Atla wrote: ↑Sat May 28, 2022 10:25 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat May 28, 2022 10:09 am
"The unknowable, posited Moon-in-itself" is an illusory hallucination you cannot produce for empirical verifications at all. Your moon-in-itself is merely noises to soothe your cognitive dissonances.
OTOH what is moon to me and the rational is merely 'what is the moon' physically as verified and justified with empirical evidence from the scientific Framework and System plus philosophical reasonings to avoid Scientism.
100% of science is consistent with the idea of the Moon-in-itself. Positing is justified, not positing it is unjustified.
Why did you get that idea that science is with the idea of the Moon-in-itself? that is gnat-thinking!
The scientific fact of what-is-moon is IMPERATIVELY
conditioned to the scientific framework and system.
Thus is it correct to state it is a moon-in-science or moon-by-science based on empirical evidences NOT moon-in-itself which is ungrounded.
If the moon is said to be independent of humans by science, it is a relative-independence because it is ultimately conditioned by human-constructed scientific framework and system.
No scientists [Physicists or astronomers] will insist a moon-in-itself exists, rather they have to qualify to 'science said so' i.e.
the scientific fact of what-is-moon is
conditioned to the scientific framework and system.
If any scientists were to claim a moon-in-itself exists in absolute independence, then they would have step outside the scientific system and make it their personal claim as a metaphysical realist. It is the same with any scientist who personally claim god exists as real.
I have already explained 'absolute independence" above. You have selective attention deficit thus cannot grasp it.
Btw, In one perspective I adopt realism as well, i.e. Empirical Realism where there is an external reality but the ultimate is there is no reality-in-itself thus no moon-in-itself.
Here is one reason I need to use 'absolute independence' as opposed to my relative independence.
My sense of absolute independence of realism is in the context of Peter et. al. claims there are no independent moral facts which in a way, Peter is insisting it is absolute.
If not lying, where are your references or even your personal definition?
I wasn't asking for your confused explanation-attempts. I said SHOW ME that realism indeed is concerned with absolute independence.
Note there are many forms of 'realism'.
The OP is dealing with Metaphysical Realism. Read the OP and the next 2 posts.
Your problem is you want to be fed like a toddler when I told you I have already provided the answer.
First let me know what is your meaning of absolute so we don't talk pass each other.
For me, what is 'absolute' means not relative, in this case not related and entangled with the human conditions.
I repeat the definition of Metaphysical/Philosophical Realism as in the OP;
According to Metaphysical [/Philosophical] realism, the world is as it is independent of how humans or other inquiring agents take it to be.
The objects the world contains, together with their properties and the relations they enter into, fix the world’s nature and these objects [together with the properties they have and the relations they enter into] exist independently of our ability to discover they do.
Generic Realism:
a, b, and c and so on exist, and the fact that they exist and have properties such as F-ness, G-ness, and H-ness is (apart from mundane empirical dependencies of the sort sometimes encountered in everyday life) independent of anyone’s beliefs, linguistic practices, conceptual schemes, and so on.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/realism/
I also quoted a list of Challenges to Metaphysical Realism here;
viewtopic.php?p=574525#p574525
One example of the challenges is this;
The first Anti-Realist arguments based on explicitly semantic considerations were advanced by Michael Dummett and Hilary Putnam.
These are:
I. Dummett’s Manifestation Argument: the cognitive and linguistic behaviour of an agent provides no evidence that Realist mind/world links exist;
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/real ... challenge/
Metaphysical Realists do not often use the term 'absolute' but their definitions and context imply their is a claim of absolute independence in contrast to relative independence or causal independence.
Note the phrase "provides no evidence that Realist mind/world
links exist," reject any relative independence or causal independence, thus the reference is the realists' independence has to be absolute independence.
As I had stated in one perspective I agree with Empirical Realism [Kantian] which entailed relative independence.
As such it is critical that I use the term 'absolute independence' to differentiate it from relative or 'causal' independence.
Or do you honestly think you speak for philosophers worldwide. If yes, then we have an even bigger problem at hand.
What kind of thinking is that??
So far I am the one who has been quoting references left right and center.
If it is my term, e.g. absolute independence I had qualified it is mine and I have justified why the term 'absolute independence' is absolutely necessary to avoid misunderstanding.
Btw, you have not define what you understand by what is realism re the OP.
If your 'realism' is different from the OP, then you are strawmaning and it is off topic.