VA:Reality is Real, PH-et-al:Reality is Illusory

[Veritas Aequitas]

VA [antirealist-Kantian]; Reality is Real; PH-et-al [philosophical realist]:Reality is Illusory

Despite my repetitions, p-realists seem to interpret that I believe reality is an illusion.
I [as an antirealist(Kantian)] have never claimed 'reality is an illusion'.
To antirealists(Kantian), whatever "is" is real but contingent upon a specific human-based FSERC.

This thread is to present my correct [antirealist] position;

I as an antirealist [Kantian] do not believe reality is an illusion.
It only when philosophical realists claim there is something beyond the empirical, the experienced and possible-to-be-experienced, that antirealist charge the p-realists as chasing an illusion.

VA says his claims and argument are nuanced, subtle, profound and sublime. Here are some crude, obvious, mundane and tawdry points in response.
1 If all is illusion, then we humans are illusions, and reality is an illusion experienced by illusions.
2 If all is illusion, then there's no perspective from which to conclude that all is illusion.
3 Any claim about reality must come from a realist position.
So an anti-realist claim or argument undermines it self. Iow, anti-realists don't have a leg to stand on.

You missed my point and so you ended with a strawman.

PH: 1 If all is illusion, then we humans are illusions, and reality is an illusion experienced by illusions.

Antirealists [Kant] do not believe all of reality [all there is] is an illusion.
It only when philosophical realists claim there is something beyond the empirical, the experienced and possible-to-be-experienced, that antirealist charge the p-realists as chasing an illusion.

Here is where I explain your sort of misunderstanding;

To the antirealist [Kantian] reality is all there is, even an illusion has a basis of reality to it, i.e. the neural correlates that generate the illusion.

It only when philosophical realists claim there is something beyond the empirical, the experienced and possible-to-be-experienced, that antirealist charge the p-realists as chasing an illusion.

• Analogy
  This is like people of primitive tribeA [aka p-realists] seeing an "oasis" across a river on the desert they do not have access to, and they claim [by inherent instinct] that the "oasis" is absolutely real. They believe if they can get to it, they will have access to the water and dates therein; thus generating some kind of hope.
  There is no way they have access to understand what is a 'mirage'.
  
  One day a person-B from another tribeB [antirealists] 100 km away chance upon the primitive tribe who have had experienced and understood that such a 'oasis' is an illusion and it it not something real.
  Person B told the people of tribeA that the "oasis' they are seeing is not the real thing.
  Since there is no way for the people of tribeA to verify and justify their belief what they perceived is real or false, they naturally stuck to their inherent instinct that the "oasis" they perceived is absolutely real.
  
  In this analogy, person-B [antirealist] did not believe in any illusion; but charged the people of tribe-A [p-realist] is believing in an illusion when they insist the 'oasis' [mirage] is absolutely real.

So, antirealist do not believe reality is an illusion.
It only when philosophical realists claim there is something beyond the empirical, the experienced and possible-to-be-experienced, that antirealist charge the p-realists as chasing an illusion.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Antirealists [Kant] do not believe all of reality [all there is] is an illusion.
It only when philosophical realists claim there is something beyond the empirical, the experienced and possible-to-be-experienced, that antirealist charge the p-realists as chasing an illusion.

Wow. So this all that antirealism amounts to?

News to you??
I had been saying that for a LONG LONG time, i.e. > '1000' times already.

There are Two Senses of Reality
viewtopic.php?t=40265
1. The FSERC realistic sense
2. The p-realists' illusory sense of absolute human independence.

PH's What is Fact is Illusory
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39577

Why Philosophical Realism is Illusory
viewtopic.php?t=40167

PH's Philosophical Realism is Illusory
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39992 Apr 23, 2023 8:06 am

I [as an antirealist(Kantian)] have never claimed 'reality is an illusion'.
To antirealists(Kantian), whatever "is" is real but contingent upon a specific human-based FSERC.

Newsflash. Philosophical realists don't claim 'there is something beyond the empirical, the experienced and possible-to-be-experienced'.

That 'something beyond' (the noumenon) is a Kantian invention, a fiction - an illusion.

To repeat. Antirealism is really an objection to the claim that any one description of reality can capture its essence or fundamental nature - reality-as-it-really-is - as though there is such a thing.

Your fact, i.e. a feature of reality that is the case, just-is and is absolutely independent of the human conditions [opinion, belief, judgement] is a type of philosophical realism.

What you call 'fact' [human independent] is in fact a 'thing'.
Because your fact or thing is human independent,
then your thing exist by itself, regardless of whether they are humans or not.
As such, your 'fact' is a 'thing-by-itself' or 'thing-in-itself'.
Your fact-in-itself is no different from Kant's thing-in-itself.

But the antirealist conclusion - that, because there's no such thing as reality-in-itself, reality must be (somehow) dependent on humans - is fallacious. That simply doesn't follow.

Your above is a strawman.
I have stated many times, to use "dependent on humans" do not represent my point at all.

Philosohically realism make the following ideological claim, i.e.
What is reality [things] is absolutely independent of the human conditions [mind]; things exist regardless of whether there are humans or not.

What I am asserting is in a negative claim;
Antirealists oppose the above ideological claim.
What is reality [all there is] CANNOT be absolutely human[mind] independent.
To add, somehow, reality is intricately related to the human conditions.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes: KIV

[FlashDangerpants]

VA has finally become his own satirist

[Atla]

Incoherent word salad, neither proving nor refuting anything. Instead, one could just admit that Kant made a big mistake by not considering indirect realism.

... Thus, indirect realism cannot be classified as a form of transcendental realism...

The CPR is an 800-pages long red herring, who cares about it today?

[Veritas Aequitas]

P: There is no such thing as reality-in-itself. (Agreed. The expression 'reality-in-itself' is meaningless.)
C1: Therefore, reality cannot be absolutely independent from humans. (Why?)
C2: Therefore, reality is (somehow) intricately related to humans. (Why?)

It should be this

P: [.i]There is no such thing as reality-in-itself. [ii] There is only reality-contingent-with-humans.
C1: Therefore, reality cannot be absolutely independent from humans. [Pii]
C2: Therefore, reality is (somehow) intricately related to humans [Pii].

[Atla]

P: [.i]There is no such thing as reality-in-itself. [ii] There is only reality-contingent-with-humans.

Completely insane false dichotomy.

[Veritas Aequitas]

It should be this
P: [.i]There is no such thing as reality-in-itself. [ii] There is only reality-contingent-with-humans.
C1: Therefore, reality cannot be absolutely independent from humans. [Pii]
C2: Therefore, reality is (somehow) intricately related to humans [Pii].

Have a think. You're trying to get to the conclusion that reality can't be absolutely independent from humans, or that reality is (somehow) intricately related to humans, or that there is only reality-contingent-with-humans. These are all ways of saying much the same thing.

But if your premise is 'There is only reality-contingent-with-humans', you're using your conclusion as a premise, which is called 'begging the question'. It means the argument is useless. By adding 'There is only reality-contingent-with-humans' to your premise, you've achieved nothing. See below.

P: There is only reality-contingent-with-humans.
C: Therefore, reality can't be absolutely independent from humans, etc.

The conclusion in effect restates the premise.

The issue is: why does 'there is no such thing as reality-in-itself' entail 'therefore, there is only reality-contingent-with-humans'? You have to answer that question.

I was using and modifying your earlier syllogism.

The argument proper would be something like this;

• i. A part cannot be absolutely independent of the whole which it is intricately a part of.
  E.g. the spokes of wheel cannot be absolutely independent of the wheel it is intricately a part of.
  
  P1 Reality is a whole, i.e. all there is.
  P2 Humans are parts of reality [the whole]
  C Therefore humans cannot be absolutely independent of reality [the whole]

Show me your argument your 'what is fact' is a feature of reality that is the case, just-so, state of affair, which is absolutely independent regardless there are humans or not?

By your definition, your 'what is fact' is a fact-in-itself or fact-by-itself, i.e. is absolutely independent regardless there are humans or not.

If you insist in relating your fact to science, then it is a fact-by-science.
Since science is contingent on humans, whatever the fact-by-science cannot be absolutely independent of the human conditions.

Your absolute independent fact-in-itself is an illusion.

[Peter Holmes]

It should be this
P: [.i]There is no such thing as reality-in-itself. [ii] There is only reality-contingent-with-humans.
C1: Therefore, reality cannot be absolutely independent from humans. [Pii]
C2: Therefore, reality is (somehow) intricately related to humans [Pii].

Have a think. You're trying to get to the conclusion that reality can't be absolutely independent from humans, or that reality is (somehow) intricately related to humans, or that there is only reality-contingent-with-humans. These are all ways of saying much the same thing.

But if your premise is 'There is only reality-contingent-with-humans', you're using your conclusion as a premise, which is called 'begging the question'. It means the argument is useless. By adding 'There is only reality-contingent-with-humans' to your premise, you've achieved nothing. See below.

P: There is only reality-contingent-with-humans.
C: Therefore, reality can't be absolutely independent from humans, etc.

The conclusion in effect restates the premise.

The issue is: why does 'there is no such thing as reality-in-itself' entail 'therefore, there is only reality-contingent-with-humans'? You have to answer that question.

I was using and modifying your earlier syllogism.

The argument proper would be something like this;

• i. A part cannot be absolutely independent of the whole which it is intricately a part of.
  E.g. the spokes of wheel cannot be absolutely independent of the wheel it is intricately a part of.
  
  P1 Reality is a whole, i.e. all there is.
  P2 Humans are parts of reality [the whole]
  C Therefore humans cannot be absolutely independent of reality [the whole]

Show me your argument your 'what is fact' is a feature of reality that is the case, just-so, state of affair, which is absolutely independent regardless there are humans or not?

By your definition, your 'what is fact' is a fact-in-itself or fact-by-itself, i.e. is absolutely independent regardless there are humans or not.

If you insist in relating your fact to science, then it is a fact-by-science.
Since science is contingent on humans, whatever the fact-by-science cannot be absolutely independent of the human conditions.

Your absolute independent fact-in-itself is an illusion.

Your argument is a complete mess.

P1: Reality is not an illusion. (Agreed. This is orthodox philosophical realism.)
P2: Reality-in-itself is an illusion. (Agreed. The term 'reality-in-itself' is meaningless.)
C: Therefore, reality can't be absolutely independent from humans. (False. See P1.)

[Veritas Aequitas]

Have a think. You're trying to get to the conclusion that reality can't be absolutely independent from humans, or that reality is (somehow) intricately related to humans, or that there is only reality-contingent-with-humans. These are all ways of saying much the same thing.

But if your premise is 'There is only reality-contingent-with-humans', you're using your conclusion as a premise, which is called 'begging the question'. It means the argument is useless. By adding 'There is only reality-contingent-with-humans' to your premise, you've achieved nothing. See below.

P: There is only reality-contingent-with-humans.
C: Therefore, reality can't be absolutely independent from humans, etc.

The conclusion in effect restates the premise.

The issue is: why does 'there is no such thing as reality-in-itself' entail 'therefore, there is only reality-contingent-with-humans'? You have to answer that question.

I was using and modifying your earlier syllogism.

The argument proper would be something like this;

• i. A part cannot be absolutely independent of the whole which it is intricately a part of.
  E.g. the spokes of wheel cannot be absolutely independent of the wheel it is intricately a part of.
  
  P1 Reality is a whole, i.e. all there is.
  P2 Humans are parts of reality [the whole]
  C Therefore humans cannot be absolutely independent of reality [the whole]

Show me your argument your 'what is fact' is a feature of reality that is the case, just-so, state of affair, which is absolutely independent regardless there are humans or not?

By your definition, your 'what is fact' is a fact-in-itself or fact-by-itself, i.e. is absolutely independent regardless there are humans or not.

If you insist in relating your fact to science, then it is a fact-by-science.
Since science is contingent on humans, whatever the fact-by-science cannot be absolutely independent of the human conditions.

Your absolute independent fact-in-itself is an illusion.

Your argument is a complete mess.

P1: Reality is not an illusion. (Agreed. This is orthodox philosophical realism.)
P2: Reality-in-itself is an illusion. (Agreed. The term 'reality-in-itself' is meaningless.)
C: Therefore, reality can't be absolutely independent from humans. (False. See P1.)

Strawman as usual.

• P1: Reality[PR] is not an illusion. (This is orthodox philosophical realism which claim reality-in-itself is absolutely independent from humans).
  "Reality-in-itself" is the reality[PR] p-realists are claiming.
  
  P2: Antirealists [aPR] prove the ideological reality[PR] of p-realists is an illusion.
  [aPR] = ANTI-Philosophical_Realism
  There are Two Senses of Reality (p-realists' sense is illusory).
  viewtopic.php?t=40265
  
  C Therefore, reality[PR] is an illusion, reality[aPR] cannot be absolutely independent of humans.

Note your version is of a dogmatic ideology driven by an evolutionary default, thus very primal and primitive.
The anti-philosophical_realism's realization of reality[aPR] is driven rationally from the higher human cortex after navigating and struggling through a cold-turkey from the primitive dogma.