An Anti-Philosophical_Realist is a Moral Realist

[Veritas Aequitas]

An Anti-philosophical_realist can be a FSK conditioned moral_realist.

A pro philosophical_realist can be a anti-moral_realist.


First;
The typical philosophical realist [e.g. PH & Gang] cannot be a moral realist.

1. A philosophical realist believes in an absolute mind-independent reality, facts & things.
2. A philosophical realist [PH types] insists all moral elements are feelings, emotions, opinions, beliefs and subjective which are very subjective, thus cannot be mind independent objective moral facts.
3. A moral realist believe in mind independent objective moral facts.
4. Therefore a philosophical realists [PH types] cannot be a moral realist.

A philosophical realist of Platonic Realism believes there are real absolute mind-independent universal, ideals and form, thus real moral facts. [3]
Therefore a philosophical realists [Platonic] is a moral realist.

A theistic philosophical realist believes there are real absolute mind-independent God and god-created-things.
God created real objective mind-independent moral facts. [3]
Therefore a theistic philosophical realist is a moral realist.

Second:
i. An anti-philosophic_realist believes that are relative mind-independent empirical facts as conditioned within a specific human-based FSK.
ii. An anti-philosophic_realist believes that are relative mind-independent moral facts as conditioned within a human-based moral FSK.
iii. A moral realist believe in mind independent objective moral facts.
iv. Therefore an anti-philosophical_realist is a moral realist conditioned within human-based moral FSK.

An Anti-Philosophical_Realist is a Moral Realist.

Views:

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes: KIV

[Iwannaplato]

An Anti-Philosophical_Realist is a Moral Realist.

First;
The typical philosophical realist [e.g. PH & Gang] cannot be a moral realist.

1. A philosophical realist believes in an absolute mind-independent reality, facts & things.
2. A philosophical realist [PH types] insists all moral elements are feelings, emotions, opinions, beliefs and subjective which are very subjective, thus cannot be mind independent objective moral facts.
3. A moral realist believe in mind independent objective moral facts.
4. Therefore a philosophical realists [PH types] cannot be a moral realist.

Just stop.
Yes, PH is a kind of realist who is a moral antirealist. He does not believe there are objective moral facts.

But that's not typical. Most people are realists and the vast majority of ontological realists are also moral realists. You can see this in political discussions around the world.

Then...

i. An anti-philosophic_realist believes that are relative mind-independent empirical facts as conditioned within a specific human-based FSK.
ii. An anti-philosophic_realist believes that are relative mind-independent moral facts as conditioned within a human-based moral FSK.
iii. A moral realist believe in mind independent objective moral facts.
iv. Therefore an anti-philosophical_realist is a moral realist conditioned within human-based moral FSK.

An Anti-Philosophical_Realist is a Moral Realist.

Well, you've made up a term "anti-philosophic_realist", so you can define it any way you like.
It's just plain silly.

In English we don't have the '_' in terms like this. It seems like in response to my pointing out what anti-philosophical realist would mean, you added in this underline. So, sure, you can say that anti-philosophic_realists are moral realists. Because you've made up a category, and one that looks silly in English. But fine. So what.

I could write that Pro###antirealist------ontologists are all dualists.
But such a statement, like the silly 'deduction' above is utterly meaningless to anyone but you.

You are a kind of anti-realists - one of the many kinds - and you are a moral realist. Peachy.

[Veritas Aequitas]

An Anti-Philosophical_Realist is a Moral Realist.

First;
The typical philosophical realist [e.g. PH & Gang] cannot be a moral realist.

1. A philosophical realist believes in an absolute mind-independent reality, facts & things.
2. A philosophical realist [PH types] insists all moral elements are feelings, emotions, opinions, beliefs and subjective which are very subjective, thus cannot be mind independent objective moral facts.
3. A moral realist believe in mind independent objective moral facts.
4. Therefore a philosophical realists [PH types] cannot be a moral realist.

Just stop.
Yes, PH is a kind of realist who is a moral antirealist. He does not believe there are objective moral facts.

But that's not typical. Most people are realists and the vast majority of ontological realists are also moral realists. You can see this in political discussions around the world.

I already given examples of ontological realists as moral realists, i.e. Plato and theists.
Who else, explain in detail to support the claim.

Then...

i. An anti-philosophic_realist believes that are relative mind-independent empirical facts as conditioned within a specific human-based FSK.
ii. An anti-philosophic_realist believes that are relative mind-independent moral facts as conditioned within a human-based moral FSK.
iii. A moral realist believe in mind independent objective moral facts.
iv. Therefore an anti-philosophical_realist is a moral realist conditioned within human-based moral FSK.

An Anti-Philosophical_Realist is a Moral Realist.

Well, you've made up a term "anti-philosophic_realist", so you can define it any way you like.
It's just plain silly.

In English we don't have the '_' in terms like this. It seems like in response to my pointing out what anti-philosophical realist would mean, you added in this underline. So, sure, you can say that anti-philosophic_realists are moral realists. Because you've made up a category, and one that looks silly in English. But fine. So what.

What is the problem?

Philosophical-Realism is an ideology. Example of ideology, communism, Nazism, fascism, etc.
Anti- = opposed to; against - google dictionary.
Thus anyone who is against or oppose the specific ideology is an anti-(whatever-ideology).
If anti-communism and other anti- are so common why not anti-philosophical_Realism. [opposing the ideology of philosophical realism].

I could write that Pro###antirealist------ontologists are all dualists.
But such a statement, like the silly 'deduction' above is utterly meaningless to anyone but you.

Yes, the above is silly.
To use the term anti-realist without qualifications in this particular discussion is incompetent.
When I see the term 'antirealism' (if not, clarified) I presume it is anti-p_realism.

You are a kind of anti-realists - one of the many kinds - and you are a moral realist. Peachy.

I am specifically an anti-philosophical_realist [Kantian].
I am a moral empirical realist as conditioned within a human-based moral FSK.
There should be no issue when the above is qualified accordingly.

The issue for anyone is only when they are too dogmatic with an existing ideology where it is too painful to even to try to understand [not necessary agree] other views.

[Peter Holmes]

Yes, PH is a kind of realist who is a moral antirealist. He does not believe there are objective moral facts.

But that's not typical. Most people are realists and the vast majority of ontological realists are also moral realists. You can see this in political discussions around the world.

What matters is evidence and sound argument - not labels and their baggage. And not what people believe. For example, the vast majority of people in the world believe there are supernatural or non-natural things and causes.

My 'kind' of realism manifests in the questions: what and where are abstract or non-physical things, and in what way do they exist? And so far, to my knowledge, answers avoiding question-begging or equivocation on 'thing' and 'exist' have there been none. Any offers, anyone?

Absence of evidence may not mean a claim is false. But it does mean that to believe a claim is true is irrational. So I think abstract or non-physical things are misleading fictions, or myths, or metaphors.

I maintain that so-called anti-realists aren't 'anti' reality - whatever that could mean. What they oppose is the claim that any one kind of description of reality can capture the essence or fundamental nature of reality - as though there is such a thing. And that makes me an anti-realist. Hoorah! (Labels and their baggage.)

Now - to moral objectivism - belief in the existence of moral facts. I think there's no evidence for the existence of physical moral things or properties, so that moral objectivism is a delusion - a mistaking of what we say about things for the way things are - which is an ancient and (I think original) philosophical confusion.

[Iwannaplato]

Yes, PH is a kind of realist who is a moral antirealist. He does not believe there are objective moral facts.

But that's not typical. Most people are realists and the vast majority of ontological realists are also moral realists. You can see this in political discussions around the world.

What matters is evidence and sound argument - not labels and their baggage. And not what people believe. For example, the vast majority of people in the world believe there are supernatural or non-natural things and causes.

My 'kind' of realism manifests in the questions: what and where are abstract or non-physical things, and in what way do they exist? And so far, to my knowledge, answers avoiding question-begging or equivocation on 'thing' and 'exist' have there been none. Any offers, anyone?

Absence of evidence may not mean a claim is false. But it does mean that to believe a claim is true is irrational. So I think abstract or non-physical things are misleading fictions, or myths, or metaphors.

I maintain that so-called anti-realists aren't 'anti' reality - whatever that could mean. What they oppose is the claim that any one kind of description of reality can capture the essence or fundamental nature of reality - as though there is such a thing. And that makes me an anti-realist. Hoorah! (Labels and their baggage.)

Now - to moral objectivism - belief in the existence of moral facts. I think there's no evidence for the existence of physical moral things or properties, so that moral objectivism is a delusion - a mistaking of what we say about things for the way things are - which is an ancient and (I think original) philosophical confusion.

There's a lot of possible discussions in all that.
When I labelled you, it wasn't meant as 'PH is bad, but your generalizing.' It was to point out the ludicrous implied generalization - along with all the other silliness in his OP.

And that it's even more nuanced than I was pointing out - that you are antirealist on an issue - only makes the OP sillier. There are a variety of antirealisms and they can focus on specific issues: numbers, universals, morals - and have ontological stances regarding those, or they can have epistemological stances. We can't know X. Rather than X doesn't exist. Or we can't be sure X is......

My main concern right now is why do we respond to someone who can right and repeatedly defend an OP that is so riddled with confusions and silliness. I don't think VA is a troll in any traditional sense. I'd bet big bucks he believes what he says.

But I think enough effort has been spent in trying to create both a reasoned dialogue and for him to reflect over....well, any part of his opus.

[Iwannaplato]

I already given examples of ontological realists as moral realists, i.e. Plato and theists.
Who else, explain in detail to support the claim.

What percentage of the world thinks that the Moon continues to exist if no one looks at it? Or that stuff in a closet that isn't opened for years is still in there? Of all those people how many of them are moral realists? I'll give you a hint nearly all of them. Most people are both ontological realists and moral realists.

What is the problem?

Philosophical-Realism is an ideology.

No it's a philosophical position. Check out your own link in Stanford's Encyclopedia of Philosophy and the ongoing, that is current, respectful dialogue between realists and antirealists and how complicated that dialogue is.

Example of ideology, communism, Nazism, fascism, etc.

LOL. Yeah, realism is like those.

Anti- = opposed to; against - google dictionary.
Thus anyone who is against or oppose the specific ideology is an anti-(whatever-ideology).
If anti-communism and other anti- are so common why not anti-philosophical_Realism. [opposing the ideology of philosophical realism].

Notice that in no way at all do you actually interact with what I have said above about your coined term, nor what I have said elsewhere. You added the _ after I pointed out how confusing it was. Without saying, ok, I see your point. That seems to be something that is hard for you to do, acknowledge that anything criticial might have a point.

Instead of responding to the points I made here and elsewhere, you just reargue for your term.
Fine, even above, I grant you that it is a term you've made up and of course you can define it as you like.

You are a kind of anti-realists - one of the many kinds - and you are a moral realist. Peachy.

I am specifically an anti-philosophical_realist [Kantian].
I am a moral empirical realist as conditioned within a human-based moral FSK.
There should be no issue when the above is qualified accordingly.

The issue for anyone is only when they are too dogmatic with an existing ideology where it is too painful to even to try to understand [not necessary agree] other views.

So, you have asserted again and again despite antirealists of various kinds, people with mixed antirealist and realist positions and realists all having similar reactions to you.

So, you're ad hom fails.

But this has already been pointed out to you several times.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I already given examples of ontological realists as moral realists, i.e. Plato and theists.
Who else, explain in detail to support the claim.

What percentage of the world thinks that the Moon continues to exist if no one looks at it? Or that stuff in a closet that isn't opened for years is still in there? Of all those people how many of them are moral realists? I'll give you a hint nearly all of them. Most people are both ontological realists and moral realists.

Be specific, who else and on what grounds?
The majority of people who claimed to be moral realists are likely to be theists.

What is the problem?

Philosophical-Realism is an ideology.

No it's a philosophical position. Check out your own link in Stanford's Encyclopedia of Philosophy and the ongoing, that is current, respectful dialogue between realists and antirealists and how complicated that dialogue is.

Why can't a philosophical position be an ideology, especially when philosophical realism is entangled with so much emotions in philosophical realists.

Example of ideology, communism, Nazism, fascism, etc.

LOL. Yeah, realism is like those.

Anti- = opposed to; against - google dictionary.
Thus anyone who is against or oppose the specific ideology is an anti-(whatever-ideology).
If anti-communism and other anti- are so common why not anti-philosophical_Realism. [opposing the ideology of philosophical realism].

Notice that in no way at all do you actually interact with what I have said above about your coined term, nor what I have said elsewhere. You added the _ after I pointed out how confusing it was. Without saying, ok, I see your point. That seems to be something that is hard for you to do, acknowledge that anything criticial might have a point.

Instead of responding to the points I made here and elsewhere, you just reargue for your term.
Fine, even above, I grant you that it is a term you've made up and of course you can define it as you like.

I had used the term 'philosophical_realism' [with "_"] long ago, here is one I can find

• There are many forms of realism. The term antirealism is not specific for my purpose. My focus is that of specifically Philosophical_Realism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism Thus my view is that of ANTI- Philosophical_Realism [specifically Kantian] or in short ...
  viewtopic.php?p=649132#p649132 Jun 17, 2023

The term philosophical_realism makes sense.
Anti-philosophical_realism or anti(philosophical realism) means against or opposing philosophical realism in totality philosophically or as an ideology [..I prefer].

You are a kind of anti-realists - one of the many kinds - and you are a moral realist. Peachy.

I am specifically an anti-philosophical_realist [Kantian].
I am a moral empirical realist as conditioned within a human-based moral FSK.
There should be no issue when the above is qualified accordingly.

The issue for anyone is only when they are too dogmatic with an existing ideology where it is too painful to even to try to understand [not necessary agree] other views.

So, you have asserted again and again despite antirealists of various kinds, people with mixed antirealist and realist positions and realists all having similar reactions to you.

So, you're ad hom fails.

But this has already been pointed out to you several times.

???

In summary

A pro philosophical_realist can be an anti-moral_realist.
An anti-philosophical_realist can be a FSK conditioned moral_realist.

[Iwannaplato]

Be specific, who else and on what grounds?
The majority of people who claimed to be moral realists are likely to be theists.

Well, of course. Theist are the majority of the world's citizens. But the vast majority of non-theists are also realists. There's no need to be specific. No response to the point I made.

No it's a philosophical position. Check out your own link in Stanford's Encyclopedia of Philosophy and the ongoing, that is current, respectful dialogue between realists and antirealists and how complicated that dialogue is.[/quote]

Why can't a philosophical position be an ideology, especially when philosophical realism is entangled with so much emotions in philosophical realists.

No response to the point I made, just a new question.

Precisely as in your list, ideology is used for political/economic positions.
From the Encyclopedia of Philosophy

An ideology is a set of ideas, beliefs and attitudes, consciously or unconsciously held, which reflects or shapes understandings or misconceptions of the social and political world. It serves to recommend, justify or endorse collective action aimed at preserving or changing political practices and institutions. The concept of ideology is split almost irreconcilably between two major senses. The first is pejorative, denoting particular, historically distorted (political) thought which reinforces certain relationships of domination and in respect of which ideology functions as a critical unmasking concept. The second is a non-pejorative assertion about the different families of cultural symbols and ideas human beings employ in perceiving, comprehending and evaluating social and political realities in general, often within a systemic framework. Those families perform significant mapping and integrating functions.

You obviously meant it in the pejorative sense. If you didn't, then who cares. If you somehow mean 'ideology' in some broader sense, well any belief system could be viewed as an ideology, then, as long as their is a group who believes in it. So, anti-philosophical_realism could also be an ideology. You were either saying nothing or using the term as a meaningless insult.

Oh, you're belief's an ideology.
No, yours is.

Example of ideology, communism, Nazism, fascism, etc.

LOL. Yeah, realism is like those.

Anti- = opposed to; against - google dictionary.
Thus anyone who is against or oppose the specific ideology is an anti-(whatever-ideology).
If anti-communism and other anti- are so common why not anti-philosophical_Realism. [opposing the ideology of philosophical realism].

Notice that in no way at all do you actually interact with what I have said above about your coined term, nor what I have said elsewhere. You added the _ after I pointed out how confusing it was. Without saying, ok, I see your point. That seems to be something that is hard for you to do, acknowledge that anything criticial might have a point.

Instead of responding to the points I made here and elsewhere, you just reargue for your term.
Fine, even above, I grant you that it is a term you've made up and of course you can define it as you like.

I had used the term 'philosophical_realism' [with "_"] long ago, here is one I can find

• There are many forms of realism. The term antirealism is not specific for my purpose. My focus is that of specifically Philosophical_Realism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism Thus my view is that of ANTI- Philosophical_Realism [specifically Kantian] or in short ...
  viewtopic.php?p=649132#p649132 Jun 17, 2023

Wow, going all the way back to June. You recently added the underline, after I pointed out the problem with the term in English. Not that anyone uses the term. But great, you invented a term that no one uses but you with an typography that no one uses.

The term philosophical_realism makes sense.
Anti-philosophical_realism or anti(philosophical realism) means against or opposing philosophical realism in totality philosophically or as an ideology [..I prefer].

I understood what you meant by the term.

A pro philosophical_realist can be an anti-moral_realist.

And a philosophical realist can be a moral realist. Great, you've conceded the point. CAN. CAN. It is not necessarily the case, but it can be the case.

An anti-philosophical_realist can be a FSK conditioned moral_realist.

Of course. You made up the term. And antirealists, non-realists of most kinds can also be moral antirealists. One can be an ontological/metaphysical antirealist and also not believe in objective morals. Or one can.

CAN CAN CAN CAN. It depends. People can hold diverse positions on whether all sorts of things are real or not. And they can have different mixtures of realist and non-realist positions. Universals, unobservables, morals, numbers, noumena and so on and on.

[FlashDangerpants]

What is this stupid fucking shit?


Here's a areal philosopher arguing on behalf of both moral and scientific realism as a package.
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... al_Realist

4.8 Conclusion
I have argued that if the full resources of naturalistic and realistic conceptions of scientific knowledge and scientific language are deployed and if the right sort of positive theory of the good is advanced, then it is possible to make a plausible case for moral realism in response to typical anti-realist challenges.

It's beyond preposterous to suppose that VA can be in charge of all the arguments that real philosophers are allowed to write, when he isn't competent to construct basic syllogisms.

[Veritas Aequitas]

A pro philosophical_realist can be an anti-moral_realist.

And a philosophical realist can be a moral realist. Great, you've conceded the point. CAN. CAN. It is not necessarily the case, but it can be the case.

An anti-philosophical_realist can be a FSK conditioned moral_realist.

Of course. You made up the term. And antirealists, non-realists of most kinds can also be moral antirealists. One can be an ontological/metaphysical antirealist and also not believe in objective morals. Or one can.

CAN CAN CAN CAN. It depends. People can hold diverse positions on whether all sorts of things are real or not. And they can have different mixtures of realist and non-realist positions. Universals, unobservables, morals, numbers, noumena and so on and on.

Note sure what is the fuss all about.

The point is most of the posters here simply use the term 'realist' and 'anti-realist' without qualifications especially is a complex issue such as the realism vs idealism [anti-realism] issue.

What I had insisted is, in such a complex issue, we need to very rigoristic with the terms uses because there are many types of realism, anti-realism and in some context, a realist can be an anti-realist and vice-versa.
I have even raised a thread on this.

A Realist is also an Idealist [anti-realist] and vice-versa
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=32913

[Iwannaplato]

A pro philosophical_realist can be an anti-moral_realist.

And a philosophical realist can be a moral realist. Great, you've conceded the point. CAN. CAN. It is not necessarily the case, but it can be the case.

An anti-philosophical_realist can be a FSK conditioned moral_realist.

Of course. You made up the term. And antirealists, non-realists of most kinds can also be moral antirealists. One can be an ontological/metaphysical antirealist and also not believe in objective morals. Or one can.

CAN CAN CAN CAN. It depends. People can hold diverse positions on whether all sorts of things are real or not. And they can have different mixtures of realist and non-realist positions. Universals, unobservables, morals, numbers, noumena and so on and on.

Note sure what is the fuss all about.

The fuss is that what you call philosophical realists can be moral realists.
And all the various antirealists can be moral antirealists, except moral antirealists.

Relevant to philosophical realists in your link....

Philosophical realism – usually not treated as a position of its own but as a stance towards other subject matters – is the view that a certain kind of thing (ranging widely from abstract objects like numbers to moral statements to the physical world itself) has mind-independent existence, i.e. that it exists even in the absence of any mind perceiving it or that its existence is not just a mere appearance in the eye of the beholder

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

Your own link to Wikipedia contradicts number 2....

An Anti-Philosophical_Realist is a Moral Realist.

First;
The typical philosophical realist [e.g. PH & Gang] cannot be a moral realist.

1. A philosophical realist believes in an absolute mind-independent reality, facts & things.
2. A philosophical realist [PH types] insists all moral elements are feelings, emotions, opinions, beliefs and subjective which are very subjective, thus cannot be mind independent objective moral facts.
3. A moral realist believe in mind independent objective moral facts.
4. Therefore a philosophical realists [PH types] cannot be a moral realist.

Unless you are trying to say philosophical realists who have the same range of philosophical positions that PH has. If so then your language was poor and misleading and more importantly you could have agreed with me long ago when I brought up the issue.

You could have said 'Oh, I didn't mean philosophical realists in general, I only meant people who have the precise set of positions that PH has. And of course then it would have been better to then simply say, PH believes all moral elements etc. You responded that you had mentioned a couple fo ontological realists who are moral realists as if somehow this entails that all others are like PH in being an ontological realist and a moral anti-realist. When it fact the Wikipedia entry entails that there are all sorts of possiblities. And you give no justification at all for your limiting it to those two.

Making your call for people to be rigoristic [sic - rigorous is what you mean] is one should follow yourself.

Me, I am generally antirealist, though I would more often couch this as pragmatic, since whatever works for me I will use and I don't feel I have to harden down to a label. Why? Because at root I don't think language is (always) representative or a mirror or corresponding, but rather evokes. It leads to experiences in oneself and others when one uses it. I don't adhere to moral realism. I don't assume it's false, though I don't find it really meaningful. I'm not an adherent of analytic philosophy and in fact have disagreed with PH over the way he uses 'fact' for example. I certain enjoyed the later Wittgenstein, but I am not Wittgensteinian in general. I've also been inspired by Continental philosophers. Though the choice between those seems like a false dilemma. And you don't strike me as particularly Continental either.

I'm sure you'll keep writing PH and gang because you have even after Atla has explained his mixture of antirealism and realism And FJ and PH have pointed out the strawman aspects of your labeling others philosophical realists. The analytic label is confused. the realism label is incorrect. One can disagree with arguments and not positions. One can disagree with facets of an argument or position without adherering to some other team. There are more positions possible than implicit in your gang label.

Perhaps your simply confused. I don't know. It's seems like a convenient way to generalize and thus not nuance responses. And also to dismiss.