Challenges to Metaphysical Realism

[Veritas Aequitas]

I think, the only time when the idea of (quasi-)absolute indepence had any major significance, was in the 19th century and maybe the very early 20th century.

That time, scientists took the Cartesian dualism too seriously, the duality that splits existence into the mental world and the material world. And so they decided to only study the material world, with absolute objectivity, where the mental world absolutely doesn't disturb the material world.

It was sort of a (quasi-)absolute independence, where we can see the material world from the mental world, but we can't influence it in any way.

Then as everyone knows (or so I thought), in the 20th century the above idea got thoroughly destroyed, first and foremost by science itself, which was fairly ironic. So no one with a clue takes such a position anymore.

Except apparently VA didn't get the memo about this. He thinks it's still 1892 or something like that. How he pulled that off, I don't know.

You are insulting your own intelligence on being so ignorant of what is going in the philosophical community at present.

This OP [from SEP] itself is an indication the Realism vs Anti-Realism debate is still very active else it will be qualified are archaic.

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.
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.[8]
In some contexts, realism is contrasted with idealism. Today it is more usually contrasted with anti-realism, for example in the philosophy of science.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

In analytic philosophy, anti-realism is a position which encompasses many varieties such as metaphysical, mathematical, semantic, scientific, moral and epistemic. The term was first articulated by British philosopher Michael Dummett in an argument against a form of realism Dummett saw as 'colorless reductionism'.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-realism

There is a whole loads of anti-realism views from Continental Philosophy.

Repeat; you are insulting your own intelligence on being so ignorant of what is going on re the above in the philosophical community at present.

The Realism vs Anti-Realism has an impact on the Philosophy of Science is hindering the progress of Science by dogmatically clinging to Scientific Realism by implying a
"first cause" in Science, i.e.

scientific realism is the view that well-confirmed scientific theories are approximately true; the entities they postulate do exist; and we have good reason to believe their main tenets.
https://iep.utm.edu/scientific-realism-antirealism/

In this case scientific realism is indirectly complicit to theistic realism wherein the potential is the extermination of the human species via SOME evil prone Islamist who will not give a damn when they use WMDs.

This one time I'll be blunt with you VA. Listen, even after all this time, you confuse realism with absolute independence.

I don't give a damn with what you think, just provide me with the sound argument. Here you are making noises.

In general the realists claims of independence is also fraught with ambiguity, as such the need to qualify 'absolute' is essential.
When realists insist the moon or dinosaurs pre-existed humans, that is a claim of absolute independence.

Show me in all articles with the definition of 'realism' that do not involve the above absolute independence.

Without absolute independence a realist [as defined] would be claiming the contrary for 'idealism' or anti-realism.

[Atla]

I don't give a damn with what you think, just provide me with the sound argument. Here you are making noises.

In general the realists claims of independence is also fraught with ambiguity, as such the need to qualify 'absolute' is essential.
When realists insist the moon or dinosaurs pre-existed humans, that is a claim of absolute independence.

Show me in all articles with the definition of 'realism' that do not involve the above absolute independence.

Without absolute independence a realist [as defined] would be claiming the contrary for 'idealism' or anti-realism.

Show me a realism definition that talks about "absolute independence".

[Veritas Aequitas]

I don't give a damn with what you think, just provide me with the sound argument. Here you are making noises.

In general the realists claims of independence is also fraught with ambiguity, as such the need to qualify 'absolute' is essential.
When realists insist the moon or dinosaurs pre-existed humans, that is a claim of absolute independence.

Show me in all articles with the definition of 'realism' that do not involve the above absolute independence.

Without absolute independence a realist [as defined] would be claiming the contrary for 'idealism' or anti-realism.

Show me a realism definition that talks about "absolute independence".

• Metaphysical realism maintains that "whatever exists does so, and has the properties and relations it does, independently of deriving its existence or nature from being thought of or experienced.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosoph ... al_realism

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/

Does the moon exist when no one is looking at it?
Niels Bohr claimed it does not; Einstein disagreed.
Link

This is the claim of Einstein as a realist.

Now you show me how realism [as generally defined] do not entail absolute independence.

Note when a realist sees at table he created or an apple he had planted in his orchard, the realist will claim the table and apple exist independently of his and anyone’s beliefs, linguistic practices, conceptual schemes, experience and so on.
The dependence that the table and apple existed is due to his activities and sight is not in question in this case.

[Atla]

• Metaphysical realism maintains that "whatever exists does so, and has the properties and relations it does, independently of deriving its existence or nature from being thought of or experienced.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosoph ... al_realism

Does the moon exist when no one is looking at it?
Niels Bohr claimed it does not; Einstein disagreed.
Link

This is the claim of Einstein as a realist.

Now you show me how realism [as generally defined] do not entail absolute independence.

That's simple: "independently of deriving its existence or nature from being thought of or experienced" and "absolutely independent" have nothing to do with each other. They are two different versions/senses/kinds of independence.

[Veritas Aequitas]

• Metaphysical realism maintains that "whatever exists does so, and has the properties and relations it does, independently of deriving its existence or nature from being thought of or experienced.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosoph ... al_realism

Does the moon exist when no one is looking at it?
Niels Bohr claimed it does not; Einstein disagreed.
Link

This is the claim of Einstein as a realist.

Now you show me how realism [as generally defined] do not entail absolute independence.

That's simple: "independently of deriving its existence or nature from being thought of or experienced" and "absolutely independent" have nothing to do with each other. They are two different versions/senses/kinds of independence.

You are strawmanning.

I have already explained by what is absolute independence in context to the extent of independence where 'the moon, dinosaurs and the likes existed prior to humans'.
Another view of absolute independence is,
if the human species were to be extinct tomorrow, the Sun and the Moon and the likes will continue to exist.

Just in case you missed my earlier point;
Note when a realist sees at table he created or an apple he had planted in his orchard, the realist will claim the table and apple exist independently of his and anyone’s beliefs, linguistic practices, conceptual schemes, experience and so on.
The dependence that the table and apple existed is due to his prior activities and current sight is not in question in this case.

What is the other version of "absolute independence" you are thinking of?
Give examples?

[Atla]

You are strawmanning.

I have already explained by what is absolute independence in context to the extent of independence where 'the moon, dinosaurs and the likes existed prior to humans'.
Another view of absolute independence is,
if the human species were to be extinct tomorrow, the Sun and the Moon and the likes will continue to exist.

What is the other version of "absolute independence" you are thinking of?
Give examples?

The Moon not existing when no one is looking at it, would mean that absolute independence is false. And even this may be stretching the concept of absolute independence. Maybe a better example would be a Moon in an unreachable parallel universe.

The Moon not existing with/as the properties we inherently ascribe to it (using our thinking, experiencing), would mean that metaphysical realism is false.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You are strawmanning.

I have already explained by what is absolute independence in context to the extent of independence where 'the moon, dinosaurs and the likes existed prior to humans'.
Another view of absolute independence is,
if the human species were to be extinct tomorrow, the Sun and the Moon and the likes will continue to exist.

What is the other version of "absolute independence" you are thinking of?
Give examples?

The Moon not existing when no one is looking at it, would mean that absolute independence is false.

Isn't this MY point?

I had stated the realists claim absolute independence is true, i.e. to the contrary of the above. The realists are claiming "The Moon exists independently by itself when no one is looking at it".

Of course, as an anti-realist, I claim 'absolute independence' of the Realists is false.

So what has you been whining about?

And even this may be stretching the concept of absolute independence. Maybe a better example would be a Moon in an unreachable parallel universe.

The Moon not existing with/as the properties we inherently ascribe to it (using our thinking, experiencing), would mean that metaphysical realism is false.

That is why I have been claiming;
The realists [metaphysical realist] claiming absolute independence of the existence of things [to the extreme of the moon prior to humans] is false.

And Peter et. al. are claiming moral statements are merely opinions and beliefs thus they cannot be the realists' absolutely independent facts, i.e. moral facts.

Peter et. al. are strawmaning. I have NEVER claimed for moral opinions and beliefs.
Rather I am claiming there are non-independent [human entangled] moral facts [anti-realist version] that can be verified and justified scientifically emerging as moral facts within the moral FSK.

[Atla]

You are strawmanning.

I have already explained by what is absolute independence in context to the extent of independence where 'the moon, dinosaurs and the likes existed prior to humans'.
Another view of absolute independence is,
if the human species were to be extinct tomorrow, the Sun and the Moon and the likes will continue to exist.

What is the other version of "absolute independence" you are thinking of?
Give examples?

The Moon not existing when no one is looking at it, would mean that absolute independence is false.

Isn't this MY point?

I had stated the realists claim absolute independence is true, i.e. to the contrary of the above. The realists are claiming "The Moon exists independently by itself when no one is looking at it".

Of course, as an anti-realist, I claim 'absolute independence' of the Realists is false.

So what has you been whining about?

And even this may be stretching the concept of absolute independence. Maybe a better example would be a Moon in an unreachable parallel universe.

The Moon not existing with/as the properties we inherently ascribe to it (using our thinking, experiencing), would mean that metaphysical realism is false.

That is why I have been claiming;
The realists [metaphysical realist] claiming absolute independence of the existence of things [to the extreme of the moon prior to humans] is false.

And Peter et. al. are claiming moral statements are merely opinions and beliefs thus they cannot be the realists' absolutely independent facts, i.e. moral facts.

Peter et. al. are strawmaning. I have NEVER claimed for moral opinions and beliefs.
Rather I am claiming there are non-independent [human entangled] moral facts [anti-realist version] that can be verified and justified scientifically emerging as moral facts within the moral FSK.

And you still don't get it. That the Moon doesn't exist as the properties we ascribe to it, doesn't mean that the Moon doesn't exist when no one is looking. These two have little to nothing to do with each other.

You don't understand what realism means. You are strawmanning like half of philosophy.

[Walker]

And you still don't get it. That the Moon doesn't exist as the properties we ascribe to it, doesn't mean that the Moon doesn't exist when no one is looking. These two have little to nothing to do with each other.

You don't understand what realism means. You are strawmanning like half of philosophy.

Assumption that the moon exists when one is not looking at the moon is not absolute proof that the moon exists.

To be convinced, one looks back at the moon to verify and then when one looks away again, verification is again required to be convinced. The solution to be sure that the moon is there, is to always be looking at the moon … but that make one a lunatic so it’s to be avoided because really, who else would need to care enough to do that?

However, neither is interpretation of sensory input absolute proof that the moon exists. This is because interpretation of sensation is conditioned upon any particular form, with all its limitations of capacity to both perceive and interpret the perception, and to trick itself.

Is that what realism means?

[Atla]

And you still don't get it. That the Moon doesn't exist as the properties we ascribe to it, doesn't mean that the Moon doesn't exist when no one is looking. These two have little to nothing to do with each other.

You don't understand what realism means. You are strawmanning like half of philosophy.

Assumption that the moon exists when one is not looking at the moon is not absolute proof that the moon exists.

To be convinced, one looks back at the moon to verify and then when one looks away again, verification is again required to be convinced. The solution to be sure that the moon is there, is to always be looking at the moon … but that make one a lunatic so it’s to be avoided because really, who else would need to care enough to do that?

However, neither is interpretation of sensory input absolute proof that the moon exists. This is because interpretation of sensation is conditioned upon any particular form, with all its limitations of capacity to both perceive and interpret the perception, and to trick itself.

Is that what realism means?

Show me where "absolute proof" is mentioned in realism definitions. Why are you two hallucinating? What the hell is going on?

[Veritas Aequitas]

The Moon not existing when no one is looking at it, would mean that absolute independence is false.

Isn't this MY point?

I had stated the realists claim absolute independence is true, i.e. to the contrary of the above. The realists are claiming "The Moon exists independently by itself when no one is looking at it".

Of course, as an anti-realist, I claim 'absolute independence' of the Realists is false.

So what has you been whining about?

And even this may be stretching the concept of absolute independence. Maybe a better example would be a Moon in an unreachable parallel universe.

The Moon not existing with/as the properties we inherently ascribe to it (using our thinking, experiencing), would mean that metaphysical realism is false.

That is why I have been claiming;
The realists [metaphysical realist] claiming absolute independence of the existence of things [to the extreme of the moon prior to humans] is false.

And Peter et. al. are claiming moral statements are merely opinions and beliefs thus they cannot be the realists' absolutely independent facts, i.e. moral facts.

Peter et. al. are strawmaning. I have NEVER claimed for moral opinions and beliefs.
Rather I am claiming there are non-independent [human entangled] moral facts [anti-realist version] that can be verified and justified scientifically emerging as moral facts within the moral FSK.

And you still don't get it. That the Moon doesn't exist as the properties we ascribe to it, doesn't mean that the Moon doesn't exist when no one is looking. These two have little to nothing to do with each other.

You don't understand what realism means. You are strawmanning like half of philosophy.

Point is you are ignorant of the issue.

"doesn't mean that the Moon doesn't exist when no one is looking."
What is the independent 'moon' without "the properties we ascribe to it?"

You are the one who is hallucinating of the the independent 'moon' without "the properties we ascribe to it.

Btw, the ultimate explanation is you are driven by a cognitive dissonance to hastily jumped to the conclusion there is a moon-in-itself without "the properties we ascribe to it. It is a desperate move to maintain consonance else it is terrible mental pains for you.

You don't understand what realism means. You are strawmanning like half of philosophy.

Btw, you are the one who had not provided any definition for 'what is realism?' supported by credible sources.

[Iwannaplato]

Assumption that the moon exists when one is not looking at the moon is not absolute proof that the moon exists.

It's not any kind of proof, let a alone an absolute one. Has someone claimed that an assumption is proof of something? Further proofs are more the realm of math and symbolic logic, not metaphysics and empircal studies and so on.

Last VA, for example, assumes that things do not exist when not perceived. His assumption is also not a proof. Nor is the lack of a counter proof a proof.

Nor are appeals to the authority of the Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy proofs.

Where did this idea that there are all sorts of proofs in philosophy come from?

However, neither is interpretation of sensory input absolute proof that the moon exists. This is because interpretation of sensation is conditioned upon any particular form, with all its limitations of capacity to both perceive and interpret the perception, and to trick itself.

And this conclusion is not the conclusion of a proof. It starts with a conclusion and supports this with an assertion. Not only is it not a proof -which is not a failing since proofs are really not on the table for that topic-but it's barely an argument. Let's call it a claim, and one that partially undermines it's own certainty.

Is that what realism means?

Well, no. Though there a number of realisms and realist positions on things.

I love this 'absolute' proof idea. Like to say it proved that X is the case is not enough. It's an absolute proof. Or an absolute proof is lacking. Well, geez, those are lacking nearly everywhere and anywhere useful.

That someone thinks it is necessary to point out that an assumption is not an absolute proof is hilarious.

[Atla]

Point is you are ignorant of the issue.

"doesn't mean that the Moon doesn't exist when no one is looking."
What is the independent 'moon' without "the properties we ascribe to it?"

You are the one who is hallucinating of the the independent 'moon' without "the properties we ascribe to it.

Btw, the ultimate explanation is you are driven by a cognitive dissonance to hastily jumped to the conclusion there is a moon-in-itself without "the properties we ascribe to it. It is a desperate move to maintain consonance else it is terrible mental pains for you.

It's the unknowable, posited Moon-in-itself.

People who don't posit it are often insane. Often they are terrified by life, by the real world, to the point of total escapism, derealization.

Btw, you are the one who had not provided any definition for 'what is realism?' supported by credible sources.

You are lying, that's total intellectual dishonesty.

You were asked to show that realism is concerned with "absolute independence", supported by credible sources, which you haven't done.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Point is you are ignorant of the issue.

"doesn't mean that the Moon doesn't exist when no one is looking."
What is the independent 'moon' without "the properties we ascribe to it?"

You are the one who is hallucinating of the the independent 'moon' without "the properties we ascribe to it.

Btw, the ultimate explanation is you are driven by a cognitive dissonance to hastily jumped to the conclusion there is a moon-in-itself without "the properties we ascribe to it. It is a desperate move to maintain consonance else it is terrible mental pains for you.

It's the unknowable, posited Moon-in-itself.

People who don't posit it are often insane. Often they are terrified by life, by the real world, to the point of total escapism, derealization.

"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.

Btw, you are the one who had not provided any definition for 'what is realism?' supported by credible sources.

You are lying, that's total intellectual dishonesty.

You were asked to show that realism is concerned with "absolute independence", supported by credible sources, which you haven't done.

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.

Btw, you are the one who had not provided any definition for 'what is realism?' supported by credible sources.

You are lying, that's total intellectual dishonesty.

If not lying, where are your references or even your personal definition?

[Atla]

"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.

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.

Or do you honestly think you speak for philosophers worldwide. If yes, then we have an even bigger problem at hand.