality might not fit neatly into the category of "typical" deontological morality.

While deontological ethics traditionally emphasizes adherence to moral duties and principles over consequences, your characterization introduces a broader understanding of how individuals engage with moral principles and strive for moral development over time. This approach aligns with a system-based morality that emphasizes the dynamic nature of moral decision-making and the importance of rational reflection and self-development.

Therefore, if Kant's moral philosophy accommodates such interpretations and perspectives, it suggests that his morality goes beyond a strict deontological framework and incorporates elements of a system-based approach that emphasizes continuous improvement and rational autonomy in moral decision-making.

Okay. And it's probably more rational to implement such a system within philosophical realism.
And your point is?

[Veritas Aequitas]

I provided ChatGpt [with reservations] with text references [I won't present here] to support my point.

Taken together, these passages provide textual evidence from Kant's "Critique of Pure Reason" that supports your interpretation of Kant's morality as system-based, driven by categorical imperatives as ideals, standards, and guides for moral action. They suggest that Kant's moral philosophy involves a dynamic process of moral development and improvement towards the ideal, rather than strict adherence to fixed moral duties alone.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Okay. And it's probably more rational to implement such a system within philosophical realism.
And your point is?

What nonsense is that.
Kant system is never based on philosophical realism.

This point is one advantage of Kantian anti-realism over philosophical realism.