No. He has never defined 'human conditions', which seems to mean nothing more than 'humans'.Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Thu Jun 01, 2023 7:02 pmVa frequently says he stopped talking about philosophical realism as being "mind independent" and started talking about it being "independent from the human conditions" because of you. I've always been curious if that wording is in fact preferred by you. Does the "human conditions" wording work better for you?Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Jun 01, 2023 6:26 pm I think the premise is mystical gibberish. And the conclusion, even if 'the human conditions' is coherent, doesn't follow.
My objection to the distinction between mind-dependence and mind-independence is that, pending evidence for its existence, the mind as a separate, non-physical thing is a fiction or myth or metaphor - a way of talking about our selves and experiences. So the perenially intractable mind-body or mind-matter problem - the problem of consciousness from the physical - is a non-problem.
There are just brains in skulls atop bodies. So I think we need to view the distinction between subjectivity and objectivity differently. And VA's claim that reality is in some way dependent on humans, without appeal to the mind to explain the dependence, is obviously silly, in my opinion. Without the mysterious mind, our physical place in a physical universe is much less complicated. (The mind is the soul secularised - a religious hangover.)