Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Wed May 31, 2023 12:51 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue May 30, 2023 2:37 amI am asserting the mind-independent things as claimed by Philosophical Realists do not exist as real. They are basically illusions, i.e. useful illusions emerging as an evolutionary default.
You're saying that philosophical realism is illusory. It's not entirely clear what you mean by that term.
Realism, in general, refers to the idea that there exist mind-independent things. A mind-independent thing is a thing that exists independently of minds, i.e. it is a thing that would continue to exist even if all minds ceased to exist. Mind-independent things are otherwise known as objective things and realism is otherwise known as objectivism.
I have explained the point in detailed elsewhere, e.g.
PH's Philosophical Realism is Illusory
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39992
PH's What is Fact is Illusory
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39577
In simple terms, when you claim that things in reality are absolutely independent of the human mind, there is an inevitable REALITY_GAP between you and the-thing-by-itself.
Note this sort of thinking is merely driven by an evolutionary default of external-ness to facilitate survival.
As such, how can you ever be certain that there is an independent reality out there and what you know of it, is what it should be?
What is really-real are your experiences of emerged and realized things; so what you claimed to be independent of mind is an illusion, i.e. just a thought.
To gain confidence of the reality of really-real from human experiences re emerged and realized things, humans rely upon their inherent FSK and subsequently improved human-based FSKs.
The most credible and reliable human-based FSK is the science-FSK.
Because it is human-based FSK whatever the resultant reality, that reality cannot be mind-independent; this is the anti-philosophical-realism basis.
To assert anything of reality without a qualification to the human-based FSK mean merely asserting a mind independent illusion.
The opposite of realism is anti-realism. Anti-realism is the belief that mind-independent things do not exist, i.e. that everything that exists is mind-dependent. A mind-dependent thing is a thing that would cease to exist if all minds ceased to exist. Mind-dependent things are otherwise known as subjective things and anti-realism is otherwise known as subjectivism.
George Berkeley was a subjective idealist. The emphasis is on the word "subjective" because it tells us that he was a subjectivist, i.e. an anti-realist, a man who thought that mind-independent things do not exist.
Kant, however, was not a subjectivist / anti-realist. He believed in the existence of mind-independent things. He merely thought that what we normally consider to be mind-independent things ( such as physical objects, for example ) are actually mind-dependent things and that things that are truly mind-independent, the real things-in-themselves, are unknowable.
If you agree with Kant, then you're not an anti-realist.
Anti-realism, more appropriately anti-philosophical-realism [of many types] means NOT -philosophical-realism.
I prefer not to use the term 'mind-dependent' which can be very misleading.
In addition, an idealist can also be a realist in different senses.
Kant believed 'mind-independent things' i.e. the thing-in-itself is an illusion, albeit a useful illusion.
Kant is an idealist, i.e. Transcendental Idealist;
- From the start, we have declared ourselves in favour of this Transcendental Idealism;
and our Doctrine thus removes all difficulty in the way of accepting the Existence of Matter on the unaided testimony of our mere Self-Consciousness,
or of declaring it [Matter] to be thereby proved in the same manner as the Existence of myself as a Thinking Being is proved.
Kant CPR A370
Kant is also a realist, an Empirical Realist which is ultimately subsumed within Transcendental Idealism;
- The Transcendental Idealist, on the other hand, may be an Empirical Realist or, as he is called, a dualist.
Kant CPR A370
One does not have to be a subjectivist in general in order to be subjectivist on particular issues.
For example, I'm a "memory subjectivist". I believe that memories are subjective. Yet, I am an objectivist in the general sense. I believe that objective things exist. For example, I'm a "color objectivist", a "beauty objectivist" and a moral objectivist.
You, on the other hand, are a "color subjectivist". You're also a "light subjectivist". And you're also a moral subjectivist. You're not willing to say it, of course, and instead, when describing your position on morality, you choose to use the objective / subjective dichotomy in a different sense, namely, in the epistemological sense.
Note this
Two Senses of 'Objectivity'
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39326
1. Philosophical Realism basis of Objectivity
2. FSK and Scientific basis of Objectivity.
Scientific [human-based FSK] Objectivity
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39286
Personal memories are obviously subjective.
But the mechanisms in the brain and body [things] that generate the memories are objective, i.e. human-based FSK objectivity.
If you believe things are mind-independent [philosophical realism] then logically the mechanisms in your brain and body [as things] are independent of your mind. [this is confusing].
You are a color, light objectivists in based on philosophical realism.
I am not sure how you can be a moral objectivist from the philosophical realist sense, perhaps it is based on intuition.
Can you explain.
I am a color, light and moral objectivist in the human-based FSK sense, i.e. where the objectivity human-based science FSK is the most credible.
Science is objective, i.e.
philosophically objectivity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy)
which is not based on the view of ONE individual but rather on a collective of subjects within the scientific community.
This is where Objectivity is intersubjectivity.
What I believe is different from Berkeley's Subjective Idealism.
What I believe is Kant's Transcendental Idealism with Empirical Realism.
I do believe in one perspective, there are things that exist outside the mind this is Empirical Realism as supported by Science.
But this Empirical Realism of externalness is subsumed within the human conditions [Transcendental Idealism], thus cannot be absolutely independent of mind.
Pardon me if I'm wrong but it seems like you're saying that "things [..] exist outside the mind" and that things "cannot be absolutely independent of mind". That looks like a contradiction to me.
Note I raised this thread;
The Moon Does Not Exist If No Humans 'Look' at It
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39510
The justifications are provided in the thread.
That makes you a "Moon subjectivist" (:
I will look into that thread more carefully and try to address whatever points you're making there, just not in this post. I have to first finish my response to Popeye ( which would be an exposition of my position on the subject of this thread. )
Until that, let me ask you a question:
What does it mean to say that a tree exists at a point in time
t during which you're not looking at it?
Does it not mean that, if you went back at that point in time
t, and looked at where that tree is supposed to be, that you would have ended up seeing it?
If so, do you
seriously doubt that?
Note your
" ... a tree exists at a point in time
t ..." is conditioned upon a '
human-based science-physics FSK"
thus if there are no humans or no human looking at the tree, then, there is no human-based science-biology FSK tree.
Note in the above case,
the 'you' human condition is always qualified to the claim is true.
there if there is no human element at all, then the claim is not true.
You are speculating at all times when you claim there are things that are mind-independent out there. At most, they are merely thought-objects not real things.
My principle is;
All of reality, facts, truths, knowledge and objectivity are conditioned upon a specific human-based FSK.
Thus if there are no humans, there are no human-based FSKs,
So, there are no human-based reality, facts, truths, knowledge and objectivity.
The above defies common sense, but common sense is the crudest and has the lowest credibility and reliability in terms of 'what is reality'.