the nature of reality....

[Angelo Cannata]

Why choose between the two primitive notions of reality as 'out there' and reality as a 'structure of our mind' when probably they need to be combined?

Combined how?

[Angelo Cannata]

I think that a fruitful way of dealing with reality is the following one.

Anti-realism is just realism that practices a severe critical analisys on each element of realism. If you analyse severely and critically the concepts of reality, our thinking procedures, the words we use and their meaning, you have no way out: realism is untenable. In this context, realists are people who just carry on in reinterpreting any analysis and criticism inside a realist perspective. This way no discussion is possible, because criticism cannot ultimately defeat a mentality that refuses to come out from their structure, refuses to expose to criticism their own structures.

From an analytical point of view, antirealism is untenable as well, because it ends up with an ultimate impossibility of getting any objective meaning of words and any reliable communication.

At the root of all of that there is analysys. The alternative to analysis is poetry, but poetry is out of control, poetry is where words are overcharged with meanings as much as possible, they are intentionally ambiguous, so that it becomes impossible to objectively distinguish a serious and valuable work from rubbish.

Analisys is actually very close to rubbish, because its extreme criticism and precision makes is completely disconnected from life, humanity, emotions.

The problem can be solved the way it is already solved between science and poetry: each one admits openly their own limits, each one appreciates the value and methods of the other one, and they can even have dialogue and mixes. You can make a poem with scientific topics and you can also analyse a poem scientifically, without claiming that you have been able to make an ultimate analysis that leaves nothing out of consideration.

[Skepdick]

From my perspective, I have trouble when people universalize from an antirealist position.

You don't have trouble when people universalize from a other positions?
You only have trouble with anti-realist universalizations insofar as they challenge other universalizations? A cute double-standard.

Which is, ironically and precisely, the only reason I care about anti-realism. It stands against the universalizations that don't seem to trouble you.

It either seems to imply there is only one mind - which is fine to speculate about, of course, but then this is a realist ontological position.

It's an ontological position. But it's not a "realist ontological position" - it's an antirealist ontological position. In claiming it as "realist" position you are demonstrating that universalising behaviour you so strongly object to.

[Atla]

Why choose between the two primitive notions of reality as 'out there' and reality as a 'structure of our mind' when probably they need to be combined?

Combined how?

Indirect perception, obviously. We assume there is a mostly directly unknowable objective reality, and within that reality there exists our mind with its own structures, probably inside the human head. We are limited to knowing our minds and its own kind of reality.

I don't doubt Kant's historical significance, but I simply can not comprehend why his view isn't one-sided. I asked all the Kantians I've met on these forums what the big deal, big secret is with Kant but have yet to receive an answer.

[Angelo Cannata]

Indirect perception

I don't think that the concept of indirect perception makes any difference. If you are realist, admitting that our relationship with reality is always and exclusively indirect doesn't make you less realist. If you are non-realist, thinking that we perceive some indirect contact with reality doesn't make it less subjective. The difference between realists and non-realists is not about how directly or indirectly we can have a contact with reality. The question is not about degrees of reality, it is about yes or no, if thinking of reality makes sense or not.

[Atla]

Indirect perception

I don't think that the concept of indirect perception makes any difference. If you are realist, admitting that our relationship with reality is always and exclusively indirect doesn't make you less realist. If you are non-realist, thinking that we perceive some indirect contact with reality doesn't make it less subjective. The difference between realists and non-realists is not about how directly or indirectly we can have a contact with reality. The question is not about degrees of reality, it is about yes or no, if thinking of reality makes sense or not.

If thinking of reality doesn't make sense then does anything make sense?

[Angelo Cannata]

If thinking of reality doesn't make sense then does anything make sense?

Yes, as you say, actually nothing makes sense: the very idea of "making sense" can be easily criticised. Is it a problem? There's nothing new or special in that: nihilism, for example, is a well know philosophy that says that nothing makes sense. Nietzsche is, I think, the most famous representative of this philosophy.

[Atla]

If thinking of reality doesn't make sense then does anything make sense?

Yes, as you say, actually nothing makes sense: the very idea of "making sense" can be easily criticised. Is it a problem? There's nothing new or special in that: nihilism, for example, is a well know philosophy that says that nothing makes sense. Nietzsche is, I think, the most famous representative of this philosophy.

If nothing makes sense then that's a full stop, that's the end of all cognition. It's not a philosophy and there is nothing to represent.

[Iwannaplato]

Indirect perception

I don't think that the concept of indirect perception makes any difference. If you are realist, admitting that our relationship with reality is always and exclusively indirect doesn't make you less realist. If you are non-realist, thinking that we perceive some indirect contact with reality doesn't make it less subjective. The difference between realists and non-realists is not about how directly or indirectly we can have a contact with reality. The question is not about degrees of reality, it is about yes or no, if thinking of reality makes sense or not.

If thinking of reality doesn't make sense then does anything make sense?

If someone thinks the answer to that question is 'no', it's a bit of a contradiction.

[Iwannaplato]

If thinking of reality doesn't make sense then does anything make sense?

Yes, as you say, actually nothing makes sense: the very idea of "making sense" can be easily criticised. Is it a problem? There's nothing new or special in that: nihilism, for example, is a well know philosophy that says that nothing makes sense. Nietzsche is, I think, the most famous representative of this philosophy.

If nothing makes sense then that's a full stop, that's the end of all cognition. It's not a philosophy and there is nothing to represent.

Well, as I meant above, he thinks your question makes sense. And then goes on to (try to) makes some sense about the context of the situation.

[Angelo Cannata]

If nothing makes sense then that's a full stop, that's the end of all cognition. It's not a philosophy and there is nothing to represent.

If things were like you said, there shouldn’t have been any more philosophers after Nietzsche, or, at least, all next philosophers should have said that his philosophy was just untenable, didn’t make sense. But this is not wat has happened in the history of philosophy, and Nietzsche was not a stupid, for sure.

[Angelo Cannata]

It's not a philosophy

According to this, Nietzsche is not a philosopher.

[Iwannaplato]

It's not a philosophy

According to this, Nietzsche is not a philosopher.

I don't see Nietzsche as saying nothing makes sense. He was nihilist in relation to religions and other authorities, morals and objective meaning in the sense of 'meaning of life'.

But I can't see where he was an epistemological nihilist.

HIs works are not solely undermining previously asserted knowledge. He weighs in on all sorts of stuff as if he knows.

Take The Will to Power as one example:

"My idea is that every specific body strives to become master over all space and to extend its force (--its will to power:) and to thrust back all that resists its extension. But it continually encounters similar efforts on the part of other bodies and ends by coming to an arrangement ('union') with those of them that are sufficiently related to it: thus they then conspire together for power. And the process goes on." (From Nietzsche's notes, published posthumously in "The Will to Power")

"The will to power is the essence of reality." (From "The Will to Power")

"Self-preservation is only one particular case of the will to power." (From "The Will to Power")

"Wherever I found a living thing, there found I Will to Power; and even in the will of the servant found I the will to be master." (From "Thus Spoke Zarathustra")

"The world itself is the will to power — and nothing else! And you yourselves are also this will to power — and nothing else!" (From "The Will to Power")

"The 'will to power' does not require any disguise, any pity, any scruples, any scruples: to be terrible is part of its essence — a consequence." (From "Beyond Good and Evil")

Implications that deduction and induction led him to a conclusion about a universal facet of all life.

His critique of Enlightenment reasoning was not that there was no point or sense to it but rather that it presented itself as a monopoly as far as getting to knowledge. That there were other ways ....also.

[Angelo Cannata]

It's not a philosophy

According to this, Nietzsche is not a philosopher.

I don't see Nietzsche as saying nothing makes sense. He was nihilist in relation to religions and other authorities, morals and objective meaning in the sense of 'meaning of life'.

But I can't see where he was an epistemological nihilist.

HIs works are not solely undermining previously asserted knowledge. He weighs in on all sorts of stuff as if he knows.

Take The Will to Power as one example:

"My idea is that every specific body strives to become master over all space and to extend its force (--its will to power:) and to thrust back all that resists its extension. But it continually encounters similar efforts on the part of other bodies and ends by coming to an arrangement ('union') with those of them that are sufficiently related to it: thus they then conspire together for power. And the process goes on." (From Nietzsche's notes, published posthumously in "The Will to Power")

"The will to power is the essence of reality." (From "The Will to Power")

"Self-preservation is only one particular case of the will to power." (From "The Will to Power")

"Wherever I found a living thing, there found I Will to Power; and even in the will of the servant found I the will to be master." (From "Thus Spoke Zarathustra")

"The world itself is the will to power — and nothing else! And you yourselves are also this will to power — and nothing else!" (From "The Will to Power")

"The 'will to power' does not require any disguise, any pity, any scruples, any scruples: to be terrible is part of its essence — a consequence." (From "Beyond Good and Evil")

Implications that deduction and induction led him to a conclusion about a universal facet of all life.

His critique of Enlightenment reasoning was not that there was no point or sense to it but rather that it presented itself as a monopoly as far as getting to knowledge. That there were other ways ....also.

I think you are reinterpreting Nietzsche from a realist point of view. I am afraid that, in this case, happens what I said before:

realists are people who just carry on in reinterpreting any analysis and criticism inside a realist perspective. This way no discussion is possible, because criticism cannot ultimately defeat a mentality that refuses to come out from their structure, refuses to expose to criticism their own structures.

So, I think I have no way to counter your answer in this case. We are talking each one from a different planet, different languages, different categories and ideas, that have no contact point with each other.

[Atla]

If nothing makes sense then that's a full stop, that's the end of all cognition. It's not a philosophy and there is nothing to represent.

If things were like you said, there shouldn’t have been any more philosophers after Nietzsche, or, at least, all next philosophers should have said that his philosophy was just untenable, didn’t make sense. But this is not wat has happened in the history of philosophy, and Nietzsche was not a stupid, for sure.

Don't know, I haven't read Nietsche. If he said that nothing makes sense, then not only was he no philosopher, but he literally never said anything ever. Once we go outside the realm of "sense", it's over. No ifs and buts.

By the way, I couldn't name a single 20th century Western philosopher who said anything profound, at least from my "Eastern" nondualist perspective. But at least they seem to have been trying.