To Insist there is an Independent Reality is an Oxymoron.

[tapaticmadness]

Btw, I don't agree with materialism i.e. philosophical materialism which is the same as Philosophical Realism which I had highlighted I am anti- it.
If you are not a philosophical anti-realist, you are most likely a philosophical materialist if you reflect on this point more deeply.

Materialism and idealism are two sides of the same coin. Both believe that what is directly seen, the phenomenal world, is not real, but an illusion. Philosophical Materialism is definitely not the same as Philosophical Realism. Realism believes that mind exists and it is not the brain. And that the world directly seen, the phenomenal world, is real and external to the mind.

[tapaticmadness]

Btw, I don't agree with materialism i.e. philosophical materialism which is the same as Philosophical Realism which I had highlighted I am anti- it.
If you are not a philosophical anti-realist, you are most likely a philosophical materialist if you reflect on this point more deeply.

Materialism and idealism are two sides of the same coin. Both believe that what is directly seen, the phenomenal world, is not real, but an illusion. Philosophical Materialism is definitely not the same as Philosophical Realism. Realism believes that mind exists and it is not the brain. And that the world directly seen, the phenomenal world, is real and external to the mind. I am aware that people today who have never studied philosophy are confused about these differences.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Btw, I don't agree with materialism i.e. philosophical materialism which is the same as Philosophical Realism which I had highlighted I am anti- it.
If you are not a philosophical anti-realist, you are most likely a philosophical materialist if you reflect on this point more deeply.

Materialism and idealism are two sides of the same coin. Both believe that what is directly seen, the phenomenal world, is not real, but an illusion.
Philosophical Materialism is definitely not the same as Philosophical Realism. Realism believes that mind exists and it is not the brain. And that the world directly seen, the phenomenal world, is real and external to the mind.

Note;

Materialism is a form of philosophical monism that holds that matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and that all things, including mental states and consciousness, are results of material interactions. According to philosophical materialism, mind and consciousness are by-products or epiphenomena of material processes (such as the biochemistry of the human brain and nervous system), without which they cannot exist. This concept directly contrasts with idealism, where mind and consciousness are first-order realities to which matter is subject and material interactions are secondary.
-wiki

Philosophical Materialism is a subset of Philosophical Realism.

Realism is generally associated [hijacked] with Philosophical Realism which is not necessary realistic.

Philosophical realism. In metaphysics, realism about a given object is the view that this object exists in reality independently of our conceptual scheme. In philosophical terms, these objects are ontologically independent of someone's conceptual scheme, perceptions, linguistic practices, beliefs, etc.

[tapaticmadness]

Realism is generally associated [hijacked] with Philosophical Realism which is not necessary realistic.

You are absolutely right that Philosophical Realism is NOT realistic. It is pure enchantment. It is religion. It is mystical. It is perverted. It is queer. It is decadence. It is mad. I love it. Philosophical Realism is literary.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Realism is generally associated [hijacked] with Philosophical Realism which is not necessary realistic.

You are absolutely right that Philosophical Realism is NOT realistic. It is pure enchantment. It is religion. It is mystical. It is perverted. It is queer. It is decadence. It is mad. I love it. Philosophical Realism is literary.

At some level of reality, yes there is the external world that is independent of the physical person. This is so obvious.

But to adopt the above belief as an ideology is Philosophical Realism which is ultimately false.
Why do you love such an ideology that is ultimately false?

[tapaticmadness]

Realism is generally associated [hijacked] with Philosophical Realism which is not necessary realistic.

You are absolutely right that Philosophical Realism is NOT realistic. It is pure enchantment. It is religion. It is mystical. It is perverted. It is queer. It is decadence. It is mad. I love it. Philosophical Realism is literary.

At some level of reality, yes there is the external world that is independent of the physical person. This is so obvious.

But to adopt the above belief as an ideology is Philosophical Realism which is ultimately false.
Why do you love such an ideology that is ultimately false?

The rationalist and the poet have always been at odds. I am a poet/philosopher.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You are absolutely right that Philosophical Realism is NOT realistic. It is pure enchantment. It is religion. It is mystical. It is perverted. It is queer. It is decadence. It is mad. I love it. Philosophical Realism is literary.

At some level of reality, yes there is the external world that is independent of the physical person. This is so obvious.

But to adopt the above belief as an ideology is Philosophical Realism which is ultimately false.
Why do you love such an ideology that is ultimately false?

The rationalist and the poet have always been at odds. I am a poet/philosopher.

That you prefer to be a poet is irrelevant to this forum.
A poet is involved with poetry which can communicate truths and lies.
Thus a poet can be a liar or a communicator of truth via poetry.

A philosopher is merely concerned with arguments on truth, i.e. justified true beliefs and questions of reality.
A philosopher-proper cannot be a liar.

If you are inclined to be realistic and truthful you would have stayed away and abandoned Philosophical Realism.

[tapaticmadness]

At some level of reality, yes there is the external world that is independent of the physical person. This is so obvious.

But to adopt the above belief as an ideology is Philosophical Realism which is ultimately false.
Why do you love such an ideology that is ultimately false?

The rationalist and the poet have always been at odds. I am a poet/philosopher.

That you prefer to be a poet is irrelevant to this forum.
A poet is involved with poetry which can communicate truths and lies.
Thus a poet can be a liar or a communicator of truth via poetry.

A philosopher is merely concerned with arguments on truth, i.e. justified true beliefs and questions of reality.
A philosopher-proper cannot be a liar.

If you are inclined to be realistic and truthful you would have stayed away and abandoned Philosophical Realism.

You really are a hardcore rationalist.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The rationalist and the poet have always been at odds. I am a poet/philosopher.

That you prefer to be a poet is irrelevant to this forum.
A poet is involved with poetry which can communicate truths and lies.
Thus a poet can be a liar or a communicator of truth via poetry.

A philosopher is merely concerned with arguments on truth, i.e. justified true beliefs and questions of reality.
A philosopher-proper cannot be a liar.

If you are inclined to be realistic and truthful you would have stayed away and abandoned Philosophical Realism.

You really are a hardcore rationalist.

I am a rational and practical person but,
Nope I was never and will never be an ideological rationalist.

Per Kant, I am an empirical realist - the external empirical world is real but
at the same time entangled and intertwined [dependent origination] with the human conditions, thus I am also a transcendental idealist.

[tapaticmadness]

That you prefer to be a poet is irrelevant to this forum.
A poet is involved with poetry which can communicate truths and lies.
Thus a poet can be a liar or a communicator of truth via poetry.

A philosopher is merely concerned with arguments on truth, i.e. justified true beliefs and questions of reality.
A philosopher-proper cannot be a liar.

If you are inclined to be realistic and truthful you would have stayed away and abandoned Philosophical Realism.

You really are a hardcore rationalist.

I am a rational and practical person but,
Nope I was never and will never be an ideological rationalist.

Per Kant, I am an empirical realist - the external empirical world is real but
at the same time entangled and intertwined [dependent origination] with the human conditions, thus I am also a transcendental idealist.

I actually have great respect for Kant and the German tradition, but you seem to have no respect for the Realism that came out of Cambridge in the early twentieth century. Or you know nothing about it. So I'm sending you a book that might be of interest to you. https://www.dropbox.com/s/pxcippfptwhh7 ... 9.pdf?dl=0

I still think you are a materialist, which has no connection to Philosophical Realism.

[Skepdick]

I am also a transcendental idealist.

So, by any other name you are a Platonist.

[tapaticmadness]

I am also a transcendental idealist.

So, by any other name you are a Platonist.

Are you talking to me? Yes, I am proud to say I am a Platonist. Unfortunately, what people understand by that word is all over the intellectual map. The Aristotelians and the Thomists say that Platonists start out as excessively spiritual and end up decadent. The Platonists accuse the Aristoteians of not knowing how to dance. I can dance.

[Skepdick]

Are you talking to me?

No. I was quoting VA.

Yes, I am proud to say I am a Platonist. Unfortunately, what people understand by that word is all over the intellectual map. The Aristotelians and the Thomists say that Platonists start out as excessively spiritual and end up decadent. The Platonists accuse the Aristoteians of not knowing how to dance. I can dance.

What I mean by calling him a Platonist is that at "transcendental idealism" is simply a re-description of Platonic forms.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/transc ... l-idealism

Transcendental idealism, also called formalistic idealism, term applied to the epistemology of the 18th-century German philosopher Immanuel Kant, who held that the human self, or transcendental ego, constructs knowledge out of sense impressions and from universal concepts called categories that it imposes upon them.

A "formalistic idealism" is the same thing as a "Platonic form".

Different languages - same idea.

[tapaticmadness]

Are you talking to me?

No. I was quoting VA.

Yes, I am proud to say I am a Platonist. Unfortunately, what people understand by that word is all over the intellectual map. The Aristotelians and the Thomists say that Platonists start out as excessively spiritual and end up decadent. The Platonists accuse the Aristoteians of not knowing how to dance. I can dance.

What I mean by calling him a Platonist is that at "transcendental idealism" is simply a re-description of Platonic forms.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/transc ... l-idealism

Transcendental idealism, also called formalistic idealism, term applied to the epistemology of the 18th-century German philosopher Immanuel Kant, who held that the human self, or transcendental ego, constructs knowledge out of sense impressions and from universal concepts called categories that it imposes upon them.

A "formalistic idealism" is the same thing as a "Platonic form".

Different languages - same idea.

I don't think they are the same, but I would have to check that out. I can't exactly remember Kant since he is not someone I usually think about. There is certainly a different "feel" between Kant's Idealism and traditional Platonism, which is much more poetic.

[Skepdick]

I don't think they are the same, but I would have to check that out. I can't exactly remember Kant since he is not someone I usually think about. There is certainly a different "feel" between Kant's Idealism and traditional Platonism, which is much more poetic.

There's a different feel because they are different narratives from different people, but they are describing the same thing - the human condition.

Which is more similar than different across humans.