Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Apr 05, 2021 7:57 am
Conde Lucanor wrote: ↑Mon Apr 05, 2021 2:59 am
It is never my contention that knowledge concerning disentanglement from reality, such as knowledge of things that don't exist or ceased to exist, arises from something different than entanglement with reality.
The contention here is 'does the universe exists if there are no humans'. Your claim is 'yes' while I claim 'no' in the sense of no disentanglement from human conditions.
It seems you missed that the contention '
does the universe exists if there are no humans' can be inverted to '
do humans exist if there is no universe'.
When it comes to your own answer, you add a conditional: "
no, if by existence we mean disentanglement from human conditions". But you never say if you mean necessary entanglement (for which there can't be disentanglement) or contingent entanglement/disentanglement. Things can be entangled at a given moment and disentangled at another, maintaining their independence and what they are. Things can also be entangled so that they cannot be separate without ceasing to exist completely. So you mean this: that in order for the universe to exist, it cannot be disentangled, separate from humans.
But your claim that the universe exists only if there are humans, comes with a self-defeating feature: you claim "there are" humans, that they do exist. Let's revisit the two criteria mentioned above: 1) do you mean that humans exist in the sense of being themselves necessarily entangled with humans, so that if they were separate they cease to exist? That evidently cancels humans, the proposition being self-referential, and you're in trouble. 2) Do you mean that humans exist in the sense that while they are contingently entangled with other humans, they can disentangle at any given moment, and maintain their independence and what they are? This will get you in more trouble: since any human would be a mind-independent reality for the perceiving subject, and each perceived human is a contingent being that begins and ceases to exist, the perceiving mind is faced with the possibility that all perceived humans ceased to exist, and yet the domain where all these humans used to exist would remain. Voilá, the universe, thrown out through the window, comes back through the door to haunt you!! But of course, you can still find an escape route, the only one left, by claiming that only one human exists, necessarily entangled with himself, and that this one and only human, being all there is, is at the same time the universe. Hello, solipsism!!
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Apr 05, 2021 7:57 am
This is reducible to the the contention between Philosophical Realism versus Philosophical Anti-Realism, mine is Empirical Realism aka Transcendental Idealism.
I am arguing Philosophical Realism is not realistic nor tenable.
I believe I have raised a thread for my claim and in various threads.
Yours, as it is easily shown, is good old phenomenalism, but there are different forms of phenomenalism. In a general sense, everyone, even the hardcore realists and materialists, acknowledges the basic epistemological principle of phenomenalism that reality is not directly given to the subject, but indirectly through the senses. We all know Kantian phenomenalism identified itself as Transcendental Idealism, which you say you endorse, however it is interesting to note that not even Kant denied the existence of things in themselves (as mind-independent objects), he was kind of agnostic about it. So, your Transcendental Idealism and Kant's don't seem to be compatible, and you take a contradictory stance when you say you believe there's an empirical reality, and then proceed to argue for solipsism.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Apr 05, 2021 7:57 am
At the same time, to assert the ontological status of everything is mind-independent must also be dependent of a particular framework.
The epistemological framework is the most credible, e.g. the scientific framework.
Thus if you are not relying an an epistemological framework then you are likely to be dependent of a lesser credible framework which in a way is still of human construct.
When you "assert the ontological status of everything is mind-independent" you are relying on the groundless "Speculative Philosophy" framework which is from a human construct.
As such whatever which way, you are stuck with the human conditions.
All systematic modes of inquiry and research have an epistemological framework in which they are grounded. When you are in epistemology, you're already in philosophy. But not all epistemological frameworks are credible and reliable. The one that departs from the first-person view of phenomenical approach and denies any ontology beyond that, is the least reliable, least credible framework, the least fruitful for our practical entanglements, and it only leads to solipsism.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Apr 05, 2021 7:57 am
Not all anti-realism are the same.
Mine is transcendental idealism which is Empirical Realism. It is likely you are not aware of this sort of anti-realism.
Empirical Realism is not "anything goes" but claim what is real must be verified and justified empirically. But since the human conditions are involved in this verification and justification, what is empirically real cannot be independent of the human conditions.
Anti-realism leads to solipsism and epistemological nihilism. Even if it ultimately refuses to acknowledge it, it ends up in the "anything goes" field.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Apr 05, 2021 7:57 am
You may not be aware,
a realist so claimed is actually a true idealist, i.e. an empirical idealist.
Because if you are either a naive realist or indirect realist, what is real to you empirically is only upon the sense-data in the mind.
You are never in touch with the supposed-real-object out there which is assumed to send waves to your brain via an intermediary which can mislead and corrupt.
There is always a reality-gap between you and the supposed[assumed] object.
Phenomenalism is not the antidote to realism and materialism that idealists crave for. Besides being a failed philosophical project, it ends up killing itself with its own poison. Kind of a systematic, slow poisoning, in which the phenomenalist in vogue destroys the previous one, starting with Kant and ending in Derrida.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Apr 05, 2021 7:57 am
Note the term 'realist' is a hijacking by some philosophers to represent their view of reality, but it does not necessary confirm what they claim as real is really real.
As I had stated, my anti-realism [opposing philosophical realism] acknowledge empirical reality of an external physical [Physics] world but this reality is overridingly encompassed within the human conditions.
The one-man universe as explained above. Solipsism.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Apr 05, 2021 7:57 am
Note my point above, whatever is ontological [mind-independent or mind dependent] must ultimately fall within a human constructed framework, i.e. in your case a speculative philosophical framework.
Nothing more speculative than the phenomenical approach. Isn't that what the
epoche is all about? Your approach fits within the hermeneutic circularities and self-referential frameworks of all phenomenalists. It always leads to epistemological nihilism and solipsism.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Apr 05, 2021 7:57 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Apr 04, 2021 5:47 am
Note this argument,
- Reality is ALL-there-is.
All-there-is intricately included human beings.
Reality is entangled with human beings.
The second premise is false. We have to look at the nature of our entanglements, either epistemological or ontological. Humans construct the knowledge of all there is, but this does not entail that all there is, as it is, is constructed by the human mind.
I did not claim all there is is constructed by the human mind.
What I claimed is all there is cannot be disentangled from the human mind[s].
It is not the point whether you made that claim explicit or not. It is necessarily implied in your argument, as I explained above. You claim there are humans, you claim there are human minds...the rest follows from there. Can human minds be disentangled from human minds? In your own project, they can't, but if they can't, they immediately fall into a spiral of complete annihilation.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Apr 05, 2021 7:57 am
My point is, both the physical realists and theists believe things exist independent of the human mind. ''Things" in the loosest sense can be entity of physical or otherwise as long as there is no contradiction. The majority of theists, i.e. the Abrahamic believe in a God that has agency to listen and answer their prayers and promise them eternal life in heaven.
In both cases, there is a reality-Gap.
That's a pointless "point". It points at a meaningless correlation, as if saying both opera and WWF wrestling matches have a public, they are both spectacles, therefore one necessary leads to the other. In any case, while physical realism makes sense, theism does not.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Apr 05, 2021 7:57 am
But your acknowledgement of "the existence of one and only mind-independent, physical reality" is based on assumption and speculation and there is a reality-gap between you and that physical reality.
No, only idealism is grounded in pure speculation. Realism and materialism is grounded on the evidence that our systematic inquiries reveal about the universe using reliable methods of research, aka science. Every discipline of knowledge has an epistemological base with basic assumptions, but science in particular is the only one that actually includes in its core principles the challenge and test of its presumptions.