Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12385
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Conde Lucanor wrote: Tue Jun 22, 2021 12:07 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Your thinking is too shallow and narrow in this case.

Nope!
Whatever is a thing that really exists is NOT by definition a thing-in-itself. That is merely your assumption.
What is supposed a real thing must be viewed from different perspectives.
It is very obvious there are different levels of reality that must be dealt with separately.
For example, for the same object, Newtonian Physics deal with its solidness, while for the same object, QM will deal with its sub-atomic particles.
At the basic physical level, a piece of diamond is a solid physical thing, but if one has an instrument that is fine enough that same piece of diamond is 99.9% space [or rather emptiness].
There is thus no such thing as a diamond-in-itself but only a diamond-in-perspective, i.e. relative to the specified perspective.

It is the same with the person which is a solid object to another person or other animals, thus the empirical self which exists as real. This is so evident.
Fundamentally there is only the empirical-related-self and nothing else.

What humans [the masses] is habitualized is to think of a person-in-itself as a thing-in-itself and I do not believe such a thing-in-itself is real.

As I had stated we should be not a slave to this habitualized and instinctively driven thinking of the thing-in-itself, but suspend it and view this point from the whole shebang of cognition, existence, self, consciousness, etc.

You're completely lost!!

The most basic basic perspective is that which is inherent to every human being, that is, the pre-theoretical common sense view of the world, which sets the stage for the further development of other more systematized perspectives about reality.

But the basic perspective already lays out what's the problem to solve: the world appears at first glance as independent of the subject's mind, implying an actual separation between objects and subjects. But is it really?

Realism will take the ontological perspective that the division between subjects and objects is true, and that subjects are just a different class of objects: the "internal" domain is subsumed within the "external" realm.
I have to say you are very ignorant of reality and yourself in this case [not everything] which is very fundamental, thus to all thinking and knowledge.

Note it is an evolutionary default that ALL living things [since the first one-celled living things to the complex human beings] are 'programmed' to focus their attention what is outside and external to them, i.e. to look for food, look out for threats and partners to reproduce the next generations.

The above default is how proto-human and modern humans inherited the following common sense as you stated;
  • The most basic basic perspective is that which is inherent to every human being, that is, the pre-theoretical common sense view of the world, which sets the stage for the further development of other more systematized perspectives about reality.


That was where philosophical realism of the external world and scientific realism sprang from, i.e. common sense from an evolutionary default.

But you forgot that human beings are the only living thing since the beginning that has the ability for self-reflection and intelligence to look and redirect its attention from the default outward and external world to backward and inward into its own body, mind and consciousness.

It is due to the later development of self-reflection that philosophers advanced from philosophical and scientific realism towards anti-realism which brought about positive contributions that are 100x better than realism.
Therefore effective anti-realism is always one-up on philosophical realism.

True, there are various views of anti-realism that are stupid and nonsensical, but those like empirical realism aka transcendental idealism and those associated with Quantum Mechanics are very positive and contributive to humanity.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12385
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Conde Lucanor wrote: Tue Jun 22, 2021 2:10 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Jun 20, 2021 9:30 am Note I have argued there is no fact-in-itself, extensively in the following;

There are No Fact-in-Itself
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31591

What is fact is always dependent on the specific Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK]. Therefore whatever is objective fact is ultimately [note ultimately!] conditioned upon human conditions.
A fact is a statement of knowledge about objective reality. While knowledge per se is subjective from the individual point of view, intersubjectivity introduces the possibility of objectivity (check Intersubjective_verifiability). So what this knowledge points to (when referring to facts) is to actual properties of objects that are independent of the subjects.
Humans construct their knowledge for sure, intersubjectively, but that doesn't mean reality-in-itself is a human construct. Of course anti-realist are all for denying that there's reality-in-itself, that's why they are not only delusional, but elevate delusion to a category of knowledge.
Re OP you have not been able to prove convincingly reality-in-itself or thing-in-itself really exists as real.

The only way in attempting to prove the thing-in-itself is to rely on science, but the objective of science it not [& NEVER] to prove the thing-in-itself exists as real.
Science per se do not give a damn with the idea of reality or thing-in-itself.
What science is interested is merely scientific knowledge based on whatever is observable, testable and repeatable, and with the possibility of being useful for humanity.

Since humans can NEVER be in direct contact with any thing-in-itself except via sense-datum in the brain, to claim that the thing-in-itself exists are real is delusional.
What the anti-realist counter is that the realist is delusional in making an the claim there is really a thing-in-itself?
The realist cannot response in providing proof to support their claim.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Jun 20, 2021 9:30 am Thus the fact 'the moon existed before humans' is ultimately entangled with human conditions.
Nope. The fact that "the moon existed before humans" means exactly that it is a true statement about a real state of the world that is independent of humans. Otherwise it wouldn't be a fact, and not distinguishable from hallucination, as anti-realists propose.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Jun 20, 2021 9:30 am AL-Khalili and other reputable scientists who appeared in documentaries would not have risked their reputations if they have not published a related paper or relied on published authority to make their statements.
Al-Khalili has a paper on everyday observable things not existing? Where?
I mentioned 'or' i.e. AL-Khalili relied on published authority and mentioned various theories in the documentary.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Jun 20, 2021 9:30 am Maturana's view on realism is on record a scientific paper?? where?
I already told you some posts back. Didn't you look it up?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Jun 20, 2021 9:30 am Btw, I had explored Maturana's view [in association with Varela] and I agree with many of his views.
Maturana is a fundamentally a biologist thus not credible to assert views re physics and realism.

His views are more toward Critical Realism, where
"The 'real' can not be observed and exists independent from human perceptions, theories, and constructions."
I have told you many times that I find Critical Realism very appealing. It has nothing to do with anti-realism:
Critical Realism
In the last decades of the twentieth century it also stood against various forms of postmodernism and poststructuralism by insisting on the reality of objective existence. In contrast to positivism's methodological foundation, and poststructuralism's epistemological foundation, critical realism insists that (social) science should be built from an explicit ontology. Critical realism is one of a range of types of philosophical realism, as well as forms of realism advocated within social science such as analytic realism and subtle realism.
I read the above "Critical Realism" as defined is something like empirical realism, i.e.
  • "The 'real' can not be observed and exists independent from human perceptions, theories, and constructions."
If Critical Realism is one type of philosophical realism [PR], then it will be encumbered with the weakness of PR, i.e. it is never realistic but driven by a evolutionary default
which is very primal and not based on advanced philosophy.
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 Jun 22, 2021 6:19 am The papers showed this;
Kant questioned whether "Metaphysics is possible as a science" [like the Science and Mathematics then] and his answer was "No!" and "Yes" i.e. 'No' to the typical Traditional Metaphysics but 'yes' to the Metaphysics of Morality.
As such you cannot give a generalized answers but your answer must be qualified to the contexts involved.
Nope!! You're simply ignoring the papers to try to impose, as usual, your dogmatic beliefs. Note the reference previously submitted:
Gary Hatfield wrote:Like Descartes, Kant thought that metaphysics could provide a systematic body of theoretical first principles, but he denied that it provides knowledge of substances as they are in themselves [...]

[...] He restricted metaphysical knowledge to propositions that can be justified by appeal to the conditions of possible experience, but he allowed metaphysical thinking to cover a broader range. In his view, a proper science of metaphysics must set out the legitimate propositions of metaphysics, while also determining the boundaries of their application. The latter task included assuring that the objects of experience are not taken to exhaust the entire domain of being, leaving room for human freedom and allowing for the existence of God – without proving either.
Gary Hatfield wrote:The second review, by S. H. Ewald, appeared anonymously in August 1782, when Kant was nearly finished writing. This review presented Kant’s project to assess the possibility of metaphysics through a new “science” of transcendental philosophy. Beyond its laudatory introduction, the review is largely put together by copying Kant’s own phrasing. He was pleased with this one, and offered it as a model for how the critical philosophy should be judged: carefully, suspending judgment at first, and working through it bit by bit
The next thing you can do, as always, is to dismiss Hatfield and say you know better. Sure.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Jun 22, 2021 6:19 am Note there are many types of realism.
You keep forgetting that I told you I am an empirical realist, that is why my answer in one perspective is "realist".
This is where I associate with science in term of empirical realism, not philosophical realism.
While there may be many strands of realism, they all converge to the general principle of realism: that reality exists independent of the mind. Anything else is not realism, in other words, there cannot be an anti-realist realism, an oxymoron. If you want to be an anti-realist, fine, but to defend your anti-realism by claiming it is realism if you look at it in some way, is ridiculous. Your "empirical realism" = non-realism = anti-realism = idealism.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Jun 22, 2021 6:19 am This is a strawman, I NEVER claimed this;
"empirical evidence of the person, self, consciousness, etc." do not point at real things, but the experience of things, or the form of things in experience, which you say ultimately don't exist as real things outside of experience. You claim these things are illusory.
If I am an empirical realist, how can I claim the empirical evidences above are illusory.
We know the age of the Moon from empirical evidence, which would grant its existence predating humans. Is that illusory or not? A NO for an answer, ends the challenge of the OP. A YES for an answer proves my point above that you're denying. Choose well.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Jun 22, 2021 6:19 am
As above, it is your claim of philosophical realism [in absoluteness] that triggers Meno's Paradox onto your claim, i.e. absurd.
Again, Meno's Paradox is useless philosophical garbage, out of pure sophistry. It is not relevant.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Jun 22, 2021 6:19 am I have NEVER claimed [in this case] that the conscious mind can directly affect reality consciously.
The implication of the above is whatever are scientific truths and whatever they are about, are never fully independent of the human conditions.

Note you are building strawmen all the way thus I have to use the phrase "I NEVER claimed.." so many times.
Note that actually your "I NEVER claimed..." statements are the result of you trying to deny the implications of the contradicting arguments you present, while moving your position to avoid being the target of my refutations. So you imply one thing to advance an argument, but then withdraw it to defend it.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Jun 22, 2021 6:19 am Science don't give a damn with philosophical realism nor anti-realism.
Nonsense. Science only works with realism, otherwise we would not be conceding that Thomson discovered the actual existence of the electron, only that he came up with a theoretical framework where a thing called the electron made sense. Actually that's what pre-modern science and philosophy of nature used to do.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Jun 22, 2021 6:19 am It is philosophers for their own purposes attributed realism to Science, it is evident from a philosophical perspective that science is not absolutely realism. I have provided argument why modern science is moving toward anti-realistic views.
Those who gave Thomson a Nobel prize in Physics for discovering the electron were unlikely following orders of philosophers.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Jun 22, 2021 6:19 am There you go again with your STRAWMAN.
Note there are many types of anti-realist and you cannot slot me as with ALL anti-realists.

I have claimed to be an empirical realist [believing in an external world] but at the same time is also an anti-realist [typical] as a transcendental idealist [reality cannot be absolute independent of human conditions].
If you identify yourself as an anti-realist, and you declare this in relation to the hypothetical existence of mind-independent objects (an external world), you necessarily belong to the general category of ontological anti-realism, above which there is no other anti-realism. Therefore your anti-realism necessarily denies the existence of an external world, which is the only point in your argument consistent with the claim that the Moon or anything else cannot exist as mind-independent objects. Once you get into trouble with this, you move away to say: "oh, wait, I do believe in an external world, so I'm not in trouble", but that of course comes at the price of undermining your own ontological anti-realism and the whole point in the OP crumbles like flabby cookies.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Jun 22, 2021 6:19 am If you insist "something really exists" then prove it exists as a thing-in-itself.
Isn't the Moon in an "external world"? Aren't subjects in an "external world"? Aren't there many individual subjects with their particular minds dwelling in an "external world"? If the answer to any of this is YES, you lost the challenge. If the answer is NO, you get into all the trouble you are already.
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:Note it is an evolutionary default that ALL living things [since the first one-celled living things to the complex human beings] are 'programmed' to focus their attention what is outside and external to them, i.e. to look for food, look out for threats and partners to reproduce the next generations.

That was where philosophical realism of the external world and scientific realism sprang from, i.e. common sense from an evolutionary default.
But you forgot that human beings are the only living thing since the beginning that has the ability for self-reflection and intelligence to look and redirect its attention from the default outward and external world to backward and inward into its own body, mind and consciousness.
You're explicitly stating that scientific realism sprang directly from the pre-theoretical, common sense view of the world. That's absolute nonsense. The common sense view has been around for millennia, accompanying religion and philosophy all along, while modern science has been around since only a few hundred years ago. Scientific realism came up in the 20th century after Logical Positivism, after the long period of about 4 centuries relying on our "ability for self-reflection and intelligence", which included several crisis in philosophy and religion, and the remarkable success of natural sciences.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: It is due to the later development of self-reflection that philosophers advanced from philosophical and scientific realism towards anti-realism which brought about positive contributions that are 100x better than realism.
Therefore effective anti-realism is always one-up on philosophical realism.
Anti-realism is just what is still left of the decaying body of traditional philosophy, which started dying right after the scientific revolution began. That's why the only way forward in philosophy is materialism, the only ontology compatible with science.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: True, there are various views of anti-realism that are stupid and nonsensical, but those like empirical realism aka transcendental idealism and those associated with Quantum Mechanics are very positive and contributive to humanity.
Associating Quantum Mechanics to idealism is the worst thing that could happen to both science and philosophy. It's a door opened to charlatans like Deepak Chopra.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12385
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Conde Lucanor wrote: Wed Jun 23, 2021 4:52 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Jun 22, 2021 6:19 am The papers showed this;
Kant questioned whether "Metaphysics is possible as a science" [like the Science and Mathematics then] and his answer was "No!" and "Yes" i.e. 'No' to the typical Traditional Metaphysics but 'yes' to the Metaphysics of Morality.
As such you cannot give a generalized answers but your answer must be qualified to the contexts involved.
Nope!! You're simply ignoring the papers to try to impose, as usual, your dogmatic beliefs. Note the reference previously submitted:
Gary Hatfield wrote:Like Descartes, Kant thought that metaphysics could provide a systematic body of theoretical first principles, but he denied that it provides knowledge of substances as they are in themselves [...]

[...] He restricted metaphysical knowledge to propositions that can be justified by appeal to the conditions of possible experience, but he allowed metaphysical thinking to cover a broader range. In his view, a proper science of metaphysics must set out the legitimate propositions of metaphysics, while also determining the boundaries of their application. The latter task included assuring that the objects of experience are not taken to exhaust the entire domain of being, leaving room for human freedom and allowing for the existence of God – without proving either.
Gary Hatfield wrote:The second review, by S. H. Ewald, appeared anonymously in August 1782, when Kant was nearly finished writing. This review presented Kant’s project to assess the possibility of metaphysics through a new “science” of transcendental philosophy. Beyond its laudatory introduction, the review is largely put together by copying Kant’s own phrasing. He was pleased with this one, and offered it as a model for how the critical philosophy should be judged: carefully, suspending judgment at first, and working through it bit by bit
The next thing you can do, as always, is to dismiss Hatfield and say you know better. Sure.
I researched on Hatfield and he is not a specialist on Kant but rather his focus is on the psychology of perception in relation from Kant and others in the modern world. So I would have a high confidence level on his view.
But nevertheless is not 'just dismiss a view' but rather whether the view is justified, rational and sound or not.

I kept saying, one cannot just simply make the assertion in this case, like,
"Metaphysics is possible as a science" period!
It is this a dogmatic belief? you claimed I am sticking to.

I maintain my original claim;
"The papers showed this;
Kant questioned whether "Metaphysics is possible as a science" [like the Science and Mathematics then] and his answer was "No!" and "Yes" i.e. 'No' to the typical Traditional Metaphysics but 'yes' to the Metaphysics of Morality."

You quoted Hatfield who stated;
Gary Hatfield wrote:Like Descartes, Kant thought that metaphysics could provide a systematic body of theoretical first principles,
but he denied that it provides knowledge of substances as they are in themselves [...]
This point itself is a qualification and indicating a limit to metaphysics [in this case traditional] as a science.


Even when Hatfield agreed with Kant's claim that Metaphysics is possible as a Science, it is only confined to Ethics and possible to the existence of God, i.e.;
The latter task included assuring that the objects of experience are not taken to exhaust the entire domain of being, leaving room for human freedom and allowing for the existence of God – without proving either.
Surely, rationally, the mentioned to the possible of metaphysics as a science as possible to the existence of science warrant further qualifications.

So my point remained,
whatever view Kant had on "metaphysics as possible as a science" it must be appropriately qualified in its context and cannot be taken as a general view.
Last edited by Veritas Aequitas on Thu Jun 24, 2021 8:01 am, edited 1 time in total.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12385
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Conde Lucanor wrote: Wed Jun 23, 2021 4:52 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Jun 22, 2021 6:19 am Note there are many types of realism.
You keep forgetting that I told you I am an empirical realist, that is why my answer in one perspective is "realist".
This is where I associate with science in term of empirical realism, not philosophical realism.
While there may be many strands of realism, they all converge to the general principle of realism: that reality exists independent of the mind.
Anything else is not realism, in other words, there cannot be an anti-realist realism, an oxymoron. If you want to be an anti-realist, fine, but to defend your anti-realism by claiming it is realism if you look at it in some way, is ridiculous. Your "empirical realism" = non-realism = anti-realism = idealism.
Nah, your thinking is too constricted here.

Yes, realism = reality exists independent of the mind.
You are claiming for absolute realism but not me.
In my case, what I claimed is empirical realism [realism - not absolute] which is subsumed within transcendental idealism.

In this case, even though I am with "realism" it is not within that of your 'philosophical realism" [or critical realism].
Note common sense [the vulgar] also take for granted there is an external independent reality, it is then common sense realism not your philosophical or critical realism.
Any small kid will also default to an external independent reality.

Note, Science is objective in one sense, but it is subsumed within subjectivity in another, i.e. intersubjectivity [you mentioned this yourself].

That p is also not-p within different senses is not a contradiction.
This is very common and I wonder you cannot comprehend this.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Jun 22, 2021 6:19 am This is a strawman, I NEVER claimed this;
"empirical evidence of the person, self, consciousness, etc." do not point at real things, but the experience of things, or the form of things in experience, which you say ultimately don't exist as real things outside of experience. You claim these things are illusory.
If I am an empirical realist, how can I claim the empirical evidences above are illusory.
We know the age of the Moon from empirical evidence, which would grant its existence predating humans. Is that illusory or not? A NO for an answer, ends the challenge of the OP. A YES for an answer proves my point above that you're denying. Choose well.
  • All empirical evidences are conditioned upon human conditions.
    That 'the moon predated human existence' is knowledge based on empirical evidences.
    Therefore 'the moon predated human existence' is conditioned upon human conditions.
Prove me wrong on the above?

Therefore to insist the moon predated human existence without qualification to human conditions is wrong and to insist in the absolute sense, is delusional.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Jun 22, 2021 6:19 am I have NEVER claimed [in this case] that the conscious mind can directly affect reality consciously.
The implication of the above is whatever are scientific truths and whatever they are about, are never fully independent of the human conditions.

Note you are building strawmen all the way thus I have to use the phrase "I NEVER claimed.." so many times.
Note that actually your "I NEVER claimed..." statements are the result of you trying to deny the implications of the contradicting arguments you present, while moving your position to avoid being the target of my refutations. So you imply one thing to advance an argument, but then withdraw it to defend it.
Nope, re "I NEVER claimed .." is obvious from what I posted, and that you misunderstood or deliberately changed my words or contexts.
To avoid the above, you should repeat what I posted and then counter it directly.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Jun 22, 2021 6:19 am Science don't give a damn with philosophical realism nor anti-realism.
Nonsense. Science only works with realism, otherwise we would not be conceding that Thomson discovered the actual existence of the electron, only that he came up with a theoretical framework where a thing called the electron made sense. Actually that's what pre-modern science and philosophy of nature used to do.
That is only your personal and the realists' views, thus has to be bias.
As I had argued, where realism is invoked in science, it is merely taken as a assumption and not a scientific fact nor first principle.
In other cases, there is no need for such an assumption and science can rely on the Scientific Framework and empirical evidences.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Jun 22, 2021 6:19 am It is philosophers for their own purposes attributed realism to Science, it is evident from a philosophical perspective that science is not absolutely realism. I have provided argument why modern science is moving toward anti-realistic views.
Those who gave Thomson a Nobel prize in Physics for discovering the electron were unlikely following orders of philosophers.
Note sure what is your point here?
Nobel Prizes are given based on the real great and potential positive contributions to humanity, and has nothing to do with philosophical realism per se.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Jun 22, 2021 6:19 am There you go again with your STRAWMAN.
Note there are many types of anti-realist and you cannot slot me as with ALL anti-realists.

I have claimed to be an empirical realist [believing in an external world] but at the same time is also an anti-realist [typical] as a transcendental idealist [reality cannot be absolute independent of human conditions].
If you identify yourself as an anti-realist, and you declare this in relation to the hypothetical existence of mind-independent objects (an external world), you necessarily belong to the general category of ontological anti-realism, above which there is no other anti-realism.

Therefore your anti-realism necessarily denies the existence of an external world, which is the only point in your argument consistent with the claim that the Moon or anything else cannot exist as mind-independent objects. Once you get into trouble with this, you move away to say: "oh, wait, I do believe in an external world, so I'm not in trouble", but that of course comes at the price of undermining your own ontological anti-realism and the whole point in the OP crumbles like flabby cookies.
Without invoking the Law of Contradiction, I am an empirical realist [believing in independent reality] but at the same time is an transcendental idealist [anti-realist], and the above are not in the same sense [perspective].

In this case, my anti-realism denies the ABSOLUTE claim of the existence of an external world, but agree with a relative and conditional claim of "the existence of an external world".
Unfortunately you are not up to it to accept the above two opposite but necessary complementary claims.

There is no "Once you get into trouble with this, you move away to say: .."oh, wait, I do believe in an external world, so I'm not in trouble"

Kant already introduced the idea of 'empirical realism' within 'transcendental idealism' in 1781 in his Critique of Pure Reason. I am referencing such a point.
So to claim I am running away from your supposedly recent 'checkmate' strategy is too arrogant and presumptuous on your part.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Jun 22, 2021 6:19 am If you insist "something really exists" then prove it exists as a thing-in-itself.
Isn't the Moon in an "external world"?
Aren't subjects in an "external world"?
Aren't there many individual subjects with their particular minds dwelling in an "external world"? If the answer to any of this is YES, you lost the challenge. If the answer is NO, you get into all the trouble you are already.
Note my syllogism re the Moon as external is ultimately subjected to human conditions, thus ultimately not independent in the absolute sense.

1. As for subject in an external world, your thinking on this is too constricted to realism.
You are a subject, and you as a philosophical [critical] realist claimed 'you' are absolutely independent of the external world.
Point is what is supposedly 'external' to 'you,' ultimately has to be grounded on your mind, consciousness, existence and yourself, thus cannot be absolutely independent.

As for other subjects, they empirically are humans like you, i.e. not aliens.
As such, point 1 above, as applicable to you, is the same for all subjects which are supposedly external to you.
Thus ultimately there are no external independent subjects in the absolute sense.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12385
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Conde Lucanor wrote: Thu Jun 24, 2021 2:15 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:Note it is an evolutionary default that ALL living things [since the first one-celled living things to the complex human beings] are 'programmed' to focus their attention what is outside and external to them, i.e. to look for food, look out for threats and partners to reproduce the next generations.

That was where philosophical realism of the external world and scientific realism sprang from, i.e. common sense from an evolutionary default.
But you forgot that human beings are the only living thing since the beginning that has the ability for self-reflection and intelligence to look and redirect its attention from the default outward and external world to backward and inward into its own body, mind and consciousness.
You're explicitly stating that scientific realism sprang directly from the pre-theoretical, common sense view of the world. That's absolute nonsense.
The common sense view has been around for millennia, accompanying religion and philosophy all along, while modern science has been around since only a few hundred years ago.
Scientific realism came up in the 20th century after Logical Positivism, after the long period of about 4 centuries relying on our "ability for self-reflection and intelligence", which included several crisis in philosophy and religion, and the remarkable success of natural sciences.
There you go again with your Strawman.

My emphasis is realism* [of an external independent reality] is an evolutionary default i.e. right back to the first one-celled entities. Common sense realism is merely one phase of realism.
*Note the term "realism" [[of an external independent reality]] is hijacked by philosophical realists for the own interests and do not necessary represent "what is reality" [really real] as such.

The sense of "an external independent reality" is primordial and is embedded as inherent, thus this inherent sense would not have changed even its essence though it is present in modern science which is very recent human activity. [note science (etymologically 'to know') is also primordial].

But since evolution and progress is inevitable, it is very natural there are changes and improvement to the primordial sense of realism ["an external independent reality"] with the advent of anti-realistic views that are bringing in greater positive contributions to humanity.

Note and read the following progress [addition of anti-realistic views to Science] to scientific realism; Thus for you to confine Science to merely the primordial default of realism ["an external independent reality"] exposed your ignorance.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: It is due to the later development of self-reflection that philosophers advanced from philosophical and scientific realism towards anti-realism which brought about positive contributions that are 100x better than realism.
Therefore effective anti-realism is always one-up on philosophical realism.
Anti-realism is just what is still left of the decaying body of traditional philosophy, which started dying right after the scientific revolution began. That's why the only way forward in philosophy is materialism, the only ontology compatible with science.
Note my counter above i.e. where anti-realistic views to science is actually the way forward and progress for science.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: True, there are various views of anti-realism that are stupid and nonsensical, but those like empirical realism aka transcendental idealism and those associated with Quantum Mechanics are very positive and contributive to humanity.
Associating Quantum Mechanics to idealism is the worst thing that could happen to both science and philosophy. It's a door opened to charlatans like Deepak Chopra.
There you go again with your ignorance and cheap dogmatic thinking in bringing in Deepak Chopra.

There is so much writings on Idealism within Science in the positive note.
Here is a quickie, [.. I have downloaded it]

The Impact of Idealism
https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/im ... 6C5CDDA502#:

Image
German Idealism is arguably the most influential force in philosophy over the past two hundred years.
This major four-volume work is the first comprehensive survey of its impact on science, religion, sociology and the humanities, and brings together fifty-two leading scholars from across Europe and North America.
Each essay discusses an idea or theme from Kant, Hegel, Schelling, Fichte, or another key figure, shows how this influenced a thinker or field of study in the subsequent two centuries, and how that influence is felt in contemporary thought. Crossing established scholarly divides, the volumes deal with fields as varied as feminism, architectural history, psychoanalysis, Christology and museum curation, and subjects as diverse as love, evolution, the public sphere, the art of Andy Warhol, the music of Palestrina, the philosophy of Husserl, the literature of Jane Austen, the political thought of fascism and the foundations of international law.;
Volume 1. Philosophy and natural sciences / edited by Karl Ameriks --
volume 2. Historical, social, and political thought / edited by John Walker --
volume 3. Aesthetics and literature / edited by Christoph Jamme and Ian D. Cooper --
volume 4. Religion / edited by Nicholas Adams.
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:I maintain my original claim;
"The papers showed this;
Kant questioned whether "Metaphysics is possible as a science" [like the Science and Mathematics then] and his answer was "No!" and "Yes" i.e. 'No' to the typical Traditional Metaphysics but 'yes' to the Metaphysics of Morality."
You're completely wrong about this. Every paper tells the same story: Kant despised traditional metaphysics, but allowed for a new critical metaphysics, which was not limited to morality, but about what nature is. Then he went on to write the other critiques that developed his moral doctrines. Note this from the introduction to the Critique of Practical Reason:

Critique of Practical Reason
"Metaphysics" means two things for Kant. It is alleged speculative knowledge of supersensible and unconditional reality; this is the old metaphysics which the Critique of Pure Reason was written to destroy. Then there is the metaphysics Kant attempted to establish, "metaphysics as science," "the inventory of all our possessions through pure reason, systematically arranged, a system of a priori knowledge from mere concepts." It has two parts: the metaphysics of nature, consisting of all the a priori principles of what is, and the metaphysics of morals, comprising all the a priori principles of what ought to be. But many philosophers claimed that certain, rational knowledge of God, freedom, and immortality belonged in the store-house of metaphysics understood as knowledge of ultimate reality. Kant is primarily concerned to deny this, and he does so by showing that such putative knowledge has no valid foundation. Such claims to knowledge are vain and empty or, in Kant's technical terminology, "dialectical."

[...]The second task of a critique is to rescue those principles which constitute metaphysics "as science" from the ruin threatened by universal empiricism, which not only raised doubts about the possibility of speculative metaphysics but also tended to undermine knowledge even of nature and morals.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Nah, your thinking is too constricted here.

Yes, realism = reality exists independent of the mind.
You are claiming for absolute realism but not me.
In my case, what I claimed is empirical realism [realism - not absolute] which is subsumed within transcendental idealism.
That's what I've been saying all the time: your "empirical realism" is a relativized realism, which means is just realism from a given point of view, that is always superseded (subsumed within) by another perspective which takes priority, and as such, is accompanied with the term "ultimately" every time it is presented by you. "Ultimately", your relative realism is dissolved into your absoulte non-realism, the reason why you go into internet forums to challenge the realistic idea that things exist independent of the mind.

Your so-called "empirical realism" does not depart from the basic tenets of philosophical idealism, whether you choose to emphasize metaphysical idealism or epistemological idealism. In such stances, appealing to evidence is completely incoherent and this problem is not solved by resorting to relativism of "perspectives", so that things are, but at the same time aren't.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Note common sense [the vulgar] also take for granted there is an external independent reality, it is then common sense realism not your philosophical or critical realism.
Any small kid will also default to an external independent reality.
Note your confusion between the pre-theoretical view of the world and the philosophical one. One cannot, however, dismiss common sense just by calling it "vulgar". In any case, poorly developed intellectual life is what has given us the common sense view of invisible, mysterious, teleological forces that control nature, a view that was the foundation of all historical forms of idealism.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Note, Science is objective in one sense, but it is subsumed within subjectivity in another, i.e. intersubjectivity [you mentioned this yourself].

That p is also not-p within different senses is not a contradiction.
This is very common and I wonder you cannot comprehend this.
It is you who cannot comprehend the distinction between epistemology and ontology, neither between subjects and objects.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Conde Lucanor wrote: We know the age of the Moon from empirical evidence, which would grant its existence predating humans. Is that illusory or not? A NO for an answer, ends the challenge of the OP. A YES for an answer proves my point above that you're denying. Choose well.
All empirical evidences are conditioned upon human conditions.
That 'the moon predated human existence' is knowledge based on empirical evidences.
Therefore 'the moon predated human existence' is conditioned upon human conditions.
Prove me wrong on the above?

Therefore to insist the moon predated human existence without qualification to human conditions is wrong and to insist in the absolute sense, is delusional.
Note that you avoided directly answering my question. I asked whether it is illusory or not what empirical evidence shows: that the existence of a thing called the Moon predates the existence of things called humans? You should have no problem giving a straight "no" for an answer. Why would it be a problem?
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Conde Lucanor wrote: Note that actually your "I NEVER claimed..." statements are the result of you trying to deny the implications of the contradicting arguments you present, while moving your position to avoid being the target of my refutations. So you imply one thing to advance an argument, but then withdraw it to defend it.

Nope, re "I NEVER claimed .." is obvious from what I posted, and that you misunderstood or deliberately changed my words or contexts.
To avoid the above, you should repeat what I posted and then counter it directly.
I have shown all your contradicting statements, without having to change a word. And I stand by my claim that your relativism is just a strategy of moving your position to avoid being the target of my refutations.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Conde Lucanor wrote: Nonsense. Science only works with realism, otherwise we would not be conceding that Thomson discovered the actual existence of the electron, only that he came up with a theoretical framework where a thing called the electron made sense. Actually that's what pre-modern science and philosophy of nature used to do.

That is only your personal and the realists' views, thus has to be bias.
As I had argued, where realism is invoked in science, it is merely taken as a assumption and not a scientific fact nor first principle.
In other cases, there is no need for such an assumption and science can rely on the Scientific Framework and empirical evidences.

So, is that your answer? That the discovery of the electron has nothing to do with what's real, but with what fits into Thomson's theoretical framework? Did electrons exist before Thomson?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: German Idealism is arguably the most influential force in philosophy over the past two hundred years.

That's why it became obsolete in comparison to the great advances of science. And the only ontology compatible with science is materialism.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12385
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Conde Lucanor wrote: Wed Jun 30, 2021 1:06 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:I maintain my original claim;
"The papers showed this;
Kant questioned whether "Metaphysics is possible as a science" [like the Science and Mathematics then] and his answer was "No!" and "Yes" i.e. 'No' to the typical Traditional Metaphysics but 'yes' to the Metaphysics of Morality."
You're completely wrong about this. Every paper tells the same story: Kant despised traditional metaphysics, but allowed for a new critical metaphysics, which was not limited to morality, but about what nature is. Then he went on to write the other critiques that developed his moral doctrines. Note this from the introduction to the Critique of Practical Reason:

Critique of Practical Reason
"Metaphysics" means two things for Kant. It is alleged speculative knowledge of supersensible and unconditional reality; this is the old metaphysics which the Critique of Pure Reason was written to destroy. Then there is the metaphysics Kant attempted to establish, "metaphysics as science," "the inventory of all our possessions through pure reason, systematically arranged, a system of a priori knowledge from mere concepts." It has two parts: the metaphysics of nature, consisting of all the a priori principles of what is, and the metaphysics of morals, comprising all the a priori principles of what ought to be. But many philosophers claimed that certain, rational knowledge of God, freedom, and immortality belonged in the store-house of metaphysics understood as knowledge of ultimate reality. Kant is primarily concerned to deny this, and he does so by showing that such putative knowledge has no valid foundation. Such claims to knowledge are vain and empty or, in Kant's technical terminology, "dialectical."

[...]The second task of a critique is to rescue those principles which constitute metaphysics "as science" from the ruin threatened by universal empiricism, which not only raised doubts about the possibility of speculative metaphysics but also tended to undermine knowledge even of nature and morals.
My above point was not in totality;
Yes, Kant did provide for "his own specific" metaphysics of nature but that was after he provided his own definition of "metaphysics" and that of Science-in-general.

My main point is
Kant first claimed 'Metaphysics [typically understood then] is not possible as a Science like Mathematics and Natural Science.
Kant then claimed the above is only possible upon the conditions he specified.

At present which philosopher or any group of philosophers agree that Metaphysics is possible as a Science in general?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Nah, your thinking is too constricted here.

Yes, realism = reality exists independent of the mind.
You are claiming for absolute realism but not me.
In my case, what I claimed is empirical realism [realism - not absolute] which is subsumed within transcendental idealism.
That's what I've been saying all the time: your "empirical realism" is a relativized realism, which means is just realism from a given point of view, that is always superseded (subsumed within) by another perspective which takes priority, and as such, is accompanied with the term "ultimately" every time it is presented by you. "Ultimately", your relative realism is dissolved into your absolute non-realism, the reason why you go into internet forums to challenge the realistic idea that things exist independent of the mind.

Your so-called "empirical realism" does not depart from the basic tenets of philosophical idealism, whether you choose to emphasize metaphysical idealism or epistemological idealism. In such stances, appealing to evidence is completely incoherent and this problem is not solved by resorting to relativism of "perspectives", so that things are, but at the same time aren't.
I challenge you to prove the absolutely absolute exists?
Prove to me your realism [philosophical - critical] is absolutely absolute? This is the same as the OP's challenge.

You are making a big mistake in claiming "dissolved into your absolute non-realism". I don't believe in any absolutely absolute.
My empirical realism is relative and conditional, and so is my transcendental idealism which by definition is relative to the human conditions.

Note I claimed your realism [you claimed it is absolute] is idealistic because you are only in contact with the ideas [sense data] of your reality and is never in contact with the supposed reality. Your supposed reality is a transcendental reality.
Then you use ideas [ideal] to infer your supposed reality.
As such, whatever the reality you claim, what is most real to you is merely idealistic, thus empirical idealism or transcendental realism.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Note common sense [the vulgar] also take for granted there is an external independent reality, it is then common sense realism not your philosophical or critical realism.
Any small kid will also default to an external independent reality.
Note your confusion between the pre-theoretical view of the world and the philosophical one. One cannot, however, dismiss common sense just by calling it "vulgar". In any case, poorly developed intellectual life is what has given us the common sense view of invisible, mysterious, teleological forces that control nature, a view that was the foundation of all historical forms of idealism.
You are wrong on the above and such grounding premises merely corrupt all your conclusions.

Note the difference between sense i.e. the faculties of the 5 senses and reason.
The claim of invisible, mysterious, teleological forces and the likes is not common sense but rather an inference of reason, i.e. by the human crude and pure reason that produce fallacious inferences.

Common sense thus is related to the 5 common senses and what you sensed is what you get.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Note, Science is objective in one sense, but it is subsumed within subjectivity in another, i.e. intersubjectivity [you mentioned this yourself].

That p is also not-p within different senses is not a contradiction.
This is very common and I wonder you cannot comprehend this.
It is you who cannot comprehend the distinction between epistemology and ontology, neither between subjects and objects.
Don't understand your deflection.
I stated 'That p is also not-p within different senses is not a contradiction.'
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Conde Lucanor wrote: We know the age of the Moon from empirical evidence, which would grant its existence predating humans. Is that illusory or not? A NO for an answer, ends the challenge of the OP. A YES for an answer proves my point above that you're denying. Choose well.
All empirical evidences are conditioned upon human conditions.
That 'the moon predated human existence' is knowledge based on empirical evidences.
Therefore 'the moon predated human existence' is conditioned upon human conditions.
Prove me wrong on the above?

Therefore to insist the moon predated human existence without qualification to human conditions is wrong and to insist in the absolute sense, is delusional.
Note that you avoided directly answering my question. I asked whether it is illusory or not what empirical evidence shows: that the existence of a thing called the Moon predates the existence of things called humans? You should have no problem giving a straight "no" for an answer. Why would it be a problem?
I did not catch your intention earlier.
The age of the moon is a scientific fact, thus not illusory in that sense.
So the question of 'illusion' does not arise in this sense.
But note, all scientific facts are at best 'polished conjectures'.
There is no 100% certainty with scientific facts, it is possible a scientific fact could be wrong.

However if you were to claim 100% absolute certainty for whatever scientific facts are of the moon, then that would be illusory.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Conde Lucanor wrote: Note that actually your "I NEVER claimed..." statements are the result of you trying to deny the implications of the contradicting arguments you present, while moving your position to avoid being the target of my refutations. So you imply one thing to advance an argument, but then withdraw it to defend it.

Nope, re "I NEVER claimed .." is obvious from what I posted, and that you misunderstood or deliberately changed my words or contexts.
To avoid the above, you should repeat what I posted and then counter it directly.
I have shown all your contradicting statements, without having to change a word. And I stand by my claim that your relativism is just a strategy of moving your position to avoid being the target of my refutations.
Note all my counters to the shaky points you raised above.
You are claiming your 'realism' is absolutely-absolute which is not tenable at all.
You don't understand the difference between the faculty of the senses and basic reason.
You appear to leverage that scientific facts are 100% certain.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Conde Lucanor wrote: Nonsense. Science only works with realism, otherwise we would not be conceding that Thomson discovered the actual existence of the electron, only that he came up with a theoretical framework where a thing called the electron made sense. Actually that's what pre-modern science and philosophy of nature used to do.

That is only your personal and the realists' views, thus has to be bias.
As I had argued, where realism is invoked in science, it is merely taken as a assumption and not a scientific fact nor first principle.
In other cases, there is no need for such an assumption and science can rely on the Scientific Framework and empirical evidences.

So, is that your answer? That the discovery of the electron has nothing to do with what's real, but with what fits into Thomson's theoretical framework? Did electrons exist before Thomson?
There were no "electrons" before Thomson.
Whatever is an "electron" [or whatever the name] after Thomson is conditioned upon the scientific framework and that is at best a polished conjecture.
There is no electron-in-itself [note OP] either before or after Thomson.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: German Idealism is arguably the most influential force in philosophy over the past two hundred years.

That's why it became obsolete in comparison to the great advances of science. And the only ontology compatible with science is materialism.
What are you talking about despite the evidence given in that claim?
Produce evidence to support your claim.
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 »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Mar 14, 2021 7:59 am If anyone claimed otherwise, one cannot prove there is an existing independent-of-human-mind external world - reality-in-itself.
Reality is all that is the way it is. There can be nothing that is not part of reality. Reality cannot be dependent on anythihg else, because there is nothing else.

You've made up your own absurd meaning of reality.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12385
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

RCSaunders wrote: Wed Jun 30, 2021 4:22 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Mar 14, 2021 7:59 am If anyone claimed otherwise, one cannot prove there is an existing independent-of-human-mind external world - reality-in-itself.
Reality is all that is the way it is. There can be nothing that is not part of reality. Reality cannot be dependent on anything else, because there is nothing else.

You've made up your own absurd meaning of reality.
You are providing the answer somewhat.

If Reality is all that is the way it is. [A]
then human beings [human conditions] are part and parcel of Reality is all that is the way it is..

Note the philosophical realists claimed the following;
Philosophical realism is usually not treated as a position of its own but as a stance towards other subject matters. Realism about a certain kind of thing (like numbers or morality) is the thesis that this kind of thing has mind-independent existence, i.e. that it is not just a mere appearance in the eye of the beholder.

Realism can also be a view about the properties of reality in general, holding that reality exists independent of the mind, ...

Realists tend to believe that whatever we believe now is only an approximation of reality but that the accuracy and fullness of understanding can be improved.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism
If I am not mistaken, you are also claiming there is an independent external reality, i.e. there are external things that are independent of yourself. [B]

But if you claim
If Reality is all that is the way it is.; [A]
then human beings [human conditions] are part and parcel of Reality is all that is the way it is..
This mean that Reality is all that is the way it is., cannot be absolutely independent of human conditions.[B]

So you are contradicting yourself with opposing claims of [A] and [B].
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 »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Jul 01, 2021 6:17 am
RCSaunders wrote: Wed Jun 30, 2021 4:22 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Mar 14, 2021 7:59 am If anyone claimed otherwise, one cannot prove there is an existing independent-of-human-mind external world - reality-in-itself.
Reality is all that is the way it is. There can be nothing that is not part of reality. Reality cannot be dependent on anything else, because there is nothing else.

You've made up your own absurd meaning of reality.
You are providing the answer somewhat.

If Reality is all that is the way it is. [A]
then human beings [human conditions] are part and parcel of Reality is all that is the way it is..

Note the philosophical realists claimed the following;
Philosophical realism is usually not treated as a position of its own but as a stance towards other subject matters. Realism about a certain kind of thing (like numbers or morality) is the thesis that this kind of thing has mind-independent existence, i.e. that it is not just a mere appearance in the eye of the beholder.

Realism can also be a view about the properties of reality in general, holding that reality exists independent of the mind, ...

Realists tend to believe that whatever we believe now is only an approximation of reality but that the accuracy and fullness of understanding can be improved.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism
If I am not mistaken, you are also claiming there is an independent external reality, i.e. there are external things that are independent of yourself. [B]

But if you claim
If Reality is all that is the way it is.; [A]
then human beings [human conditions] are part and parcel of Reality is all that is the way it is..
This mean that Reality is all that is the way it is., cannot be absolutely independent of human conditions.[B]

So you are contradicting yourself with opposing claims of [A] and [B].
Oh well, if the fact that a cow is a cow and therefore cannot be independent of being a cow actually means something to you I hope you don't drown in your sophism. That's just nonsense.

To use your reasoning, since reality includes idiots reality cannot exist independently of idiots, but, fortunately, they do not have to be taken seriously. So I don't.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12385
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

RCSaunders wrote: Thu Jul 01, 2021 1:28 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Jul 01, 2021 6:17 am
RCSaunders wrote: Wed Jun 30, 2021 4:22 pm
Reality is all that is the way it is. There can be nothing that is not part of reality. Reality cannot be dependent on anything else, because there is nothing else.

You've made up your own absurd meaning of reality.
You are providing the answer somewhat.

If Reality is all that is the way it is. [A]
then human beings [human conditions] are part and parcel of Reality is all that is the way it is..

Note the philosophical realists claimed the following;
Philosophical realism is usually not treated as a position of its own but as a stance towards other subject matters. Realism about a certain kind of thing (like numbers or morality) is the thesis that this kind of thing has mind-independent existence, i.e. that it is not just a mere appearance in the eye of the beholder.

Realism can also be a view about the properties of reality in general, holding that reality exists independent of the mind, ...

Realists tend to believe that whatever we believe now is only an approximation of reality but that the accuracy and fullness of understanding can be improved.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism
If I am not mistaken, you are also claiming there is an independent external reality, i.e. there are external things that are independent of yourself. [B]

But if you claim
If Reality is all that is the way it is.; [A]
then human beings [human conditions] are part and parcel of Reality is all that is the way it is..
This mean that Reality is all that is the way it is., cannot be absolutely independent of human conditions.[B]

So you are contradicting yourself with opposing claims of [A] and [B].
Oh well, if the fact that a cow is a cow and therefore cannot be independent of being a cow actually means something to you I hope you don't drown in your sophism. That's just nonsense.
Of course a cow is independent of the next cow.
But they are not independent in the sense that they are part and parcel of Reality is all that is the way it is.; [A].

It is like family members of the same parents are independent from each other as a physical persons but they are not independent in the sense that they are genetically linked to their same parents.
To use your reasoning, since reality includes idiots reality cannot exist independently of idiots, but, fortunately, they do not have to be taken seriously. So I don't.
You are being rhetorical.

I am using 'your' reasoning i.e. Reality is all that is the way it is.; [A], which I agree.

I never stated 'reality cannot exist independently of idiots' rather it is 'idiots cannot exist independent of reality'.

You stated b]Reality is all that is the way it is.[/b]; [A]
The 'ALL of reality' would thus include idiots.
If all of reality includes idiots, how can idiots be apart from and be independent of reality.

Where can idiots stand apart to view reality [which they are a part of] independently?
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 »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Jul 02, 2021 5:26 am You are being rhetorical.
Satirical rhetoric.
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:At present which philosopher or any group of philosophers agree that Metaphysics is possible as a Science in general?
Since Quine revived metaphysics in analytic philosophy it has stayed firmly on the agenda.
Metaphysics in Analytic Philosophy
As the new millennium dawned, however, it was clear not only that metaphysics was no longer dead, but that its resurrection as analytic metaphysics was one of the more remarkable developments in philosophy in general and in its analytic strain in particular.
Also note:
Analytic Philosophy
Science has also had an increasingly significant role in metaphysics. The theory of special relativity has had a profound effect on the philosophy of time, and quantum physics is routinely discussed in the free will debate. The weight given to scientific evidence is largely due to widespread commitments among philosophers to scientific realism and naturalism.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: I challenge you to prove the absolutely absolute exists?
Prove to me your realism [philosophical - critical] is absolutely absolute? This is the same as the OP's challenge.
That's a completely ridiculous challenge. ANYTHING that you regard as real (the universe, consciousness, the subject, you, etc.) becomes your absolute, and that works for every type of idealist, too. Even if one embraced the only ontological committment compatible with your anti-realism, the void, that is still an absolute.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: I don't believe in any absolutely absolute.
My empirical realism is relative and conditional, and so is my transcendental idealism which by definition is relative to the human conditions.
Your "human conditions" are the absolute you are positing. The boldest and most daring relativism always requires a system of reference as a foundational reality. That's why anti-realism is constantly shooting itself in the foot, having to posit something as real, which idealists are perfectly happy to acknowledge, as long as it is not a material reality. At the end of the day, that's all what idealists want: to promote the reality and primacy of the "spirit", aka consciousness.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Note I claimed your realism [you claimed it is absolute] is idealistic because you are only in contact with the ideas [sense data] of your reality and is never in contact with the supposed reality. Your supposed reality is a transcendental reality.
Then you use ideas [ideal] to infer your supposed reality.
As such, whatever the reality you claim, what is most real to you is merely idealistic, thus empirical idealism or transcendental realism.
This claim of yours reveals that you're the victim of your own arguments. The same phenomenological critique you apply to realism, ends up undermining your own stance, since you're just replacing the "supposed transcendental reality" of realists with your supposed immanent ideality, which operates exactly under the same assumption of direct contact with something real (the reality of sense data and ideas). If phenomenalists like you were coherent, they would apply the same skepticism to the reality of experience, landing on epistemological nihilism or Berkeley's solipsism.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Note the difference between sense i.e. the faculties of the 5 senses and reason.
The claim of invisible, mysterious, teleological forces and the likes is not common sense but rather an inference of reason, i.e. by the human crude and pure reason that produce fallacious inferences.

Common sense thus is related to the 5 common senses and what you sensed is what you get.
You're obviously completely ignorant of what is referred to as the common sense view.
Philosophy of Common Sense
Philosophy of common sense, 18th- and early 19th-century Scottish school of Thomas Reid, Adam Ferguson, Dugald Stewart, and others, who held that in the actual perception of the average, unsophisticated man, sensations are not mere ideas or subjective impressions but carry with them the belief in corresponding qualities as belonging to external objects. Such beliefs, Reid insisted, “belong to the common sense and reason of mankind”; and in matters of common sense “the learned and the unlearned, the philosopher and the day-labourer, are upon a level.”
Note that the spiritual, immaterial bodies that populated the heavens purported by theologians, were for them real external objects, and the magical forces involved were also real, external and objective. Only with the advent of modern science such poor and precarious rationalizations were revealed as untenable for a realistic view of the world.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: The age of the moon is a scientific fact, thus not illusory in that sense.
So the question of 'illusion' does not arise in this sense.
But note, all scientific facts are at best 'polished conjectures'.
There is no 100% certainty with scientific facts, it is possible a scientific fact could be wrong.

However if you were to claim 100% absolute certainty for whatever scientific facts are of the moon, then that would be illusory.
This is a common misconception peddled by anti-science propagandists distorting some claims of philosophers of science. Not all scientific assertions imply absolute certainty, and there are many fields of science, especially those which are relevant to contemporary issues, where research has produced pretty solid evidence in favor of a given model or theory, but nevertheless they allow for refinement and even replacement. And there is outright speculation in some relatively new fields, such as theoretical physics. So it has always been fair to say that, in general, science research produces provisional knowledge, rejecting dogmatic approaches and promoting what works best for science: its method, requiring that everything be tested and retested in order to improve the current state of knowledge. The anti-science gang has wanted to exploit this to mean that claims coming from all scientific fields, from all subjects, from all aspects of reality are always, uniformly, only partially reliable. But that's simply not true. No serious scientist is challenging and retesting the scientific fact of the sun in our planetary system, as if it were just a 'polished conjecture', nor the existence of planet Mercury as the closest in orbit to that sun, nor the existence of the Earth's moon and its age. In such particular cases, talking about "absolute" certainty is in no way undermining science's general ability to challenge its own claims. To claim these well-established facts are speculative or even worst, illusory, is completely preposterous, it shows ignorance and very little recognition of the value of science.

In any case, your response that the age of the Moon is not illusory, implies that the entity affected by age is not illusory either. And if the Moon and its age are not illusory, neither is illusory the existence of the Moon in a time when humans were not around. If the existence of the Moon in a time when humans were not around is not illusory, then the existence of the Moon independent of human perception cannot be illusory. If the existence of the Moon independent of human perception is not illusory, the Moon in itself is not illusory.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Conde Lucanor wrote: So, is that your answer? That the discovery of the electron has nothing to do with what's real, but with what fits into Thomson's theoretical framework? Did electrons exist before Thomson?
There were no "electrons" before Thomson.
Whatever is an "electron" [or whatever the name] after Thomson is conditioned upon the scientific framework and that is at best a polished conjecture.
There is no electron-in-itself [note OP] either before or after Thomson.
Well, that would imply that Thomson, a body composed of fundamental particles, nor any human, have ever existed in themselves, even though they, paradoxically, just like the Moon, do age. One has to wonder where scientific frameworks come from, since the beings that are supposedly their creators, are ultimately illusory, too. There is no brain in itself, there is no neuron in itself, no synapse in itself, there is no conscious activity in itself, no mental state in itself, no cognition in itself, no experience in itself. You can't get more absurd.
Post Reply