If you are philosophically mature, you would not have waved the issue above as complete nonsense but rather fully understand the serious contention between what you believe as a realist is totally in opposite to that of the anti-realists [many types].Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Dec 01, 2023 12:31 pmThis is complete nonsense.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Dec 01, 2023 3:23 amIf there were no humans, there would be no emerged & realized reality that exist.
Reality emerged and is realized upon a human-based FSR and is perceived, known, believed and described via FSK.
It's mistaking what we believe, know and say about reality for reality itself.
And you agree that 'there are things out there (a)waiting to be seen by humans'. So you're asserting two utterly contradictory claims.
If you are philosophically mature, you would have justified why your belief [p-realist] is true and those of the anti-realists are false.
I believe the reasons for the above is p-realist just do not have the philosophical maturity to understand [not necessary agree with] the arguments presented by anti-realists [my focus on the constructivist kind].
I asked ChatGpt [with reservations] on how to get the realists to understand [not necessary agree] with the anti-realists [constructivists] position.
_________ChatGpt wrote:Presenting a compelling argument for anti-realism, specifically of the Kantian kind, to a philosophical realist can be challenging, as these positions often involve deep-seated philosophical commitments.
However, one effective way to engage with realists is to highlight the limitations and challenges faced by realism and then present the key tenets of anti-realism in a way that addresses those issues.
Here are some points you might consider:
Limitations of Human Perception:
Emphasize the role of human perception and cognition in shaping our understanding of reality.
Discuss how our sensory experiences are subjective and limited, suggesting that our access to an absolute, mind-independent reality is mediated through our perceptual faculties.
Role of Conceptual Frameworks:
Argue that our understanding of reality is inherently tied to the conceptual frameworks and categories we use to interpret experiences.
Highlight how Kantian constructivism posits that our minds actively structure and organize sensory data, shaping the reality we perceive.
Stress the subjectivity involved in the process of interpretation and understanding.
Point out that different individuals or cultures may interpret the same phenomena in diverse ways, challenging the idea of a single, mind-independent reality.
Discuss epistemic challenges, such as the problem of induction and the underdetermination of theories by evidence.
Highlight how anti-realism, by acknowledging the role of our cognitive processes in shaping reality, provides a more coherent account of these epistemic challenges.
Draw parallels with historical scientific revolutions and paradigm shifts, where new scientific frameworks replace old ones.
Argue that these shifts demonstrate the malleability and revisability of our understanding of reality, supporting a constructivist view.
In your discussions, encourage realists to consider the plausibility of anti-realism without necessarily requiring agreement. This approach may foster a more open-minded exploration of different philosophical perspectives.
Some examples of ridicules, insults and condemnations of antirealists from realists:
For this theory, the Principles gives the exposition and the Dialogues the defence. One of his main objectives was to combat the prevailing materialism of his time. The theory was largely received with ridicule,
It’s ironic that Locke’s commonsense approach to philosophy should have influenced Berkeley to formulate a philosophical position that at first seems so much at variance with common sense. He became the object of severe criticism and ridicule for denying what seemed most obvious to anyone. Berkeley had set out to deny the existence of matter.
https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/qu ... mic-philos
The following two limericks make fun of Berkeley's screwy theory that "to be is to be perceived".
The philosopher Berkeley once said
In the dark to a maid in his bed:
"No perception, my dear,
Means I'm not really here,
But only a thought in your head."
—P. W. R. Foot
A philosophical hippie
Contended "Esse est percipi"
He became much aggrieved
When no longer perceived,
"I'm a gonner!" said he, "Whoa, how trippy!"
The analytic – continental divide in philosophy is alive and kicking in the academy.
Beyond the exchange of accusations and insults there is little genuine communication between the two traditions.
Accusations of academic fraud regularly arise, with indignant characterizations of the others’ skills as primarily in tricking the gullible into lengthy disquisitions on various emperors’ sartorial status.
A group of leading analytic philosophers, for instance, tried to block Derrida from receiving an honorary degree from Cambridge, loftily issuing the decree that “in the eyes of philosophers” he is not one—meaning, not one of us.
Despite the traditions’ rancorous misunderstandings
While both vitriolic ignorance and baneful neglect are unfortunate, the lack of cross-engagement is understandable.
After all, one of its founding motivations was an abhorrence of idealism among Russell, Moore, and Whitehead.
i) A much ridiculed encounter took place at 2:00am in a Parisian bar, when A.J. Ayer tried and failed to get Merleau-Ponty and Bataille to concede that there had been a sun before humans existed.
What I would give to have been a fly on that wall! (well, one of the flies—this is a Parisian bar we’re talking about).
https://iai.tv/articles/antirealism-and ... -auid-1890