Nothing in my posts here focused on the issue of externalness. And you are misrepresenting the position you have had on the Moon. Not that it matters. Distraction.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Sep 14, 2023 7:28 amYour above is strawmaning.Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Sep 14, 2023 4:46 amPutting the citation marks around the word realist means you haven't made a useful assertion. I understand why you did it, but it's just games. You just made the hypocrisy or contradiction sound like you are taking some kind of sensible stand. What it boils down to however is...when convenient you can assert the existence of specific noumena, and yet it is always bad when other posters do in a discussion with you. When they do it, they are philosophical gnats or suffering from an evolutionary default (both terms you use to express your feelings without owning your feelings). When you do it, its fine.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Sep 14, 2023 4:31 am I am a 'realist' in the sense of being an empirical-realist but that is ultimately subsumed within anti-realism, so ultimately I am not a philosophical realist.
When you askMy interpretation, first of all, is that you do not have a consistant position. That it shifts depending on context. And this is clear when you allow yourself to infer things that cannot be directly experienced. And you did this in a typical, and decently argued, realist way. You did it as if we were two realists and I was questioning your realist conclusion about moral potentials.Why should I accept your interpretation of my philosophical position?
And I notice what you do not respond to in my post.
You infer the existence of things not experienced. That's realism. Realist when convenient. Anti-realist when convenient.
Potentials are intelligible,
The problem with this argument is that you drew a realist conclusion. That something potential and not possibly experienced now is real and exists. That's realism. Scientific anti-realism is a position on unobservables. And if something is a potential, it is not actual and cannot be observed. It may or may not be manifest later, in the same thing or place, but it is BY DEFINITION, not observable now.I have already explained, I inferred the existence of a moral potential based on Scientific anti-realism i.e. conditioned upon a human-based FSK.
If I am with 2 [anti-realist] then I cannot be 2 [realist].
And by the way mentioning scientific anti-realism doesn't help you in the least, because then talk about atoms in certain states is also a problem.
And if you want to repeat your realist argument about atoms and internal states in bodies, be clear that I am not disagreeing with that (very realist argument). I am pointing out what kind of argument it is. I am pointing out how your argument is perfectly aligned with arguments against your position on the Moon and many other things...arguments you dismissed.
My position as empirical-realist & anti-philosophical_realist is the same at all times.
I can't be using the term empirical-realist & anti-philosophical_realist and attaching to all my views at all times, but use each appropriate the the context.
Whatever, I am ultimately an ANTI-philosophical_realist while being a relative empirical-realist.
The philosophical-realist claim is that of absolute mind-independence without compromise, i.e. to the extent the moon existed before there were humans and will exists even if humans are extinct.
As a relative empirical-realist I do claim the moon is relatively mind-independent [i.e. external to myself, mind, brain and body] and if there are no humans, there is no moon at all.
And these phrases like 'absolute mind independence without compromise'.... Now it's not enough that you add in absolutely, you then add 'without compromise'.
You make up the term philosophical_realist, with the underline which is not used in English this way.
You don't actually integrate the points I make into your response.
You label it strawmanning, then assert things that aren't quite or are not relevent, which any interaction with the actual points made.
So, you assert in parallel to my post, rather than interacting with it.
This allows it to seem, to some hypothetical naive reader or perhaps to yourself, like you have responded. But you haven't.
It's games. I don't mean you are insincere. I don't know if you are aware of the avoidance, the regular avoidance, or not. But I am not going to play either way.
You were inferring not just that potential morals are external to you, but they exist despite being unobservables, something that cannot be experienced now precisely because it is what you label it as: potential. Precisely the same kind of argument you used to demonstrate they exist could be used by a realist to show that the Moon exists even when no one is looking at it. You directly went against scientific anti-realism. Precisely. Not just in the contraband use of inference to unobservables in general, but also in the specifics of your argument.
This is obvious. So, in your response to me you make assertions that are not really relevant and you don't mention points I've made.
Essentially you just reassert your position.
And I have see you happy to do this in post after post. Yes, this will lead to most people just ignoring your non-argument responses. But don't confuse this attrition for actually having made a response.
You allow yourself to infer, not just externalness, but things independent of perception: noumena. But realists get insulted because they do this.
I see this. And your not convincing anyone you are doing otherwise.
Skepdick does attack realists. And he does this in your threads. But don't confuse this with a defense of your hopping in an out of realism when it is convenient for you, while being unable to admit this.
Potentials are Intelligible Objects, thus Illusory
