Theory of Mind?

[Veritas Aequitas]

I wrote this;

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

The above dichotomy between p-realism vs anti-p-realism emerged since the origin of philosophy.

P-realism [mind-independent] arising from the sense of external_ness is an evolutionary default, thus very primordial.
Those who hold such position are people like FDP, PH et. al.
Since it is an evolution default, p-realism are adopted and clung to by the majority as an ideology to soothe the pains of the underlying existential crisis.
One major group of p-realists are the theists who believe in an absolutely mind-independent God.

Whilst p-realism has its pros but is not tenable and realistic for more refine philosophy and for greater progress within humanity.
As such, there are those who are more philosophical matured who had opposed p-realism, the so called antirealists in general. Since the beginning the antirealists are the minority but their % has been on a growing trend.

Because of the severe threats of existential pains, the p-realists are always blind to the views of the antirealists. On the other hand, the antirealists [Kantian] do understand the beliefs of the p-realists such that they can oppose [anti] their views.

Every time I counter the p-realists' views they will complain I did not understand their points, but actually it is the p-realists who are very resistant to the views of the antirealists.
Take the case of the theists, they are simply blind to the views of the non-theists who counter their belief.

This realist vs antirealist chasm or dichotomy is more deeper than the theory of mind.

In psychology, theory of mind refers to the capacity to understand other people by ascribing mental states to them. A theory of mind includes the knowledge that others' beliefs, desires, intentions, emotions, and thoughts may be different from one's own.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_mind

I have no problem understanding realists has a different beliefs from mine, thus my opposition to their beliefs.

On the other hand, people like FDP et. al. do have a problematic theory of mind, in insisting their beliefs are the only true one.
When they read opponents do not match their views, they make all sorts of complains including wrongly accusing them of not having a 'theory of mind' when they are the culprit who do not have a theory of mind.

[Iwannaplato]

I thought I could make a short summary of the OP.

Veritas Aequitas:
I am a p-antirealist. Some other people are p-realists. They are wrong. I am right. They are wrong because they are primitive and scared and can't deal with new things. I'm not so scared.

There may be an addendum coming:

Veritas Aequitas:
I am a moral realist. Some other people here are moral antirealists. They are wrong. I am right. They are wrong because they see morals as evolutionary defaults. I'm scared of them and assign them a cognitive moral deficit.

A cognitive ontological deficit-------> Good!
A cognitive moral deficit -----------> Bad!

Theists are the worst kind of ontological realists.
But it's good they are moral realists.

Veritas Aequitas:
I am like theists when it comes to moral realism. This makes me and them good. P-realists are like theists when it comes to mind independent reality. This makes them and them bad.

[FlashDangerpants]

If I may offer a note. You should include a bit where the only possioble reason for somebody to not share this view about whther to make a list of all the reasons McDonald's is inferior to Burger King [conditioned by the BK-FSCK] is that their mind is paralyzed by a deep ancestral fear of spiders.

[Iwannaplato]

If I may offer a note. You should include a bit where the only possioble reason for somebody to not share this view about whther to make a list of all the reasons McDonald's is inferior to Burger King [conditioned by the BK-FSCK] is that their mind is paralyzed by a deep ancestral fear of spiders.

Yes, the ad hominem FSK has many uses.

And it allows long OPs to be a single, drawn out FSK.
And of course it is objective.

[Atla]

I thought I could make a short summary of the OP.

Veritas Aequitas:
I am a p-antirealist. Some other people are p-realists. They are wrong. I am right. They are wrong because they are primitive and scared and can't deal with new things. I'm not so scared.

There may be an addendum coming:

Veritas Aequitas:
I am a moral realist. Some other people here are moral antirealists. They are wrong. I am right. They are wrong because they see morals as evolutionary defaults. I'm scared of them and assign them a cognitive moral deficit.

A cognitive ontological deficit-------> Good!
A cognitive moral deficit -----------> Bad!

Theists are the worst kind of ontological realists.
But it's good they are moral realists.

Veritas Aequitas:
I am like theists when it comes to moral realism. This makes me and them good. P-realists are like theists when it comes to mind independent reality. This makes them and them bad.

We need to find someone for VA who is a p-realist theist, and also a moral antirealist, and hates Kant and Buddhism with a passion, and is very outspoken about these.

[Veritas Aequitas]

In reply to the above ad hominens and ignoramus, note I wrote in the OP;
"Whilst p-realism has its pros but is not tenable and realistic for more refine philosophy and for greater progress within humanity."

My implication above and I had written many times,
p-realism is bad when it is adopted as a ideology of 'my way or the highway'. This prevent them from having a "theory to mind" in this regard.

I have no issues with those [me included] who accept and practice the concept of 'externalness' mind-independence [relative not absolute] and do not cling to it dogmatically as an ideology.

[Iwannaplato]

We need to find someone for VA who is a p-realist theist, and also a moral antirealist, and hates Kant and Buddhism with a passion, and is very outspoken about these.

That's tricky. I think you could be a Hindu, interpreting the Vedanta as saying that moral values are actually illusory. You could be a realist in the sense that Brahma in the nirguna aspect is mind independent (that part is not controversial). There is the whole Dharma thingie, but then one could argue that this is a lower stage in understanding of things, a convenience, but actually when you've meditated enough and are swimming in non-dualism any behavior is just peachy. Then you need this Hindu to have read Kant and hate him or his work. Disagree, yes. Hate, hm. Hating Buddhism is more possible since it could be seen as a distracting (rather large) cult and offshoot from the real path.

Even our dear Dattaswami would probably carefully hide his hatred of Buddhism, if he had it. And I doubt he's read Kant. And he's pretty moral realist.

I'd like to see the Classified Ad for the position.

[Atla]

We need to find someone for VA who is a p-realist theist, and also a moral antirealist, and hates Kant and Buddhism with a passion, and is very outspoken about these.

That's tricky. I think you could be a Hindu, interpreting the Vedanta as saying that moral values are actually illusory. You could be a realist in the sense that Brahma in the nirguna aspect is mind independent (that part is not controversial). There is the whole Dharma thingie, but then one could argue that this is a lower stage in understanding of things, a convenience, but actually when you've meditated enough and are swimming in non-dualism any behavior is just peachy. Then you need this Hindu to have read Kant and hate him or his work. Disagree, yes. Hate, hm. Hating Buddhism is more possible since it could be seen as a distracting (rather large) cult and offshoot from the real path.

Even our dear Dattaswami would probably carefully hide his hatred of Buddhism, if he had it. And I doubt he's read Kant. And he's pretty moral realist.

I'd like to see the Classified Ad for the position.

I first thought of some kind of Hindu / Hindu theist too, but VA was originally one of those, I don't that one would have a big enough punch. We need more of a personal god thing too.

Imo our guy has to be a devoted follower of Islam, blind faith in Allah, in fact met Allah a few times, but follows a unique sect of Islam that leaves morality for us to decide. A full-blown naive realist, hates the West and especially Kantian philosophy, and hates anything to do with meditation, introspection. Like Buddhism. Life should be spontaneous, chaotic, wild, not contemplative! And what you see is what you get!

And our guy needs to be full of himself and have a big mouth. Then we need to present this person to VA and see what happens.

[Harbal]

I wrote this;

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

The above dichotomy between p-realism vs anti-p-realism emerged since the origin of philosophy.

P-realism [mind-independent] arising from the sense of external_ness is an evolutionary default, thus very primordial.
Those who hold such position are people like FDP, PH et. al.
Since it is an evolution default, p-realism are adopted and clung to by the majority as an ideology to soothe the pains of the underlying existential crisis.

If it is the evolutionary default, what is to be gained by rebelling against it?

And what "existential crisis"?

I know you won't answer, because I once upset you and you are still sulking about it.

[Iwannaplato]

We need to find someone for VA who is a p-realist theist, and also a moral antirealist, and hates Kant and Buddhism with a passion, and is very outspoken about these.

That's tricky. I think you could be a Hindu, interpreting the Vedanta as saying that moral values are actually illusory. You could be a realist in the sense that Brahma in the nirguna aspect is mind independent (that part is not controversial). There is the whole Dharma thingie, but then one could argue that this is a lower stage in understanding of things, a convenience, but actually when you've meditated enough and are swimming in non-dualism any behavior is just peachy. Then you need this Hindu to have read Kant and hate him or his work. Disagree, yes. Hate, hm. Hating Buddhism is more possible since it could be seen as a distracting (rather large) cult and offshoot from the real path.

Even our dear Dattaswami would probably carefully hide his hatred of Buddhism, if he had it. And I doubt he's read Kant. And he's pretty moral realist.

I'd like to see the Classified Ad for the position.

I first thought of some kind of Hindu / Hindu theist too, but VA was originally one of those, I don't that one would have a big enough punch. We need more of a personal god thing too.

Imo our guy has to be a devoted follower of Islam, blind faith in Allah, in fact met Allah a few times, but follows a unique sect of Islam that leaves morality for us to decide. A full-blown naive realist, hates the West and especially Kantian philosophy, and hates anything to do with meditation, introspection. Like Buddhism. Life should be spontaneous, chaotic, wild, not contemplative! And what you see is what you get!

And our guy needs to be full of himself and have a big mouth. Then we need to present this person to VA and see what happens.

I was going to say Sufism until I got to hates introspection.

I think you're now describing a psychopath theist: Caligula, Ivan the Terrible, possibly Napoleon, something along those lines.

[FlashDangerpants]

Those who hold such position are people like FDP, PH et. al.

If you are still calling me a realist you just can't read.

[Impenitent]

Those who hold such position are people like FDP, PH et. al.

If you are still calling me a realist you just can't read.

if the King made you a knight, would you then be a Sir realist?

-Imp