FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sun Mar 03, 2024 1:20 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Mar 03, 2024 2:46 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Mar 02, 2024 10:03 am
OMG, please .... please .... just read what people write.
I consider it a misunderstanding to to take the question seriously at all.
This is a VERY complicated issue and both of us are standing across a chasm.
Thus there is a possibility that you missed out what I intended to express, and I could also missed out what you want to say.
In this case, repetition is necessary.
I am trying hard to understand what you are trying to say. The default is the onus is on the communicator to make it as easy as possible for the communicatee to understand the message.
This is your first genuine effort to actually respond to my words instead of to something you make up as an alternative. Although you are about to call me a p-realist showing that there is clearly a lot of work for you still to do. But look at how badly I had to manipulate you in order to get this result. Then sort it out.
That is immature condescending and also patronizing.
It could be the other way round.
The only reason I ever directed you at Rorty in the first palce is because the first chapter of that book is damn easy to read and understand. But let's be real, I don't care about the realism/antirealism debate because it is meaningless. You can try to fool yourself that you are too sophisticated to believe in reality if that's what oyu are in the mood for, but nothing changes because of that attitude, nor could it. The realism debate is nothing but a dispute over how to describe the same thing, and that thing will be the same irrespective of your pointless debate.
If you shoose to say that it is unreal but we are bound in all ways to act and believe as if it were real, there are no implications that differ from just saying it is real and was real all along.
If you try to extrapolate from this barren and pointless debate about reality into some meningful conclusion relevant to something we believe or do (such as morality, or even science) ... if you try toargue that we should do something different in science or in our customs and behaviour just because you are persuaded by the definition of reality that says it's all unreal, then that is a problem of you overinterpreting what is actually not an important or fertile debate.
This is why I write stuff like I consider it a misunderstanding to to take the question seriously at all.
Do you realize the realist vs antirealist debate has been ongoing since philosophy first emerged [10,000 years ago -Vedas]?
So you just cannot ignore it nor will it go away as long as there are humans.
I have explained those who are dogmatic on p-realism had induced evil and violent acts, e.g. religious evils and hindered humanity's progress.
P-realism can be studied from the evolutionary, neuroscience, genetics, psychological perspective to find solutions to prevent its related evil acts. I am not saying antirealists are saints, but two wrongs do not make one right.
Your moral skepticism is a hinder to moral progress.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Mar 03, 2024 2:46 am
Look around you, that is reality. That is what the concepts of reality is for, that is the referent of the expression. You are not outside of reality viewing it from a even-more-real location, you are right there as part of the stuff you see when you look around and part of the stuff you touch and part of the smell also.
I agree with the above.See my thread:
Humans are Intricately Part & Parcel of Reality (Mar 13, 2023)
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39751
The fact that you are in that thread arguing against realism on behalf of antirealism shows that you either are not following me here, or that you don't agree in the way that you claim to. [/quote]
Actually I am trying to understand what is your actual philosophical stance.
You should be responsible to make your stance as clear as possible by referring to the known philosophical stances at present.
I have declared my philosophical stance are inclined toward Kantianism [not totally] Buddhism, FSRK-ed science [not scientific realism], Hegel's dialectical approach [not his Absolute] and others.
When I say that you are part of reality and your socks are also part of reality, and all the stuff you see is also part of reality, and that this is what the concept of reality is for.... I am not granting you any privileged position there, you are neither more nor less real than your socks. Your argument in that thread definitely doesn't agree with me, and that is a large part of why I find the whole debate so silly.
I have to guess your position because you are too cryptic with it.
I guess your philosophical stance is within analytic philosophy [anglo-American].
If my guess is wrong, Why not explain more precisely what is your philosophical stance.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Mar 03, 2024 2:46 am
The mistaken impression that there is a noumenal world and a phenomenal one and you have some sort of access to one but are removed from the other is a misunderstanding about minds and language that Kant unthinkingly inherited from Descartes but ought to have rejected.
You are wrong on this.
To Kant, the noumenal is something like using "Santa Claus" as the answer to the child, asking where the gifts he received during Christmas comes from. So the parent generated the most appropriate [optimal] answer "Santa Claus did it". But the parent knows Santa Claus is unreal and an illusion.
It is the same with p-realists asking where the phenomena come from?
Kant answered, it is from the noumena [just like Santa Claus] which is an illusion just like Santa Claus.
Kant kept the idea of a noumena which is an illusion because it is useful illusion for his other projects.
In the later part, Kant transposed the noumena [illusory] into the thing-in-itself which is still a useful illusion.
No. The idea of the noumena vs the thing-in-itself is exactly what I am saying is a mistake. It's exactly what Rorty is saying is a mistake also. I don't care if you don't really believe in it and imagine you can pass it off as a children's story about a horrific fairy that eats teeth, you've not been behaving like somebody who gets that it isn't meaningful.
Whether you think it is true or not is not really important if it isn't meaningful.
You got it wrong.
It is phenomena vs nuomena aka thing-in-itself.
It is only a mistake if one insist the nuomena aka thing-in-itself is a really real thing which is hypostatizing and reifying.
It is a mistake to insist there is noumenal moon that exists regardless of humans in the absolute sense.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Mar 03, 2024 2:46 am
I have posted the above explanation before;
Now, I can say;
please .... please .... just read what people write.
It is critical you understand [not necessary agree with] my points above.
What is your counter to my above points.
There is also a very great depth to the above points.
I have expressed every one of those thoughts multiple times for you this week. You never read what other people write though.
I am making the same accusation of you.
As stated above, this is a VERY complicated issue and both of us are standing across a chasm.
So we need to trash it out patiently.
Sorry, I still don't see anyting new or important in there. Other than you seem to be more open to the noumenal/phenomenal divide being bullshit than I expected. But I'm seeing little evidence you are ready to make the next step there.
What next step? where can you go further especially when your philosophical database is so shallow and narrow.
My actual real point has always been that you are welcome to have your endless debate about whether reality would look like it was really-really-reall reality or some almost-but-actually-sham-reality if we held an impossible view of reality from outside reality. But the debate itself is nonsensical on Wittgensteinian grounds (I only ever referenced Rorty because it's easier to read, I don't care much about him).
However even if you reject my Wittgensteinian position, there is nowhere to take it. You can't redefine our understanding of knowledge with this windbag debate. And with that you cannot suddenly change morality into a science or any of the other wildly overoptimistic moves you try to make.
Which Wittgenstein's position are you talking about, the early- later- or the very-later Wittgenstein.
Can I guess your strongest stance one of the above Wittgenstein stance?
I can't see Wittgenstein's overriding stance, i.e. the very-later Wittgenstein's stance is that solid to explain reality. If so, how.
My philosophical stance is Kantian and others which I can summarize as;
Whatever is real, exists, factual, true, knowledge, objective are conditioned upon an embodied human-based FSRC.
The science FSRC and morality FSRC are independent of each other whilst can complementary. The task is to establish the moral FSRC to be as close to the objectivity of the science FSRC.