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.
Philosophers who profess realism often claim that truth consists in a correspondence between cognitive representations and reality.
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
Realism can also be a view about the properties of reality in general, holding that reality exists independent of the mind, as opposed to non-realist views which question the certainty of anything beyond one's own mind.
What we have in general opposition to Philosophical_Realism are the various Anti-Philosophical_Realism views which has their own different version of anti-philosophical_realism.
For example the typical philosophical idealism comprised a broad range of views of idealism, e.g. Berkeley's subjective idealism versus Kant transcendental idealism.
Note, to state the idealism means things exist dependent on mind is very misleading.
Generally in opposing philosophical realism, anti-philosophical_realism claim that things cannot exist independent of the human mind or human conditions.
Whilst the anti-philosophical_realists can accept a very evident mind-independent world from the common conventional sense perspective, the philosophical_realists just cannot comprehend the anti-philosophical_realist position, i.e. things cannot exist independent of the human mind or human conditions.
I believe why the philosophical_realists are unable to comprehend the anti-philosophical_realist position is just like why the majority of animals [with some exceptions] are unable to comprehend the reflection-of-themselves-in-a-mirror are really an image of themselves instead of seeing a stranger.
Chimps Attacks Mirror Reflections
A Palm-nut Vulture attacks its reflection in a mirror set in the Gabon jungle
These animals are entrapped with an evolutionary program that do not enable them to see the 'truth' of reality.
Similarly, philosophical_realists are like the above ignorant animals entrapped by evolution which do not enable them to view in another perspective of reality.
The philosohical_realists are like people who are unable to see both the rabbit and the duck in this image. They can only see one image, either duck or rabbit,
The irony is the philosophical realists in their ignorance are SO arrogant in condemning those who see things in a different perspective or different perspectives.
Btw, whatever is claimed in various perspectives must be verifiable and justifiable empirically and philosophically within a credible FSK, thus no room for any woo woo ideas.
Any counter from realists to the above?