Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Apr 06, 2021 2:00 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Apr 06, 2021 8:31 am
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Apr 06, 2021 7:03 am
I think you don't really believe this nonsense. You've just back yourself into a corner.
And why? You've been excited by the banal fact that we can experience and describe reality only as humans - and then projected that onto the reality that we experience.
Your conclusion?: everything that was, is and will be the case in the universe exists only if and because humans experience it.
It's a sort of secularised and anthropomorphic Berkeleyan idealism. Radically anti-scientific and utterly bonkers.
Hey! I thought you apologized for "wherever you have used the term 'nonsense'" on my views. I had not taken your apology seriously because I understand the influenced bastardized philosophy from the LP is very fundamentally embedded in your brain. Anyway just carryon and be the natural you.
Your condemnation above merely exposed your ignorance and the shallowness and narrowness of your philosophical knowledge.
If you can demonstrate and prove Kant's empirical realism is untenable and false, I will concede to your belief.
Your idea that everything that was, is and will be the case in the universe exists only if and because humans experience it - really is nonsense. So I don't apologise for calling it nonsense.
Well now ... empirical realism? Realism is usually the claim that there are real things - things that exist spatio-temporally, such as human beings, 'independent from the mind'. Or something like that. And empiricism is the theory that knowledge comes from experience, usually as sense-data.
So if that's Kant's position, you disagree radically with Kant. And I'm sure Kant would have disagreed with your anthropocentric idealism.
Note even a small child can judge the external world is independent from his body, i.e. self and mind.
As such your claim that reality is independent of mind is merely due to habituation without any deep philosophical reflection, i.e. your inability for it.
Can you prove reality is absolute independent of the human conditions?
Note Russell's
The man who has no tincture of philosophy
goes through life imprisoned in the prejudices derived from common sense,
from the habitual beliefs of his age or his nation, and
from convictions which have grown up in his mind without the co-operation or consent of his deliberate reason.
To such a man the world tends to become definite, finite, obvious; common objects rouse no questions, and unfamiliar possibilities are contemptuously rejected.
As soon as we begin to philosophize, on the contrary, we find, as we saw in our opening chapters, that even the most everyday things lead to problems to which only very incomplete answers can be given.
Problem of Philosophy
You don't seem to understand what is real and realism [claims of reality] is independent of empiricism and anti-realism or idealism.
Your views re Kant above is nonsensical and has no relation to Kant's theories at all.