Why Philosophical Realists are Dogmatic in their Views?

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12239
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Why Philosophical Realists are Dogmatic in their Views?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Here is the reason why Philosophical Realists [critical, naive or indirect] cling dogmatically to the view and fight tooth and nail to defend it.
surreptitious57 wrote: Wed Jul 21, 2021 5:46 am Is everything in the Universe dependent upon everything else - absolutely it is
Things may appear to be independent of each other but in reality this is not true

For example every object in the observable Universe exerts a gravitational force upon every other object in it too
I know that you are talking about human beings rather than objects but the principle is the same - exactly the same

Empty space is not actually empty and absolute vacuums are defined by their dimension so no separation exits in either scenario
The observable Universe has been in a continuous state of existence for the last I4 billion years so there are no gaps in reality

Ergo every member of the forum is therefore connected to every other member of the forum
We all came from stardust and have a common biological ancestry too - by which I mean four billion year old bacteria rather than apes
So whether you love everyone or hate everyone here or something in between those two extremes you are all absolutely inter connected

So group hug anyone ?
Your above is correct.
There is no absolute determination [no first Turtle] but since the Big Bang everything is deterministically interconnected to the present and will be in the future.

The problem with Philosophical Realists and critical realists like Conde Lucanor and his likes is they are habitualized to the obvious which is the necessary evolutionary default to realize, cognize and view things as independent and external from oneself.
This focus in the external is very critical to facilitate survival, i.e. to look for parents [who are external, the mother tits are external] they are dependent on, then subsequently for food externally and be aware of threats, spouse externally and enemies from the external.

Since the above things independent from oneself and sense of externality facilitated survival, the sense of externality is thus adaptive and is a default programmed within our DNA.

So it is very 'normal' for the Philosophical Realists and critical realists to have and dogmatically cling to the view that reality and things are absolutely independent of the human conditions which is part and parcel of reality now and from the beginning.

For the Philosophical Realists and critical realists to be presented with a different view of non-independence will trigger a terrible cognitive dissonance in them. I have stated many times, the debate between realists and anti-realists is more of a psychological issue than an epistemological one.
This is the reason why Philosophical, critical and other realists will fight tooth and nail to cling to their realism, i.e. things exist absolutely independent of the human conditions. This is reflected in the number of pages in this thread.

The anti-realists [like you (on this point), me and others] on the other hand via a deeper and wider reflection reality and driven to 'know thyself' [or other means] is able to free themselves from the habitualized bondage to "realism"* and view reality as it is, i.e. things and humans cannot be absolute independent from reality-as-it-is or all-there-is.
* realism is just a hijacked term to represent reality, but real_ism itself is never realistic.

Btw, it is still a necessity to view things as external to the human self in one perspective but such a view should not be clung dogmatically as in my way or the highway.
As an anti-realist I will accept both views, i.e. things are independent in one perspective while non-independent in another perspective in accordance to the optimality of the contexts [well-being etc.] used.

Views?
simplicity
Posts: 750
Joined: Thu May 20, 2021 5:23 pm

Re: Why Philosophical Realists are Dogmatic in their Views?

Post by simplicity »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Jul 21, 2021 6:38 amViews?
If you subscribe to the notion that all things are truly One, then there's not much argue here. Not only is everything interdependent, everything is literally one and the same [factoring time out of the equation].
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12239
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Why Philosophical Realists are Dogmatic in their Views?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

simplicity wrote: Thu Jul 29, 2021 6:41 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Jul 21, 2021 6:38 amViews?
If you subscribe to the notion that all things are truly One, then there's not much argue here. Not only is everything interdependent, everything is literally one and the same [factoring time out of the equation].
In a confined way, whatever is within that ONE are interdependent,
But, when you claim 'all things are truly ONE' that 'ONE' is a definite unit which ultimately is not independent from the one who is postulating the 'ONE'.
This is still ultimately a philosophical realist's view.

It would be more reasonable to propose the notion, all things are truly NONE.
'NONE' in this sense is 'none of the things including the 'ONE' that are conceivable by humans to exist.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12239
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Why Philosophical Realists are Dogmatic in their Views?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

simplicity wrote: Thu Jul 29, 2021 6:41 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Jul 21, 2021 6:38 amViews?
If you subscribe to the notion that all things are truly One, then there's not much argue here. Not only is everything interdependent, everything is literally one and the same [factoring time out of the equation].
In a confined way, whatever is within that ONE are interdependent,
But, when you claim 'all things are truly ONE' that 'ONE' is a definite unit which ultimately is not independent from the one who is postulating the 'ONE'.
This is still ultimately a philosophical realist's view.

It would be more reasonable to propose the notion, all things are truly NONE.
'NONE' in this sense is 'none of the things including the 'ONE' that are conceivable by humans to exist.
simplicity
Posts: 750
Joined: Thu May 20, 2021 5:23 pm

Re: Why Philosophical Realists are Dogmatic in their Views?

Post by simplicity »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Jul 30, 2021 5:50 am
simplicity wrote: Thu Jul 29, 2021 6:41 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Jul 21, 2021 6:38 amViews?
If you subscribe to the notion that all things are truly One, then there's not much argue here. Not only is everything interdependent, everything is literally one and the same [factoring time out of the equation].
In a confined way, whatever is within that ONE are interdependent,
But, when you claim 'all things are truly ONE' that 'ONE' is a definite unit which ultimately is not independent from the one who is postulating the 'ONE'.
This is still ultimately a philosophical realist's view.
ONE is not an intellectual thing. It is merely asserting that the splitting of Reality into infinite parts becomes possible when you add time into the equation. If you take a step back and look at this outside of a single reference point, then all things are going on simultaneously [our intellectual understanding, anyway], but not so much because what's happening in actual Reality is way beyond our ability to perceive/conceive.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Jul 30, 2021 5:50 amIt would be more reasonable to propose the notion, all things are truly NONE.
'NONE' in this sense is 'none of the things including the 'ONE' that are conceivable by humans to exist.
Technically, it really doesn't matter what you call it, but None implies literal 'nothingness' whereas it is actually everything. Either way, the composition of Reality is a painting we will never view, instead, we use our extremely limited intellects to grab what we can to get us through our days.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Why Philosophical Realists are Dogmatic in their Views?

Post by Skepdick »

simplicity wrote: Fri Jul 30, 2021 6:09 pm ONE is not an intellectual thing. It is merely asserting that the splitting of Reality into infinite parts becomes possible when you add time into the equation. If you take a step back and look at this outside of a single reference point, then all things are going on simultaneously [our intellectual understanding, anyway], but not so much because what's happening in actual Reality is way beyond our ability to perceive/conceive.

Technically, it really doesn't matter what you call it, but None implies literal 'nothingness' whereas it is actually everything. Either way, the composition of Reality is a painting we will never view, instead, we use our extremely limited intellects to grab what we can to get us through our days.
Ironically, what you are describing as One. A priori splitting time is called. Constant time e.g O(1) in complexity theory.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_comp ... stant_time

You can approximately interpret this into English like so: The computer powerful enough to compute the entire universe does it in one unit of time.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12239
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Why Philosophical Realists are Dogmatic in their Views?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

simplicity wrote: Fri Jul 30, 2021 6:09 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Jul 30, 2021 5:50 am
simplicity wrote: Thu Jul 29, 2021 6:41 pm
If you subscribe to the notion that all things are truly One, then there's not much argue here. Not only is everything interdependent, everything is literally one and the same [factoring time out of the equation].
In a confined way, whatever is within that ONE are interdependent,
But, when you claim 'all things are truly ONE' that 'ONE' is a definite unit which ultimately is not independent from the one who is postulating the 'ONE'.
This is still ultimately a philosophical realist's view.
ONE is not an intellectual thing. It is merely asserting that the splitting of Reality into infinite parts becomes possible when you add time into the equation. If you take a step back and look at this outside of a single reference point, then all things are going on simultaneously [our intellectual understanding, anyway], but not so much because what's happening in actual Reality is way beyond our ability to perceive/conceive.
You claimed it is not intellectual but then you are 'merely asserting' and inferencing from various reference points about the One or Actual Reality. Somehow you are entangling whatever that is with the intellectual [one aspect of human nature] and every human conditions.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Jul 30, 2021 5:50 amIt would be more reasonable to propose the notion, all things are truly NONE.
'NONE' in this sense is 'none of the things including the 'ONE' that are conceivable by humans to exist.
Technically, it really doesn't matter what you call it, but None implies literal 'nothingness' whereas it is actually everything. Either way, the composition of Reality is a painting we will never view, instead, we use our extremely limited intellects to grab what we can to get us through our days.
But your "will never view" is Absolutely and eternally NEVER.
In the first place you are merely Assuming there is a supposed reality to be corresponded with.
It is very likely there is nothing there to be corresponded.
So, in the Ultimate Sense [note ultimate not common nor conventional sense] what you are effectively doing is merely speculating something that no human will EVER be able to determine precisely.

According to Kant, what you as realist is chasing is merely an illusion driven and compelled by some evolutionary and psychological forces.

On the other hand, I am proposing the notion of 'none' in the ultimate sense [note again, not common sense] because there is no thing-in-itself in the first place to be corresponded with.
When one state 'one' or something-X or any-X, one is drawn to cling to it.

But if there is 'none' [in the ultimate sense] there is nothing to cling to but that does not mean we are NOT living and experiencing reality as it is.
simplicity
Posts: 750
Joined: Thu May 20, 2021 5:23 pm

Re: Why Philosophical Realists are Dogmatic in their Views?

Post by simplicity »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Jul 31, 2021 7:49 amOn the other hand, I am proposing the notion of 'none' in the ultimate sense [note again, not common sense] because there is no thing-in-itself in the first place to be corresponded with.
When one state 'one' or something-X or any-X, one is drawn to cling to it.

But if there is 'none' [in the ultimate sense] there is nothing to cling to but that does not mean we are NOT living and experiencing reality as it is.
I kind of enter any intellectual pursuit well knowing that accessing Reality on any level is like attempting to make one's way through a hundred foot thick reinforced concrete wall using a fork and a spoon. It's just aint gonna happen.

Therefore, it would appear as if this is all bullshit, albeit some people's bullshit is more palatable, it's bullshit just the same.
simplicity
Posts: 750
Joined: Thu May 20, 2021 5:23 pm

Re: Why Philosophical Realists are Dogmatic in their Views?

Post by simplicity »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Jul 31, 2021 7:49 am You claimed it is not intellectual but then you are 'merely asserting' and inferencing from various reference points about the One or Actual Reality. Somehow you are entangling whatever that is with the intellectual [one aspect of human nature] and every human conditions.
How does one discuss the non-intellectual without falling into this trap?

As Huang Po made clear over a thousand years ago, "Open your mouth and you have already lost it."

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Jul 31, 2021 7:49 amBut your "will never view" is Absolutely and eternally NEVER.
In the first place you are merely Assuming there is a supposed reality to be corresponded with.
It is very likely there is nothing there to be corresponded.
So, in the Ultimate Sense [note ultimate not common nor conventional sense] what you are effectively doing is merely speculating something that no human will EVER be able to determine precisely.

According to Kant, what you as realist is chasing is merely an illusion driven and compelled by some evolutionary and psychological forces.

On the other hand, I am proposing the notion of 'none' in the ultimate sense [note again, not common sense] because there is no thing-in-itself in the first place to be corresponded with.
When one state 'one' or something-X or any-X, one is drawn to cling to it.
Ok.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Jul 31, 2021 7:49 amBut if there is 'none' [in the ultimate sense] there is nothing to cling to but that does not mean we are NOT living and experiencing reality as it is.
Upon preforming the postmortem, the inability of words [as a representation of our intellect] to penetrate Reality in any sense becomes painfully apparent.

None [or nothingness] is a word that comes as close as you can to what it is but can not be taken literally [as you pointed out], but One is [perhaps] less in error [at least to me]. Apples and oranges. And again, you can make a case for any and everything if you possess the correct verbal skills.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12239
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Why Philosophical Realists are Dogmatic in their Views?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

simplicity wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 5:54 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Jul 31, 2021 7:49 am You claimed it is not intellectual but then you are 'merely asserting' and inferencing from various reference points about the One or Actual Reality. Somehow you are entangling whatever that is with the intellectual [one aspect of human nature] and every human conditions.
How does one discuss the non-intellectual without falling into this trap?

As Huang Po made clear over a thousand years ago, "Open your mouth and you have already lost it."
Or Chuang-tzu, "the Tao that can be spoken is not the Tao"

Thus one has to cultivate 'Wu Wei"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wu_wei

As Bruce Lee had stated,
"action without action"

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Jul 31, 2021 7:49 amBut if there is 'none' [in the ultimate sense] there is nothing to cling to but that does not mean we are NOT living and experiencing reality as it is.
Upon preforming the postmortem, the inability of words [as a representation of our intellect] to penetrate Reality in any sense becomes painfully apparent.

None [or nothingness] is a word that comes as close as you can to what it is but can not be taken literally [as you pointed out], but One is [perhaps] less in error [at least to me]. Apples and oranges. And again, you can make a case for any and everything if you possess the correct verbal skills.
I am not advocating absolute ascetism, i.e. absolutely no intellectualization, reflection, whatever thinking, rather;

Note, "detachment",
Detachment is a central concept in Zen Buddhist philosophy. One of the most important technical Chinese terms for detachment is "wú niàn" (無念), which literally means "no thought." This does not signify the literal absence of thought, but rather the state of being "unstained" (bù rán 不染) by thought. Therefore, "detachment" is being detached from one's thoughts. It is to separate oneself from one's own thoughts and opinions in detail as to not be harmed mentally and emotionally by them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detachment_(philosophy)
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Why Philosophical Realists are Dogmatic in their Views?

Post by Skepdick »

simplicity wrote: Sat Jul 31, 2021 3:12 pm Therefore, it would appear as if this is all bullshit, albeit some people's bullshit is more palatable, it's bullshit just the same.
You should re-read Asimov's Relativity of Wrong.

...when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."

The basic trouble, you see, is that people think that "right" and "wrong" are absolute; that everything that isn't perfectly and completely right is totally and equally wrong.
simplicity
Posts: 750
Joined: Thu May 20, 2021 5:23 pm

Re: Why Philosophical Realists are Dogmatic in their Views?

Post by simplicity »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Aug 02, 2021 7:44 amI am not advocating absolute ascetism, i.e. absolutely no intellectualization, reflection, whatever thinking, rather;

Note, "detachment",
Detachment is a central concept in Zen Buddhist philosophy. One of the most important technical Chinese terms for detachment is "wú niàn" (無念), which literally means "no thought." This does not signify the literal absence of thought, but rather the state of being "unstained" (bù rán 不染) by thought. Therefore, "detachment" is being detached from one's thoughts. It is to separate oneself from one's own thoughts and opinions in detail as to not be harmed mentally and emotionally by them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detachment_(philosophy)
Agree. I've been a serious Zen student for over 30 years...
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12239
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Why Philosophical Realists are Dogmatic in their Views?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

simplicity wrote: Mon Aug 02, 2021 3:36 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Aug 02, 2021 7:44 amI am not advocating absolute ascetism, i.e. absolutely no intellectualization, reflection, whatever thinking, rather;

Note, "detachment",
Detachment is a central concept in Zen Buddhist philosophy. One of the most important technical Chinese terms for detachment is "wú niàn" (無念), which literally means "no thought." This does not signify the literal absence of thought, but rather the state of being "unstained" (bù rán 不染) by thought. Therefore, "detachment" is being detached from one's thoughts. It is to separate oneself from one's own thoughts and opinions in detail as to not be harmed mentally and emotionally by them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detachment_(philosophy)
Agree. I've been a serious Zen student for over 30 years...
Same here but Zen [deeply and extensively] only a sub-school of Buddhism, but not as a serious practitioner.
simplicity
Posts: 750
Joined: Thu May 20, 2021 5:23 pm

Re: Why Philosophical Realists are Dogmatic in their Views?

Post by simplicity »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Aug 03, 2021 7:03 amSame here but Zen [deeply and extensively] only a sub-school of Buddhism, but not as a serious practitioner.
Interestingly [and as you may be aware], many dedicated Zen students do not consider themselves Buddhists. Buddhism is a wonderful religion but I have always subscribed to the notion that religion is the intellectualization of spirituality, so Buddhism [the religion] is simply pointing the way to the essence.

The actual practice [what The Buddha taught], meditation, is complete in and of itself, and serves as the only gate...
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12239
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Why Philosophical Realists are Dogmatic in their Views?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

simplicity wrote: Tue Aug 03, 2021 4:20 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Aug 03, 2021 7:03 amSame here but Zen [deeply and extensively] only a sub-school of Buddhism, but not as a serious practitioner.
Interestingly [and as you may be aware], many dedicated Zen students do not consider themselves Buddhists. Buddhism is a wonderful religion but I have always subscribed to the notion that religion is the intellectualization of spirituality, so Buddhism [the religion] is simply pointing the way to the essence.

The actual practice [what The Buddha taught], meditation, is complete in and of itself, and serves as the only gate...
Yes, I noted Zen [Southern, Northern, Japanese, etc.] is at the very fringe of mainstream Buddhism.

I agree religion per se is merely a vehicle [personal, formal, institutional, organizational,] that is in a way necessary and useful to the individual[s] and for the teachings [Dharma] to be communicated to, sustained and maintained for the masses.
As Buddhism itself had stated, "one must leave the raft aside [behind] once the shore is reached".

In another perspective the essence of Buddhism is a self-corrective diagnostic and problem solving tool for whatever is life's problem and mission.
Note:
Buddhism's 4NT-8FP is a Life Problem Solving Technique.
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=25193

Unfortunately , most dogmatic Philosophical Realists, by definition, will view the doctrines of Buddhism and also Zen as nonsense.
Post Reply