As mentioned above,Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Apr 17, 2023 2:52 pm I've become absorbed by the varieties of what could be called anti-realism - silly name - which I think has very ancient roots, and which has re-flowered recently - perhaps strongly since WW2.
The irony you keep pointing out - no facts means no moral facts - is one of the more entertaining features of this interminable discussion.
Note there are many types of realism and idealism, so they are very relative and can go either way, i.e. a realist can be an idealist in another sense.
Normally when I claim 'idealism' it is Transcendental Idealism but at the same time I am an Empirical Realist.
Generally, "realism" [without qualification] is referenced to Philosophical Realism.
- Philosophical realism is ... the thesis that .. thing has mind-independent existence, i.e. that it is not just a mere appearance in the eye of the beholder.
Realism can also be a view about the properties of reality in general, holding that reality exists independent of the mind, as opposed to non-realist views which question the certainty of anything beyond one's own mind. -WIKI
So naturally, when human first philosophize [10,000 years ago, e.g. Hindus] they would have adopted reality in the 'Philosophical Realism' sense. i.e. there is only an external reality outside them, i.e. independent of their minds [human conditions].
PH: "anti-realism - silly name"
WHO ARE YOU, a philosophical gnat to say that?
Philosophy-wise, it was around 3000-2500 years ago that some rare philosophers who have had done very deep reflective thinking that turned the 10,000 philosophical realism paradigm 180 degrees to an Anti-Philosophical-Realism or in general anti-realism view.
The point is, in deliberation of reality, it cannot ignore the 'subjects' i.e. humans which are part and parcel of reality - all there is.
Anti-realism do recognize 'realism' but insist that 'realism' cannot be absolute, i.e. absolutely independent of the human conditions.
Note the 'Two Truths' principle of Buddhism-proper.
So in general for 2500+ years, there was only anti-realism.
Note
-the anti-realism of Buddhism-proper.
-Protagoras - Man is the measure of all things.
-Heraclitus - no man step into the same river twice
It was only in the 1700s that the term 'Idealism' was introduced.
- It was first used in the abstract metaphysical sense "belief that reality is made up only of ideas" by Christian Wolff in 1747.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism
-Kant's Copernican Revolution - Transcendental Idealism, and his
Empirical Realism - what is real is empirical but subsumed within Transcendental Idealism.
So yes, anti-realism has ancient roots, i.e. to >2500 years ago as a counter to realism, i.e. philosophical realism.
Your 'realism' i.e. philosophical realism has more ancient roots, i.e. traceable via evolution to appx. 4 billion years ago.
What is so pathetic is, you are so arrogant in insisting your appx. 4 billion years old primal realism is the most realistic and de facto reality and other versions are nonsense.
The human-based fact is anti-realism, e.g. 'man is the measure of all things' which is all facts [human-based] are conditioned upon a human-based FSK [thus, objective].
A human based FSK [object] is possible.
There are objective moral facts.
Therefore morality is objective.
(note the detailed argument of the above are presented elsewhere in this section)
OP:
Philosophical Real_ISM is a default from our evolution because all living things are programmed to direct their attention to a 'real' external world to facilitate their survival for food and avoid threats. This is a 4 billion years old program we humans has inherited from our ancient ancestors and is embedded in our DNA.
Because "realism" is so ingrained and habitualised with our fundamental survival, any counter to "realism" is often met with intellectual-violence directed toward the anti-realists.
At the extreme, anti-realists are killed by 'realists' to shut them up forever.