Why Anti-Philosophical Realism is more Pragmatic

[Veritas Aequitas]

Here is why Anti-Philosophical Realism is more Pragmatic:
-where reality as all-there-is is viewed as somehow related to the human conditions it enable to possibility and opportunity to control certain aspects of reality and the individual themselves from being at the mercy of an independent reality.

I think I've been trying to address VA's actual argument, concentrating on his main premise:
reality is nothing more than a product of an 'evolved, fundamental framework and system of reality and cognition' (EFFSRC)
- and so dependent in some way on us humans.

Rather than a product which can be misleading, reality [all there is] it is an 'emergence' that is subsequently realized as real and then cognized, perceived, known and described.

Viz: humans are part of reality, which is all there is; but there is no reality outside or unconditioned by a human EFFSRC. Which I think is patent and demonstrable nonsense.

First I do not deny there is an external reality from the common and conventional sense. This is my empirical realist's view.

But then when do serious and more rigorous philosophy we are faced with:

When we have realized the obstacles in the way of a straightforward and confident answer, we shall be well launched on the study of philosophy -
- for philosophy is merely the attempt to answer such ultimate questions, not carelessly and dogmatically, as we do in ordinary life and even in the sciences,
but critically after exploring all that makes such questions puzzling, and after realizing all the vagueness and confusion that underlie our ordinary ideas.
Problem of Philosophy - Russell
https://www.ditext.com/russell/rus1.html

The "the way of a straightforward and confident answer" is the mind-independence of philosophical realism, i.e. it is common and and conventional sense that things exists regardless of humans.

When one realized there are obstacles to the above, one is launched into philosophy-proper. In Russell's case, he realized there is a possibility;

Among these surprising possibilities, doubt suggests that perhaps there is no table at all. Philosophy, if it cannot answer so many questions as we could wish, has at least the power of asking questions which increase the interest of the world, and show the strangeness and wonder lying just below the surface even in the commonest things of daily life.
ibid

In the case of Kant and other antirealists, they realize "the way of a straightforward and confident answer" of philosophical realism is contentious and not tenable at a higher deliberation of FSRC-ed reality.

Consider, apart from empirical realism, within a higher perspective of the FSRC-ed reality;
if humans are intricately part and parcel of the FSRC-ed reality [all there is],
how can humans [affixed to reality as all-there-is] extricate themselves out of the all-there-is to have an objective independent view of the FSRC-ed all-there-is [which they are in]?

Therefore the more realistic view is FSRC-ed reality cannot be absolutely independent of the human conditions.

Besides, the absolutely independent of the human conditions view of an reality serves no pragmatic purpose for humanity as whole other than to soothe the individuals' terrible psychological dissonances arising from an existential crisis and the default ex nihilo fit impulse.
In addition, this philosophical realism view is extended to theism, it had generated terrible evil acts to humanity in the name of an independent God.

On the other hand, where reality as all-there-is is viewed as somehow related to the human conditions it enable humans the possibility and opportunity to control certain aspects of reality and the individual themselves from being at the mercy of an independent reality.

Discuss??
Views??

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes: KIV

[Veritas Aequitas]

How to sharpen up VA's argument?

Premise: We humans have to perceive, know and describe reality in human ways.
(Note: This sentence is a description of a feature of reality, or a state-of-affairs. And it has a truth-value.)
Conclusion: Therefore, reality is nothing more than the ways we humans perceive, know and describe it.
(Note: This sentence is a description of reality. And it has a truth-value.)

Now, I think the premise is true. And I think it's what VA's palaver about a human EFFSRC amounts to. (His blather about emergence and realisation is so much mystical nonsense.)

But I think the conclusion doesn't follow from the premise, so the argument is a non sequitur fallacy. We can't conclude from our necessary 'limitation' that reality is nothing more than our 'limitation' allows.

VA will shout 'straw man' and fail to address this refutation. But can anyone else here have a go at it?

In the interests of intellectual enquiry.

What is there to refute when you are building strawman by deliberately ignoring the emergence and realization of reality elements despite me raising numerous threads to explain what they are about.

You are stuck with as Russell stated "the way of a straightforward and confident answer" and thus NOT doing mature philosophy proper.

Tell you what - explain simply and quickly why emergence and realisation changes your main premise, so that the conclusion is valid. In other words, why does the term 'human EFFSRC' not cover what you call emergence and realisation?

Here is a crude but more obvious analogy:

Say, a carpenter constructed a chair, sold the chair and was asked to make some repairs of the same chair.
From the common sense and conventional sense, the carpenter would perceive [& describe] that chair as absolutely independent thing regardless of humans. If he dies, the chair will still exists within common and conventional sense. [Perspective A]

But in another higher sense [higher-order modality??], the carpenter cannot be dogmatic with perspective A because from a more nuanced perspective B, the chair was constructed by the carpenter personally; as such, the carpenter cannot ignore perspective B wherein in actuality, the so-called external chair he constructed was actually somehow related [dependent] on him.

The above analogy is applicable to reality except it is very subtle which you are unable to cognize.
Perspective B is similar [not exactly the same] as what I have termed as 'emergence' and realization of reality, i.e. in this the construction of the finished chair.

Your premise above, i.e.
[PH] We humans have to perceive, know and describe reality in human ways. (Note: This sentence is a description of a feature of reality, or a state-of-affairs. And it has a truth-value.)
is merely confined to perspective A [FSC] but ignored the critical perspective B [FSER]

The proper term would be FSERC, i.e. a human based Framework and System of Emergence & Realization of Reality and Cognition [incl, perceiving, knowing and describing]

Your above premise is merely the FSC but ignored the critical FSER.

To put it another way. What is that 'emerges' and 'realises'? Is it reality? Or is it an evolved, fundamental human FSRC? Or is it both? Or is it something else - in which case, what?

And - because I'm impatient, and this is tedious - here are some responses.

If it's reality (the universe) that 'emerges' and 'realises' over billions of years - then that's a standard, banal, and realist claim about reality. But if it's a human EFFSRC that 'emerges' and 'realises' - then that's also a standard, banal and realist claim - this time, about humans.

But if it's something else that 'emerges' and 'realises', then wtf is it?

The above has a lot of nuances which one need to untangle very carefully else it will end up with an impossible [almost] to untangle knot.

First you need to take note [repeated many times];
There are Two Senses of Reality
viewtopic.php?t=40265
1. human based FSERC sense
2. Absolute human independent sense - philosophical realism [illusory]

The problem is you are too dogmatic and ideological with seeing reality in sense 2 [illusory], thus your conclusion always end with the 'realist[p]' sense which does not represent my view.

In sense 2, the human based FSERC sense, it include both the empirical-realist & Transcendental-realist sense.
As above with the carpenter-chair analogy, it means the carpenter while viewing the chair is independent from him within common sense [FSK], he is also at the same time understands the chair is not independent of him because he was the creator of the chair [FSER].

So as with reality, universe, all-there-is, it is interpreted within sense 2 as follows;
1. Within empirical realism, the universe in independent of humans - it exists regardless of humans, [even a child can understand that] but at the same time,
2. the realization of 1 cannot be absolute independent of the human conditions as with Transcendental Idealism. [this will need mature philosophical thinking which you are incapable of]

Btw, I as with any normal humans was born with the evolutionary default re empirical realism [1], but upon serious philosophical reflection, I also realize and understand another sense of reality, i.e. sense 2 [transcendental Idealism].

You should suspend judgment on your dogmatic philosophical realism and try to understand [not agree with] empirical_realism-transcendental_idealism perspective.
This is for your own philosophy sake, it is not like I am trying to convert you to Christianity or Islam.