Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sat Jun 10, 2023 8:29 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jun 10, 2023 7:18 am
Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sat Jun 10, 2023 6:44 am
Your justification that it's solipsistic is clearly and obviously fallacious, to the point that the argument is an extremely silly joke. If you want to argue that realism is incorrect, good, fine, do that, but the joke of the op in this thread has come and gone. We've all had our laugh about your fallacious argument, let's move on.
I believe you are mistaken or perhaps my argument was not clear.
Seriously,
I have justified why p-realism is illusory.
I have also justified why p-realism is solipsistic [as defined] and p-realists are ignorant of it.
Put it another way,
1. P-realism claims reality is independent of mind.
2. As such, reality is independent of the p-realists' mind.
3. P-realists has failed to prove what is independent of their mind is really real.
4. P-realists have not deny their minds are real.
5. As such, the only real mind to the p-realists are their minds.
6. Solipsism is the philosophical idea that only one's mind is sure to exist.
7. Therefore p-realists are solipsistic [5,6].
The above argument do not mix in my anti-philosophical-realist position where I have justified why the p-realists claim is illusory to reinforce 3 above.
Thus my OP conclusion stand.
For intellectual sake, welcome your critique if you really think it is fallacious, I won't give up until I am convinced it is really fallacious.
If you say you can prove realists believe something, and then prove that they believe that thing using premises they don't agree with, then you haven't proven anything at all..
Let me show you. I'll pretend to be a flat earther for a moment, and I'll use an argument that's formulated like your argument.
Round Earthers believe round things are flat.
1. Round Earthers believe the earth is round
2. The earth is flat
3. Therefore, round Earthers believe round and flat are the same thing
It's nonsense, right? And yet it's just like your argument
Thanks and noted but I don't agree.
If you say you can prove realists believe something, and then prove that they believe that thing using premises they don't agree with, then you haven't proven anything at all..
I did not state
"I can prove realists believe something"
I stated what the p-realists believe on what they claim to believe, i.e.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism
i.e.
- 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.
That is what p-realist claim to believe, I don't have to prove what they believe.
Then I argued and justified why the p-realist claim is illusory.
P-realist claim anti-p-realist are solipsistic.
I countered they have no grounds to insist anti-p-realists' as solipsistic when they are relying on groundless illusory basis.
Then, I proceed to justify how the philosophical realism is itself solipsistic.
Round Earthers believe round things are flat.
1. Round Earthers believe the earth is round
2. The earth is flat
3. Therefore, round Earthers believe round and flat are the same thing
It's nonsense, right? And yet it's just like your argument
As further explained above, I cannot see how my argument is the same as the above;
Rather my argument is this;
1. Theists claim all things are created, God is the only Uncreated.
2. FSK-ed reality claim all things are co-created by humans.
3. Therefore, God is co-created by humans.
I am still interested in view of the above, how you view my argument is fallacious; curious, perhaps I am missing something?