Page 2 of 2
Re: Anti-realism is often a catch-22
Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2024 1:48 pm
by Gary Childress
Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Feb 07, 2024 1:38 pm
Angelo Cannata wrote: ↑Wed Feb 07, 2024 1:19 pm
Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Feb 07, 2024 12:22 pm
No, you don't.
...
Being a realist about time leads to the usual problems in physics.
You said "You don't", but your conclusion shows that actually you agree: we have the usual problems in physics exactly because we cannot get rid of our old realist categories.
The same old philosophical self-congratulatory navel-gazing.
I agree that my conclusion shows you can't get rid of your categories.
I disagree that the categories (that you can't get rid of) are "realist categories".
Of course, you are pre-supposing that to be the case, but that's just begging the question.
Show me a category outside of a human mind.
Do minds have an "inside" and "outside"? And if so, what would be an example of something inside the human mind that is not outside the human mind?
Re: Anti-realism is often a catch-22
Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2024 1:50 pm
by Skepdick
Gary Childress wrote: ↑Wed Feb 07, 2024 1:48 pm
Do minds have an "inside" and "outside"? And if so, what would be an example of something inside the human mind that is not outside the human mind?
Does anything have an "inside" and "outside" unless you draw a line somewhere?
And even when you draw the line. Which side is the "inside" side? Which side is the "outside" side? Why can't you swap the labels?
Re: Anti-realism is often a catch-22
Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2024 1:55 pm
by Gary Childress
Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Feb 07, 2024 1:50 pm
Why can't you swap the labels?
I suppose that happens from time to time. ¯\_(*_*)_/¯
The same old philosophical self-congratulatory navel-gazing.