Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12232
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Conde Lucanor wrote: Tue Sep 14, 2021 4:23 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Sep 07, 2021 5:59 am You are still making noises without substantial arguments.

Show me where [posts I have made] I am ignorant of What is Scientific Realism and Critical Realism?
Rather it is you who is ignorant of Scientific Realism and Critical Realism proper.
Do I really need to say this again?:
For example, after shouting out loud that you have extensively researched realism, you admit of having "put aside" Critical Realism and just "having heard of Roy Bhaskar long ago", but you also then include one of his major works and other texts commenting his work (secondary sources as those that you dismiss when they go against Kant) among the list of your "extensive research" on realism. This list includes several anti-realist works, even though you claim it is realist literature. Absurd.

To put the cherry on top of it all, we get that your only real source for Bhaskar's realism is one chapter in one book, written by an assistant English teacher.
https://www.pittstate.edu/languages/fac ... -judd.html
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Sep 07, 2021 5:59 am You are the one who is ignorant of the issues.

Note Kant in rejecting mind-independent thing-in-itself claimed science is still a possibility as presented in his CPR and the Prolegomena.
Example: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-science/
Denying access to objects independent of minds do not necessary reject science.
If you still insist, show proof instead of making noises about it.
You had to read the entire A Realist Theory of Science, not secondary sources, to understand the Critical Realism project, but since you avoided it, you are still ignorant. I did read it and studied it, so I do understand it and I'm able to comment on it, based on my extensive research.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Sep 07, 2021 5:59 am The main leverage of Science is on empirical evidences not on the thing-in-itself.
The thing-in-itself is merely assumed by certain aspects of science, i.e. Newtonian Physicists and not by all physicists.
Anyone can still proceed with science without accepting the assumption of the thing-in-itself.
Empirical evidence only makes sense as evidence, and science only becomes intelligible, when its objects exist in themselves. Otherwise, anything goes.
You are still making noises.

I stated I have read Chapter 9 of Bhaskar's Book,
not "one chapter from assistant English teacher" which you kept insisting upon;
  • What is Critical Realism?
    Chapter 9 in
    Reclaiming Reality
    A critical introduction to contemporary philosophy
    Roy Bhaskar

    • 1 The Emergence of Transcendental Realism
      2 Transcendental Realism, Science and Scientific Realism
      3 Transcendental Realism and Critical Naturalism: Limits on Naturalism And The Idea Of An Explanatory Critique
      4 Critical Realism and Its Implications
You tell me, what is in the above chapter that is not in
A Realist Theory of Science
Roy Bhaskar
Btw, I have this book as well.

If you are not sure, I can post the whole of Chapter 9 for you to refer.
Conde Lucanor wrote: Tue Sep 14, 2021 4:23 am You had to read the entire A Realist Theory of Science, not secondary sources, to understand the Critical Realism project, but since you avoided it, you are still ignorant. I did read it and studied it, so I do understand it and I'm able to comment on it, based on my extensive research.
If you have read it and studied it based on your extensive research, then you should be able to quote from that book [or any other of Bhaskar's work] to argue against the OP and also to quote Kant where relevant.

In his book, Thomas Judd make references to the following of Bhaskar's works;
  • Bhaskar, Roy (1979) The Possibility of Naturalism: A Philosophical Critique of the Contemporary
    Human Sciences. Atlantic Highlands: Humanities Press.
    —— (1989) Reclaiming Reality: A Critical Introduction to Contemporary Philosophy. London:
    Verso.
    —— (1993) Dialectic: The Pulse of Freedom. London: Verso.
    —— (1994) Plato Etc.: The Problems of Philosophy and Their Resolution. London: Verso.
    —— (1997) A Realist Theory of Science. London: Verso.
Show me where has Thomas Judd misrepresented Bhaskar's views.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12232
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

I have posted the "Introduction" from
A Realist Theory of Science
Roy Bhaskar, in this thread
viewtopic.php?f=5&p=527031#p527031
I have read it thoroughly and I believe it is representative of Bhaskar's view [full of holes], also note I mentioned Chapter 9 of the other book of Bhaskar, Reclaiming Reality: A Critical Introduction to Contemporary Philosophy.

I have parsed the paragraphs & statements and included some notes in [] for easier reading.

Now you can show me therefrom how does Bhaskar' work counter the anti-realists' [especially Kant's] position?
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: Tue Sep 14, 2021 7:55 am You are still making noises.

I stated I have read Chapter 9 of Bhaskar's Book,
not "one chapter from assistant English teacher" which you kept insisting upon;
  • What is Critical Realism?
    Chapter 9 in
    Reclaiming Reality
    A critical introduction to contemporary philosophy
    Roy Bhaskar
You said you have not read Bhaskar (except one chapter in one book) and you had dismissed his entire philosophy, having read a summary from an assistant English teacher at Pittsburgh University. It is not clear whether that chapter from Bhaskar's book is in Judd's book or not, since you only submitted these vague references among the supposed literature you had "researched":

What is Critical Realism in Judd

Critical Realism and Composition Theory Donald Judd


In any case, my "noise" is perfectly justifiable: you are not familiar with Critical Realism from primary sources. If I had read just one chapter of Kant's CPR, you would have made a big noise about "being ignorant of what Transcendental Idealism entails". Well, using your own criteria and argument, you are completely ignorant of what Critical Realism entails.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Sep 14, 2021 7:55 am In his book, Thomas Judd make references to the following of Bhaskar's works;
  • Bhaskar, Roy (1979) The Possibility of Naturalism: A Philosophical Critique of the Contemporary
    Human Sciences. Atlantic Highlands: Humanities Press.
    —— (1989) Reclaiming Reality: A Critical Introduction to Contemporary Philosophy. London:
    Verso.
    —— (1993) Dialectic: The Pulse of Freedom. London: Verso.
    —— (1994) Plato Etc.: The Problems of Philosophy and Their Resolution. London: Verso.
    —— (1997) A Realist Theory of Science. London: Verso.
Show me where has Thomas Judd misrepresented Bhaskar's views.
There's a book from DONALD Judd that you referenced. What is the book from THOMAS Judd? And you call yourself a "researcher".
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: Wed Sep 15, 2021 5:51 am I have posted the "Introduction" from
A Realist Theory of Science
Roy Bhaskar, in this thread
viewtopic.php?f=5&p=527031#p527031
I have read it thoroughly and I believe it is representative of Bhaskar's view [full of holes], also note I mentioned Chapter 9 of the other book of Bhaskar, Reclaiming Reality: A Critical Introduction to Contemporary Philosophy.

I have parsed the paragraphs & statements and included some notes in [] for easier reading.

Now you can show me therefrom how does Bhaskar' work counter the anti-realists' [especially Kant's] position?
You can post whatever you think is relevant to this thread in this thread. I'll be happy to address any issue here. If you want to argue against my takes on the OP in relation to what Critical Realism entails, nothing bars you from doing it. It's up to you to show that CR is not relevant to the current discussion.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12232
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Conde Lucanor wrote: Sat Sep 18, 2021 4:25 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Sep 14, 2021 7:55 am You are still making noises.

I stated I have read Chapter 9 of Bhaskar's Book,
not "one chapter from assistant English teacher" which you kept insisting upon;
  • What is Critical Realism?
    Chapter 9 in
    Reclaiming Reality
    A critical introduction to contemporary philosophy
    Roy Bhaskar
You said you have not read Bhaskar (except one chapter in one book) and you had dismissed his entire philosophy, having read a summary from an assistant English teacher at Pittsburgh University. It is not clear whether that chapter from Bhaskar's book is in Judd's book or not, since you only submitted these vague references among the supposed literature you had "researched":

What is Critical Realism in Judd

Critical Realism and Composition Theory Donald Judd


In any case, my "noise" is perfectly justifiable: you are not familiar with Critical Realism from primary sources. If I had read just one chapter of Kant's CPR, you would have made a big noise about "being ignorant of what Transcendental Idealism entails". Well, using your own criteria and argument, you are completely ignorant of what Critical Realism entails.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Sep 14, 2021 7:55 am In his book, Thomas Judd make references to the following of Bhaskar's works;
  • Bhaskar, Roy (1979) The Possibility of Naturalism: A Philosophical Critique of the Contemporary
    Human Sciences. Atlantic Highlands: Humanities Press.
    —— (1989) Reclaiming Reality: A Critical Introduction to Contemporary Philosophy. London:
    Verso.
    —— (1993) Dialectic: The Pulse of Freedom. London: Verso.
    —— (1994) Plato Etc.: The Problems of Philosophy and Their Resolution. London: Verso.
    —— (1997) A Realist Theory of Science. London: Verso.
Show me where has Thomas Judd misrepresented Bhaskar's views.
There's a book from DONALD Judd that you referenced. What is the book from THOMAS Judd? And you call yourself a "researcher".
Your above is a chunk of confusions.

I told you I've read one Chapter [i.e. Chapter 9] in Bhaskar's book, i.e.
  • What is Critical Realism?
    Chapter 9 in
    Reclaiming Reality
    A critical introduction to contemporary philosophy
    Roy Bhaskar
It that so difficult to understand?
There's a book from DONALD Judd that you referenced. What is the book from THOMAS Judd? And you call yourself a "researcher".
You yourself mentioned Judd's book above, i.e.
  • What is Critical Realism in Judd
    Critical Realism and Composition Theory Donald Judd
Then you ask what book from Thomas Judd.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12232
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Conde Lucanor wrote: Sat Sep 18, 2021 4:35 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Sep 15, 2021 5:51 am I have posted the "Introduction" from
A Realist Theory of Science
Roy Bhaskar, in this thread
viewtopic.php?f=5&p=527031#p527031
I have read it thoroughly and I believe it is representative of Bhaskar's view [full of holes], also note I mentioned Chapter 9 of the other book of Bhaskar, Reclaiming Reality: A Critical Introduction to Contemporary Philosophy.

I have parsed the paragraphs & statements and included some notes in [] for easier reading.

Now you can show me therefrom how does Bhaskar' work counter the anti-realists' [especially Kant's] position?
You can post whatever you think is relevant to this thread in this thread. I'll be happy to address any issue here. If you want to argue against my takes on the OP in relation to what Critical Realism entails, nothing bars you from doing it. It's up to you to show that CR is not relevant to the current discussion.
In the context of this OP you reference Bhaskar' work, thus the onus is on you to show that CR support realism within the realist vs anti-realist issue.

You stated you have done 'extensive' research on that book, surely you can present your argument in summary.
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 Sep 19, 2021 5:26 am
Conde Lucanor wrote: Sat Sep 18, 2021 4:25 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Sep 14, 2021 7:55 am You are still making noises.

I stated I have read Chapter 9 of Bhaskar's Book,
not "one chapter from assistant English teacher" which you kept insisting upon;
  • What is Critical Realism?
    Chapter 9 in
    Reclaiming Reality
    A critical introduction to contemporary philosophy
    Roy Bhaskar
You said you have not read Bhaskar (except one chapter in one book) and you had dismissed his entire philosophy, having read a summary from an assistant English teacher at Pittsburgh University. It is not clear whether that chapter from Bhaskar's book is in Judd's book or not, since you only submitted these vague references among the supposed literature you had "researched":

What is Critical Realism in Judd

Critical Realism and Composition Theory Donald Judd


In any case, my "noise" is perfectly justifiable: you are not familiar with Critical Realism from primary sources. If I had read just one chapter of Kant's CPR, you would have made a big noise about "being ignorant of what Transcendental Idealism entails". Well, using your own criteria and argument, you are completely ignorant of what Critical Realism entails.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Sep 14, 2021 7:55 am In his book, Thomas Judd make references to the following of Bhaskar's works;
  • Bhaskar, Roy (1979) The Possibility of Naturalism: A Philosophical Critique of the Contemporary
    Human Sciences. Atlantic Highlands: Humanities Press.
    —— (1989) Reclaiming Reality: A Critical Introduction to Contemporary Philosophy. London:
    Verso.
    —— (1993) Dialectic: The Pulse of Freedom. London: Verso.
    —— (1994) Plato Etc.: The Problems of Philosophy and Their Resolution. London: Verso.
    —— (1997) A Realist Theory of Science. London: Verso.
Show me where has Thomas Judd misrepresented Bhaskar's views.
There's a book from DONALD Judd that you referenced. What is the book from THOMAS Judd? And you call yourself a "researcher".
Your above is a chunk of confusions.

I told you I've read one Chapter [i.e. Chapter 9] in Bhaskar's book, i.e.
  • What is Critical Realism?
    Chapter 9 in
    Reclaiming Reality
    A critical introduction to contemporary philosophy
    Roy Bhaskar
It that so difficult to understand?
There's a book from DONALD Judd that you referenced. What is the book from THOMAS Judd? And you call yourself a "researcher".
You yourself mentioned Judd's book above, i.e.
  • What is Critical Realism in Judd
    Critical Realism and Composition Theory Donald Judd
Then you ask what book from Thomas Judd.
Yes, such a confusion that arises from your messy, unrigorous approach to bibliography. That's why I wondered how you still have the courage to call yourself a researcher.

Apparently, Donald Judd and Thomas Judd are the same person, although the name "Thomas" does not show in your references at all, only "Donald". Yet there's nothing in the work of assistant English teacher, Donald Judd, entitled "What is Critical Realism". None of the chapters in Donald Judd's book has that title either.

Clean up your act and come up with the appropriate references (since you make a big fuss about owning them), so we don't have to make guesses, which I'm sure is your way to avoid the scrutiny of your grandiose claims.
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 Sep 19, 2021 5:32 am
Conde Lucanor wrote: Sat Sep 18, 2021 4:35 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Sep 15, 2021 5:51 am I have posted the "Introduction" from
A Realist Theory of Science
Roy Bhaskar, in this thread
viewtopic.php?f=5&p=527031#p527031
I have read it thoroughly and I believe it is representative of Bhaskar's view [full of holes], also note I mentioned Chapter 9 of the other book of Bhaskar, Reclaiming Reality: A Critical Introduction to Contemporary Philosophy.

I have parsed the paragraphs & statements and included some notes in [] for easier reading.

Now you can show me therefrom how does Bhaskar' work counter the anti-realists' [especially Kant's] position?
You can post whatever you think is relevant to this thread in this thread. I'll be happy to address any issue here. If you want to argue against my takes on the OP in relation to what Critical Realism entails, nothing bars you from doing it. It's up to you to show that CR is not relevant to the current discussion.
In the context of this OP you reference Bhaskar' work, thus the onus is on you to show that CR support realism within the realist vs anti-realist issue.

You stated you have done 'extensive' research on that book, surely you can present your argument in summary.
No, you're dodging the issue, which was clearly presented in my previous posts and is still awaiting for a proper response:
Conde Lucanor wrote: All the Kantian dogma in the world will not make you, however, competent to settle the debate between realists and anti-realists. For the simple reason that you have to hear the other side, too, but you have explicitly stated that you're not interested. Fine, keep up your dogmatism, but it will not yield better results than what is possible from it, which amounts to almost nothing. About your straw man, the claim that I endorse secondary sources as the only reliable sources to get a fair understanding of philosophical doctrines, is easily refuted by the literal statement I made on the contrary: "BOTH by directly reading Kant's CPR AND relying on scholarly sources, one can get a good understanding of the relevant aspects of Kant's main doctrines".

Conde Lucanor wrote:I don't need to reemphasize your incompetence in providing key insights to the realism/anti-realism debate. You have confessed you're completely ignorant of key authors and their texts, relying only on your staunch obsession with Kant. And then you have the guts to claim you "have done extensively research on the realists' views." Pff, talk about intellectual honesty.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12232
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Conde Lucanor wrote: Sun Sep 19, 2021 4:35 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Sep 19, 2021 5:26 am
Conde Lucanor wrote: Sat Sep 18, 2021 4:25 pm
You said you have not read Bhaskar (except one chapter in one book) and you had dismissed his entire philosophy, having read a summary from an assistant English teacher at Pittsburgh University. It is not clear whether that chapter from Bhaskar's book is in Judd's book or not, since you only submitted these vague references among the supposed literature you had "researched":

What is Critical Realism in Judd

Critical Realism and Composition Theory Donald Judd


In any case, my "noise" is perfectly justifiable: you are not familiar with Critical Realism from primary sources. If I had read just one chapter of Kant's CPR, you would have made a big noise about "being ignorant of what Transcendental Idealism entails". Well, using your own criteria and argument, you are completely ignorant of what Critical Realism entails.


There's a book from DONALD Judd that you referenced. What is the book from THOMAS Judd? And you call yourself a "researcher".
Your above is a chunk of confusions.

I told you I've read one Chapter [i.e. Chapter 9] in Bhaskar's book, i.e.
  • What is Critical Realism?
    Chapter 9 in
    Reclaiming Reality
    A critical introduction to contemporary philosophy
    Roy Bhaskar
It that so difficult to understand?
There's a book from DONALD Judd that you referenced. What is the book from THOMAS Judd? And you call yourself a "researcher".
You yourself mentioned Judd's book above, i.e.
  • What is Critical Realism in Judd
    Critical Realism and Composition Theory Donald Judd
Then you ask what book from Thomas Judd.
Yes, such a confusion that arises from your messy, unrigorous approach to bibliography. That's why I wondered how you still have the courage to call yourself a researcher.

Apparently, Donald Judd and Thomas Judd are the same person, although the name "Thomas" does not show in your references at all, only "Donald". Yet there's nothing in the work of assistant English teacher, Donald Judd, entitled "What is Critical Realism". None of the chapters in Donald Judd's book has that title either.

Clean up your act and come up with the appropriate references (since you make a big fuss about owning them), so we don't have to make guesses, which I'm sure is your way to avoid the scrutiny of your grandiose claims.
Rigorous is critical, but I don't have to be rigorous in this circumstances.

I had mentioned, Donald Judd's
"Critical Realism and Composition Theory Donald Judd"
many times.
So the mistaken name should not be a big issue.

Your "assistant English teacher" put-down is ad hominen and childish.

Note Donald's credentials.
Donald Judd is an Assistant Professor of English at Pittsburg State University, where he teaches courses on writing, literature, and composition theory.
Teaching Emphasis
  • Composition and Rhetoric
    Critical Realist Theory
    Marxist Theory
    Rhetoric and Science
Publications
  • Critical Realism and Composition Theory (2003)
    Articles on designing writing assignments and environmental issues
https://www.pittstate.edu/languages/fac ... -judd.html
I did not assert there is a chapter 'What is Critical Realism' in Judd's book, rather
Judd explained 'what is criticism' in Chapter 2, i.e.
"2 Critical realism and philosophies of science 19"
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12232
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Conde Lucanor wrote: Sun Sep 19, 2021 4:49 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Sep 19, 2021 5:32 am
Conde Lucanor wrote: Sat Sep 18, 2021 4:35 pm
You can post whatever you think is relevant to this thread in this thread. I'll be happy to address any issue here. If you want to argue against my takes on the OP in relation to what Critical Realism entails, nothing bars you from doing it. It's up to you to show that CR is not relevant to the current discussion.
In the context of this OP you reference Bhaskar' work, thus the onus is on you to show that CR support realism within the realist vs anti-realist issue.

You stated you have done 'extensive' research on that book, surely you can present your argument in summary.
No, you're dodging the issue, which was clearly presented in my previous posts and is still awaiting for a proper response:
Conde Lucanor wrote: All the Kantian dogma in the world will not make you, however, competent to settle the debate between realists and anti-realists. For the simple reason that you have to hear the other side, too, but you have explicitly stated that you're not interested. Fine, keep up your dogmatism, but it will not yield better results than what is possible from it, which amounts to almost nothing. About your straw man, the claim that I endorse secondary sources as the only reliable sources to get a fair understanding of philosophical doctrines, is easily refuted by the literal statement I made on the contrary: "BOTH by directly reading Kant's CPR AND relying on scholarly sources, one can get a good understanding of the relevant aspects of Kant's main doctrines".

Making noises again!
I did not assert I am not interested to hear the other side.
I have done extensive research on what the other side's views are, otherwise how can I argue and claim realism is not realistic and not tenable in reality?

You are supporting your realist views with Bunge, Meillassoux, & Bhaskar.
I admitted I have not covered Bunge but had considered the works of Meillassoux, & Bhaskar and not mainstream arguments to support philosophical realism.
The onus is on you to show why they are the critical pillars of philosophical realism.

As for Kantian philosophy, there are loads of opposing views from the pro-Kantian and the anti-Kantian and more so even among themselves.
As I had stated I used to rely on secondary sources of those who are pro-Kantian but find they are insufficient to justify Kant's position.
This is why we must refer to the primary sources, i.e. from the horses mouth, at least translations.

Conde Lucanor wrote:I don't need to reemphasize your incompetence in providing key insights to the realism/anti-realism debate. You have confessed you're completely ignorant of key authors and their texts, relying only on your staunch obsession with Kant. And then you have the guts to claim you "have done extensively research on the realists' views." Pff, talk about intellectual honesty.
Which key author[s] I have missed out?
The only one you cited and I had not looked at is Mario Bunge who is not mentioned within the usual realist- anti-realist debates. If you insist, give me your argument why Mario Bunge is critical to the debate.

Your childish put-down will not counter that I have >1000s of books, articles, notes related to the realist and anti-realist debate. Note the threads I listed as related to the issue.

Btw, so far you are only making noises about lack of this and that on my part, but you have not presented anything of substance to support your 'realist' [philosophical] at all??
User avatar
Conde Lucanor
Posts: 846
Joined: Mon Nov 04, 2013 2:59 am

Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

Post by Conde Lucanor »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Sep 20, 2021 6:38 am
Rigorous is critical, but I don't have to be rigorous in this circumstances.

I had mentioned, Donald Judd's
"Critical Realism and Composition Theory Donald Judd"
many times.
So the mistaken name should not be a big issue.
Ha! Sure, you can be as clumsy and unrigorous as you want, but then you want to pose here as the knowledgeable scholar, which you are thousands of miles away from. You don't even know the sources that support your so-called "research", and you even mistake their names. A big issue when you make the grandiose claim that you're such an expert on realism.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Sep 20, 2021 6:38 am Your "assistant English teacher" put-down is ad hominen and childish.
You assume I put down the assistant English teacher that supposedly is your source of views on Critical Realism, but actually I only gave you his credentials. Maybe you are putting him down.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Sep 20, 2021 6:38 am I did not assert there is a chapter 'What is Critical Realism' in Judd's book, rather
Judd explained 'what is criticism' in Chapter 2, i.e.
"2 Critical realism and philosophies of science 19"
Stop lying, you wrote:
You yourself mentioned Judd's book above, i.e.
What is Critical Realism in Judd
Critical Realism and Composition Theory Donald Judd
Then you ask what book from Thomas Judd.
User avatar
Conde Lucanor
Posts: 846
Joined: Mon Nov 04, 2013 2:59 am

Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

Post by Conde Lucanor »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Sep 20, 2021 6:55 am Which key author[s] I have missed out?
All those that you have admitted missing out. Do I need to refresh that?

I read Meillassoux long time ago, cannot remember his views on Kant.

Your only twice mentioned 'Bunge' then Bhaskar are insignificant

I have not touched Bunge.

I don't remember Meillassoux

I have not read Roy Bhaskar's book in details [but Chap 9 in detail] but Donald Judd and Collier gave a summary of Bhaskar views.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Sep 20, 2021 6:55 am The only one you cited and I had not looked at is Mario Bunge who is not mentioned within the usual realist- anti-realist debates.
Says who?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Sep 20, 2021 6:55 am If you insist, give me your argument why Mario Bunge is critical to the debate.
Mario Bunge's credentials as one of the great philosopher of our time are not even in question. He wrote extensively about the philosophy of science, advocated for scientific realism and was critical of antirealism. Of course he's critical to the debate, even though you didn't know he existed.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Sep 20, 2021 6:55 am Your childish put-down will not counter that I have >1000s of books, articles, notes related to the realist and anti-realist debate. Note the threads I listed as related to the issue.
What is truly childish is your ridiculous posing as an expert that has gathered more than enough material to become an expert in both realism and antirealism. It is most likely pure lies. You said you owned at least 4750 files on realism that you had already read, and then showed as a proof only 22 of them (some of them already questionable as real reading sources), which amounts to 0.4% of the number you provided. You really think adults still suck their thumbs!!
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12232
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Conde Lucanor wrote: Fri Sep 24, 2021 1:13 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Sep 20, 2021 6:55 am Which key author[s] I have missed out?
All those that you have admitted missing out. Do I need to refresh that?

I read Meillassoux long time ago, cannot remember his views on Kant.

Your only twice mentioned 'Bunge' then Bhaskar are insignificant

I have not touched Bunge.

I don't remember Meillassoux

I have not read Roy Bhaskar's book in details [but Chap 9 in detail] but Donald Judd and Collier gave a summary of Bhaskar views.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Sep 20, 2021 6:55 am The only one you cited and I had not looked at is Mario Bunge who is not mentioned within the usual realist- anti-realist debates.
Says who?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Sep 20, 2021 6:55 am If you insist, give me your argument why Mario Bunge is critical to the debate.
Mario Bunge's credentials as one of the great philosopher of our time are not even in question. He wrote extensively about the philosophy of science, advocated for scientific realism and was critical of antirealism. Of course he's critical to the debate, even though you didn't know he existed.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Sep 20, 2021 6:55 am Your childish put-down will not counter that I have >1000s of books, articles, notes related to the realist and anti-realist debate. Note the threads I listed as related to the issue.
What is truly childish is your ridiculous posing as an expert that has gathered more than enough material to become an expert in both realism and antirealism. It is most likely pure lies. You said you owned at least 4750 files on realism that you had already read, and then showed as a proof only 22 of them (some of them already questionable as real reading sources), which amounts to 0.4% of the number you provided. You really think adults still suck their thumbs!!
You are still making noises and relying on the frivolous to argue for the main argument re the OP.
So far you have not presented any substantial argument nor references to support your argument for realism and against anti-realism.

Note I never claimed to be an absolute 'expert' [specialist] but rather I stated I am a "reasonable" expert on the various subjects I have claimed for. This meant I know little bit more than the average reader in the respective subjects.

I had never claimed I have read [fully] all the >9000 files [books, articles, notes, etc.] I have in my computer.
However I dare claim I am fully aware of the contents, abstracts and themes of these files, else I would not bothered to save them in my computer for future references.

Re the thousands of files related to Realism vs Anti-Realism,
I have argued for the following;
All Philosophies Reduced to Realism vs Idealism
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=28643
Since I have >9000 files related to Philosophy,
I am confident on that basis >4000 files are related to Realism or Anti-Realism in some ways.
I did not claim I have >4000 files specifically related to the "Realism vs Anti-Realism" debate. Nevertheless I have read many books and articles that are specifically related to the "Realism vs Anti-Realism" debate.

As I have stated you are making too much noises focusing on frivolous and petty issues rather that presenting a proper argument to support your realism against anti-realism in relation to the OP.

I have opened a thread re Mario Bunge, you can present his argument [at least a reasonable outline or summary] for realism and against anti-realism therein.
Advocate
Posts: 3467
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

Post by Advocate »

If proof means anything at all, reality is the most well established thing there is, and this is a stupid conversation.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

Post by RCSaunders »

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

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

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

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

Da Vinci said, "To see is to know." The philosopher say, "to trust what I say is to know, not your own eyes." The mystery is why almost everyone believes the lying philosopher.
Post Reply