Why Philosophical Realism is Illusory

[Veritas Aequitas]

Philosophical Realism [P-realism] is not Realistic.
The thing that P-realist supposed in really real existing out there independent of the human mind is actually a merely speculated-thought in their head, thus illusory.

What is Philosophical Realism [P-realist];

1. Philosophical Realism is .. about a certain kind of thing .. is the thesis that this kind of thing has mind-independent existence, i.e. that it is not just a mere appearance in the eye of the beholder.
2. This includes a number of positions within epistemology and metaphysics which express that a given thing instead exists independently of knowledge, thought, or understanding.
3. [Philosophical] 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.
4. Philosophers who profess [Philosophical] realism often claim that truth consists in a correspondence between cognitive representations and reality.
5. [Philosophical] Realists tend to believe that whatever we believe now is only an approximation of reality but that the accuracy and fullness of understanding can be improved.
6. In some contexts, [Philosophical] realism is contrasted with [Philosophical] idealism. Today it is more usually contrasted with anti-realism, for example in the philosophy of science.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

For the P-realists, there is always a REALITY-GAP between what is perceived and their supposed mind-independent object out there.
As such, a P-realist will NEVER EVER know his supposed 'real' mind-independent object out there

What is the Reality-GAP? [time-gap]


The REALITY-GAP [time-gap] can be represented by the blue-arrow above.

To a philosophical Realist [P-realist] the REAL candle in the picture exist as a mind-independent object from the human.
In this case, the REAL candle is separated from the person, as such there is no way the person will ever realize and know what the REAL candle really is.
As such there is a REALITY-GAP [like the blue-arrow] for the person, i.e. between the real-candle and the person.
What the person know as the candle is merely an inferred reality from his experiences.
There is NO WAY the person will EVER know what the supposed real independent candle is.

This is amplified by the perception of our Sun.
It takes about 9 minute for the light to reach the human person on Earth.
As such, no P-realist on Earth will ever know what is the real-Sun really is.
What the P-realists realize is merely the 9-minute old Sun and never the really-real independent Sun.

The Reality-Gap should be more obvious for the P-realist.
Note
Is the Star, Proxima Centauri Real?
viewtopic.php?t=40154
P-realists can perceive an independent Proxima Centauri in the sky which they suppose is really real, but in real time, the supposed real Proxima Centauri could have died and disappear.

As such re P-realism. there is always a REALITY-GAP or time-GAP between the person and what is supposed to be real, existing independent of the human mind out there.
This REALITY-GAP [time] gap can be in terms of the minutest nano-millimeters in term of distance or nano-seconds in term of time.

Because of the Reality-Gap, the P-realist can never know and realize the real mind-independent thing out there.
What a P-realist 'knows' have is merely a thought-object and not the real thing.
This is why the P-realist is also an Empirical-Idealist, the only empirical thing he can reallyt know is within his mind.
Therefore philosophical realism is never realistic.

So, what the P-realist supposed as 'REALITY' is merely an illusion.

Views?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes: KIV

[Atla]

Now you're starting to make a little more sense. But the main issue is, just because we can never know and realize the real mind-independent thing out there, doesn't mean that it can't exist. So one can still be a realist on the unknowable (empirical) noumenon.

[Iwannaplato]

Now you're starting to make a little more sense. But the main issue is, just because we can never know and realize the real mind-independent thing out there, doesn't mean that it can't exist. So one can still be a realist on the unknowable (empirical) noumenon.

Well, I think a bit of probing could be interesting...
He says...

The thing that P-realist supposed in really real existing out there independent of the human mind is actually a merely speculated-thought in their head, thus illusory.

What does VA think about other minds? Does he think he can perceive other minds so therefore, from his antirealist perspective, he is part of cocreating them? Of if he can't perceive other minds, why does he keep asserting things about them?

When her perceives other minds, what is it like?

[Veritas Aequitas]

For those who want to resort to Kant's Noumenon, read Kant's words carefully here;

Kant: Phenomena vs Noumena
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=39987

also
Phenomena vs Noumena [ft. PH]
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=35423

The point is the idea of the 'noumena' is merely an intelligible object which is merely for the purpose of idealization and not to be taken as any real.
Kant did reference the noumena and "unknown" for some reasons and in certain contexts, but ultimately the noumena cannot be real, thus, can only be used in the NEGATIVE sense; any one insisting the noumena is real is grasping at an illusion.

[Iwannaplato]

For those who want to resort to Kant's Noumenon, read Kant's words carefully here;

Kant: Phenomena vs Noumena
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=39987

also
Phenomena vs Noumena [ft. PH]
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=35423

The point is the idea of the 'noumena' is merely an intelligible object which is merely for the purpose of idealization and not to be taken as any real.
Kant did reference the noumena and "unknown" for some reasons and in certain contexts, but ultimately the noumena cannot be real, thus, can only be used in the NEGATIVE sense; any one insisting the noumena is real is grasping at an illusion.

Are other minds part of the Noumenon?
Facial expressions are part of phenomena. the sounds of someone's voice. the words they say. These things are part of our experience.
Do we experience other minds?
Aren't other minds just as hallucinated as the tree? Or even more so, since when one walks into the backyard, we at least see a tree, if not the same one as the one we saw through the window.

But standing in my kitchen with my wife, I don't see her mind, her experiencing, her feelings (or?).

Should the consistant antirealist be a solipsist?

When is one allowed to deduce/assume the existence of something not directly part of phenomena?

And by the way. I am not sure if antirealism entails a kind of solipsism. I am have just long noted the seeming at least asymmetry about things in this world. There are, in most non-panpsychist models, things that are conscious, like us, and things that are not.

But this gets interesting. The things that are not, are not there, presumably, in some anti-realisms when not perceived. But the humans remain when not perceived by others. They don't return to a foam state waiting to be coalesced by being perceived. Does this include their dead hair when it's not being looked at? How much of themselves? Just that portion that is experienced? This often would not include much of the body. My experiencing of myself is not like see someone standing over there, with at least the illusion of a 3d 'object'. It's this shifting often amorphous experiencing.

I can't see any reason for an antirealist to be a physicalist. Though that's an intuitive leap (just mulling out loud here). In some way an antirealist, it seems to me, is a phenomenalist. Phenomena are real.

In fact, is one's own mind real. Do we ever experience our own mind, separate from anything else? A whole?

The tree is changing atoms.
The mind is changing contents that are never exactly the same.

Doesn't antirealism entail that neither minds not objects exist, but rather just this ongoing experiencing with no self and no objects?

Or?

[Atla]

For those who want to resort to Kant's Noumenon, read Kant's words carefully here;

Kant: Phenomena vs Noumena
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=39987

also
Phenomena vs Noumena [ft. PH]
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=35423

The point is the idea of the 'noumena' is merely an intelligible object which is merely for the purpose of idealization and not to be taken as any real.
Kant did reference the noumena and "unknown" for some reasons and in certain contexts, but ultimately the noumena cannot be real, thus, can only be used in the NEGATIVE sense; any one insisting the noumena is real is grasping at an illusion.

I'm not resorting to Kant's noumenon, I'm using the modern meaning of it. The modern meaning no longer makes the basic mistake of restricting it to the negative/non-real.

Restricting it to the negative/non-real, seems to be based on an idealistic (even solipsistic) preassumption, which I find very unjustified. And we just end up with circular reasoning: we assume that there's no mind-external world, and at the end we arrive at the conclusion that there's no mind-external world.