All Philosophies Reduced to Realism vs Idealism

[Atla]

I wonder whether people who are lost in the realism vs anti-realism issue even understand that human consciousness is representational ?
That there is a model of the world in our head and we experience that model

There is an external mind independent reality that exists outside our head
There is an internal mind dependent model of reality that exists inside our head
The model in our head is also a part of the reality that exists outside our head when viewed from a Gods eye perspective

So from an objective perspective [ the only true perspective ] we are also a part of reality
Reality is therefore not just something OUT THERE but also something IN HERE [ taps head ]

From my perspective everyones internal mind is a part of the reality OUT THERE
But from their perspective my internal mind is also a part of the reality OUT THERE

This is why reality must be treated as a single albeit ever changing entity in order to avoid confusing the internal with the external
Also as human beings we like to compartmentalise and put things into boxes but reality is just one continuous stream of existence

However in the grand scheme of things we know so little about reality
Trying to fully understand it is simply beyond us but we do what we can

Like all species we will eventually become extinct and so that will be the exact point at which our knowledge will stop
Currently the Standard Model Of Particle Physics can only account for a mere four per cent of the observable Universe
And so we cannot explain ninety six per cent of what we can actually observe and a hundred per cent of what we cannot observe
We just do what we can - the Universe will eventually outlive us by many orders of magnitude - while we will be less than atoms

Correct

[Atla]

Reality is BOTH inside and outside the human mind depending on perspective / reality is material [ if it was immaterial then it would not exist ]

I mean that it's not made of matter as matter is normally concieved, not that it doesn't exist. Here material is contrasted with mental, not immaterial.

Reality is BOTH indistinguishable and distinguishable from human understanding although ultimately everything is connected to everything else
Perception reality IS mentally constituted because perception IS mental [ how can it not be ]

Idealism says that everything is mentally constituted, not just perception. It's a basic misunderstanding of what perception is.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Don't drag me into this stupid fucking thread.

Just say you don't have any rational counter to the above.

I explained my position on the subject quite adequately in the other topics where I explicitly told you this topic is not important.

And I also don't need a lecture in effective debate from somebody who never manages to make their premises support their conclusion. This thread being a case in point....

Your claim proceedes from:
P1 "all philosophies are said to fall into one of two primary categories"
And then progresses through:
P2 "whichever philosophical stance one take, it is reducible to either Realism [Philosophical] or Idealism"
To a conclusion...
C1"Thus to debate effectively one must be able to reduce one's "form" of philosophy to its "substance" else it would be mess to tangle with merely the varied "forms" and not dealing with its roots the substance."

What is critical is P1.
Note I provided a link to support my premises P1, i.e.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism#Overview

I gave some indication as to what is 'materialism' and is parallel to Philosophical Realism
"Materialism" is Philosophical Materialism aka Philosophical Realism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

In addition, I have also highlighted idealism, the contrast to Philosophical Realism.

As usual, I cannot and don't want to waste time on too much details.
If you have a broad knowledge of Philosophy you will definite understand what I intend to present [Principle of Charity].

If you are in the know, what you need to do is to throw in a spanner to my argument and show which school of philosophy cannot fit into the above dichotomy?

You have a distinctly faulty premise in this case, merely being descriptively assigned to one of two categories doesn't make something reducible to that category. Cats fall into two categories: those that purr, and those that growl. Simba the Lion cannot be reduce to his growl, and my cat Mister GreasyButtsex does not reduce to his purr.

Your above is rhetorical.
The dichotomy between Philosophical Realism and Philosophical ANTI-Realism is very distinct and self-explanatory.
This is like theism and atheism, so it is either or but it is at the utmost fundamental level.
As I stated, show me one school of philosophy that does not belong the either one or the other.

And you have an arguably faulty one as well, the grouping into idealist and materialist schools is only really relevant when materialism and idealism are relevant. But they don't matter all that much to me, and many others don't care either, you get the same world where action precedes reaction and so on either way, so it's not really something that everyone has to obsess over.

It is not the point of whether it is materialism or idealism, but the main point here is,
does the essence of the said philosophy entails the claim
the 'given object' is independent and not entangled with the human conditions.

Note Kant's [Anti-realist] Challenge to the prove the existence of the external world which was taken up by GE Moore [Philosophical Realist] which was not a successful attempt.

Proof of an External World
G. E. Moore

1. In the preface to the second edition of Kant's Critique of Pure Reason some words occur, which, in Professor Kemp Smith's translation, are rendered as follows:

• It still remains a scandal to philosophy. . . that the existence of things outside of us. . . must be accepted merely on faith, and that, if anyone thinks good to doubt their existence, we are unable to counter his doubts by any satisfactory proof.1

2. It seems clear from these words that Kant thought it a matter of some importance to give a proof of "the existence of things outside of us" or perhaps rather (for it seems to me possible that the force of the German words is better rendered in this way) of "the existence of the things outside of us"; for had he not thought it important that a proof should be given, he would scarcely have called it a "scandal" that no proof had been given. And it seems clear also that he thought that the giving of such a proof was a task which fell properly within the province of philosophy; for, if it did not, the fact that no proof had been given could not possibly be a scandal to philosophy.
http://web.csulb.edu/~cwallis/382/readi ... Proof.html

Moore's Argument From Wiki;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Here_is_one_hand

But the worst thing here, is that your conclusion is unsupported by its premises yet again. If your premises had been good enough to demonstrate that a reduction to two schools were possible, that alone wouldn't justify any assumption that it was required, or that it was useful. Some wishy washy nonsense about roots won't do that for you.

I can't be taking lectures in what philosophy is all about from somebody whose work is as shoddy as yours.

The contention is merely P1 which sufficient but I had explained above why it is not presented in details.

The dichotomy is critical to expose your fact as fact is ultimately illusory and limited to one or two perspectives, as you claimed it is ONLY from the common language perspective.
To ground your 'fact' on "common language" is laughable.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I wonder whether people who are lost in the realism vs anti-realism issue even understand that human consciousness is representational ?
That there is a model of the world in our head and we experience that model

There is an external-mind-independent-reality that exists outside our head.
There is an internal-mind-dependent model of reality that exists inside our head.
The model in our head is also a part of the reality that exists outside our head when viewed from a Gods eye perspective.

So from an objective perspective [ the only true perspective ] we are also a part of reality
Reality is therefore not just something OUT THERE but also something IN HERE [ taps head ]

From my perspective everyones internal mind is a part of the reality OUT THERE
But from their perspective my internal mind is also a part of the reality OUT THERE

This is why reality must be treated as a single albeit ever changing entity in order to avoid confusing the internal with the external
Also as human beings we like to compartmentalise and put things into boxes but reality is just one continuous stream of existence

How come your sentences do not have a full-stop.

I agree to the above to an extent.

I'll re-present the above as;

• 1. There is an external-mind-independent-reality that exists outside our head.
  2. There is an internal-mind-dependent model of reality that exists inside our head that projects [1] an external-mind-independent-reality that exists outside our head.

What is reality is an emergence.
Note this thread that I read.
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=28671

There is no need to bring in God or God's perspective which will drive one into the illusory world.

All one need is to deal with what emerges, i.e. the given world, universe, self, thoughts, etc. which the self is entangled with.

[Atla]

How come your sentences do not have a full-stop.

I agree to the above to an extent.

I'll re-present the above as;

• 1. There is an external-mind-independent-reality that exists outside our head.
  2. There is an internal-mind-dependent model of reality that exists inside our head that projects [1] an external-mind-independent-reality that exists outside our head.

What is reality is an emergence.
Note this thread that I read.
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=28671

There is no need to bring in God or God's perspective which will drive one into the illusory world.

All one need is to deal with what emerges, i.e. the given world, universe, self, thoughts, etc. which the self is entangled with.

A model is a model, not an emergence, genius.

God's perspective is an expression for objectivity here, it has nothing to do with God, genius. You are the one always mixing them like a religious fanatic.

[Skepdick]

The purpose of such models is to map as accurately as possible inside our head the mind independent reality that is outside of them
It will never be perfect although from a Gods eye perspective there is actually no distinction between the external and the internal

What if model accuracy is not necessary for a particular purpose?

[Atla]

I wonder whether people who are lost in the realism vs anti-realism issue, even understand that human consciousness is representational? That there is a model of the world in our head, and we experience that model.

Reality is NOT independent of the human mind; reality is NOT material.
Reality is NOT indistinguishable from human understanding and/or perception; reality is NOT mentally constituted.

I wonder whether people understand what the purpose/utility of mentally constructed representational models is.

That would be a model within the model I'm speaking of; once again you are not even wrong.

[Skepdick]

That would be a model within the model I'm speaking of; once again you are not even wrong.

Why? Didn't they teach you about encapsulaton in your computer science class?

Man... you got ripped off!

[FlashDangerpants]

Just say you don't have any rational counter to the above.

I explained my position on the subject quite adequately in the other topics where I explicitly told you this topic is not important.

And I also don't need a lecture in effective debate from somebody who never manages to make their premises support their conclusion. This thread being a case in point....

Your claim proceedes from:
P1 "all philosophies are said to fall into one of two primary categories"
And then progresses through:
P2 "whichever philosophical stance one take, it is reducible to either Realism [Philosophical] or Idealism"
To a conclusion...
C1"Thus to debate effectively one must be able to reduce one's "form" of philosophy to its "substance" else it would be mess to tangle with merely the varied "forms" and not dealing with its roots the substance."

What is critical is P1.
Note I provided a link to support my premises P1, i.e.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism#Overview

I gave some indication as to what is 'materialism' and is parallel to Philosophical Realism
"Materialism" is Philosophical Materialism aka Philosophical Realism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

In addition, I have also highlighted idealism, the contrast to Philosophical Realism.

As usual, I cannot and don't want to waste time on too much details.
If you have a broad knowledge of Philosophy you will definite understand what I intend to present [Principle of Charity].

If you are in the know, what you need to do is to throw in a spanner to my argument and show which school of philosophy cannot fit into the above dichotomy?

Fine, the FlashDanger school of philosophy is agnostic on this subject because the questions involved are based on misunderstandings of concepts, and actually everything works just fine whether you choose to conceptualise the universe in materialist or idealist terms.

You have a distinctly faulty premise in this case, merely being descriptively assigned to one of two categories doesn't make something reducible to that category. Cats fall into two categories: those that purr, and those that growl. Simba the Lion cannot be reduce to his growl, and my cat Mister GreasyButtsex does not reduce to his purr.

Your above is rhetorical.
The dichotomy between Philosophical Realism and Philosophical ANTI-Realism is very distinct and self-explanatory.
This is like theism and atheism, so it is either or but it is at the utmost fundamental level.
As I stated, show me one school of philosophy that does not belong the either one or the other.

The dichotomy between cats that growl and cats that purr is very real. The belief that one is important and the other not important has no bearing on my point. Merely belonging to a category does not entail reduction to that category.

You occupy many categories as a living breathing human being, to keep this conversation polite I will pretend that "philosopher" is one of them. But you cannot be reduced to your philosophy, you have important other categories to exist in such as 'rabid hater of a specific religion'. I can't very well reduce you your islamaphobia and reduce you to your philosophy, those are contradictory reductions. I mean if all of your philosophising is merely footnotes to your vendetta against Islam, then I guess that specific contradiction is resolved, in which case some other category to which you belong still won't be.

And you have an arguably faulty one as well, the grouping into idealist and materialist schools is only really relevant when materialism and idealism are relevant. But they don't matter all that much to me, and many others don't care either, you get the same world where action precedes reaction and so on either way, so it's not really something that everyone has to obsess over.

It is not the point of whether it is materialism or idealism, but the main point here is,
does the essence of the said philosophy entails the claim
the 'given object' is independent and not entangled with the human conditions.

A bigger question would be what does that claim actually mean? It is not a question I can be bothered doing with you though.

Note Kant's [Anti-realist] Challenge to the prove the existence of the external world which was taken up by GE Moore [Philosophical Realist] which was not a successful attempt.

Proof of an External World
G. E. Moore

1. In the preface to the second edition of Kant's Critique of Pure Reason some words occur, which, in Professor Kemp Smith's translation, are rendered as follows:

• It still remains a scandal to philosophy. . . that the existence of things outside of us. . . must be accepted merely on faith, and that, if anyone thinks good to doubt their existence, we are unable to counter his doubts by any satisfactory proof.1

2. It seems clear from these words that Kant thought it a matter of some importance to give a proof of "the existence of things outside of us" or perhaps rather (for it seems to me possible that the force of the German words is better rendered in this way) of "the existence of the things outside of us"; for had he not thought it important that a proof should be given, he would scarcely have called it a "scandal" that no proof had been given. And it seems clear also that he thought that the giving of such a proof was a task which fell properly within the province of philosophy; for, if it did not, the fact that no proof had been given could not possibly be a scandal to philosophy.
http://web.csulb.edu/~cwallis/382/readi ... Proof.html

Moore's Argument From Wiki;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Here_is_one_hand

Yeah. Well see Wittgenstein for a better solution.

But the worst thing here, is that your conclusion is unsupported by its premises yet again. If your premises had been good enough to demonstrate that a reduction to two schools were possible, that alone wouldn't justify any assumption that it was required, or that it was useful. Some wishy washy nonsense about roots won't do that for you.

I can't be taking lectures in what philosophy is all about from somebody whose work is as shoddy as yours.

The contention is merely P1 which sufficient but I had explained above why it is not presented in details.

The dichotomy is critical to expose your fact as fact is ultimately illusory and limited to one or two perspectives, as you claimed it is ONLY from the common language perspective.
To ground your 'fact' on "common language" is laughable.

To express your argument about fact, you have to use the word fact, and if you can't use the shared meaning of that word as understood by your audience, you are expressing a non-shared meaning, which invalidates your utterances. You are expressing ideas that can only be meaningfully understood if they are false.

[surreptitious57]

There is no need to bring in God or Gods perspective which will drive one into the illusory world

It is just a figure of speech and so is not meant to be taken literally as I dont actually believe in God
It simply means to look at reality more objectively from the outside even though that is not possible

[surreptitious57]

What if model accuracy is not necessary for a particular purpose

Then that purpose would be relatively trivial by comparison but for the serious business
of existence or survival and knowledge acquisition it needs to be as accurate as possible

[Veritas Aequitas]

I explained my position on the subject quite adequately in the other topics where I explicitly told you this topic is not important.

And I also don't need a lecture in effective debate from somebody who never manages to make their premises support their conclusion. This thread being a case in point....

Your claim proceedes from:
P1 "all philosophies are said to fall into one of two primary categories"
And then progresses through:
P2 "whichever philosophical stance one take, it is reducible to either Realism [Philosophical] or Idealism"
To a conclusion...
C1"Thus to debate effectively one must be able to reduce one's "form" of philosophy to its "substance" else it would be mess to tangle with merely the varied "forms" and not dealing with its roots the substance."

What is critical is P1.
Note I provided a link to support my premises P1, i.e.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism#Overview

I gave some indication as to what is 'materialism' and is parallel to Philosophical Realism
"Materialism" is Philosophical Materialism aka Philosophical Realism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

In addition, I have also highlighted idealism, the contrast to Philosophical Realism.

As usual, I cannot and don't want to waste time on too much details.
If you have a broad knowledge of Philosophy you will definite understand what I intend to present [Principle of Charity].

If you are in the know, what you need to do is to throw in a spanner to my argument and show which school of philosophy cannot fit into the above dichotomy?

Fine, the FlashDanger school of philosophy is agnostic on this subject because the questions involved are based on misunderstandings of concepts, and actually everything works just fine whether you choose to conceptualise the universe in materialist or idealist terms.

If you an agnostic, by default you belong to the anti-realist school.
If you are an anti-realist, there is no way you can ground your 'fact is fact' thus never a value or evaluative.
That is because the 'referent' [term imply Philosophical Realism] of your fact has to be independent of your description of it and independent of yourself. That is essentially Philosophical Realism.

You have a distinctly faulty premise in this case, merely being descriptively assigned to one of two categories doesn't make something reducible to that category. Cats fall into two categories: those that purr, and those that growl. Simba the Lion cannot be reduce to his growl, and my cat Mister GreasyButtsex does not reduce to his purr.

Your above is rhetorical.
The dichotomy between Philosophical Realism and Philosophical ANTI-Realism is very distinct and self-explanatory.
This is like theism and atheism, so it is either or but it is at the utmost fundamental level.
As I stated, show me one school of philosophy that does not belong the either one or the other.

The dichotomy between cats that growl and cats that purr is very real. The belief that one is important and the other not important has no bearing on my point. Merely belonging to a category does not entail reduction to that category.

The above is not a good analogy.
I note all cats [species] purr ["happy"] and growl ["angry"], it is just a matter of degrees.
If done, this can be verified from fMRI imagings of the cats [species] activities in relation to the parts of the brain that are activated for purring and growling.

Biggest Cat That Purrs And Meows
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXhfZRE08ko

You occupy many categories as a living breathing human being, to keep this conversation polite I will pretend that "philosopher" is one of them. But you cannot be reduced to your philosophy, you have important other categories to exist in such as 'rabid hater of a specific religion'.
I can't very well reduce you your islamaphobia and reduce you to your philosophy, those are contradictory reductions. I mean if all of your philosophising is merely footnotes to your vendetta against Islam, then I guess that specific contradiction is resolved, in which case some other category to which you belong still won't be.

All human actions are reducible the inherent program to survive.
My philosophy [all divisions of it] is reduced to philosophical anti-realism.

To resort to the term 'Islamophobia' indicate your low level of philosophical reasoning and integrity drawn by the mob thinking.
There is genuine RATIONAL fears and threat from the core ideology of Islam and the commands of Allah which will influence a critical quantum of evil prone Muslims to commit terrible evil acts upon non-believers, as such, Islamophobia is an oxymoron.

And you have an arguably faulty one as well, the grouping into idealist and materialist schools is only really relevant when materialism and idealism are relevant. But they don't matter all that much to me, and many others don't care either, you get the same world where action precedes reaction and so on either way, so it's not really something that everyone has to obsess over.

It is not the point of whether it is materialism or idealism, but the main point here is,
does the essence of the said philosophy entails the claim
the 'given object' is independent and not entangled with the human conditions.

A bigger question would be what does that claim actually mean? It is not a question I can be bothered doing with you though.

This is so fundamental and your ignoring of it is due to ignorance.

Note Kant's [Anti-realist] Challenge to the prove the existence of the external world which was taken up by GE Moore [Philosophical Realist] which was not a successful attempt.

Proof of an External World
G. E. Moore

1. In the preface to the second edition of Kant's Critique of Pure Reason some words occur, which, in Professor Kemp Smith's translation, are rendered as follows:

• It still remains a scandal to philosophy. . . that the existence of things outside of us. . . must be accepted merely on faith, and that, if anyone thinks good to doubt their existence, we are unable to counter his doubts by any satisfactory proof.1

2. It seems clear from these words that Kant thought it a matter of some importance to give a proof of "the existence of things outside of us" or perhaps rather (for it seems to me possible that the force of the German words is better rendered in this way) of "the existence of the things outside of us"; for had he not thought it important that a proof should be given, he would scarcely have called it a "scandal" that no proof had been given. And it seems clear also that he thought that the giving of such a proof was a task which fell properly within the province of philosophy; for, if it did not, the fact that no proof had been given could not possibly be a scandal to philosophy.
http://web.csulb.edu/~cwallis/382/readi ... Proof.html

Moore's Argument From Wiki;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Here_is_one_hand

Yeah. Well see Wittgenstein for a better solution.

I have read the later-Wittgenstein 'On Certainty' quite thoroughly some time ago [need to refresh].
What I noted is the later-Wittgenstein was not the analytic philosopher he was in his earlier years.
I understood, the later-Wittgenstein would not agree a fact is an independent fact by itself propped by language only, but it is related and entangled with the human conditions. You dispute that, show me why?

But the worst thing here, is that your conclusion is unsupported by its premises yet again. If your premises had been good enough to demonstrate that a reduction to two schools were possible, that alone wouldn't justify any assumption that it was required, or that it was useful. Some wishy washy nonsense about roots won't do that for you.

I can't be taking lectures in what philosophy is all about from somebody whose work is as shoddy as yours.

The contention is merely P1 which sufficient but I had explained above why it is not presented in details.

The dichotomy is critical to expose your fact as fact is ultimately illusory and limited to one or two perspectives, as you claimed it is ONLY from the common language perspective.
To ground your 'fact' on "common language" is laughable.

To express your argument about fact, you have to use the word fact, and if you can't use the shared meaning of that word as understood by your audience, you are expressing a non-shared meaning, which invalidates your utterances. You are expressing ideas that can only be meaningfully understood if they are false.

"You" keep asserting but what you have forgotten and overlooked is the 'asserter's' role in all the above.

It is a fact, "You" are part and parcel of reality.
There is no two realities, i.e. 'you' and 'the external world'.
Thus in the ultimate sense* you cannot separate and disentangle the facts, words representing the fact, the referent of the fact into two realities.

Your problem is you are unable to shift to the paradigm of the ultimate sense of reality.
Why? It is because of the existential crisis that always that compelled and habitualized you to look outwards by default to the external world for food, security, warnings of threat to facilitate survival.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I explained my position on the subject quite adequately in the other topics where I explicitly told you this topic is not important.

And I also don't need a lecture in effective debate from somebody who never manages to make their premises support their conclusion. This thread being a case in point....

Your claim proceedes from:
P1 "all philosophies are said to fall into one of two primary categories"
And then progresses through:
P2 "whichever philosophical stance one take, it is reducible to either Realism [Philosophical] or Idealism"
To a conclusion...
C1"Thus to debate effectively one must be able to reduce one's "form" of philosophy to its "substance" else it would be mess to tangle with merely the varied "forms" and not dealing with its roots the substance."

What is critical is P1.
Note I provided a link to support my premises P1, i.e.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism#Overview

I gave some indication as to what is 'materialism' and is parallel to Philosophical Realism
"Materialism" is Philosophical Materialism aka Philosophical Realism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

In addition, I have also highlighted idealism, the contrast to Philosophical Realism.

As usual, I cannot and don't want to waste time on too much details.
If you have a broad knowledge of Philosophy you will definite understand what I intend to present [Principle of Charity].

If you are in the know, what you need to do is to throw in a spanner to my argument and show which school of philosophy cannot fit into the above dichotomy?

Fine, the FlashDanger school of philosophy is agnostic on this subject because the questions involved are based on misunderstandings of concepts, and actually everything works just fine whether you choose to conceptualise the universe in materialist or idealist terms.

If you an agnostic, by default you belong to the anti-realist school.
If you are an anti-realist, there is no way you can ground your 'fact is fact' thus never a value or evaluative.
That is because the 'referent' of your fact has to be independent of your description of it and independent of yourself. That is essentially Philosophical Realism.

You have a distinctly faulty premise in this case, merely being descriptively assigned to one of two categories doesn't make something reducible to that category. Cats fall into two categories: those that purr, and those that growl. Simba the Lion cannot be reduce to his growl, and my cat Mister GreasyButtsex does not reduce to his purr.

Your above is rhetorical.
The dichotomy between Philosophical Realism and Philosophical ANTI-Realism is very distinct and self-explanatory.
This is like theism and atheism, so it is either or but it is at the utmost fundamental level.
As I stated, show me one school of philosophy that does not belong the either one or the other.

The dichotomy between cats that growl and cats that purr is very real. The belief that one is important and the other not important has no bearing on my point. Merely belonging to a category does not entail reduction to that category.

The above is not a good analogy.
I note all cats purr ["happy"] and growl ["angry"], it is just a matter of degrees.

You occupy many categories as a living breathing human being, to keep this conversation polite I will pretend that "philosopher" is one of them. But you cannot be reduced to your philosophy, you have important other categories to exist in such as 'rabid hater of a specific religion'.
I can't very well reduce you your islamaphobia and reduce you to your philosophy, those are contradictory reductions. I mean if all of your philosophising is merely footnotes to your vendetta against Islam, then I guess that specific contradiction is resolved, in which case some other category to which you belong still won't be.

All human actions are reducible the inherent program to survive.
My philosophy [all divisions of it] is reduced to philosophical anti-realism.

To resort to the term 'Islamophobia' indicate your low level of philosophical reasoning and integrity drawn by the mob thinking.
There is genuine RATIONAL fears and threat from the core ideology of Islam and the commands of Allah which will influence a critical quantum of evil prone Muslims to commit terrible evil acts upon non-believers, as such, Islamophobia is an oxymoron.

And you have an arguably faulty one as well, the grouping into idealist and materialist schools is only really relevant when materialism and idealism are relevant. But they don't matter all that much to me, and many others don't care either, you get the same world where action precedes reaction and so on either way, so it's not really something that everyone has to obsess over.

It is not the point of whether it is materialism or idealism, but the main point here is,
does the essence of the said philosophy entails the claim
the 'given object' is independent and not entangled with the human conditions.

A bigger question would be what does that claim actually mean? It is not a question I can be bothered doing with you though.

This is so fundamental and your ignoring of it is due to ignorance.

Note Kant's [Anti-realist] Challenge to the prove the existence of the external world which was taken up by GE Moore [Philosophical Realist] which was not a successful attempt.

Proof of an External World
G. E. Moore

1. In the preface to the second edition of Kant's Critique of Pure Reason some words occur, which, in Professor Kemp Smith's translation, are rendered as follows:

• It still remains a scandal to philosophy. . . that the existence of things outside of us. . . must be accepted merely on faith, and that, if anyone thinks good to doubt their existence, we are unable to counter his doubts by any satisfactory proof.1

2. It seems clear from these words that Kant thought it a matter of some importance to give a proof of "the existence of things outside of us" or perhaps rather (for it seems to me possible that the force of the German words is better rendered in this way) of "the existence of the things outside of us"; for had he not thought it important that a proof should be given, he would scarcely have called it a "scandal" that no proof had been given. And it seems clear also that he thought that the giving of such a proof was a task which fell properly within the province of philosophy; for, if it did not, the fact that no proof had been given could not possibly be a scandal to philosophy.
http://web.csulb.edu/~cwallis/382/readi ... Proof.html

Moore's Argument From Wiki;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Here_is_one_hand

Yeah. Well see Wittgenstein for a better solution.

I have read the later-Wittgenstein 'On Certainty' quite thoroughly some time ago [need to refresh].
What I noted is the later-Wittgenstein was not the analytic philosopher he was in his earlier years.
I understood, the later-Wittgenstein would not agree a fact is an independent fact by itself propped by language only, but it is related and entangled with the human conditions. You dispute that, show me why?

But the worst thing here, is that your conclusion is unsupported by its premises yet again. If your premises had been good enough to demonstrate that a reduction to two schools were possible, that alone wouldn't justify any assumption that it was required, or that it was useful. Some wishy washy nonsense about roots won't do that for you.

I can't be taking lectures in what philosophy is all about from somebody whose work is as shoddy as yours.

The contention is merely P1 which sufficient but I had explained above why it is not presented in details.

The dichotomy is critical to expose your fact as fact is ultimately illusory and limited to one or two perspectives, as you claimed it is ONLY from the common language perspective.
To ground your 'fact' on "common language" is laughable.

To express your argument about fact, you have to use the word fact, and if you can't use the shared meaning of that word as understood by your audience, you are expressing a non-shared meaning, which invalidates your utterances. You are expressing ideas that can only be meaningfully understood if they are false.

"You" keep asserting but what you have forgotten and overlooked is the 'asserter's' role in all the above.

It is a fact, "You" are part and parcel of reality.
There is no two realities, i.e. 'you' and 'the external world'.
Thus in the ultimate sense* you cannot separate and disentangle the facts, words representing the fact, the referent of the fact into two realities.

Your problem is you are unable to shift to the paradigm of the ultimate sense of reality.
Why? It is because of the existential crisis that always compelled and habitualized you to look outwards by default to the external world for food, security, warnings of threat to facilitate survival.

[Skepdick]

Then that purpose would be relatively trivial by comparison but for the serious business
of existence or survival and knowledge acquisition it needs to be as accurate as possible

What if precision is not necessary for survival?

In fact, there's plenty of evidence to the contrary - your eyes are very imprecise instruments. They distort reality quite a bit - it's an adaptation given our habitat.

If they were precise - they'd probably be useless to you.

[surreptitious57]

What if precision is not necessary for survival

In fact there is plenty of evidence to the contrary - your eyes are very imprecise instruments

If they were precise - they would probably be useless

What matters is the degree of precision because being absolutely precise is not necessarily good for an organism
The precision of its sense organs therefore has to be relative to its environment in order to maximise its survival

In humans the dominant organ is actually the brain rather than the eye
This could be said for any organism but in our case it is just more true