Philosophy Now Forum

Come to think of it, when there's a troll like moron dick-for-brains around, anyone could be it. I could be. Anyway, I'm done. Or am I?

Crumbles under what slightest scrutiny? It's entirely consistent with both modern science and modern psychology, it's direct realism that has crumbled long ago. Let's skip your usual pathological liar routine and get to the point. What is the actual reason you don't want to admit that you exist? Wh...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_and_indirect_realism There's nothing confusing about what I'm saying I beg to differ. Here's part of the link you suggest: 'Indirect realism is broadly equivalent to the scientific view of perception that subjects do not experience the external world as it reall...

Refute it how? That's what I'm asking. You claim three things refute direct realism: Kant, science and psychology. And then you say science and psychology refute Kant. So I'm confused. Perhaps you could set out the premise(s) of indirect realism - to clear it up. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direc...

The distinction by itself is actually fairly useful, it's only disastrous when we do what Kant did and claim that the noumenon is 100% unknowable. That's actually an insane guess. According to this guess, as a result, only "naive" philosophies are possible. So that's what VA will insist o...

That may be the right diagnosis. And I'm sure that Kant's disastrous noumena/phenomena distinction is at the root of it. The distinction by itself is actually fairly useful, it's only disastrous when we do what Kant did and claim that the noumenon is 100% unknowable. That's actually an insane guess...

He says there are two senses of the word reality What VA has been saying all these years is that there are only two philosophies: naive realism and Kantian naive anti-realism. And that he's super smart because he knows that the second one beats the first one. Kant told him that the "naive"...

Claim: If there were no humans, there would have been and be no universe.

Nonsense.

Claim: If there were no humans, there would have been and be no universe.
Reason: This is because the universe is somehow entangled with humans.

Utter claptrap.

The universe, which includes humans, is not an illusion.

VA. So - humans make reality in the way a carpenter makes a chair. You have got to be kidding. What is wrong with the carpenter made that specific real chair [a part of reality] existing within reality [all there is]? Meanwhile. 1 Reality is all there is. (You agree.) 2 We humans are part of that r...

VA. So - humans make reality in the way a carpenter makes a chair. You have got to be kidding. Meanwhile. 1 Reality is all there is. (You agree.) 2 We humans are part of that reality, and in no way separate from it. (You agree.) 3 We humans have to perceive, know and describe that reality in human w...

Indirect realism has already beaten transcendental idalism maybe a century ago of course, so this isn't anything new. I just didn't know accurately enough what VA and Kant meant by transcendental idealism (and how VA misunderstood Kant), and VA didn't understand anything about anything and still do...

Okay. I can't remember how the indirect realism v transcendental idealism discussion developed - for which, apologies. I may have a look back and trace it. Indirect realism has already beaten transcendental idalism maybe a century ago of course, so this isn't anything new. I just didn't know accura...

Has this Wittgenstein guy ever said anything substantial, anything groundbreaking? It's a pretty bad sign when you start arguing against your former philosophy, if you don't get philosophy right the first time, chances are you won't get it right the second time either. Okay. There's no need to give...

How to sharpen up VA's argument? Premise: We humans have to perceive, know and describe reality in human ways. (Note: This sentence is a description of a feature of reality, or a state-of-affairs. And it has a truth-value.) Conclusion: Therefore, reality is nothing more than the ways we humans perc...