Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Feb 21, 2024 3:03 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Feb 21, 2024 8:29 am
Loopy??
I'll show why you are the loopy one.
There are two types of empiricism, i.e.
Empirical-Realism [antirealist] and
Transcendental-Empiricism p-realist.
Seriously, you don't know what you're talking about. You are juxtaposing Antirealism, it seems, and Deleuze as the only possible empiricisms?
What is that I don't know what I am talking about?
You need to explain the connection with Deleuze.
The above differentiation is from Kant, i.e.
Empirical-Realism [antirealist] versus
Transcendental-Realism-Empiricism p-realist.
Can you prove Kant is wrong?
Yes, some or many p-realists are empirically inclined [not necessary empiricists].
But they merely adopt the illusory Transcendental Empiricism.
No, they don't, Yup, loopy. And many of them, like Locke and Hume couldn't possible since it didn't arrive until the 20th century.
I don't know what you are talking about. This is the reason I ignored some of the points you raised. Then you whine about it.
Hume was an empiricist, i.e. insisting empiricism is the only way to knowledge.
Some [or many] P-realists are empirically inclined, i.e. the believe in empiricism but they are p-realist because what is empirical represent an objective reality beyond what is empirical.
Because they assume things out there are independent of their mind, what is empirical as observed is only restricted to their brain and mind.
I understand now why Atla keeps saying you don't understand indirect realism.
You don't understand how realists use inference or that they directly connect what is experience to the objects.
What is so difficult with Indirect Realism?
Indirect realism is broadly equivalent to the scientific view of perception that subjects do not experience the external world as it really is, but perceive it through the lens of a conceptual framework.-wiki
This aligned with what I stated above;
"Because they [p-realists] assume things out there are independent of their mind, what is empirical as observed is only restricted to their brain and mind [activities]."
Explain in the above context, how is that I don't understand.
One extreme form of Transcendental Empiricism is naive realism where the empirical-mind-related thing is independent of the supposed real mind-independent thing out there.
Jesus. You can, if you really strain yourself manage to try to reconcile transcendental empiricism and naive realism, but 1) they fit together very poorly and 2) whatever mish mash you create would not be stable or really either one of the two. And there you have your own contradiction.
There are only two types, and then we find there is an extreme form. So, everyone who does not agree with you is a naive realist. I mean, I am realizing how much irritation I have created for myself taking you as seriously as I have.
You just lump people together, create false dichotomies all to sharpen that ax you got to grind with some people here.
You are the confused one not me.
Naive realism is the tendency to believe our perception of the world reflects it exactly as it is, unbiased and unfiltered. We don't think our emotions, past experiences, or cultural identity affect the way we perceive the world and thus believe others see it in the same way as we do.
Indirect Realism [definition above] is different, i.e. they believe their perception is not direct but filtered via some conceptual framework.
I did not assert all those who do not agree with me are naive realists. You are confused.
Both indirect realists and naive realists are p-realists, i.e. they believe in a mind-independent external world, so they disagree with me an anti-p-realist.
Get it?
This is where the Correspondence Theory of Truth and mirroring principle in invoked.
On the other hand, for the anti-p-realist [Kantian], their is Empirical Realism, what is out there as real is embodied, thus there is nothing beyond the mind, so not transcendental.
In this case, what is observed, i.e. empirical is the sole real thing, i.e. embodied and not related to something out there that is independent of the mind [iii].
Yes, we've heard this a million times and your English makes it very confusing, but I am pretty sure I get it given how many times you have said it.
I don't believe it is the English but rather you are a p-realist such that inevitably you will have selective attention and cannot see the 500 pound gorilla I brought into the scene.
It is just like theists cannot understand or a blind to non-theists views, even if they are expert in English or even are scientists.
Anyone who do not agree with me as an anti-philosophical-realist [Kantian] is a Transcendental "Empiricist". If insisted upon as an ideology, they are loopy.
Yeah, right everyone who doesn't agree with you is a follower of Deleuze. There is only Deleuzes realist empiricism. And you don't even understand that one.
It's insulting have such undigested ideas thrown at one. It's disrespectful.
I am interested, Why bring Delueze into the picture?
Anyone who disagrees with me [an anti-p-realist] is a p-realist. That is logically valid and sound.
There are many types of p-realists, e.g. naive realist, indirect realist, disembodied realist, transcendental realist [empiricist], and the like.
But note, not empirical realist [Kantian] or embodied realist.
The hoo-hahs is because you are the confused one and do not understand the nuances.
You are perturbed with many things [then blame me] because there is much knowledge you need to fill up [if only you are capable of doing it].