If you are not into "philosophical realism" then you must be into anti-philosophical_realism, i.e. the real apples are not independent of the human conditions.RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sat May 08, 2021 4:24 pmI never argue with, "philosophical realism," which is not what you and I mean by realism. You and I mean, the apple I see on the table is a real apple, and it is exactly what it appears to be, and there is no more-real apple than the one I'm seeing.henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri May 07, 2021 6:46 pm I say the followin' without arrogance or condemnation...
The world exists, and it exists independent of me.
The apple on my table is real, and it and the table both exist whether I, or anyone, pay either any mind.
What I bring to the table (and apple) is perspective and language.
The thing I call apple, should I die, still exists as my carcass rots. What's missin' is the one who names, the one who applies significance to the apple by recognizin' it and ascribin' a value to it. Apple (the placeholder) dies with me; the value I give it dies with me; the thing itself remains. That thing exists, as I say, independent of me.
The philosophical realist means the apple you see is only a sample or less-than-perfectly-real apple that only reflects or represents the, "really real," apple (somewhere). It's Platonic nonsense, but it infects all of philosophy.
There is no place for the understanding of actual apples being the only real apples in either, "idealism," or, what's called, "realism," in philosophy. They are both assaults on the truth by means of a false dichotomy.
If what is real apple to you is the one you are seeing, then, that apple-seen-as-real is dependent on your human conditions, i.e. you-seeing-the-apple.
As such you cannot claim there is a real apple but rather only apple-seen-as-real, i.e. what is real apple to you is always qualified by the human senses.