Your above is correct.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 ?
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?