Atla wrote: ↑Sat May 07, 2022 9:17 am
VA can't grasp that the opposite of "absolutely independent" isn't "human-dependent". It's somewhat interesting that there are people who can't do this.
What a mess?
Your OP imply that I am claiming the external world is human-dependent [mental modes in mind], therefore there is no independent external world.
I countered that is not my view so I offered my view with an example of a set.
By your argument that I need need mental modes to support my claim there is no external world,
then it is only logical you don't need mental modes to support the existence of the external world.
This mean for you that the external world must be
independent of the mental modes which is inherent tied to human beings.
My addition of 'absolute' is to make sure [as it often does with others] they do not bring all sort of diversions related to independence.
What is 'absolute' independent in reflected in the realist [philosophical realist] claim, i.e.
Philosophical realism is usually not treated as a position of its own but as a stance towards other subject matters.
Realism about a certain kind of thing (like numbers or morality) is the thesis that this kind of thing has mind-independent existence, i.e. that it is not just a mere appearance in the eye of the beholder.
Realism can also be a view about the properties of reality in general, holding that reality exists independent of the mind ...
Philosophers who profess realism often claim that truth consists in a correspondence between cognitive representations and reality.[7]
Realists tend to believe that whatever we believe now is only an approximation of reality but that the accuracy and fullness of understanding can be improved.
So my point remain;
If anyone is claiming to be very smart,
prove the external world exists absolute independent of humans entanglement, i.e. as standalone by itself, i.e. A being a circle outside the reality [external world] circle B.
You can avoid the word 'absolute' if you want to.