Morality: To Wittgenstein Pure Realism is Solipsism

[Atla]

Denying even the possibility of noumena = only "my" appearances exist in this very moment, and there's nothing else. Not only is that solipsism, but it's a solipsism where even "my" past and future don't exist, and nothing can make any sense anyway.

It's a completely nonsensical philosophy.

[Iwannaplato]

Denying even the possibility of noumena = only "my" appearances exist in this very moment, and there's nothing else. Not only is that solipsism, but it's a solipsism where even "my" past and future don't exist, and nothing can make any sense anyway.

It's a completely nonsensical philosophy.

It's also an antirealism (pardon my repetition in-thread) because there is no mind independent reality.
For a year VA has been harping on the 'absurd realist belief' in a mind independent reality.
Suddenly realism, for VA, is solipsism, despite the fact that solipsism denies not only a mind independent reality but also other minds. Neither of which realism denies.
Solipsism is one form of antirealism, not his, but certainly falls into the metaphysics of an antirealism. By definition. By VA's definition. According to VA's dozens of threads on realism, it cannot possibly be solipsistic.

And that also is nonsense.

[Atla]

Denying even the possibility of noumena = only "my" appearances exist in this very moment, and there's nothing else. Not only is that solipsism, but it's a solipsism where even "my" past and future don't exist, and nothing can make any sense anyway.

It's a completely nonsensical philosophy.

It's also an antirealism (pardon my repetition in-thread) because there is no mind independent reality.
For a year VA has been harping on the 'absurd realist belief' in a mind independent reality.
Suddenly realism, for VA, is solipsism, despite the fact that solipsism denies not only a mind independent reality but also other minds. Neither of which realism denies.
Solipsism is one form of antirealism, not his, but certainly falls into the metaphysics of an antirealism. By definition. By VA's definition. According to VA's dozens of threads on realism, it cannot possibly be solipsistic.

And that also is nonsense.

I still don't see how we can have other minds with a no-noumena philosophy.

[Flannel Jesus]

It's personal rather than logical. VA doesn't like that someone pointed out parallels between solipsism and his version of anti realism, and so now he must prove that no, it is YOU who is solipsistic.

[Iwannaplato]

It's personal rather than logical. VA doesn't like that someone pointed out parallels between solipsism and his version of anti realism, and so now he must prove that no, it is YOU who is solipsistic.

And finds a way that one period of Wittgenstein included him using the term solipsism in a very different way from how either the realists who challenged VA use it or he has used the term 'solipsism'.

Mind independent reality exists....not solipsism according to VA's repeated definition of realism it cannot be solipsistic. His core attack on realism is based on it asserting there is a mind independent reality.

What kind of cognitive gymnastics can lead to one not acknowledging this PLUS thinking that others won't notice this?

It's actually rather fantastic.

[Atla]

It's personal rather than logical. VA doesn't like that someone pointed out parallels between solipsism and his version of anti realism, and so now he must prove that no, it is YOU who is solipsistic.

If you meant me, well he can wage a long campaign against my evil pure realism, I wish him good luck, good fortune.

I'm not even a "realist".

[Iwannaplato]

It's personal rather than logical. VA doesn't like that someone pointed out parallels between solipsism and his version of anti realism, and so now he must prove that no, it is YOU who is solipsistic.

If you meant me, well he can wage a long campaign against my evil pure realism, I wish him good luck, good fortune.

I'm not even a "realist".

But are you a realist?

I'm trying to get the hang of PN use of quotation and citation marks.

[Atla]

It's personal rather than logical. VA doesn't like that someone pointed out parallels between solipsism and his version of anti realism, and so now he must prove that no, it is YOU who is solipsistic.

If you meant me, well he can wage a long campaign against my evil pure realism, I wish him good luck, good fortune.

I'm not even a "realist".

But are you a realist?

I'm trying to get the hang of PN use of quotation and citation marks.

I mean, I think anyone who is any good at philosophy, will know that there's no such philosophical position as "realism" and "anti-realism" at all. I think there are like, say 4-6 different major issues, and I have a realist view on about half of them and an anti-realist view on the other half.

[Iwannaplato]

I mean, I think anyone who is any good at philosophy, will know that there's no such philosophical position as "realism" and "anti-realism" at all. I think there are like, say 4-6 different major issues, and I have a realist view on about half of them and an anti-realist view on the other half.

What?!?!
You dare leave a binary schema?

Well, now, at least, VA will consider you half barbaric, half civilized, half primitive, half modern and only slightly more likely to murder than pure antirealists are. Sort of like how mulattos were viewed by slave owners in Haiti before the revolution.

[Atla]

I mean, I think anyone who is any good at philosophy, will know that there's no such philosophical position as "realism" and "anti-realism" at all. I think there are like, say 4-6 different major issues, and I have a realist view on about half of them and an anti-realist view on the other half.

What?!?!
You dare leave a binary schema?

Well, now, at least, VA will consider you half barbaric, half civilized, half primitive, half modern and only slightly more likely to murder than pure antirealists are. Sort of like how mulattos were viewed by slave owners in Haiti before the revolution.

Yeah I'm a halfbreed freak but everyone relax, in 2 days VA will have completely forgotten about it again, I'll be a pure evil realist-solipsist-philosophical gnat again.

[Iwannaplato]

I mean, I think anyone who is any good at philosophy, will know that there's no such philosophical position as "realism" and "anti-realism" at all. I think there are like, say 4-6 different major issues, and I have a realist view on about half of them and an anti-realist view on the other half.

What?!?!
You dare leave a binary schema?

Well, now, at least, VA will consider you half barbaric, half civilized, half primitive, half modern and only slightly more likely to murder than pure antirealists are. Sort of like how mulattos were viewed by slave owners in Haiti before the revolution.

Yeah I'm a halfbreed freak but everyone relax, in 2 days VA will have completely forgotten about it again, I'll be a pure evil realist-solipsist-philosophical gnat again.

And despite him being a moral realist, iow himself potentially barbaric, primitive and murderous, albeit only slightly statistically, he can't see nuances and misjudges you. Ah well.

I am pretty antirealist, though not in all possible categories. But I feel barbaric and primitive when faces with VA's nonresponses to my posts.

Maybe antirealists are even more dangerous. It's hard to set up some kind of doubleblind test.

[Atla]

What?!?!
You dare leave a binary schema?

Well, now, at least, VA will consider you half barbaric, half civilized, half primitive, half modern and only slightly more likely to murder than pure antirealists are. Sort of like how mulattos were viewed by slave owners in Haiti before the revolution.

Yeah I'm a halfbreed freak but everyone relax, in 2 days VA will have completely forgotten about it again, I'll be a pure evil realist-solipsist-philosophical gnat again.

And despite him being a moral realist, iow himself potentially barbaric, primitive and murderous, albeit only slightly statistically, he can't see nuances and misjudges you. Ah well.

I am pretty antirealist, though not in all possible categories. But I feel barbaric and primitive when faces with VA's nonresponses to my posts.

Maybe antirealists are even more dangerous. It's hard to set up some kind of doubleblind test.

And I very explicitly told him on some issues whether I take a realist or anti-realist stance on it, but looks like he can't make sense of that. Too complicated for him to consider several issues at once.

[Iwannaplato]

And I very explicitly told him on some issues whether I take a realist or anti-realist stance on it, but looks like he can't make sense of that. Too complicated for him to consider several issues at once.

So what is one of your antirealist stances?

[Atla]

And I very explicitly told him on some issues whether I take a realist or anti-realist stance on it, but looks like he can't make sense of that. Too complicated for him to consider several issues at once.

So what is one of your antirealist stances?

I'll copy-paste some eariler comment of mine

I think the main problem here is that mind-independence means at least 3-4 different things. Taking 3-4 different things and mixing them together into one amorphous blob doesn't lead anywhere, an example is VA who has been hopelessly chasing his own tail for many years. Those 3-4 different things need to be evaluated individually, for example:

1. mind-independence as in the God's-eye-view: probably this view was, and to a degree still is a major collective hallucination, shared by countless people. Such independence was the 19th century scientist's dream. We are "looking into" a perfectly objective, independent world (reality), we are watching it as it happen, but we never disturb it in any way. We somehow have this God's-eye-view that looks into the world from an outside perspective. But when we try to find ourselves, the looker, this outside point, we don't find anything, can't find anything, but this doesn't seem to bother people.
This form of mind-independence is indeed probably crazy. In this sense, reality probably isn't mind-independent. But one also can't say that reality is mind-dependent, only that it's not-independent, that's the correct opposite. There's no outside perspective, instead there's an inside perspective that feels like an outside perspective.
(anti-realism vs realism 1-0)

2. mind-independence as in absolute independence from the rest of the world: the human mind is probably a part of the head, so as VA would say "part and parcel of reality". In this sense the world again isn't mind-independent, but it's also not mind-dependent, just non-independent.
(2-0)

3. mind-independence of the presumed outside world in the non-absolute sense, that there is a shared objective reality "out there" and every human perceives it in a different way, while the mind is also part of this world: this form of mind-independence is probably correct, using science we could build an accurate model, mapping of this objective relity, and this model is a thousands times better and bigger than anything else, yet can be made to account for everything
(2-1)

4. mind-independence in a more Kantian sense: yes everything we ever experience is our own mind, it's not possible to get outside of it, there are only the appearances. Within our own mind, using its features, faculties, we construct the idea, the experience of the outside world. We live a representation within our own heads, and the representation works pretty well (unless one is schizophrenic etc.)
Which however totally doesn't mean that our mind can't have an outside, nor does it mean that such an outside would be mind-dependent in some absolute or relative sense.
(2.5-1.5)

5. mind-independence in quantum mechanics yeah yeah.. I think the mind would have to be fairly separate, independent, something "other" than mere stuff, in order to be responsible for quantum weirdness. Here mind-dependence kinda shoots itself in the foot.
Personally I believe that human thinking is linear, but reality as a whole is of course inherently circular because every other idea is incoherent. And our human minds may be smaller circular things within the bigger circular reality, which may have to do with quantum weirdness.
Still it would be more of a "consistency of the outer reality with mental phenomena, in some rather technical way(s)" than mind-dependence in a very literal sense.
Or maybe something else is going on entirely.
The 2022 Nobel was of course for refuting the idea of locality. Locality isn't real, or at least not fundamental. It's at best a soft-emergent property. Reality is non-local (not just in space but also in time). Which probably (by Occam's razor) has absolutely nothing to do with philosophical realism or anti-realism.
Anything in QM can be interpreted in both realism and anti-realism. I think by Occam's razor we end up with realism and an extra dimension btw.
Say (2.75-2.25)

Well looks like by my count, anti-realism got a little more points than realism, but imo the best models are overall almost "halfway" between realism and anti-realism. So I never really understand what people mean when they fully take one position or the other.

Well I could add that maybe some of these are the same maybe not. I could also add that I've been considering some pretty crazy interpretations of QM that are largely anti-realistic in a way, but seem realistic, but that's more like 6-dimensional philosophy (or maybe it would be more accurate to say that that level of philosophy is beyond the dichotomy of realism and anti-realism).

[Iwannaplato]

I copied your above response and started a new thread here...
viewtopic.php?p=655183#p655183

I want to discuss antirealism away from VA and his version of antirealism. If he responds there I may ignore him, but others obviously can do as they like. Just see if we can actually get somewhere with some of various anti-realisms. Explore a bit.