Morality: A Philosophical Realist is not an Empirical Realist

[Veritas Aequitas]

This topic is relevant to morality because Philosophical Realists rely on their absolute mind-independence to deny the objective moral facts.
Philosophical Realists think they are Empirical Realists but they are not.

It is an oxymoron for a philosophical realist to be an empirical realist.

I have to qualify philosophical realists believe in an absolutely mind-independent reality, because I as an empirical realist who also believe in a mind-independent reality but that is on a relative basis.

When dealing with more complex philosophical issues, we have to more precise.

This would be your admission that you've been shamelessly strawmanning almost everyone here for years. You must have been doing it on purpose. Most philosophical realists here (and elsewhere) are empirical realists and don't believe in absolute mind-independence.

You are 100-150 years late with attacking absolute mind-independence, Western philosophy and science already had that "revolution". It's yesterday's news.

Philosophical Realism
aka [Transcendental Realism] [Empirical Idealism]

With reference to the above image, a philosophical realist claims the candle exists absolutely mind-independent of the observer.
This means that, if the observer get out of the room or close his eyes, the mind-independent candle is still existing as proven by the point that the candle is still there when he opens his eyes.

It may be objected that the candle is not absolutely mind-independent because candles are dependent on humans to make them.

To avoid the above objection, philosophical realists will invoke the examples of dinosaurs, the moon and the like.
The claim is that the noumenon moon exist absolutely mind-independent in the sense, the noumenon moon pre-existed human and will continue to exists even if humans are extinct.

In this case, the noumenon moon which exist absolutely mind-independent has a transcendental existence, i.e. beyond mind. the empirical and sensible.

The philosophical realists cannot be empirical realists because the philosophical realists claim absolutely mind-independence while the empirical realists claim relative mind-independence.

Philosophical realists insist the real moon is the absolutely mind-independent existing out there as a positive noumenon and unknowable.
What is knowable of the positive noumenon is based on empirical evidences which are situated in the mind of the observer.
In this case the empirical evidences [dependent on the mind] are not real, what is really-real is the mind-independent positive noumenon out there.
Since to the p-realists, the empirical evidences [dependent on the mind] are not real, p-realists cannot be Empirical Realists.

In this sense, the philosophical realists is a transcendental realist and an empirical idealist.
The philosophical realist is an empirical idealist because he is relying in his mind [idealistic] to infer the absolutely mind-independent noumenon existing beyond his mind.


Empirical Realism
With reference to the above image, the candle exists as mind-independent, but merely relatively mind-independent.
The whole process involving the observer observing the candle as relatively mind-independent is one interconnected reality.
To the empirical realists, there is no absolute mind-independent candle.

What is real to the Empirical Realists are based on the the empirical evidences [dependent on the mind]; thus mind-conditioned empirical reality.
The empirical realists do not claim the supposed mind-independent candle is absolutely mind-independent of the observer, but rather it is relatively mind-independent as conditioned to his whole human conditions individually and collectively.
In this sense what is real is based on what is empirical with rationality, thus empirical realism.

What is empirical realism however is subsumed within Transcendental Idealism where overall it is conditioned upon the human conditions.

Transcendental Idealism is something like living with a Biosphere, where all the apparently independent things are all interdependent.
Biosphere 2
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biosphere_2


It is an oxymoron for a philosophical realist to be an empirical realist.

Views??

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes: KIV

[Iwannaplato]

This topic is relevant to morality because Philosophical Realists rely on their absolute mind-independence to deny the objective moral facts.

A very small percentage of realists of any kind think there is no objective morality.

[Peter Holmes]

This topic is relevant to morality because Philosophical Realists rely on their absolute mind-independence to deny the objective moral facts.

A very small percentage of realists of any kind think there is no objective morality.

Interesting. Can you cite any data? And it would be interesting to know the reasons people give for thinking morality is objective - and if the proportion of those who do is the same for the secular as it's likely to be for the religious.

[Atla]

This topic is relevant to morality because Philosophical Realists rely on their absolute mind-independence to deny the objective moral facts.
Philosophical Realists think they are Empirical Realists but they are not.

It is an oxymoron for a philosophical realist to be an empirical realist.

I have to qualify philosophical realists believe in an absolutely mind-independent reality, because I as an empirical realist who also believe in a mind-independent reality but that is on a relative basis.

When dealing with more complex philosophical issues, we have to more precise.

This would be your admission that you've been shamelessly strawmanning almost everyone here for years. You must have been doing it on purpose. Most philosophical realists here (and elsewhere) are empirical realists and don't believe in absolute mind-independence.

You are 100-150 years late with attacking absolute mind-independence, Western philosophy and science already had that "revolution". It's yesterday's news.

Philosophical Realism
aka [Transcendental Realism] [Empirical Idealism]

With reference to the above image, a philosophical realist claims the candle exists absolutely mind-independent of the observer.
This means that, if the observer get out of the room or close his eyes, the mind-independent candle is still existing as proven by the point that the candle is still there when he opens his eyes.

It may be objected that the candle is not absolutely mind-independent because candles are dependent on humans to make them.

To avoid the above objection, philosophical realists will invoke the examples of dinosaurs, the moon and the like.
The claim is that the noumenon moon exist absolutely mind-independent in the sense, the noumenon moon pre-existed human and will continue to exists even if humans are extinct.

In this case, the noumenon moon which exist absolutely mind-independent has a transcendental existence, i.e. beyond mind. the empirical and sensible.

The philosophical realists cannot be empirical realists because the philosophical realists claim absolutely mind-independence while the empirical realists claim relative mind-independence.

Philosophical realists insist the real moon is the absolutely mind-independent existing out there as a positive noumenon and unknowable.
What is knowable of the positive noumenon is based on empirical evidences which are situated in the mind of the observer.
In this case the empirical evidences [dependent on the mind] are not real, what is really-real is the mind-independent positive noumenon out there.
Since to the p-realists, the empirical evidences [dependent on the mind] are not real, p-realists cannot be Empirical Realists.

In this sense, the philosophical realists is a transcendental realist and an empirical idealist.
The philosophical realist is an empirical idealist because he is relying in his mind [idealistic] to infer the absolutely mind-independent noumenon existing beyond his mind.


Empirical Realism
With reference to the above image, the candle exists as mind-independent, but merely relatively mind-independent.
The whole process involving the observer observing the candle as relatively mind-independent is one interconnected reality.
To the empirical realists, there is no absolute mind-independent candle.

What is real to the Empirical Realists are based on the the empirical evidences [dependent on the mind]; thus mind-conditioned empirical reality.
The empirical realists do not claim the supposed mind-independent candle is absolutely mind-independent of the observer, but rather it is relatively mind-independent as conditioned to his whole human conditions individually and collectively.
In this sense what is real is based on what is empirical with rationality, thus empirical realism.

What is empirical realism however is subsumed within Transcendental Idealism where overall it is conditioned upon the human conditions.

Transcendental Idealism is something like living with a Biosphere, where all the apparently independent things are all interdependent.
Biosphere 2
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biosphere_2


It is an oxymoron for a philosophical realist to be an empirical realist.

Views??

It is 2023 and the word 'empirical' refers to empirical science by default, not to Kantian empiricism. Empirical science has mapped the noumenal world (must assume the positive noumenon so that's philosophical realism rather than anti-realism) with great success and found that most of it is mind-independent. Duh
Modern empirical science just isn't compatible anymore with the arguably direct perception of the 'original' empiricism.

Also, in the quote I used the word "absolute" correctly, which is different from how you use it. Think of it as absolutely-absolute

[Atla]

Modern empirical science just isn't compatible anymore with the arguably direct perception of the 'original' empiricism.

If I had to summarize VA's core mistake about everything in one sentence, it would maybe be this one.

[Veritas Aequitas]

It is 2023 and the word 'empirical' refers to empirical science by default, not to Kantian empiricism. Empirical science has mapped the noumenal world (must assume the positive noumenon so that's philosophical realism rather than anti-realism) with great success and found that most of it is mind-independent. Duh

Modern empirical science just isn't compatible anymore with the arguably direct perception of the 'original' empiricism.

Also, in the quote I used the word "absolute" correctly, which is different from how you use it. Think of it as absolutely-absolute

You are arguing based on ignorance of Kantianism.

There is no such thing as Kantian empiricism.
You are barking up the wrong tree.
Kant refuted Hume's empiricism and empiricism in general [empirical is superior].
Kant also refuted Rationalism [reason is superior].
Kant then introduced Empirical_Rational-ism, i.e. where the empirical must be complemented with rationality.

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Aug 12, 2023 11:48 am
Modern empirical science just isn't compatible anymore with the arguably direct perception of the 'original' empiricism.

If I had to summarize VA's core mistake about everything in one sentence, it would maybe be this one.

You are relying on YOUR mistake to accuse me of making a mistake??

As pointed out, Kant's is Empirical_Rational-ism [Empirical Realism] not 'Original' empiricism nor Kantian Empiricism.

Currently there are two philosophical views to Modern science within the Philosophy of Science, i.e.

• 1. Scientific Realism - grounded on philosophical realism
  
  2. Scientific anti-realism - grounded on ANTI-philosophical realism [FSK-based].

You are entering into the land of confusion.
Scientific Realism - grounded on philosophical realism [1] DO NOT assume the positive noumenon BUT rather insist the mind-independent positive noumenon is really-real and is verified and justified by science.

• 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 [by science].
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

Empirical science has mapped the noumenal world (must assume the positive noumenon so that's philosophical realism rather than anti-realism) with great success and found that most of it is mind-independent. Duh

As I had point out, if you assume, that is fundamentally a mind-conditioned activity and thus it cannot follow to an absolutely mind-independent reality.
You have not addressed this contradiction??


Scientific anti-realism [2] [Newtonian and Einsteinian] assumes the negative noumenon [not positive noumenon] as non-realistic ideal to strive toward.
Kant himself has asserted, it is the idealization and assumption of a negative noumenon as regulative that had driven success in science.
However, within QM [in a deeper sense of reality], Scientific anti-realism [Kantian] do not assumes the negative noumenon.

[Atla]

You are arguing based on ignorance of Kantianism.

There is no such thing as Kantian empiricism.
You are barking up the wrong tree.
Kant refuted Hume's empiricism and empiricism in general [empirical is superior].
Kant also refuted Rationalism [reason is superior].
Kant then introduced Empirical_Rational-ism, i.e. where the empirical must be complemented with rationality.

Word games, pathetic. The expression 'Kantian empiricism' is in use and here I referred to it as the original one, because what was even before that really doesn't matter here, so what. Deal with the actual argument.

Your "Kantian empirical rationalism" is not in use according to Google btw.

You are relying on YOUR mistake to accuse me of making a mistake??

As pointed out, Kant's is Empirical_Rational-ism [Empirical Realism] not 'Original' empiricism nor Kantian Empiricism.

Currently there are two philosophical views to Modern science within the Philosophy of Science, i.e.
1. Scientific Realism - grounded on philosophical realism

2. Scientific anti-realism - grounded on ANTI-philosophical realism [FSK-based].
You are entering into the land of confusion.
Scientific Realism - grounded on philosophical realism [1] DO NOT assume the positive noumenon BUT rather insist the mind-independent positive noumenon is really-real and is verified and justified by science.
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 [by science].
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism
Empirical science has mapped the noumenal world (must assume the positive noumenon so that's philosophical realism rather than anti-realism) with great success and found that most of it is mind-independent. Duh
As I had point out, if you assume, that is fundamentally a mind-conditioned activity and thus it cannot follow to an absolutely mind-independent reality.
You have not addressed this contradiction??


Scientific anti-realism [2] [Newtonian and Einsteinian] assumes the negative noumenon [not positive noumenon] as non-realistic ideal to strive toward.
Kant himself has asserted, it is the idealization and assumption of a negative noumenon as regulative that had driven success in science.
However, within QM [in a deeper sense of reality], Scientific anti-realism [Kantian] do not assumes the negative noumenon.

Completely ignorant. Modern science doesn't work without the positive noumenon at all, so automatically has to assume it. You will have to familiarize yourself with the last 250 years of science first, especially with indirect perception, so you won't be making such absurd statements.

As I told you, if you insist on being anti-science, then maybe you should try to make non-scientific arguments. Like Buddhistic or Kantian ones without your "science FSK".

[Veritas Aequitas]

You are arguing based on ignorance of Kantianism.

There is no such thing as Kantian empiricism.
You are barking up the wrong tree.
Kant refuted Hume's empiricism and empiricism in general [empirical is superior].
Kant also refuted Rationalism [reason is superior].
Kant then introduced Empirical_Rational-ism, i.e. where the empirical must be complemented with rationality.

Word games, pathetic. The expression 'Kantian empiricism' is in use and here I referred to it as the original one, because what was even before that really doesn't matter here, so what. Deal with the actual argument.

Your "Kantian empirical rationalism" is not in use according to Google btw.

You are ignorant, pathetic, dogmatic and so rigid.

I stated Kant's Empirical_Rational-ism.
The difference between 'Kantian empiricism' and Kantian Empirical_Rational-ism is very significant to the argument.
If you understand Kant's CPR thoroughly you will definitely understand the difference.

From google search of .. Kant empirical rationalism;

• Kant's philosophy has been called a synthesis of rationalism and empiricism. From rationalism he takes the idea that we can have a priori knowledge of significant truths, but rejects the idea that we can have a priori metaphysical knowledge about the nature of things in themselves, God, or the soul.
  https://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/p ... section12/

• His [Kant's] philosophy is a mixture between rationalism and empiricism. He combined the ideas that rationalists have (a person can have previous knowledge of important truths) and the ideas that empiricists have (a person can have metaphysical knowledge of the nature of things) into ideas of his own.
  https://study.com/learn/lesson/immanuel ... uence.html

It is when you wrong attribute 'Kantian empiricism' that you insist Kant believed in indirect realism which is not the case. This is significant to the argument.

You are relying on YOUR mistake to accuse me of making a mistake??

As pointed out, Kant's is Empirical_Rational-ism [Empirical Realism] not 'Original' empiricism nor Kantian Empiricism.

Currently there are two philosophical views to Modern science within the Philosophy of Science, i.e.
1. Scientific Realism - grounded on philosophical realism

2. Scientific anti-realism - grounded on ANTI-philosophical realism [FSK-based].
You are entering into the land of confusion.
Scientific Realism - grounded on philosophical realism [1] DO NOT assume the positive noumenon BUT rather insist the mind-independent positive noumenon is really-real and is verified and justified by science.
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 [by science].
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

Empirical science has mapped the noumenal world (must assume the positive noumenon so that's philosophical realism rather than anti-realism) with great success and found that most of it is mind-independent. Duh

As I had point out, if you assume, that is fundamentally a mind-conditioned activity and thus it cannot follow to an absolutely mind-independent reality.
You have not addressed this contradiction??


Scientific anti-realism [2] [Newtonian and Einsteinian] assumes the negative noumenon [not positive noumenon] as non-realistic ideal to strive toward.
Kant himself has asserted, it is the idealization and assumption of a negative noumenon as regulative that had driven success in science.
However, within QM [in a deeper sense of reality], Scientific anti-realism [Kantian] do not assumes the negative noumenon.

Completely ignorant. Modern science doesn't work without the positive noumenon at all, so automatically has to assume it. You will have to familiarize yourself with the last 250 years of science first, especially with indirect perception, so you won't be making such absurd statements.

As I told you, if you insist on being anti-science, then maybe you should try to make non-scientific arguments. Like Buddhistic or Kantian ones without your "science FSK".

I keep telling you Modern Science [anti-realism] do not assume a positive noumena but rather a negative noumenon.

I repeated this many times;

Currently there are two philosophical views to Modern science within the Philosophy of Science, i.e.
1. Scientific Realism - grounded on philosophical realism
2. Scientific anti-realism - grounded on ANTI-philosophical realism [FSK-based].

You are ignorant of the above within the Philosophy of Science?

Scientific Realism - grounded on philosophical realism [1] DO NOT assume the positive noumenon BUT rather insist the mind-independent positive noumenon is really-real and is verified and justified by science. This is Einstein's and many scientific realists' stance.

If you ASSUME [mind-dependent] a positive noumena, logically it cannot follow to an absolute mind-independent 'positive noumena'.

[Atla]

You are ignorant, pathetic, dogmatic and so rigid.

I stated Kant's Empirical_Rational-ism.
The difference between 'Kantian empiricism' and Kantian Empirical_Rational-ism is very significant to the argument.
If you understand Kant's CPR thoroughly you will definitely understand the difference.

From google search of .. Kant empirical rationalism;
Kant's philosophy has been called a synthesis of rationalism and empiricism. From rationalism he takes the idea that we can have a priori knowledge of significant truths, but rejects the idea that we can have a priori metaphysical knowledge about the nature of things in themselves, God, or the soul.
https://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/p ... section12/
His [Kant's] philosophy is a mixture between rationalism and empiricism. He combined the ideas that rationalists have (a person can have previous knowledge of important truths) and the ideas that empiricists have (a person can have metaphysical knowledge of the nature of things) into ideas of his own.
https://study.com/learn/lesson/immanuel ... uence.html
It is when you wrong attribute 'Kantian empiricism' that you insist Kant believed in indirect realism which is not the case. This is significant to the argument.

Funny how you once again find a way to make it clear that you're the "ignorant, pathetic, dogmatic and so rigid" one.

Of course Kant's philosophy is a synthesis of PRE-KANTIAN rationalism and PRE-KANTIAN empiricism. I don't know where you're from, maybe Japan or some country south of Japan, but it's clear that even after years you have no idea about Western philosophical discussions, Western Kantian philosophical discussions.

The synthesis of PRE-KANTIAN rationalism and PRE-KANTIAN empiricism is usually a given, acknowledged, inherently assumed in such discussions, so people aren't referring to PRE-KANTIAN stuff at all. This picture of synthesis has become part of how people think of themselves, think of their "minds". The rest is forgotten history. Irrelevant in the sense that we take it as correct and build upon it. Correct and outdated, no longer of interest.

And I didn't insist that Kant believed in indirect perception (again I said perception not realism). Because I didn't say that Kant believed in indirect perception at all. Because I said the opposite. I said the problem is now that he DIDN'T consider it as the default mode of perception.

But that's okay. He made one monumental step by synthesizing from PRE-KANTIAN rationalism and PRE-KANTIAN empiricism. Also adopting indirect perception would have been two monumental steps at once. (I think there are about 4 "monumental" steps overall.)

Irrelevant to today's meaning of the word "empirical".

Jesus Christ

I keep telling you Modern Science [anti-realism] do not assume a positive noumena but rather a negative noumenon.

I repeated this many times;

Currently there are two philosophical views to Modern science within the Philosophy of Science, i.e.
1. Scientific Realism - grounded on philosophical realism
2. Scientific anti-realism - grounded on ANTI-philosophical realism [FSK-based].

You are ignorant of the above within the Philosophy of Science?

Scientific Realism - grounded on philosophical realism [1] DO NOT assume the positive noumenon BUT rather insist the mind-independent positive noumenon is really-real and is verified and justified by science. This is Einstein's and many scientific realists' stance.

If you ASSUME [mind-dependent] a positive noumena, logically it cannot follow to an absolute mind-independent 'positive noumena'.

Again, science doesn't work without assuming positive noumena at all. Yes, to insist that it's "really real", is a mistake. Arguably, all we can do is assume.

But if you think that a mind-dependent assumption of positive noumena is logically inconsistent with an actual mind-independent noumenal world, then you don't know what logic is. Looks like you can't follow logic.

[Atla]

Looks like VA has a unique kind of genius, where he relentlessly comes up with new philosophical fallacies that people haven't thought of before.