Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

Post by bahman »

RCSaunders wrote: Fri Sep 24, 2021 3:07 pm
Advocate wrote: Fri Sep 24, 2021 1:01 pm If proof means anything at all, reality is the most well established thing there is, and this is a stupid conversation.
Yes! And you are right this conversation is absolutely stupid.

Especially the stupid idea of, "proof." The purpose of, "proof," is not to win arguments or to convince others, but to ensure one's own reasoning is correct. The obvious does not require proof. Only propositions for which there is no clear and irrefutable evidence and for which some doubt is possible require rigorous proof.

If your kitty likes sleeping in the closet and you suspects that is where it is when it cannot be found, there is some doubt about where the cat actually is. If you look in the closet and kitty is sleeping there, that is, "proof," the cat is in the closet.

Everything else said about, "proof," is so much academic blather. Academics and philosophers like to turn every concept into some esoteric nonsense they can then use to put over their absurd ideologies.

Da Vinci said, "To see is to know." The philosopher say, "to trust what I say is to know, not your own eyes." The mystery is why almost everyone believes the lying philosopher.
If you think that the mind is fundamental then it follows that experience (seeing for example) is needed to make a coherent thought about reality. How could we have a single thought without experience of anything? How it could be experienced if it does not exist?
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

Post by RCSaunders »

bahman wrote: Fri Sep 24, 2021 3:58 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Fri Sep 24, 2021 3:07 pm
Advocate wrote: Fri Sep 24, 2021 1:01 pm If proof means anything at all, reality is the most well established thing there is, and this is a stupid conversation.
Yes! And you are right this conversation is absolutely stupid.

Especially the stupid idea of, "proof." The purpose of, "proof," is not to win arguments or to convince others, but to ensure one's own reasoning is correct. The obvious does not require proof. Only propositions for which there is no clear and irrefutable evidence and for which some doubt is possible require rigorous proof.

If your kitty likes sleeping in the closet and you suspects that is where it is when it cannot be found, there is some doubt about where the cat actually is. If you look in the closet and kitty is sleeping there, that is, "proof," the cat is in the closet.

Everything else said about, "proof," is so much academic blather. Academics and philosophers like to turn every concept into some esoteric nonsense they can then use to put over their absurd ideologies.

Da Vinci said, "To see is to know." The philosopher say, "to trust what I say is to know, not your own eyes." The mystery is why almost everyone believes the lying philosopher.
If you think that the mind is fundamental then it follows that experience (seeing for example) is needed to make a coherent thought about reality. How could we have a single thought without experience of anything? How it could be experienced if it does not exist?
In your last sentence the antecedent of, "it," is ambiguous. What is, "it?" Of course nothing exists that cannot be consciously perceived or deduced logically from what is perceived. Who said otherwise?
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

Post by bahman »

RCSaunders wrote: Fri Sep 24, 2021 5:59 pm
bahman wrote: Fri Sep 24, 2021 3:58 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Fri Sep 24, 2021 3:07 pm
Yes! And you are right this conversation is absolutely stupid.

Especially the stupid idea of, "proof." The purpose of, "proof," is not to win arguments or to convince others, but to ensure one's own reasoning is correct. The obvious does not require proof. Only propositions for which there is no clear and irrefutable evidence and for which some doubt is possible require rigorous proof.

If your kitty likes sleeping in the closet and you suspects that is where it is when it cannot be found, there is some doubt about where the cat actually is. If you look in the closet and kitty is sleeping there, that is, "proof," the cat is in the closet.

Everything else said about, "proof," is so much academic blather. Academics and philosophers like to turn every concept into some esoteric nonsense they can then use to put over their absurd ideologies.

Da Vinci said, "To see is to know." The philosopher say, "to trust what I say is to know, not your own eyes." The mystery is why almost everyone believes the lying philosopher.
If you think that the mind is fundamental then it follows that experience (seeing for example) is needed to make a coherent thought about reality. How could we have a single thought without experience of anything? How it could be experienced if it does not exist?
In your last sentence the antecedent of, "it," is ambiguous. What is, "it?" Of course nothing exists that cannot be consciously perceived or deduced logically from what is perceived. Who said otherwise?
By it I mean reality?
User avatar
Conde Lucanor
Posts: 846
Joined: Mon Nov 04, 2013 2:59 am

Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

Post by Conde Lucanor »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Sep 24, 2021 7:45 am As I have stated you are making too much noises focusing on frivolous and petty issues rather that presenting a proper argument to support your realism against anti-realism in relation to the OP.
Yes, they are frivolous and petty issues, that also just happen to be the frivolous and petty issues you brought up yourself as your central arguments against my detailed standpoint on the subject presented in the OP. So yes, I'm pounding the red herring fallacies that you insisted supported your case, which has now been reduced to ashes. In that sense:
  • You're neither an absolute expert, nor a reasonable expert, nor an expert in any level in relation to the realism/antirealism issue, you're just a philosophy fan with no credentials writing opinions in an internet philosophy forum, not so different than anyone else around here.
  • It has been proven beyond reasonable doubt that you're mostly ignorant of what modern realism entails. You have not read realist literature, including Critical Realism, and your stance on the subject of realism vs. anti-realism is based almost exclusively on Kant's 18th century depiction of realism (which you treat as if it were a sacred text), supporting this dogma with the accompanying antirealist literature. That's what you call "extensive research" and it's absolutely laughable.
  • While you pretend to be the judge that settles the matter, you're actually the biased attorney pleading for the anti-realist side. Your case lacks impartiality and disinterested objectivity. One can never expect that the "proof" demanded in your OP will ever satisfy the requirements that you place there supposedly to settle the matter. In fact, the whole thing is a vitiated circle from the start, as the requirements for "proof" are invalidated by anti-realist assumptions. It is like the famous depiction of Baron Munchhausen pulling himself out of a mire by his own hair.
Surely, since this has become very obvious and must sound quite unpleasing to your inflated ego (I thought you were a Buddhist or something like that, but anyway...), you must cover your ears and call it "noise".
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Sep 24, 2021 7:45 am I had never claimed I have read [fully] all the >9000 files [books, articles, notes, etc.] I have in my computer.
However I dare claim I am fully aware of the contents, abstracts and themes of these files, else I would not bothered to save them in my computer for future references.
Yes, you had. Either you have a short-term memory or you're simply lying. I had already argued (and provided the numbers) that it was impossible for you to read the whole 9K files you said you have in your computer. You could have conceded and answered what you're saying now, of course, but no, you replied that you could "cover 100 to 200 of them in a week" and that you "...also have various methodologies to do speed reading." I called all of that BS right away and exposed your lie.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Sep 24, 2021 7:45 am I did not claim I have >4000 files specifically related to the "Realism vs Anti-Realism" debate. Nevertheless I have read many books and articles that are specifically related to the "Realism vs Anti-Realism" debate.
You are recanting, you did claim that. You pretend to have forgotten that the issue was whether you knew both sides of the argument on realism vs. antirealism or not, and you challenged me to prove that you had missed key realist literature. And then you came up with the claim that "[...] I have >9500 file in >600 folders in my Main Philosopher Folder and appx 50% of that would be related to those of the typical Realists." 50% of 9,500 makes it around 4,750, and so far you have only listed around 20.

If one wants to make a fool out of oneself, that's how you do it.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12235
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Conde Lucanor wrote: Sun Sep 26, 2021 4:53 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Sep 24, 2021 7:45 am As I have stated you are making too much noises focusing on frivolous and petty issues rather that presenting a proper argument to support your realism against anti-realism in relation to the OP.
Yes, they are frivolous and petty issues, that also just happen to be the frivolous and petty issues you brought up yourself as your central arguments against my detailed standpoint on the subject presented in the OP. So yes, I'm pounding the red herring fallacies that you insisted supported your case, which has now been reduced to ashes. In that sense:
  • You're neither an absolute expert, nor a reasonable expert, nor an expert in any level in relation to the realism/antirealism issue, you're just a philosophy fan with no credentials writing opinions in an internet philosophy forum, not so different than anyone else around here.
  • It has been proven beyond reasonable doubt that you're mostly ignorant of what modern realism entails. You have not read realist literature, including Critical Realism, and your stance on the subject of realism vs. anti-realism is based almost exclusively on Kant's 18th century depiction of realism (which you treat as if it were a sacred text), supporting this dogma with the accompanying antirealist literature. That's what you call "extensive research" and it's absolutely laughable.
  • While you pretend to be the judge that settles the matter, you're actually the biased attorney pleading for the anti-realist side. Your case lacks impartiality and disinterested objectivity. One can never expect that the "proof" demanded in your OP will ever satisfy the requirements that you place there supposedly to settle the matter. In fact, the whole thing is a vitiated circle from the start, as the requirements for "proof" are invalidated by anti-realist assumptions. It is like the famous depiction of Baron Munchhausen pulling himself out of a mire by his own hair.
Surely, since this has become very obvious and must sound quite unpleasing to your inflated ego (I thought you were a Buddhist or something like that, but anyway...), you must cover your ears and call it "noise".
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Sep 24, 2021 7:45 am I had never claimed I have read [fully] all the >9000 files [books, articles, notes, etc.] I have in my computer.
However I dare claim I am fully aware of the contents, abstracts and themes of these files, else I would not bothered to save them in my computer for future references.
Yes, you had. Either you have a short-term memory or you're simply lying. I had already argued (and provided the numbers) that it was impossible for you to read the whole 9K files you said you have in your computer. You could have conceded and answered what you're saying now, of course, but no, you replied that you could "cover 100 to 200 of them in a week" and that you "...also have various methodologies to do speed reading." I called all of that BS right away and exposed your lie.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Sep 24, 2021 7:45 am I did not claim I have >4000 files specifically related to the "Realism vs Anti-Realism" debate. Nevertheless I have read many books and articles that are specifically related to the "Realism vs Anti-Realism" debate.
You are recanting, you did claim that. You pretend to have forgotten that the issue was whether you knew both sides of the argument on realism vs. antirealism or not, and you challenged me to prove that you had missed key realist literature. And then you came up with the claim that "[...] I have >9500 file in >600 folders in my Main Philosopher Folder and appx 50% of that would be related to those of the typical Realists." 50% of 9,500 makes it around 4,750, and so far you have only listed around 20.

If one wants to make a fool out of oneself, that's how you do it.
You are still making noises and focusing on the frivolous.

As I had stated I had never claimed to be an absolute expert on those subject but merely a reasonable expert.
Regardless of what I claimed re the above or you claimed otherwise re the above frivolous points, they have no significance to the argument re the OP and the realist vs anti-realist issue.

Btw, it is very common for those involved with philosophy [and other areas] to provide a CV.
When a person present his credentials or make various claims, that only give an impression and a clue to the other party. It is not truth until it is proven evidently, in most cases such claims do not even matter.

What counts are the arguments that one can present on the topic on hand.

As I had stated you have merely been making noises with the above frivolous matter but have not presented proper arguments to support your stance re the realist and anti-realist debate in relation to the OP.

I have opened threads on Bhaskar and Bunge, you could easily use those OP as a starting point to justify your argument in support of your realist stance from the Scientific Realism perspective, which of course from my perspectives are full of holes.
I am waiting for you to present your arguments based on Bhaskar and Bunge [or wherever] so I can counter them with references from the 1000s [4750] of files I have on hand.
and so far you have only listed around 20.
That was specifically to Critical Realism.

Note I replied earlier,
  • Re the thousands of files related to Realism vs Anti-Realism,
    I have argued for the following;
    All Philosophies Reduced to Realism vs Idealism
    viewtopic.php?f=5&t=28643
    Since I have >9000 files related to Philosophy,
    I am confident on that basis >4000 files are related to Realism or Anti-Realism in some ways.
    I did not claim I have >4000 files specifically related to the "Realism vs Anti-Realism" debate. Nevertheless I have read many books and articles that are specifically related to the "Realism vs Anti-Realism" debate.
Can you counter why you cannot accept the above response to your question?
Note at present the majority of philosophers belong to either those of the Analytics [mostly UK and USA] the majority are realists and those of Continental Philosophy [mostly Europe], the majority are anti-realists.
Since my approach is eclectic my philosophy database will have a fair share of Western Philosophy re analytic [realists] and continental philosophers [anti-realists].
As such if I have >9000 files, I am confident 50% of my philosophical files are likely to comprised either analytics or continental, thus realist vs anti-realists views.

I could give you a full list of all the files I have, but it would be stupid of me to oblige to your request given the long time and tedious effort* to do so.
If there is a sure way we can establish a bet that you pay me US4500.00 if I am proven true and I'll pay the same if my claim is false, then I will take the effort to do it because I am very confident of the facts in my possession.

* even for the 20 files I listed, I had to do the following;
1. Print screen of the folder,
2. Paste it to Words
3. Crop and save it as an image file.
4. Convert the image to text, using a special software
5. Copy the converted text [which is one chunk] to Word,
6. Format the text.

So much work for 20 files and
to extract >4500 files would be too tedious.
But if you are willing to bet US4500.00 and there is assurance of payment either way, then it is worth my effort.

I had done it before, one can extract the files from the folder using a written command where on has to write the code and that is also tedious.
User avatar
Conde Lucanor
Posts: 846
Joined: Mon Nov 04, 2013 2:59 am

Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

Post by Conde Lucanor »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Sep 27, 2021 7:17 am As I had stated I had never claimed to be an absolute expert on those subject but merely a reasonable expert.
You're neither an absolute expert, nor a reasonable expert, nor an expert in any level in relation to the realism/antirealism issue, you're just a philosophy fan with no credentials writing opinions in an internet philosophy forum, not so different than anyone else around here.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Sep 27, 2021 7:17 am Regardless of what I claimed re the above or you claimed otherwise re the above frivolous points, they have no significance to the argument re the OP and the realist vs anti-realist issue.
They are frivolous and petty issues, that also just happen to be the frivolous and petty issues you brought up yourself as your central arguments against my detailed standpoint on the subject presented in the OP. So yes, I'm pounding the red herring fallacies that you insisted supported your case, which has now been reduced to ashes.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Sep 27, 2021 7:17 am Btw, it is very common for those involved with philosophy [and other areas] to provide a CV.
When a person present his credentials or make various claims, that only give an impression and a clue to the other party. It is not truth until it is proven evidently, in most cases such claims do not even matter.

What counts are the arguments that one can present on the topic on hand.
Having some credentials might help settle some disputes, but it is not a certified path towards the final word on an issue. But if credentials are brought up as an issue itself, then one surely has at hand the defining criteria of who passes as an intellectual authority and who doesn't, in other words, what are valid credentials and what are not. You have no academic credentials, neither do I, but your claim that you do have them passes as counterfeit.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Sep 27, 2021 7:17 am I have opened threads on Bhaskar and Bunge, you could easily use those OP as a starting point to justify your argument in support of your realist stance from the Scientific Realism perspective, which of course from my perspectives are full of holes.
I am waiting for you to present your arguments based on Bhaskar and Bunge [or wherever] so I can counter them with references from the 1000s [4750] of files I have on hand.
You can place your rebuttal of Bhaskar and Bunge's realism right here, although one has to wonder how you will do that, since you have not even read them. So, by now it has become very clear that you want me to lecture you on their realism so that you can START to contrast their stance with your antirealist stance. That would be fine, except that first you have to acknowledge my points, that I have stated several times before you stuck your head in the sand and call it "noise":
  • It has been proven beyond reasonable doubt that you're mostly ignorant of what modern realism entails. You have not read realist literature, including Critical Realism, and your stance on the subject of realism vs. anti-realism is based almost exclusively on Kant's 18th century depiction of realism (which you treat as if it were a sacred text), supporting this dogma with the accompanying antirealist literature. That's what you call "extensive research" and it's absolutely laughable.
  • While you pretend to be the judge that settles the matter, you're actually the biased attorney pleading for the anti-realist side. Your case lacks impartiality and disinterested objectivity. One can never expect that the "proof" demanded in your OP will ever satisfy the requirements that you place there supposedly to settle the matter. In fact, the whole thing is a vitiated circle from the start, as the requirements for "proof" are invalidated by anti-realist assumptions. It is like the famous depiction of Baron Munchhausen pulling himself out of a mire by his own hair.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Sep 27, 2021 7:17 am
and so far you have only listed around 20.
That was specifically to Critical Realism.

Note I replied earlier,
  • Re the thousands of files related to Realism vs Anti-Realism,
    I have argued for the following;
    All Philosophies Reduced to Realism vs Idealism
    viewtopic.php?f=5&t=28643
    Since I have >9000 files related to Philosophy,
    I am confident on that basis >4000 files are related to Realism or Anti-Realism in some ways.
    I did not claim I have >4000 files specifically related to the "Realism vs Anti-Realism" debate. Nevertheless I have read many books and articles that are specifically related to the "Realism vs Anti-Realism" debate.
Can you counter why you cannot accept the above response to your question?
Because of the obvious reasons I gave you with specific logical arguments that you have not refuted:
  • Either you have a short-term memory or you're simply lying. I had already argued (and provided the numbers) that it was impossible for you to read the whole 9K files you said you have in your computer. You could have conceded and answered what you're saying now, of course, but no, you replied that you could "cover 100 to 200 of them in a week" and that you "...also have various methodologies to do speed reading." I called all of that BS right away and exposed your lie.
There's an argument here, and I supported it with evidence from your own words. It is falsifiable, that is, you could prove me wrong on the basis of what's specifically stated. The question is: why can you address it directly, instead of sticking your head in the sand?
I also gave you this argument:
  • You are recanting, you did claim that. You pretend to have forgotten that the issue was whether you knew both sides of the argument on realism vs. antirealism or not, and you challenged me to prove that you had missed key realist literature. And then you came up with the claim that "[...] I have >9500 file in >600 folders in my Main Philosopher Folder and appx 50% of that would be related to those of the typical Realists." 50% of 9,500 makes it around 4,750, and so far you have only listed around 20.
But you chopped it to ignore the relevant falsifiable statements and came back responding with the same statements I had replied to. So, not only you are giving a lot of BS, but your intellectual honesty is seriously questionable.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Sep 27, 2021 7:17 am Note at present the majority of philosophers belong to either those of the Analytics [mostly UK and USA] the majority are realists and those of Continental Philosophy [mostly Europe], the majority are anti-realists.
Since my approach is eclectic my philosophy database will have a fair share of Western Philosophy re analytic [realists] and continental philosophers [anti-realists].
As such if I have >9000 files, I am confident 50% of my philosophical files are likely to comprised either analytics or continental, thus realist vs anti-realists views.
Obviously, your confidence relies on naivety and poor judgement. What else can one expect from an antirealist.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Sep 27, 2021 7:17 am I could give you a full list of all the files I have, but it would be stupid of me to oblige to your request given the long time and tedious effort* to do so.
If there is a sure way we can establish a bet that you pay me US4500.00 if I am proven true and I'll pay the same if my claim is false, then I will take the effort to do it because I am very confident of the facts in my possession.

* even for the 20 files I listed, I had to do the following;
1. Print screen of the folder,
2. Paste it to Words
3. Crop and save it as an image file.
4. Convert the image to text, using a special software
5. Copy the converted text [which is one chunk] to Word,
6. Format the text.

So much work for 20 files and
to extract >4500 files would be too tedious.
But if you are willing to bet US4500.00 and there is assurance of payment either way, then it is worth my effort.

I had done it before, one can extract the files from the folder using a written command where on has to write the code and that is also tedious.
I grant you that the technical aspect of it are quite difficult and tedious. Unfortunately, it is an issue that you made central, even though it is actually the "frivolous and petty" issue we all know. So either you can forget about it for being totally irrelevant in support of your argument, or produce the evidence to support your argument. Or just concede you lost that argument. In any case, just looking at the numbers your claims are problematic and that's why after my challenge, you have recanted: first you made efforts to defend the possibility that you had read ALL the files, now you're just trying to recover from casualties by claiming it is a database that you have potential access to. Those are two different matters, though.
Advocate
Posts: 3467
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

Post by Advocate »

[quote="Conde Lucanor" post_id=528975 time=1633213254 user_id=9521]
You're neither an absolute expert, nor a reasonable expert, nor an expert in any level in relation to the realism/antirealism issue, you're just a philosophy fan with no credentials writing opinions...
[/quote]

Academic credentials prove compliance, indicate knowledge, and say nothing of understanding.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12235
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Conde Lucanor wrote: Sat Oct 02, 2021 11:20 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Sep 27, 2021 7:17 am Regardless of what I claimed re the above or you claimed otherwise re the above frivolous points, they have no significance to the argument re the OP and the realist vs anti-realist issue.
They are frivolous and petty issues, that also just happen to be the frivolous and petty issues you brought up yourself as your central arguments against my detailed standpoint on the subject presented in the OP. So yes, I'm pounding the red herring fallacies that you insisted supported your case, which has now been reduced to ashes.
Your whole argument at this point to claim a winning position is merely based on the above which are frivolous matters to the main arguments of this OP.

I say again,
Regardless of what I claimed re the above or you claimed otherwise re the above frivolous points, they have no significance to the argument re the OP and the realist vs anti-realist issue.

I have never used the 'number of files' I have as a support for my arguments at all.
It would be a stupid to claim that 'I have >4500 files related to the realist vs anti-realists, therefore I win the debate.'
I do not make the above claim, but you seem to think that is the case I am claiming for.

What counts must be the contents I present in here in supporting my arguments. As I had stated I had opened up the relevant threads so that we can go into the details of each specific areas related to the debate.

If you insists, what about my challenge and bet of the facts that I've claimed re >4500 files related to the realist vs anti-realist issue, i.e. if true you pay me USD4500 and if I lose I will pay the same.
Last edited by Veritas Aequitas on Sun Oct 03, 2021 8:57 am, edited 1 time in total.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12235
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Conde Lucanor wrote: Sat Oct 02, 2021 11:20 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Sep 27, 2021 7:17 am I have opened threads on Bhaskar and Bunge, you could easily use those OP as a starting point to justify your argument in support of your realist stance from the Scientific Realism perspective, which of course from my perspectives are full of holes.
I am waiting for you to present your arguments based on Bhaskar and Bunge [or wherever] so I can counter them with references from the 1000s [4750] of files I have on hand.
You can place your rebuttal of Bhaskar and Bunge's realism right here, although one has to wonder how you will do that, since you have not even read them. So, by now it has become very clear that you want me to lecture you on their realism so that you can START to contrast their stance with your antirealist stance. That would be fine, except that first you have to acknowledge my points, that I have stated several times before you stuck your head in the sand and call it "noise":
  • It has been proven beyond reasonable doubt that you're mostly ignorant of what modern realism entails. You have not read realist literature, including Critical Realism, and your stance on the subject of realism vs. anti-realism is based almost exclusively on Kant's 18th century depiction of realism (which you treat as if it were a sacred text), supporting this dogma with the accompanying antirealist literature. That's what you call "extensive research" and it's absolutely laughable.
  • While you pretend to be the judge that settles the matter, you're actually the biased attorney pleading for the anti-realist side. Your case lacks impartiality and disinterested objectivity. One can never expect that the "proof" demanded in your OP will ever satisfy the requirements that you place there supposedly to settle the matter. In fact, the whole thing is a vitiated circle from the start, as the requirements for "proof" are invalidated by anti-realist assumptions. It is like the famous depiction of Baron Munchhausen pulling himself out of a mire by his own hair.
I had insisted the onus is for you the positive claimant to show from Bhaskar and Bunge why realism is more realistic than anti-realism [my version which in part (not fully) is Kantian].

You simply judge I have not read Bhaskar and Bunge [..I have now read of his take on scientific realism].
Note I have presented this,
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=33612
which contained the main theme of Bhaskar's argument.
The rest of his book is merely a detailed explanation of his main theme.

How can you be so ignorant of that when you claim you are familiar with Bhaskar?
If you are so familiar with Bhaskar, show me why that Introduction re Bhaskar is insufficient to represent the main theme of his argument for Critical [Scientific] Realism.
User avatar
Conde Lucanor
Posts: 846
Joined: Mon Nov 04, 2013 2:59 am

Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

Post by Conde Lucanor »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Oct 03, 2021 8:43 am
Conde Lucanor wrote: Sat Oct 02, 2021 11:20 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Sep 27, 2021 7:17 am Regardless of what I claimed re the above or you claimed otherwise re the above frivolous points, they have no significance to the argument re the OP and the realist vs anti-realist issue.
They are frivolous and petty issues, that also just happen to be the frivolous and petty issues you brought up yourself as your central arguments against my detailed standpoint on the subject presented in the OP. So yes, I'm pounding the red herring fallacies that you insisted supported your case, which has now been reduced to ashes.
Your whole argument at this point to claim a winning position is merely based on the above which are frivolous matters to the main arguments of this OP.

I say again,
Regardless of what I claimed re the above or you claimed otherwise re the above frivolous points, they have no significance to the argument re the OP and the realist vs anti-realist issue.

I have never used the 'number of files' I have as a support for my arguments at all.
It would be a stupid to claim that 'I have >4500 files related to the realist vs anti-realists, therefore I win the debate.'
I do not make the above claim, but you seem to think that is the case I am claiming for.

What counts must be the contents I present in here in supporting my arguments. As I had stated I had opened up the relevant threads so that we can go into the details of each specific areas related to the debate.

If you insists, what about my challenge and bet of the facts that I've claimed re >4500 files related to the realist vs anti-realist issue, i.e. if true you pay me USD4500 and if I lose I will pay the same.
What you did is to claim you had done extensive research and not missed out anything of realist literature when I challenged you to show you could stand by your own argument that one can only give weight to a point of view that arises from primary sources. It was you who insisted on that, remember? I was supposedly lacking the proper understanding of antirealism because I had (supposedly) not read the full length of Kant's CPR and was relying on secondary sources, remember? You were the expert, so you could play the judge to decide who had the right interpretation, remember? But now you think it's just fine that you have not read much of primary realist sources and yet have an opinion on realism, because you were devoted to "reading to the abstracts, contents, prefaces, reviews". Plain hypocrisy.

The fact is that you're not familiar with any form of realism other than that which Kant presents in the CPR. You are ignorant of what scientific realism and critical realism entail, and your whole vision of the realism/anti-realism debate is impaired. That goes directly to the point of addressing the challenge in the OP: the existence of things in themselves is a transcendental condition for the possibilty of science. You can still always deny access to objects independent of our minds, but in doing so, you are necessarily committed to rejecting science. You cannot understand this because you're still stuck with Kant's account of realism (the one that was possible at his time).
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12235
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Conde Lucanor wrote: Sat Oct 09, 2021 3:55 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Oct 03, 2021 8:43 am
Conde Lucanor wrote: Sat Oct 02, 2021 11:20 pm
They are frivolous and petty issues, that also just happen to be the frivolous and petty issues you brought up yourself as your central arguments against my detailed standpoint on the subject presented in the OP. So yes, I'm pounding the red herring fallacies that you insisted supported your case, which has now been reduced to ashes.
Your whole argument at this point to claim a winning position is merely based on the above which are frivolous matters to the main arguments of this OP.

I say again,
Regardless of what I claimed re the above or you claimed otherwise re the above frivolous points, they have no significance to the argument re the OP and the realist vs anti-realist issue.

I have never used the 'number of files' I have as a support for my arguments at all.
It would be a stupid to claim that 'I have >4500 files related to the realist vs anti-realists, therefore I win the debate.'
I do not make the above claim, but you seem to think that is the case I am claiming for.

What counts must be the contents I present in here in supporting my arguments. As I had stated I had opened up the relevant threads so that we can go into the details of each specific areas related to the debate.

If you insists, what about my challenge and bet of the facts that I've claimed re >4500 files related to the realist vs anti-realist issue, i.e. if true you pay me USD4500 and if I lose I will pay the same.
What you did is to claim you had done extensive research and not missed out anything of realist literature when I challenged you to show you could stand by your own argument that one can only give weight to a point of view that arises from primary sources. It was you who insisted on that, remember? I was supposedly lacking the proper understanding of antirealism because I had (supposedly) not read the full length of Kant's CPR and was relying on secondary sources, remember? You were the expert, so you could play the judge to decide who had the right interpretation, remember? But now you think it's just fine that you have not read much of primary realist sources and yet have an opinion on realism, because you were devoted to "reading to the abstracts, contents, prefaces, reviews". Plain hypocrisy.
You are misrepresenting what I actually claimed.

I never claimed "not missed out anything of realist literature".
What I claimed is I have done extensive research [1000s of files I have as a clue-ONLY] on the debate between realist versus anti-realist to under the core issues involved.
I have already raised my thread based on the core issues.

From what you have posted I inferred you have not done sufficient research on the debate between philosophical realism vs anti-philosophical_realism.
My point was, if you have read and understood Kant's CPR from the original source you would have readily understand the core issues.
The secondary sources you have so far referenced are very bias.
The fact is that you're not familiar with any form of realism other than that which Kant presents in the CPR. You are ignorant of what scientific realism and critical realism entail, and your whole vision of the realism/anti-realism debate is impaired. That goes directly to the point of addressing the challenge in the OP: the existence of things in themselves is a transcendental condition for the possibilty of science. You can still always deny access to objects independent of our minds, but in doing so, you are necessarily committed to rejecting science. You cannot understand this because you're still stuck with Kant's account of realism (the one that was possible at his time).
My point is once one has mastered Kant's CPR one would grasp the core issue of the realist vs anti-realist debate.
I have done so and in addition done extensive research into the various debates and views from both realists and anti-realist.

The two major schools of Western philosophy is that of the Anglo-American [which is mainly realist] and that of the Continental [which is mainly anti-realist]. You seem to be ignorant of this point? I have 1000s of files covering each of the two main schools, thus would have been engrossed with the realist vs anti-realist issues.

On top of that my forte is in Eastern Philosophy and the same realist and anti-realist separation also exist therein.

You can keep shouting I am ignorant of the realist vs anti-realist debates and issues, I will not give a damn, since I have already presented my facts on the point.

Btw, your Critical Realism and Scientific Realism are merely subsets of the main theme of the realist vs anti-realist debate.
I have also presented how 'Critical Realism' originated from Kant via Marx [bet you are ignorant of this?].
Scientific Realism [very contentious] is also a fringe with its fundamental of Philosophical Realism.
Realizing they are on the fringe from my earlier reading of them, I have not bothered too much to focus on them.

Btw, since you are so adamant to push these fringe realisms as mainstream [wrongly] I have refreshed and researched into them more substantially. Note the threads I have raised related to these subjects and awaiting your response to substantiate your claims therein.
You could, in the Bhaskar thread, present your claim that Bhaskar's Scientific Realism is the true representation of realism and justify why that is true; in addition justify how Bhaskar justified Kant's anti-realism is bullshit, therefore his Scientific realism is true.

Btw, it is a fact I have the number of files I claimed to have [..I have proposed a challenge to that]. Even me or anyone claimed to have a million of files, that is not critical at all to support any claim. This is so obvious.
What is critical is the arguments must supported by references from recognized sources.
User avatar
Conde Lucanor
Posts: 846
Joined: Mon Nov 04, 2013 2:59 am

Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

Post by Conde Lucanor »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Oct 11, 2021 8:56 am
Conde Lucanor wrote: Sat Oct 09, 2021 3:55 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Oct 03, 2021 8:43 am
Your whole argument at this point to claim a winning position is merely based on the above which are frivolous matters to the main arguments of this OP.

I say again,
Regardless of what I claimed re the above or you claimed otherwise re the above frivolous points, they have no significance to the argument re the OP and the realist vs anti-realist issue.

I have never used the 'number of files' I have as a support for my arguments at all.
It would be a stupid to claim that 'I have >4500 files related to the realist vs anti-realists, therefore I win the debate.'
I do not make the above claim, but you seem to think that is the case I am claiming for.

What counts must be the contents I present in here in supporting my arguments. As I had stated I had opened up the relevant threads so that we can go into the details of each specific areas related to the debate.

If you insists, what about my challenge and bet of the facts that I've claimed re >4500 files related to the realist vs anti-realist issue, i.e. if true you pay me USD4500 and if I lose I will pay the same.
What you did is to claim you had done extensive research and not missed out anything of realist literature when I challenged you to show you could stand by your own argument that one can only give weight to a point of view that arises from primary sources. It was you who insisted on that, remember? I was supposedly lacking the proper understanding of antirealism because I had (supposedly) not read the full length of Kant's CPR and was relying on secondary sources, remember? You were the expert, so you could play the judge to decide who had the right interpretation, remember? But now you think it's just fine that you have not read much of primary realist sources and yet have an opinion on realism, because you were devoted to "reading to the abstracts, contents, prefaces, reviews". Plain hypocrisy.
You are misrepresenting what I actually claimed.

I never claimed "not missed out anything of realist literature".
What I claimed is I have done extensive research [1000s of files I have as a clue-ONLY] on the debate between realist versus anti-realist to under the core issues involved.
I have already raised my thread based on the core issues.
Nope. I have not misrepresented anything. It is clear as a bright day of summer that you argued from your supposed authority on the issue based on what you called and keep calling “extensive research”, but when I demonstrated that you lack knowledge of key developments in the philosophical debate that directly challenge the Kantian position at its core, you started backpedaling. But OK, let’s just forget about the irrelevant “1000 files in your computer”, since they don’t bring any support, as per your own admission, to a complete comprehension of realist literature. If you have no complete knowledge of realist literature, then you cannot claim you have done extensive research.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Oct 11, 2021 8:56 am From what you have posted I inferred you have not done sufficient research on the debate between philosophical realism vs anti-philosophical_realism.
My point was, if you have read and understood Kant's CPR from the original source you would have readily understand the core issues.
The secondary sources you have so far referenced are very bias.
How can you call bias sources that you haven’t even read? In this context, what is an un unbias source anyway? Do they happen to be by any chance those that are biased towards Kant and your own position?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Oct 11, 2021 8:56 am
The fact is that you're not familiar with any form of realism other than that which Kant presents in the CPR. You are ignorant of what scientific realism and critical realism entail, and your whole vision of the realism/anti-realism debate is impaired. That goes directly to the point of addressing the challenge in the OP: the existence of things in themselves is a transcendental condition for the possibilty of science. You can still always deny access to objects independent of our minds, but in doing so, you are necessarily committed to rejecting science. You cannot understand this because you're still stuck with Kant's account of realism (the one that was possible at his time).
My point is once one has mastered Kant's CPR one would grasp the core issue of the realist vs anti-realist debate.
I have done so and in addition done extensive research into the various debates and views from both realists and anti-realist.
Actually, that’s not a point. Saying that your argument is true because those who challenge it have not yet “mastered” the truth, is a classic dogmatic position and a major fallacy.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Oct 11, 2021 8:56 am The two major schools of Western philosophy is that of the Anglo-American [which is mainly realist] and that of the Continental [which is mainly anti-realist]. You seem to be ignorant of this point? I have 1000s of files covering each of the two main schools, thus would have been engrossed with the realist vs anti-realist issues.
Also not a point there. It is not you who decide what is the Western canon in which no other source unknown by you will not fit.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Oct 11, 2021 8:56 am On top of that my forte is in Eastern Philosophy and the same realist and anti-realist separation also exist therein.
I couldn’t care less for that even if it were true. My forte is challenging nonsense like that, for which there are quite a lot of supporting sources.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Oct 11, 2021 8:56 am
Btw, your Critical Realism and Scientific Realism are merely subsets of the main theme of the realist vs anti-realist debate.
They actually point to the core issues of the debate. Can we start calling empirical realism a subset of a main theme too? How about Transcendental Idealism? Is it a subset of Idealism?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Oct 11, 2021 8:56 am I have also presented how 'Critical Realism' originated from Kant via Marx [bet you are ignorant of this?].
Scientific Realism [very contentious] is also a fringe with its fundamental of Philosophical Realism.
Realizing they are on the fringe from my earlier reading of them, I have not bothered too much to focus on them.

Btw, since you are so adamant to push these fringe realisms as mainstream [wrongly] I have refreshed and researched into them more substantially. Note the threads I have raised related to these subjects and awaiting your response to substantiate your claims therein.
You could, in the Bhaskar thread, present your claim that Bhaskar's Scientific Realism is the true representation of realism and justify why that is true; in addition justify how Bhaskar justified Kant's anti-realism is bullshit, therefore his Scientific realism is true.
I’ve been away from the forum for quite a while, but I’ll look into any of the topics you claim you have started to focus on now and you had not before.
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

Post by Age »

A conscious or aware being exists with a human body.

This being arises or exists solely because of or as a result of a human body sensing and experiencing 'the world', also known as the 'Reality' around it.

The human body did not just come to exist from nothing. The human body came to exist from at least two things coming-together, and maybe literally if one likes.

Now these two other 'things', human bodies, coming-together, both came from at least two other things coming-together, and each of them cominig got exist, with each pair come to exist from another pair, continually back to when the earth, which, obviously, existed, in Reality, Itself, also.

So, all of this 'matter' coming-together causing Creation, Itself, is the Reality-in-Itself existing.

If this has not proven, 'An independent Reality-in-Itself existing', then why not?
Atla
Posts: 6607
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

Post by Atla »

Conde Lucanor wrote: Thu Feb 29, 2024 12:46 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Oct 11, 2021 8:56 am
Conde Lucanor wrote: Sat Oct 09, 2021 3:55 am

What you did is to claim you had done extensive research and not missed out anything of realist literature when I challenged you to show you could stand by your own argument that one can only give weight to a point of view that arises from primary sources. It was you who insisted on that, remember? I was supposedly lacking the proper understanding of antirealism because I had (supposedly) not read the full length of Kant's CPR and was relying on secondary sources, remember? You were the expert, so you could play the judge to decide who had the right interpretation, remember? But now you think it's just fine that you have not read much of primary realist sources and yet have an opinion on realism, because you were devoted to "reading to the abstracts, contents, prefaces, reviews". Plain hypocrisy.
You are misrepresenting what I actually claimed.

I never claimed "not missed out anything of realist literature".
What I claimed is I have done extensive research [1000s of files I have as a clue-ONLY] on the debate between realist versus anti-realist to under the core issues involved.
I have already raised my thread based on the core issues.
Nope. I have not misrepresented anything. It is clear as a bright day of summer that you argued from your supposed authority on the issue based on what you called and keep calling “extensive research”, but when I demonstrated that you lack knowledge of key developments in the philosophical debate that directly challenge the Kantian position at its core, you started backpedaling. But OK, let’s just forget about the irrelevant “1000 files in your computer”, since they don’t bring any support, as per your own admission, to a complete comprehension of realist literature. If you have no complete knowledge of realist literature, then you cannot claim you have done extensive research.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Oct 11, 2021 8:56 am From what you have posted I inferred you have not done sufficient research on the debate between philosophical realism vs anti-philosophical_realism.
My point was, if you have read and understood Kant's CPR from the original source you would have readily understand the core issues.
The secondary sources you have so far referenced are very bias.
How can you call bias sources that you haven’t even read? In this context, what is an un unbias source anyway? Do they happen to be by any chance those that are biased towards Kant and your own position?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Oct 11, 2021 8:56 am
The fact is that you're not familiar with any form of realism other than that which Kant presents in the CPR. You are ignorant of what scientific realism and critical realism entail, and your whole vision of the realism/anti-realism debate is impaired. That goes directly to the point of addressing the challenge in the OP: the existence of things in themselves is a transcendental condition for the possibilty of science. You can still always deny access to objects independent of our minds, but in doing so, you are necessarily committed to rejecting science. You cannot understand this because you're still stuck with Kant's account of realism (the one that was possible at his time).
My point is once one has mastered Kant's CPR one would grasp the core issue of the realist vs anti-realist debate.
I have done so and in addition done extensive research into the various debates and views from both realists and anti-realist.
Actually, that’s not a point. Saying that your argument is true because those who challenge it have not yet “mastered” the truth, is a classic dogmatic position and a major fallacy.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Oct 11, 2021 8:56 am The two major schools of Western philosophy is that of the Anglo-American [which is mainly realist] and that of the Continental [which is mainly anti-realist]. You seem to be ignorant of this point? I have 1000s of files covering each of the two main schools, thus would have been engrossed with the realist vs anti-realist issues.
Also not a point there. It is not you who decide what is the Western canon in which no other source unknown by you will not fit.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Oct 11, 2021 8:56 am On top of that my forte is in Eastern Philosophy and the same realist and anti-realist separation also exist therein.
I couldn’t care less for that even if it were true. My forte is challenging nonsense like that, for which there are quite a lot of supporting sources.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Oct 11, 2021 8:56 am
Btw, your Critical Realism and Scientific Realism are merely subsets of the main theme of the realist vs anti-realist debate.
They actually point to the core issues of the debate. Can we start calling empirical realism a subset of a main theme too? How about Transcendental Idealism? Is it a subset of Idealism?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Oct 11, 2021 8:56 am I have also presented how 'Critical Realism' originated from Kant via Marx [bet you are ignorant of this?].
Scientific Realism [very contentious] is also a fringe with its fundamental of Philosophical Realism.
Realizing they are on the fringe from my earlier reading of them, I have not bothered too much to focus on them.

Btw, since you are so adamant to push these fringe realisms as mainstream [wrongly] I have refreshed and researched into them more substantially. Note the threads I have raised related to these subjects and awaiting your response to substantiate your claims therein.
You could, in the Bhaskar thread, present your claim that Bhaskar's Scientific Realism is the true representation of realism and justify why that is true; in addition justify how Bhaskar justified Kant's anti-realism is bullshit, therefore his Scientific realism is true.
I’ve been away from the forum for quite a while, but I’ll look into any of the topics you claim you have started to focus on now and you had not before.
Since the 18th century, we had plenty of time to move on from naive realism. I tried hard to make VA understand the view of indirect perception and indirect realism, which is now standard in science and psychology.

That while what we experience as reality, is probably a construct in the head dependent on VA's "human conditions", this construct is probably embedded in an objectively existing wider reality that's largely unrelated to the "human conditions".

Turns out VA is literally incapable of even imagining this view. He just can't do it. Forever stuck in the naive realism vs Kant's refutation of naive realism debate.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12235
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Atla wrote: Thu Feb 29, 2024 5:26 am Since the 18th century, we had plenty of time to move on from naive realism. I tried hard to make VA understand the view of indirect perception and indirect realism, which is now standard in science and psychology.
What has the above to prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists?
It has never been the purpose of science and psychology to prove the above.
That while what we experience as reality, is probably a construct in the head dependent on VA's "human conditions", this construct is probably embedded in an objectively existing wider reality that's largely unrelated to the "human conditions".

Turns out VA is literally incapable of even imagining this view. He just can't do it. Forever stuck in the naive realism vs Kant's refutation of naive realism debate.
Are you familiar with Hume's refutation of causation?

You are assuming whatever exists or constructed, there is an ultimate cause, i.e. "an objectively existing wider reality that's largely unrelated to the "human conditions" to stop an inevitable infinite regress.
Hume had argued there is no real causation thus no ultimately objective existing wider reality that is unrelated to the "human conditions".

Hume argued whatever is deemed as causation is grounded on the human conditions, i.e. constant conjunction, habits and customs. The ultimate basis of causation is a psychological issue, not an epistemological or ontological issue.

Do you have any argument to refute Hume's view on causation?

While the view "ultimately objective existing wider reality that is unrelated to the "human conditions" " has some pros, Kant had demonstrated its cons outweigh its limited pros, thus Kant proposed his Copernican Revolution to counter the cons and promote further pros for the benefits of humans toward the future.
Post Reply