I would define philosophical realism, as I see it, whether accurate or not in relation to how it is perceived in general, I interpret Kant’s perspective that anything that is phenomenal is not metaphysical. The definition of metaphysics is: after the things of nature. Metaphysics is of the mind, it impacts reality but cannot be reached through the objective study of material reality. The a priori categories, principles of nature, laws, ethics etc. were reinstated by Kant as judgements made by pure reason that occur independently of experience. The a priori categories, through pure reason, are synthesized with the objects of sense.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Jan 14, 2022 4:23 amI noted Heraclitus is anti-Philosophical-Realism with his "no man can step into the same river twice."owl of Minerva wrote: ↑Thu Jan 13, 2022 10:57 pm According to Heraclitus: “We should let ourselves be guided by what is common to all. Yet, although the Logos is common to all, most men live as if each of them had a private intelligence of his own. “
That is true. Still it is better that there are different views than that one dogmatic view prevails.
Re Logos [reason]
If opposites are related [per Heraclitus] then what is "out-there" cannot be absolutely independent of "in-here".Although he was primarily concerned with explanations of the world around him, Heraclitus also stressed the need for people to live together in social harmony. He complained that most people failed to comprehend the logos (Greek: “reason”), the universal principle through which all things are interrelated and all natural events occur, and thus lived like dreamers with a false view of the world.
A significant manifestation of the logos, Heraclitus claimed, is the underlying connection between opposites.
For example, health and disease define each other. Good and evil, hot and cold, and other opposites are similarly related.
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Heraclitus
PR claims what is "out-there" is absolutely independent of "in-here
“No man can step into the same river twice” is PR, as I would define it, as the river moves on but its dynamic equilibrium remains the same. An orderly balance is maintained in nature even when the form changes, the fundamental elements of its structure remains unchanged. A change to ice would be a change in energy but not a change in element.
Logos has been misinterpreted, by the church, which ascribed it to Christ: he was the Logos, not just he was in alignment with the Logos. Obviously no form can be a principle of nature, as any principle of nature cannot be confined to a single form. The church correctly interpreted Logos as intelligence. “Yet, although the Logos is common to all, most men live as if each of them had a private intelligence of their own.” If it meant reason it should read: Yet, although reason is common to all, most men live as if each of them had a private reason of their own.
Like metaphysics, intelligence is much misunderstood, currently it means a function of the mind, similar to reason. The Age of Reason put emphasis on reason not on intelligence, or on the understanding that it was a principle of nature, in Kant’s terminology an a priori category. The understanding of the polarity of intelligence and the sensory mind, mitigated by reason, was consequently lost.
Reason was given godlike status after The Enlightenment and the understanding of intelligence as the Logos, a principle of nature. was left to the interpretation of the church as being, not an a priori principle but a Messiah in human form. Today metaphysics has become the (M) word and intelligence has become the (I) word in philosophy and science, both better left unsaid, while reason holds the spotlight. Although if reductive science thinks there is no mind, maybe that would be a death knell to reason as well.