Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Atla
Posts: 6607
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

Post by Atla »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Jun 05, 2021 5:07 am The only way to get to what is the 'ultimate moon stuff' is by inference and ultimately this inference is conditioned by human conditions. i.e. the FSK.

Take the case of stars in the night sky.
You can assumed there is star-stuff regardless whether the star is perceived or not, but the reality is there could no real star [other than our Sun] existing in real time.
What is perceived are merely light waves hitting the retina of a person and the real star in real time could have exploded long long ago.

There is always a reality GAP [even to the nano-second] between what is perceived and what is supposed to be the real thing.
There is this problem of a reality GAP because of the 'supposition' which is not imperative [not critically necessary] but only triggered psychologically and evolutionally with its pros and cons.
If we do away with the 'supposition' [like anti-realists] then there is no ontological issue of ultimate objective reality at all.
You're one funny guy. Any sensible indirect realist knows that all inference is conditioned by human conditions. But this inference is pointing outside the human conditions, into the unknowable, and we agree to deliberately treat the end result as REAL. That's the whole point.

And there is no problem of reality gap if we don't pretend that the past doesn't exist. Denying objective reality just means that your kind of anti-realism is self-refuting, it explains itself away as being non-existent.

You made all these endless topics to argue for an outdated and self-refuting position. Philosophy already moved past this, you need to get up-to-date.
Advocate
Posts: 3467
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

Post by Advocate »

[quote="Veritas Aequitas" post_id=512876 time=1622866022 user_id=7896]
[quote=Advocate post_id=512851 time=1622852202 user_id=15238]
[quote="Veritas Aequitas"]I have no dispute from the common sense, conventional and empirical perspectives that things are independent of the individual's subjective view. Even a small child will by evolutionary default be able to comprehend that. In these perspectives there are no doubts there is a 'real' moon out there.[/quote]

The moon-stuff is there regardless of whether it's experienced, but it's not a moon until it's a pattern in a mind.
[/quote]
You're on my ignore list since you challenged 'my way or the highway' re the 'quote' format.

I'll respond to this one at my discretion.

Yes, it is not a moon per se until it is a pattern in a mind.
But what is "moon-stuff X" is also not "moon-stuff X" until it is a pattern in a mind.

Is there any way one can ultimately determined what is the absolute "moon stuff X" without any means [re Conde Lucanor] "modified by our intellect with a systematic epistemological and methodological approach."

The only way to get to what is the 'ultimate moon stuff' is by inference and ultimately this inference is conditioned by human conditions. i.e. the FSK.

Take the case of stars in the night sky.
You can assumed there is star-stuff regardless whether the star is perceived or not, but the reality is there could no real star [other than our Sun] existing in real time.
What is perceived are merely light waves hitting the retina of a person and the real star in real time could have exploded long long ago.

There is always a reality GAP [even to the nano-second] between what is perceived and what is [b]supposed[/b] to be the real thing.
There is this problem of a reality GAP because of the 'supposition' which is not imperative [not critically necessary] but only triggered psychologically and evolutionally with its pros and cons.
If we do away with the 'supposition' [like anti-realists] then there is no ontological issue of ultimate objective reality at all.
[/quote]

Replication provides certainty. Nothing more is possible or necessary. Ultimate truth is transcendent and forever in an indefinite anticipated future.
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:
Conde Lucanor wrote:Once any scientific framework abandons materialism it ceases to be scientific.
Where is you evidence to support the above?

As I had claimed earlier, the definition of what is science and the assumption of 'materialism' by scientists [not all] is not critical nor imperative for Science to work.
Scientific research always lands on discoveries about the material nature of reality. There's no alternative science of "non-materiality", and you wouldn't call theology and other such disciplines "science".
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Conde Lucanor wrote: Maybe it's not relevant to the "hands-on" scientists who simply accepts as a given the materialistic principles of science, but it is relevant to philosophers of science and philosophers in general. A contemporary philosopher cannot put aside the key discoveries of science, they must be part of any philosophical program.
Again your knowledge is limited in this case.

Note Ant-Scientific-Realism within Philosophy;
3. Considerations Against Scientific Realism (and Responses)
Maybe I should have clarified: "a serious contemporary philosopher cannot put aside the key discoveries of science, they must be part of any rigorous philosophical program. There are a lot of nonsensical philosophers out there.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: I believe the OP can still stand on itself without reference to the term ontology.
The OP presents the problem literally mentioning "the existence of reality". There's no way it can bypass ontology after making that statement.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: You as a realist believes that there is something X which is an objective reality existing as real beyond sensations, appearances and experiences. In this case, prove it?
I already did. Evidence from science shows that the Moon existed prior to humans. Now, do you believe this is true or not? Note that your path for denying this goes through the dismissal of science. You can place all the idealist objections you want, but then you renounce to science.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Conde Lucanor wrote: You have absolutely no major convincing argument that philosophers like Guyer do not interpret Kant correctly. They are well-known, respected Kant scholars, not members of some sort of anti-Kantian coalition. Calling them realists is not a reasoanable defense against views that are not even that contentious. Admitting such argument would be the equivalent of saying that an interpretation of Kant's CPR is not legitimately objective if it comes from an anti-realist, for being biased towards anti-realism.
Do I really have to produce evidences for my claims above?
It is public knowledge if you are well read on this issue.

I have been reading from Allison, Graham Bird and the likes and they dispute the interpretations of Guyer and his likes.
It is also well known there are two main school of thoughts re Kant, i.e.
1. the anti-realist Kantian, Allison, Bird, etc.
2. the realists and analytic Kantian, i.e. Strawson, Guyer.

If you are well read on the above you will note the philosophers in 1 do not agree with those philosophers in group 2.
As I have said since very early in this debate, it is very unlikely that there will ever be a consensus, among Kant's scholars, about what exactly Kant's project entails, because it is deeply problematic in its base. If there's a consensus, it is precisely about this lack of consensus. Your preferred Kant's scholars are on record saying this. So, every Kant scholar will align with some views, without this implying a dogmatic hostility among them, nor a biased distortion of Kant's doctrine in order to refute him in favor of an anti-Kantian project. It would be nonsensical to claim that someone like Guyer, who has dedicated his entire career to Kant, made several key publications and even translations of his work, and included in a well-known compilation by Graham Bird, should not be taken seriously on claims that you dispute. The separation of Kant's scholars in realists vs anti-realist is not a feasible defense of your arguments.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: You are still missing my point.

I have already stated I am not disputing from the empirical perspective where 1) I [as a normal person] acknowledge the existence of real solid physical human beings. It is so absurd to assume I take my spouse, children, friends and all other humans as illusory things.

I have already stated, from the philosophical perspective, 2) I do not agree humans has a substance reality as 3) realists who claim humans has a substantial permanent self or soul that survives physical death.
I have stated this many times, why are you ignoring this point?
If we ignore that is being conditioned by the term "empirical perspective", Claim #1 is actually a realist statement, exactly the kind of statement that you dispute in the OP. Since you argue that you are a non-realist, claim #1 can only mean exactly the opposite of what it says, that is, what claim #2 conveys. Saying that is just a matter of perspective does not solve the contradiction, since what we are dealing with is what is actually the case, and that should work for any perspective. A "philosophical perspective" that sends you away from what is the actual case is very bad philosophy, and so can be said about any "empirical perspective". In any case, if you think your spouse is going to collect from your life insurance after you pass away (let's hope this is far from ever happening), you believe she and the insurance company are mind-independent entities, things in themselves, that do not depend on you for their existence. If, on the contrary, as stated in claim #2, you believe that once you pass away then they cease to exist and no one collects any money from insurance, I'll believe you are an anti-realist.

Claim #3 is not a even a doctrine inherent to realism, so by disputing it, you're not refuting realism. I, as many other realists, don't believe in souls that survive physical death.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Note when you make a table out of wood then throw it away in a rubbish dump miles away, based on empirical realism that table is an independent external reality, but in another meta-perspective you cannot claim that specific table out there is absolutely independent of you because without you, that table would not have existed.

It is the same with ordinary empirical reality of the external world within common sense, conventional sense, scientific sense, and the likes, BUT from a subtle meta-perspective [you are unable to understand] what is reality out here cannot be absolutely independent of the human conditions, e.g. this claim;
While you hang on to this relativism of perspectives, you cannot demand a straight answer to the challenge of the OP. Anyone can come up and say: "from my perspective X, things in themselves exist and are provable from that epistemological framework". You are then not justified by your own perspectivism to deny such claims, all you can say is that you wish to adopt another perspective. Demanding "proof" is merely forcing people to adopt your perspective, for which you are not justified, among other things, because you advocate all along for relativism of perspectives.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Nope empirical idealists like yourself are not the same as subjective idealists like Berkeley.
You're simply wrong there. Empirical idealism = subjective idealism.
Subjective Idealism
Subjective idealism, or empirical idealism, is a form of philosophical monism that holds that only minds and mental contents exist. It entails and is generally identified or associated with immaterialism, the doctrine that material things do not exist.

In any case, your use of labels is conditioned by your non-ontological convictions, which would put idealism/realism as not related to ontological commitments. Since I don't share your view and the corresponding classification, nor it is widely accepted, I remain as an ontological realist and anti-idealist. Note that any implication that I'm an ontological idealist would contradict your own stance.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: You are never in direct contact with that supposed real empirical thing at all.
Your own stance prohibits making such claims. By "direct contact" you mean cognizing, which is by definition a mediation faculty, not an ontological relation, therefore there can be a direct ontological relation mediated by cognition. You argue that cognition itself does not guarantee the ontological relation, but neither it barrs from having it. You are left then with adopting an agnostic position about the things in themselves. If, instead, you choose to categorically deny it, you would be adopting Berkeley's subjective idealism.
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=512914 time=1622910182 user_id=9521]
[quote="Veritas Aequitas"][quote="Conde Lucanor"]Once any scientific framework abandons materialism it ceases to be scientific.[/quote]
Where is you evidence to support the above?

As I had claimed earlier, the definition of what is science and the assumption of 'materialism' by scientists [not all] is not critical nor imperative for Science to work.[/quote]

All languages are descriptive. Science is rigor and describes that which is materially measurable. Those relationships which can be generalized because they always replicate are called logic. Those are the only ways of obtaining justified belief.
Atla
Posts: 6607
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

Post by Atla »

Advocate wrote: Sat Jun 05, 2021 8:02 pm
Conde Lucanor wrote:Once any scientific framework abandons materialism it ceases to be scientific.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Where is you evidence to support the above?

As I had claimed earlier, the definition of what is science and the assumption of 'materialism' by scientists [not all] is not critical nor imperative for Science to work.
All languages are descriptive. Science is rigor and describes that which is materially measurable. Those relationships which can be generalized because they always replicate are called logic. Those are the only ways of obtaining justified belief.
'Matter' is a made-up concept. Science measures what actually exists, and always describes what exists using the concept of 'matter'. Could be any other made-up concept as well. 'Matter' simply means 'real'.

People who think that science literally describes the 'material nature of reality' need to take a few lessons from Kant. That's why scientists have long ago stopped asking the question: what is matter?
Advocate
Posts: 3467
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

Post by Advocate »

[quote=Atla post_id=512924 time=1622923345 user_id=15497]
[quote=Advocate post_id=512921 time=1622919760 user_id=15238]
All languages are descriptive. Science is rigor and describes that which is materially measurable. Those relationships which can be generalized because they always replicate are called logic. Those are the only ways of obtaining justified belief.
[/quote]
'Matter' is a made-up concept. Science measures what actually exists, and always describes what exists using the concept of 'matter'. Could be any other made-up concept as well. 'Matter' simply means 'real'.

People who think that science literally describes the 'material nature of reality' need to take a few lessons from Kant. That's why scientists have long ago stopped asking the question: what is matter?
[/quote]

Matter is low-entropy, entangled energy. Energy is change that occurs in waves. Both are aspects of Change, the universal substrate of material reality. Energy is equally as real as matter. Thoughts are equally as real as well as they only occur as patterns of energy in matter.
Atla
Posts: 6607
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

Post by Atla »

Advocate wrote: Sat Jun 05, 2021 10:11 pm
Atla wrote: Sat Jun 05, 2021 9:02 pm
Advocate wrote: Sat Jun 05, 2021 8:02 pm All languages are descriptive. Science is rigor and describes that which is materially measurable. Those relationships which can be generalized because they always replicate are called logic. Those are the only ways of obtaining justified belief.
'Matter' is a made-up concept. Science measures what actually exists, and always describes what exists using the concept of 'matter'. Could be any other made-up concept as well. 'Matter' simply means 'real'.

People who think that science literally describes the 'material nature of reality' need to take a few lessons from Kant. That's why scientists have long ago stopped asking the question: what is matter?
Matter is low-entropy, entangled energy. Energy is change that occurs in waves. Both are aspects of Change, the universal substrate of material reality. Energy is equally as real as matter. Thoughts are equally as real as well as they only occur as patterns of energy in matter.
We were talking about matter as in materialism, not matter as in matter vs energy. You are conflating the two uses.

Reality has no substrate. Change is obviously illusory, humans can only experience life in the direction of locally increasing entropy, but that doesn't mean that the universe as a whole ever changes. (Even if change really exists, that doesn't make it a substrate.)
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12231
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Conde Lucanor wrote: Sat Jun 05, 2021 5:23 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Conde Lucanor wrote:Once any scientific framework abandons materialism it ceases to be scientific.
Where is you evidence to support the above?

As I had claimed earlier, the definition of what is science and the assumption of 'materialism' by scientists [not all] is not critical nor imperative for Science to work.
Scientific research always lands on discoveries about the material nature of reality. There's no alternative science of "non-materiality", and you wouldn't call theology and other such disciplines "science".
Again you missed my point.
Note here re What is Science.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science

Therein you will note the point with whether it is matter or non-matter [as you understood it to be] are not critical issues to Science.
What is critical to Science is whether how its approach to knowledge meet the requirements of the scientific methods and its critical requirements.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Conde Lucanor wrote: Maybe it's not relevant to the "hands-on" scientists who simply accepts as a given the materialistic principles of science, but it is relevant to philosophers of science and philosophers in general. A contemporary philosopher cannot put aside the key discoveries of science, they must be part of any philosophical program.
Again your knowledge is limited in this case.

Note Ant-Scientific-Realism within Philosophy;
3. Considerations Against Scientific Realism (and Responses)
Maybe I should have clarified: "a serious contemporary philosopher cannot put aside the key discoveries of science, they must be part of any rigorous philosophical program. There are a lot of nonsensical philosophers out there.
There is philosophy-proper which is independent from Science but it has to rely on scientific knowledge as the most credible and reliable knowledge.
Since scientific knowledge is at best polished conjectures, philosophy-proper has to override and monitor science and other sources of knowledge using its critical tools.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: I believe the OP can still stand on itself without reference to the term ontology.
The OP presents the problem literally mentioning "the existence of reality". There's no way it can bypass ontology after making that statement.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: You as a realist believes that there is something X which is an objective reality existing as real beyond sensations, appearances and experiences. In this case, prove it?
I already did. Evidence from science shows that the Moon existed prior to humans. Now, do you believe this is true or not? Note that your path for denying this goes through the dismissal of science. You can place all the idealist objections you want, but then you renounce to science.
Not every scientist agree the Moon existed prior to humans when deliberated within various various perspectives of Quantum Mechanics. Note Schrodinger's Cat for example. In a way there are many scientists who adopt the idealist view rather than the philosophical realists' views.

I don't renounce Science and I have always insisted scientific knowledge is the most credible and reliable knowledge we have as conditioned to the scientific framework [FSK], BUT scientific knowledge at best are merely polished conjectures not absolute truths.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Conde Lucanor wrote: You have absolutely no major convincing argument that philosophers like Guyer do not interpret Kant correctly. They are well-known, respected Kant scholars, not members of some sort of anti-Kantian coalition. Calling them realists is not a reasoanable defense against views that are not even that contentious. Admitting such argument would be the equivalent of saying that an interpretation of Kant's CPR is not legitimately objective if it comes from an anti-realist, for being biased towards anti-realism.
Do I really have to produce evidences for my claims above?
It is public knowledge if you are well read on this issue.

I have been reading from Allison, Graham Bird and the likes and they dispute the interpretations of Guyer and his likes.
It is also well known there are two main school of thoughts re Kant, i.e.
1. the anti-realist Kantian, Allison, Bird, etc.
2. the realists and analytic Kantian, i.e. Strawson, Guyer.

If you are well read on the above you will note the philosophers in 1 do not agree with those philosophers in group 2.
As I have said since very early in this debate, it is very unlikely that there will ever be a consensus, among Kant's scholars, about what exactly Kant's project entails, because it is deeply problematic in its base. If there's a consensus, it is precisely about this lack of consensus. Your preferred Kant's scholars are on record saying this. So, every Kant scholar will align with some views, without this implying a dogmatic hostility among them, nor a biased distortion of Kant's doctrine in order to refute him in favor of an anti-Kantian project. It would be nonsensical to claim that someone like Guyer, who has dedicated his entire career to Kant, made several key publications and even translations of his work, and included in a well-known compilation by Graham Bird, should not be taken seriously on claims that you dispute. The separation of Kant's scholars in realists vs anti-realist is not a feasible defense of your arguments.
Guyer's translation of Kant's CPR does not mean he understood Kant's original intentions. Translation from German to English or other language is a very mechanical process; these days even computer softwares can do that very efficiently.

One big clue to Guyer's limitation is that Guyer is a philosophical realist [to add; a hardcore and very ideological] and Kant is an anti-realist.
Note, even other anti-idealists and so-called neo-Kantians also misinterpreted Kant's original ideas, e.g. Hegel, Fitche, Schopenhauer and others.

It is very common for editors in compilations of specific philosopher or philosophical views to balance and thus include opposing views, thus that was what Guyer and others did.

If you have read Allison's books and articles [which you must to avoid biasness] you will note Allison is very critical of Guyer's very limited and misinterpretation [not mistranslation] of Kant's views.

Here is one comment [among many] by Allison on Guyer's interpretation of Kant's CPR;
  • In addition to his insistence on a tight connection between the Second Analogy and the Refutation of Idealism, Guyer's account appears to be based on the premise that the Objective Validity of Judgments about events is equivalent to their Empirical truth.51
    But, quite apart from these questionable assumptions, there are two main reasons why his [Guyer's] reading is highly dubious. Allison 2004 pg. 256
As I had mentioned many times, Guyer et. al. like you is stuck in a dogmatic transcendental realism aka empirical idealism mode of thinking.
  • For this reason, I find it particularly noteworthy that none of my critics with whose work I am familiar (including Guyer and Langton) seriously considers the [opposing] relationship between these two Forms of transcendentalism.
    In fact, it will be argued in the body of this work that their [critiques’] own interpretations and criticisms (as well as those of many others) of Kant's idealism rest on dogmatic transcendentally realistic assumptions.
    Thus, it is hardly surprising that, from their [critiques] point of view, Transcendental Idealism is untenable, if not unintelligible, and that the only way they can find to rescue the argument of the Critique is to show that it does not depend upon this [transcendental] idealism in a serious way.
    Allison 2004
Another;
  • But if, as I maintain, Transcendental Idealism is inseparable from the substantive doctrines of the Critique [of Pure Reason], it should also play a significant role here, in perhaps the least likely place.
    Thus, in opposition to Guyer and many others, I attempt to argue that this [transcendental] idealism (correctly understood) does, in fact, play such a role in the B-version's Refutation of Idealism.
    Allison 2004
  • Apart from his useful emphasis on the methodological thrust of Kant's earlier discussions of the issues related to the Antinomy, Guyer is wrong on all counts.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: You are still missing my point.

I have already stated I am not disputing from the empirical perspective where 1) I [as a normal person] acknowledge the existence of real solid physical human beings. It is so absurd to assume I take my spouse, children, friends and all other humans as illusory things.

I have already stated, from the philosophical perspective, 2) I do not agree humans has a substance reality as 3) realists who claim humans has a substantial permanent self or soul that survives physical death.
I have stated this many times, why are you ignoring this point?
If we ignore that is being conditioned by the term "empirical perspective", Claim #1 is actually a realist statement, exactly the kind of statement that you dispute in the OP.
Since you argue that you are a non-realist, claim #1 can only mean exactly the opposite of what it says, that is, what claim #2 conveys.
Saying that is just a matter of perspective does not solve the contradiction, since what we are dealing with is what is actually the case, and that should work for any perspective. A "philosophical perspective" that sends you away from what is the actual case is very bad philosophy, and so can be said about any "empirical perspective". In any case, if you think your spouse is going to collect from your life insurance after you pass away (let's hope this is far from ever happening), you believe she and the insurance company are mind-independent entities, things in themselves, that do not depend on you for their existence. If, on the contrary, as stated in claim #2, you believe that once you pass away then they cease to exist and no one collects any money from insurance, I'll believe you are an anti-realist.

Claim #3 is not a even a doctrine inherent to realism, so by disputing it, you're not refuting realism. I, as many other realists, don't believe in souls that survive physical death.
NOPE! Your above insistence is a crazy idea.
Claim 1 is not a unique realist's view. Note the term "realist" above refer to specifically philosophical realists within philosophic perspective.
see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

As I had stated the claim of externality is common within common sense, conventional sense, empirical realism, and not solely to philosophical realism.
Thus from the perspective of common sense, conventional sense, empirical realism, I believe in an independent external world.

Normally theism is theology, but in a philosophic perspective, theism i.e. God exists as an independent entity out there is basically philosophical realism.
see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Note when you make a table out of wood then throw it away in a rubbish dump miles away, based on empirical realism that table is an independent external reality, but in another meta-perspective you cannot claim that specific table out there is absolutely independent of you because without you, that table would not have existed.

It is the same with ordinary empirical reality of the external world within common sense, conventional sense, scientific sense, and the likes, BUT from a subtle meta-perspective [you are unable to understand] what is reality out here cannot be absolutely independent of the human conditions, e.g. this claim;
While you hang on to this relativism of perspectives, you cannot demand a straight answer to the challenge of the OP. Anyone can come up and say: "from my perspective X, things in themselves exist and are provable from that epistemological framework". You are then not justified by your own perspectivism to deny such claims, all you can say is that you wish to adopt another perspective. Demanding "proof" is merely forcing people to adopt your perspective, for which you are not justified, among other things, because you advocate all along for relativism of perspectives.
Anyone can say from whatever defined perspectives, but they still have to ensure their claims from their perspective is verified and justified empirically and philosophical within their specified framework and system of knowledge [FSK].

I have argued and insisted as above [surely you will not dispute this] that most credible and reliable knowledge of truth is from the scientific perspective [the scientific FSK].
But at their best, scientific knowledge are merely polished conjectures.
In addition, science does not prove the thing-in-itself exists as real and it is only certain sciences that ASSUMEs the thing-in-itself exists as objective reality.

But note, if you rely on Science for your knowledge [there is no other more reliable] you are at best relying on polished-CONJECTURES which no matter how polished they are, still remain to be CONJECTURES.

As such there is no way you can prove nor confirm your claim that the thing-in-itself as real is true. [i.e. cannot meet the OP's challenge]
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Nope empirical idealists like yourself are not the same as subjective idealists like Berkeley.
You're simply wrong there. Empirical idealism = subjective idealism.
Subjective Idealism
Subjective idealism, or empirical idealism, is a form of philosophical monism that holds that only minds and mental contents exist. It entails and is generally identified or associated with immaterialism, the doctrine that material things do not exist.

In any case, your use of labels is conditioned by your non-ontological convictions, which would put idealism/realism as not related to ontological commitments. Since I don't share your view and the corresponding classification, nor it is widely accepted, I remain as an ontological realist and anti-idealist. Note that any implication that I'm an ontological idealist would contradict your own stance.
There are some overlapping there that warrant more detailed analysis. There is no way even if both are empirical idealist in some ways, that you share Berkeley's Esse is Percipi and the ultimate perceiver is God.

You are an empirical idealists as defined regardless of your denial.
You are an ontological realist in one perspective and an ontological idealist in another perspective.
You are also an anti-idealist in one perspective while being an empirical idealist in another.
I would really like to trash this out in its nuances. Note the thread I raised on this matter but you are avoiding it, are you?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: You are never in direct contact with that supposed real empirical thing at all.
Your own stance prohibits making such claims. By "direct contact" you mean cognizing, which is by definition a mediation faculty, not an ontological relation, therefore there can be a direct ontological relation mediated by cognition. You argue that cognition itself does not guarantee the ontological relation, but neither it barrs from having it. You are left then with adopting an agnostic position about the things in themselves. If, instead, you choose to categorically deny it, you would be adopting Berkeley's subjective idealism.
You missed my point again.

By, "direct contact" is merely use to highlight the problem realists has with things-in-themselves.
When you claim as a realist, there is an independent external things-in-themselves that appear and you perceived, you are assuming there is a parallel world which mirrors your perception.
Note Rorty's condemnation of realism in his "Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature (1979), are you familiar with Rorty?
see:
Richard Rorty's Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=32188

In this case what you perceived is merely the mirror image of reality and is never in direct contact with that reality.
As such you are faced with Meno's Paradox and will never ever know what is really real.

I don't believe nor accept the idea of things-in-themselves as real which are the realists' idea which I oppose.
I don't mean merely "cognizing" alone but as I had mentioned many times, what is reality to me and empirical realists is the whole SHEBANG [very complex] of realization of reality. It is akin to emergence and just-is without acknowledging ontological things-in-themselves or the ultimate thing-in-itself.
Advocate
Posts: 3467
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

Post by Advocate »

[quote=Atla post_id=512969 time=1622952439 user_id=15497]
[quote=Advocate post_id=512930 time=1622927480 user_id=15238]
[quote=Atla post_id=512924 time=1622923345 user_id=15497]

'Matter' is a made-up concept. Science measures what actually exists, and always describes what exists using the concept of 'matter'. Could be any other made-up concept as well. 'Matter' simply means 'real'.

People who think that science literally describes the 'material nature of reality' need to take a few lessons from Kant. That's why scientists have long ago stopped asking the question: what is matter?
[/quote]

Matter is low-entropy, entangled energy. Energy is change that occurs in waves. Both are aspects of Change, the universal substrate of material reality. Energy is equally as real as matter. Thoughts are equally as real as well as they only occur as patterns of energy in matter.
[/quote]
We were talking about matter as in materialism, not matter as in matter vs energy. You are conflating the two uses.

Reality has no substrate. Change is obviously illusory, humans can only experience life in the direction of locally increasing entropy, but that doesn't mean that the universe as a whole ever changes. (Even if change really exists, that doesn't make it a substrate.)
[/quote]

An answer is a framework of understanding. Mine answers all questions about physically measurable stuff sufficiently for all intents and purposes. If that's insufficient, your purpose isn't meaningful.
Advocate
Posts: 3467
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

Post by Advocate »

[quote=Advocate post_id=512981 time=1622972507 user_id=15238]
We were talking about matter as in materialism, not matter as in matter vs energy. You are conflating the two uses.

Reality has no substrate. Change is obviously illusory, humans can only experience life in the direction of locally increasing entropy, but that doesn't mean that the universe as a whole ever changes. (Even if change really exists, that doesn't make it a substrate.)
[/quote]

Now there are two different base kinds of matter? No.

An answer is a framework of understanding. Mine addresses all questions about physically measurable stuff for all intents and purposes. If you feel it's insufficient, your purpose isn't meaningful. I haven't given a theory but a description. If you don't recognize the Truth when you see it, you need to go backwards a few steps, empty your cup.

Also, believing change is an illusion is itself a delusion. That's deep mental illness territory. Everything changes all the time as far as we can measure. Always has, always will. We even know that things which appear to remain static aren't, because science. Skepticism is a mind-killer. Don't live there.
[/quote]
Atla
Posts: 6607
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

Post by Atla »

Advocate wrote: Sun Jun 06, 2021 10:45 am
Advocate wrote: Sun Jun 06, 2021 10:41 am We were talking about matter as in materialism, not matter as in matter vs energy. You are conflating the two uses.

Reality has no substrate. Change is obviously illusory, humans can only experience life in the direction of locally increasing entropy, but that doesn't mean that the universe as a whole ever changes. (Even if change really exists, that doesn't make it a substrate.)
Now there are two different base kinds of matter? No.

An answer is a framework of understanding. Mine addresses all questions about physically measurable stuff for all intents and purposes. If you feel it's insufficient, your purpose isn't meaningful. I haven't given a theory but a description. If you don't recognize the Truth when you see it, you need to go backwards a few steps, empty your cup.

Also, believing change is an illusion is itself a delusion. That's deep mental illness territory. Everything changes all the time as far as we can measure. Always has, always will. We even know that things which appear to remain static aren't, because science. Skepticism is a mind-killer. Don't live there.
Looks like both things I said went over your head:

The word 'matter' has two different meanings here. Materialism is the view that reality is material, made of matter. This matter from materialism can then be categorized into matter and energy.

Of course everything we measure changes, but when you take a step back and look at it, change is probably just a magical, supernatural idea. Ie. you may be delusional, a victim of your shallow instrumentalism. The more logical view is that we live in a 4D block universe, and we perceive a certain direction in the block universe as change. This is necessarily the case, as humans are always bound to a direction of locally increasing entropy.
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 in the OP wrote:one cannot prove there is an existing independent-of-human-mind external world - reality-in-itself.

So, prove to me reality-in-itself exists independent of human conditions and I will withdraw my claim.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Jun 06, 2021 7:49 am I believe in an independent external world.
So, there, by your own admission we should end this thread, since we found what you wanted to know, don't we?
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 Jun 06, 2021 7:49 am
Conde Lucanor wrote: Sat Jun 05, 2021 5:23 pm
Scientific research always lands on discoveries about the material nature of reality. There's no alternative science of "non-materiality", and you wouldn't call theology and other such disciplines "science".
Again you missed my point.
Note here re What is Science.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science

Therein you will note the point with whether it is matter or non-matter [as you understood it to be] are not critical issues to Science.
What is critical to Science is whether how its approach to knowledge meet the requirements of the scientific methods and its critical requirements.
You're the one missing the point. Science gives you realism, and it departs from the metaphysical presumption of materialism, the only ontology that is compatible with the reality revealed by science. Theoeretically, it could depart from a non-materialist ontology, but it wouldn't work, it can't work, it has never worked. It would go in the opposite direction of its realism, undermining its own methodological and epistemological base. Materialism is the ontology of science.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Jun 06, 2021 7:49 am Not every scientist agree the Moon existed prior to humans when deliberated within various various perspectives of Quantum Mechanics. Note Schrodinger's Cat for example. In a way there are many scientists who adopt the idealist view rather than the philosophical realists' views.
Schrodinger's Cat is a thought experiment to illustrate a point about measurement in Quantum Mechanics, and it applies to the microscopic level of physical particles, not related in any sense with any macroscopic observation such as the Moon.

There are obviously many scientists that adopt non-realist (idealist) views of the world, but when doing so they're actually stepping out of their own discipline, which in principle does not allow such departure without cancelling it out altogether.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Jun 06, 2021 7:49 am I don't renounce Science and I have always insisted scientific knowledge is the most credible and reliable knowledge we have as conditioned to the scientific framework [FSK], BUT scientific knowledge at best are merely polished conjectures not absolute truths.
Sure, but between "absolute truths" and "polished conjectures" there is a world of undisputed objective facts and testable certainties, which form the core of natural science.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Jun 06, 2021 7:49 am Guyer's translation of Kant's CPR does not mean he understood Kant's original intentions. Translation from German to English or other language is a very mechanical process; these days even computer softwares can do that very efficiently.
You evidently don't understand how the issue of translations and compilations of major philosophical treaties work, no different than translations and compilations in very specialized fields. The fact is that you have to be a very competent scholar, and often a well-respected one, to get such a translation published. It is almost a sign of recognition of your expertise in the field, and reserved only for a few. The point is not that Guyer has to be absolutely right in his interpretation of Kant, in such a field it is simply not possible to make statements of facts, there are better or worse informed opinions, and that's why different stances can coexist among respected scholars. The point is that you cannot simply dismiss Guyer's and other Kant's scholars with the naive argument you're presenting. None of them when opposing each other, either endorsing or criticizing Kant's arguments, or simply describing it, present the case themselves as an opposition between realists vs anti-realists. They are not so dogmatic!!
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Jun 06, 2021 7:49 am In addition, science does not prove the thing-in-itself exists as real and it is only certain sciences that ASSUMEs the thing-in-itself exists as objective reality.
You said yourself that science showed what is real. Science consistently and predictably shows that things exist and operate independently of the human mind, therefore that they are objective properties of the world.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Jun 06, 2021 7:49 am But note, if you rely on Science for your knowledge [there is no other more reliable] you are at best relying on polished-CONJECTURES which no matter how polished they are, still remain to be CONJECTURES.
See my objection above to such poor and misinformed argument. Science is limited and imperfect, but it does not rely on simple conjectures. Nothing in the history of knowledge has proved to be more powerful in the truth-seeking adventure than science. Note that Kant's project was to raise metaphysics to the level of a science, at least as it was understood at the end of the 18th century, as a systematic body of principles in which you can ground truths that are both universal and necessary.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Jun 06, 2021 7:49 am As such there is no way you can prove nor confirm your claim that the thing-in-itself as real is true. [i.e. cannot meet the OP's challenge]
If you can show the scientific confirmation, using the standard scientific framework, that the Moon is not actually a mind-independent object that existed prior to humans, you would have a chance at refuting the scientific theory that confirms the Moon to be a mind-independent object. But you can also go along and say that you don't find science reliable and renounce to it. It's the only position compatible with anti-realism.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Jun 06, 2021 7:49 am You are also an anti-idealist in one perspective while being an empirical idealist in another.
I only take the "what is the actual case" perspective.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Jun 06, 2021 7:49 am By, "direct contact" is merely use to highlight the problem realists has with things-in-themselves.
When you claim as a realist, there is an independent external things-in-themselves that appear and you perceived, you are assuming there is a parallel world which mirrors your perception.
That your usual straw man fallacy, which I have refuted several times. You're ascribing me stance of the manifest image and the pre-theoretical, common sense view which occurs outside of philosophical and scientific considerations. As a realist, I realize I cognize things, but I don't believe naively that what I cognize is exactly the way as I cognize it and comes unfiltered by my sensible faculties, I'm aware reality has a deeper, not-so-obvious structure which is the task of philosophy of science and philosophy to reveal, using my sensible faculties along with my intellect, relying on methodological and epistemological tools, to work around the manifest image and arrive to the scientific image. It is this complex exercise of systematic rationality that relies on trustable methods that leads us to ontological realism and materialism as the only tenable positions.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Jun 06, 2021 7:49 am Note Rorty's condemnation of realism in his "Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature (1979), are you familiar with Rorty?
see:
Richard Rorty's Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=32188

In this case what you perceived is merely the mirror image of reality and is never in direct contact with that reality.
Rorty always shows up in these discussions. His pragmatist project is not exempt of criticism and I don't find anything particularly interesting in it.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Jun 06, 2021 7:49 am As such you are faced with Meno's Paradox and will never ever know what is really real.
That's a classical fallacy, pure sophistry, that has been refuted. Why would I care for such a silly argument.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12231
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Conde Lucanor wrote: Sun Jun 06, 2021 5:21 pm
Veritas Aequitas in the OP wrote:one cannot prove there is an existing independent-of-human-mind external world - reality-in-itself.

So, prove to me reality-in-itself exists independent of human conditions and I will withdraw my claim.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Jun 06, 2021 7:49 am I believe in an independent external world.
So, there, by your own admission we should end this thread, since we found what you wanted to know, don't we?
Strawman!! Actually your point merely reflect your intellectual incompetence in this case.

As I have always emphasize, note the different perspectives between 'reality-in-itself' and the common and conventional sense.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12231
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Conde Lucanor wrote: Sun Jun 06, 2021 9:21 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Jun 06, 2021 7:49 am
Conde Lucanor wrote: Sat Jun 05, 2021 5:23 pm
Scientific research always lands on discoveries about the material nature of reality. There's no alternative science of "non-materiality", and you wouldn't call theology and other such disciplines "science".
Again you missed my point.
Note here re What is Science.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science

Therein you will note the point with whether it is matter or non-matter [as you understood it to be] are not critical issues to Science.
What is critical to Science is whether how its approach to knowledge meet the requirements of the scientific methods and its critical requirements.
You're the one missing the point. Science gives you realism, and it departs from the metaphysical presumption of materialism, the only ontology that is compatible with the reality revealed by science. Theoeretically, it could depart from a non-materialist ontology, but it wouldn't work, it can't work, it has never worked. It would go in the opposite direction of its realism, undermining its own methodological and epistemological base. Materialism is the ontology of science.
Your knowledge re what is science is very outdated. You must read up on the latest view on Science and the Philosophy of Science.

Show me proof that "Science give you realism" i.e. philosophical realism?
I am sure when Newton did science he would have claimed his conclusions gave him creationism and theism.
In any case, scientific realism do not jive with philosophical realism [re this OP].

Note this point from modern science;
Model-dependent realism is a view of scientific inquiry that focuses on the role of scientific models of phenomena.[1] It claims reality should be interpreted based upon these models, and where several models overlap in describing a particular subject, multiple, equally valid, realities exist.
It claims that it is meaningless to talk about the "true reality" of a model as we can never be absolutely certain of anything.
The only meaningful thing is the usefulness of the model.[2]
The term "model-dependent realism" was coined by Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow in their 2010 book, The Grand Design.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model-dependent_realism
Theoeretically, it could depart from a non-materialist ontology, but it wouldn't work, it can't work, it has never worked.
This really reflect ignorance on your part and it is insulting your own intelligence to hold on to such a view.
What works with Science as I had repeated many times is whether the scientific conclusions are processed via the necessary requirements of the scientific framework, is accepted by the relevant peers and more so is useful to humanity.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Jun 06, 2021 7:49 am Not every scientist agree the Moon existed prior to humans when deliberated within various various perspectives of Quantum Mechanics. Note Schrodinger's Cat for example. In a way there are many scientists who adopt the idealist view rather than the philosophical realists' views.
Schrodinger's Cat is a thought experiment to illustrate a point about measurement in Quantum Mechanics, and it applies to the microscopic level of physical particles, not related in any sense with any macroscopic observation such as the Moon.
Again you are ignorant to hold this view.
What is most realistic is the micro state of reality not the macro.
This is why Physicists are so focused on searching for what is the ultimate particle that grounds all of macro reality.
There are obviously many scientists that adopt non-realist (idealist) views of the world, but when doing so they're actually stepping out of their own discipline, which in principle does not allow such departure without cancelling it out altogether.
Again you are very ignorant on this.
When QM was first introduced, Einstein, the realist, was very strong against the idealistic views of Bohr and others. But eventually Bohr and gang won out against Einstein the realist.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Jun 06, 2021 7:49 am I don't renounce Science and I have always insisted scientific knowledge is the most credible and reliable knowledge we have as conditioned to the scientific framework [FSK], BUT scientific knowledge at best are merely polished conjectures not absolute truths.
Sure, but between "absolute truths" and "polished conjectures" there is a world of undisputed objective facts and testable certainties, which form the core of natural science.
If scientific truths ["roses"] are merely "polished conjectures" they cannot be anything better than whatever names you assign to them.
Scientific truths are never claimed to be "undisputed objective facts and testable certainties" at most they are all conditional to the scientific framework [FSK] which is ultimately conditioned to human conditions plus open to change and rejection, thus not facts-in-themselves.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Jun 06, 2021 7:49 am Guyer's translation of Kant's CPR does not mean he understood Kant's original intentions. Translation from German to English or other language is a very mechanical process; these days even computer softwares can do that very efficiently.
You evidently don't understand how the issue of translations and compilations of major philosophical treaties work, no different than translations and compilations in very specialized fields. The fact is that you have to be a very competent scholar, and often a well-respected one, to get such a translation published. It is almost a sign of recognition of your expertise in the field, and reserved only for a few. The point is not that Guyer has to be absolutely right in his interpretation of Kant, in such a field it is simply not possible to make statements of facts, there are better or worse informed opinions, and that's why different stances can coexist among respected scholars. The point is that you cannot simply dismiss Guyer's and other Kant's scholars with the naive argument you're presenting. None of them when opposing each other, either endorsing or criticizing Kant's arguments, or simply describing it, present the case themselves as an opposition between realists vs anti-realists. They are not so dogmatic!!
Again you are so wrong in this case.
If Kant stated "1 plus 1 = 3" in German in his book, whoever translate it will have to translate that literally.
I agree one has to have some competence in philosophy to translate philosophical works but such a requirement is not a critical factor.

I believe you are not well verse philosophically of the tribalism [us vs them] between realists and anti-realists which is due their psychologically, primal, cultural, ideological and political stances and differences.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Jun 06, 2021 7:49 am In addition, science does not prove the thing-in-itself exists as real and it is only certain sciences that ASSUMEs the thing-in-itself exists as objective reality.
You said yourself that science showed what is real. Science consistently and predictably shows that things exist and operate independently of the human mind, therefore that they are objective properties of the world.
Again note 'what is real' is QUALIFIED to the empirical and scientific framework.

Here is a good illustration of my claims re empirical realism subsumed within transcendental idealism.
Similarly scientific realism of an independent world is subsumed with a non-independent scientific framework constructed by humans.
Therefore all scientific truths of independent things cannot be ultimately independent.

You keep forgetting that Science and its scientific truths are only possible because of human activities in Science.
Then we have Model Dependent Realism, note the link above.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Jun 06, 2021 7:49 am But note, if you rely on Science for your knowledge [there is no other more reliable] you are at best relying on polished-CONJECTURES which no matter how polished they are, still remain to be CONJECTURES.
See my objection above to such poor and misinformed argument. Science is limited and imperfect, but it does not rely on simple conjectures. Nothing in the history of knowledge has proved to be more powerful in the truth-seeking adventure than science. Note that Kant's project was to raise metaphysics to the level of a science, at least as it was understood at the end of the 18th century, as a systematic body of principles in which you can ground truths that are both universal and necessary.
Note your strawman.
Where did I ever state "simple conjectures"? You are trying to resort to deceptions in this case, but the slide is so obvious.
I stated "POLISHED CONJECTURES" and if you don't understand this term, you are really ignorant of what is Science.

Nope! Kant did not make any attempt to raise Metaphysics to the level of a Science.
Rather he merely ask the question whether it can or not [knowing well it cannot].
Kant ultimately proved metaphysics cannot be raised to a level of science.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Jun 06, 2021 7:49 am As such there is no way you can prove nor confirm your claim that the thing-in-itself as real is true. [i.e. cannot meet the OP's challenge]
If you can show the scientific confirmation, using the standard scientific framework, that the Moon is not actually a mind-independent object that existed prior to humans, you would have a chance at refuting the scientific theory that confirms the Moon to be a mind-independent object. But you can also go along and say that you don't find science reliable and renounce to it. It's the only position compatible with anti-realism.
Your thinking is too crude.
Within classical Science there is no doubt that the moon is a mind-independent object.
But with the emergence of Einstein relativity theory and the observers effect, doubts were creeping in.
However with QM in the picture, [as qualified] there is a strong claim there is no independent moon.

Note, to counter QM Einstein raised the question,
Is the Moon There When Nobody Looks?
Reality and the Quantum Theory
Einstein maintained that quantum metaphysics entails spooky actions at a distance; experiments have now shown that what bothered Einstein is not a debatable point but the observed behavior of the real world.
N. David Mermin
https://physicstoday.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.880968
If you are well read you would be well aware of the above issue.
As a dogmatic realist it is unlikely you will accept the truth, there is no independent moon from the QM perspective.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Jun 06, 2021 7:49 am You are also an anti-idealist in one perspective while being an empirical idealist in another.
I only take the "what is the actual case" perspective.
Your "what is the actual case" perspective is classical Science which in a way is empirical-idealism.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Jun 06, 2021 7:49 am By, "direct contact" is merely use to highlight the problem realists has with things-in-themselves.
When you claim as a realist, there is an independent external things-in-themselves that appear and you perceived, you are assuming there is a parallel world which mirrors your perception.
That your usual straw man fallacy, which I have refuted several times. You're ascribing me stance of the manifest image and the pre-theoretical, common sense view which occurs outside of philosophical and scientific considerations.
As a realist, I realize I cognize things, but I don't believe naively that what I cognize is exactly the way as I cognize it and comes unfiltered by my sensible faculties, I'm aware reality has a deeper, not-so-obvious structure which is the task of philosophy of science and philosophy to reveal, using my sensible faculties along with my intellect, relying on methodological and epistemological tools, to work around the manifest image and arrive to the scientific image. It is this complex exercise of systematic rationality that relies on trustable methods that leads us to ontological realism and materialism as the only tenable positions.
As I had argued, if your approach is;
  • using my sensible faculties along with my intellect, relying on methodological and epistemological tools, to work around the manifest image and arrive to the scientific image. It is this complex exercise of systematic rationality that relies on trustable methods that leads us to ontological realism and materialism as the only tenable positions.
then what you are claiming is not an 'absolute' external independent objective reality, but rather that it is dependent on your human activity, human institution -science etc, thus ultimately dependent on the human conditions.

In this case if you claim the above is ontological realism and materialism, it can only be human dependent "ontological realism and materialism" because your above approaches and processes are all ultimately dependent on the human conditions.

Therefore your "ontological realism and materialism" is not the philosophical ontological realism and materialism, where the moon exists absolutely independent of humans.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Jun 06, 2021 7:49 am Note Rorty's condemnation of realism in his "Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature (1979), are you familiar with Rorty?
see:
Richard Rorty's Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=32188

In this case what you perceived is merely the mirror image of reality and is never in direct contact with that reality.
Rorty always shows up in these discussions. His pragmatist project is not exempt of criticism and I don't find anything particularly interesting in it.[/quote]
I am not promoting Rorty's pragmatism in this case.
What I am highlighting is Rorty's argument that philosophical realism is a mess [due to Descartes' et. al] and not tenable [he relied on Wittgenstein, and others].
Do you agree with his arguments if you have read his book.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Jun 06, 2021 7:49 am As such you are faced with Meno's Paradox and will never ever know what is really real.
That's a classical fallacy, pure sophistry, that has been refuted. Why would I care for such a silly argument.
Do you understand Meno's Paradox in the first place and the realistic philosophical issues behind it?
Post Reply