Morality: Philosophical Realism's Dilemma

[Flannel Jesus]

Why would the onus be on me to prove them false? I'm not trying to convince you to be a realist, the onus isn't on my to do anything. You're trying to convince people to be anti realists, so the onus is entirely on you. Convince us. You haven't so far. Don't just claim it, demonstrate it.

[Skepdick]

Why would the onus be on me to prove them false? I'm not trying to convince you to be a realist, the onus isn't on my to do anything. You're trying to convince people to be anti realists, so the onus is entirely on you. Convince us. You haven't so far. Don't just claim it, demonstrate it.

For somebody without any onus you talk too much.

The least you could do is convince me that I have to convince you.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Why would the onus be on me to prove them false? I'm not trying to convince you to be a realist, the onus isn't on my to do anything. You're trying to convince people to be anti realists, so the onus is entirely on you. Convince us. You haven't so far. Don't just claim it, demonstrate it.

This is off topic, anyway, here are my proofs why Philosophical Realism is not realistic, not tenable, absurd, grounded on an illusion, empty and nonsensical.

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

Philosophical Realism's Mind-Independence is Absurd
viewtopic.php?t=40272

PH's Philosophical Realism is Illusory
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39992

Philosophical Realism is Solipsistic. if p-realistic accuse antirealist as solipsistic.
viewtopic.php?t=40197

Philosophical Realism is A Threat to Humanity
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40094

How Physics is Driving Philosophical Realism to Extinction
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40002

Two Senses of Reality P_Realism vs Anti-P_Realism
viewtopic.php?t=40265

"Realism" [Philosophical] is an Evolutionary Default.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39975

The above are my critiques of Philosophical_Realism as not realistic.
You also have the freedom and discretion to ignore them.
But, if you are defending Philosophical_Realism then for the sake of debate as in a Philosophical Forum, the onus is on you to prove my arguments are false.

Thanks for the lead.
While I have argued why ANTI-P_Realism is realistic and practical all over the place, I have not compiled them into one thread [OP] for easy reference. I will do that soon.

[Iwannaplato]

l

As I had claimed Philosophical Realism [aka Metaphysical Realism] (mind-independence) is grounded on chasing after an illusion.

Oh, you claimed it. Well, I guess that's settled then. VA claimed it.

This is childish and frivolous.
You're ignorant of the Principle of Charity?

The focus of this thread[OP] is not about the details of what I had claimed, that is only in passing.
If you are serious about my claims, I can provide you the links to the relevant OPs.

When I stated 'had claimed' it implied that what is claimed is supported by in depth arguments and if you have read my threads you should be aware of them.
It is only natural for me to claim that my proofs are true, the onus is on you to prove they are false; this is what a Philosophy Forum like this is about.

If what you meant is 'I proved it' it's very odd that you didn't write that. Now you've learned something.

In philosophy and rhetoric, the principle of charity or charitable interpretation requires interpreting a speaker's statements in the most rational way possible and, in the case of any argument, considering its best, strongest possible interpretation

This would entail things like 1) not telling the people you disagree with what position they MUST have. No, you can't believe that, you have to believe X - re: God has to be absolutely perfect, for example. Also in many of the sudden new threads. 2) actually responding to points made, rather than posting faux responses. For example, instead of interacting with the points the other person made giving general responses to their posts without directly addressing those points. This is something you regularly do. That does not meet the criterion of considering 'its best, strongest possible, interpretation.' 3) Using arguements in a strawman way. Like using arguements against naive realism against people who are realists but are not naive realists. 4) Telling people you've proven things. Let's assume that in fact your arguments were well formed, well argued. That doesn't make them proofs, which fits things like the rules of formal logic better than certain arguments. This constant claiming to have proved things is not a charitable view of the positions other people have which can also be strong but not constitute proofs either. 5) Calling realists barbaric and primitive and saying they are more likely to kill people was not only an example of a terrible use of deduction - a very weak argument - but hardly charitable. 6) Conceding when you have made a poor argument or the other person has made a good point is part of a charitable interaction. I haven't seen you do this once despite people pointing out problems in your arguments which you later incorporate without acknowledgement. IOW you've clearly noticed - clear due to avoided responding to it and later adjusting how you argue something - by do not concede that their point had merit.

I realize that you also have not been dealt with charitably on many occasions, but you might want to ask yourself why someone like FJ who has dealt with you with great patience and politeness has reacted to your post in the way he did.

[Flannel Jesus]

The above are my critiques of Philosophical_Realism as not realistic.
You also have the freedom and discretion to ignore them.

I've already replied at about half of them. So far the arguments are mainly non sequiturs, fallacies, or just plain bad.

You rest a lot on what you've "claimed", as if claiming something gives you some leverage. Anybody can claim anything.

[Iwannaplato]

The above are my critiques of Philosophical_Realism as not realistic.
You also have the freedom and discretion to ignore them.

I've already replied at about half of them. So far the arguments are mainly non sequiturs, fallacies, or just plain bad.

You rest a lot on what you've "claimed", as if claiming something gives you some leverage. Anybody can claim anything.

For example, claiming certain things are proofs.

[Skepdick]

Anybody can claim anything.

So far the arguments are mainly non sequiturs, fallacies, or just plain bad.

I guess anybody can claim anything

[Harbal]

Anybody can claim anything.

So far the arguments are mainly non sequiturs, fallacies, or just plain bad.

I guess anybody can claim anything

Yes they can, can't they, officer Septic?

[Veritas Aequitas]

The above are my critiques of Philosophical_Realism as not realistic.
You also have the freedom and discretion to ignore them.

I've already replied at about half of them. So far the arguments are mainly non sequiturs, fallacies, or just plain bad.

You rest a lot on what you've "claimed", as if claiming something gives you some leverage. Anybody can claim anything.

Note Skepdick's

Anybody can claim anything.

So far the arguments are mainly non sequiturs, fallacies, or just plain bad.

I guess anybody can claim anything

Anybody [including yourself] can claim anything.

You nitpicked on the need for references.

This is a serious claim;
FJ: "So far the arguments are mainly non sequiturs, fallacies, or just plain bad."
If not all, give at least a few examples which you think are obvious in supporting your above.

As I had asserted earlier, I am willing to dig into the issue as long as it is needed.

For example, I have been at it with PH's thread for more than 4 years; I have to thank PH for being so ignorant and dogmatic for that is the motivation and leverage for my personal gains in accessing the extensive knowledge I have researched on morality the deeper PH tries to dig in.
If PH ever agree with me, there goes my motivation and leverage to research more on morality; so I hope he does not but retain his ignorance and dogmatism.

Btw, I am not here to influence anyone to my ideas since it is pointless and useless to change one or two minds within a forum.
In this Forum, I have not gained any significant new information from any member.
My participation in a forum is ONLY for my personal selfish interests to gain more knowledge by using opposing views to leverage and motivate me to do more research into the subject of current interests.

[Skepdick]

Yes they can, can't they, officer Septic?

You are almost catching on how truth works.

[Veritas Aequitas]

So far, no one has responded to the OP that Philosophical_Realism is in a way "in deep-shit" with the various challenges.

• 3.0 Anti-Realist Challenges to Realism
  3.1 Language Use and Understanding
  3.2 Language Acquisition
  3.3 Radical Skepticism
  3.4 Conceptual Schemes and Pluralism
  3.5 Models and Reality
  https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win ... challenge/

I recommend those who are philosophical realists read the SEP article.

[Flannel Jesus]

This is a serious claim;
FJ: "So far the arguments are mainly non sequiturs, fallacies, or just plain bad."
If not all, give at least a few examples which you think are obvious in supporting your above.

viewtopic.php?t=40197

This one is particularly egregious. In trying to prove that realists are solipsists, you have to include premises which realists don't accept - thus not actually proving anything about what realists think at all.

[Harbal]

Yes they can, can't they, officer Septic?

You are almost catching on how truth works.

I caught on to how you work quite some time ago.

[Skepdick]

Yes they can, can't they, officer Septic?

You are almost catching on how truth works.

I caught on to how you work quite some time ago.

What was there to "catch on" exactly? I was pretty clear about that - I speak truth.

You are yet to demonstrate I am lying about anything. At best you keep lying about me lying.

[Skepdick]

viewtopic.php?t=40197

This one is particularly egregious. In trying to prove that realists are solipsists, you have to include premises which realists don't accept - thus not actually proving anything about what realists think at all.

Realism beggs the question. It's trivial and obvious that realism implies solipsism given realism's question-begging nature.