Philosophical Realism's Mind-Independence is Absurd

[Iwannaplato]

I did not insist p-realists see only one-cube.

The p-realists are only capable of seeing one-cube in the above image.

When I stated p-realists are like the one-cubers as an example, my main point was to propose the p-realists do not have the mental capacity to see a wider perspective.
In particular they are stuck with the evolutionary default of the mode of external-ness as an ideology dogmatically.

P-realists are stuck with mind-independent dogmatically with one perspective and unable to view and switch between mind-independent and not-mind-independent.

I could have used other examples, such as the duck-rabbit illusion, the pretty lady-old hag illusion, and other similar illusions.

Flannel Jesus points out the communication issue in a clear way.
And since we have no reason to believe p-realists cannot see these illusions in more than one way and the majority of people who have seen these illusions in more than one way are realists, the examples, while metaphorical, work AGAINST your judgment of realists. There have always been realists who are capable of seeing things via different perspectives.

To use metaphorical evidence to come to the conclusion that some p-realists will kill antirealists with the implicit claims that antirealists are not capable of this requires actual evidence of some kind. At least if one wants to be remotely social.

[Flannel Jesus]

VA and iambiguous both like to claim mortal fear of people who think differently from them. "Objectivists want to kill anyone who disagrees!" compared to "Realists want to kill anyone who disagrees!"

But there's not really any tangible justification for either of these fears. They just seem bizarre. Why would realists want to kill anti realists? Maybe anti realists want to kill realists, I don't know. Where is this shit coming from?

[Iwannaplato]

VA and iambiguous both like to claim mortal fear of people who think differently from them. "Objectivists want to kill anyone who disagrees!" compared to "Realists want to kill anyone who disagrees!"

But there's not really any tangible justification for either of these fears. They just seem bizarre. Why would realists want to kill anti realists? Maybe anti realists want to kill realists, I don't know. Where is this shit coming from?

Misplaced passive aggressiveness.
[sorry, your question was probably rhetorical, but I had the answer , so I couldn't help but respond]

[Atla]

"So you admit with your own words that you think the most credible and objective view is false and illusory. What now?"
Strawman!!

Not a strawman. Looks like you can't process basic logic. You can't understand what a contradiction is.

You can't subsume the science-FSK's external world view in the Kantian negative noumenon view. The two are incompatible. Mutually exclusive. Mixing them is sheer nonsense. There is no perspective in which they can be made compatible (well, aside from a very strange kind of solipsism, maybe).

[Skepdick]

"So you admit with your own words that you think the most credible and objective view is false and illusory. What now?"
Strawman!!

Not a strawman. Looks like you can't process basic logic. You can't understand what a contradiction is.

You can't subsume the science-FSK's external world view in the Kantian negative noumenon view. The two are incompatible. Mutually exclusive. Mixing them is sheer nonsense. There is no perspective in which they can be made compatible.

Literally any logical system in which negation is a non-trivial operation and double negation elimination is NOT an inference rule allows for this.

[Darkneos]

Looking through this thread I’m quite sure VA is either insane or has no idea what they’re talking about (especially the butchering of Buddhism at the start).

Though I guess that’s what anti realism gets you.

[Atla]

VA and iambiguous both like to claim mortal fear of people who think differently from them. "Objectivists want to kill anyone who disagrees!" compared to "Realists want to kill anyone who disagrees!"

But there's not really any tangible justification for either of these fears. They just seem bizarre. Why would realists want to kill anti realists? Maybe anti realists want to kill realists, I don't know. Where is this shit coming from?

I think he may be talking from experience. Back when he was a fanatical theist and a realist, which soothed his crippling existential crysis, he may have felt a strong urge to kill people who wanted to take away his God from him.

[Flannel Jesus]

VA and iambiguous both like to claim mortal fear of people who think differently from them. "Objectivists want to kill anyone who disagrees!" compared to "Realists want to kill anyone who disagrees!"

But there's not really any tangible justification for either of these fears. They just seem bizarre. Why would realists want to kill anti realists? Maybe anti realists want to kill realists, I don't know. Where is this shit coming from?

I think he may be talking from experience. Back when he was a fanatical theist and a realist, which soothed his crippling existential crysis, he may have felt a strong urge to kill people who wanted to take away his God from him.

Makes a lot of sense. VA, is this where your fear of realists comes from?

I can assure you, plenty of realists value living in a heterodox society, where a wide variety of ideas are legally and ethnically allowed to be explored. In fact I'd wager most people who place a large value on heterodoxy are realist.

[Darkneos]

Here is one argument [among others] demonstrating why philosophical realism is unrealistic.
1. Reality as a WHOLE is all-there-is.

2. A part cannot be independent of its Whole.

3. Humans [body, brain and mind] are intricately part and parcel of reality.

4. Thus, reality cannot be independent of Humans [body, brain and mind].
Therefore, Philosophical Realism which claim reality [things in reality] is mind-independent is absurd.

Views?

Also looking at this really drives it home that they don’t know what is meant by mind independent reality. Also number 4 doesn’t follow from the first 3. Reality being independent of humans means that if we die it will still be there. It sounds like they’re saying the universe will implode if someone dies, which just sounds like advocating solipsism.

My guess is they didn’t think this through.

[Darkneos]

I can assure you, plenty of realists value living in a heterodox society, where a wide variety of ideas are legally and ethnically allowed to be explored. In fact I'd wager most people who place a large value on heterodoxy are realist.

As a realist myself I don’t really care what someone else believe as long as they aren’t trying to murder me over it

[Atla]

Makes a lot of sense. VA, is this where your fear of realists comes from?

I can assure you, plenty of realists value living in a heterodox society, where a wide variety of ideas are legally and ethnically allowed to be explored. In fact I'd wager most people who place a large value on heterodoxy are realist.

You know, the weird thing about VA is, I suspect.. most people can accept that the outside world exists, without the idea of God crossing their minds. But I think to VA, the two seem to be somehow inseparable. The moment he admits that he's sitting next to a real table, God also automatically appears to him.

?!

[Veritas Aequitas]

You are doing a really poor job of communicating your thoughts clearly here. When you say things like "The p-realists are only capable of seeing one-cube in the above image", you're not making it clear that you're trying to make it a metaphor or analogy. It sounds like you're saying that realists actually all think that. Can you see that?

Agree.

I had assumed that others could easily understand it is a metaphor or analogy but I was wrong. I take the blame in not communicating precisely.
As I had stated, to explain in details is time consuming thus there is a tendency to take short cuts and assumed.

However, if you are not sure or dispute my point we can always trash it out, since this is a discussion forum, like now, which I hope you got my point?

Note when debating issues that has a wide dichotomy like the very fundamental issue of philosophical realism vs ANTI-philosophical_realism, misunderstanding by either parties is very likely to happen.

[Veritas Aequitas]

VA and iambiguous both like to claim mortal fear of people who think differently from them. "Objectivists want to kill anyone who disagrees!" compared to "Realists want to kill anyone who disagrees!"

But there's not really any tangible justification for either of these fears. They just seem bizarre. Why would realists want to kill anti realists? Maybe anti realists want to kill realists, I don't know. Where is this shit coming from?

I think he may be talking from experience. Back when he was a fanatical theist and a realist, which soothed his crippling existential crysis, he may have felt a strong urge to kill people who wanted to take away his God from him.

Makes a lot of sense. VA, is this where your fear of realists comes from?

I can assure you, plenty of realists value living in a heterodox society, where a wide variety of ideas are legally and ethnically allowed to be explored. In fact I'd wager most people who place a large value on heterodoxy are realist.

I have already explained somewhere.

Theists as philosophical realists believe in a mind-independent God creating a mind-independent universe.
DO YOU deny theists [also philosophical realists] had killed millions of non-believers for blasphemy and merely as non-believers?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Looking through this thread I’m quite sure VA is either insane or has no idea what they’re talking about (especially the butchering of Buddhism at the start).

Though I guess that’s what anti realism gets you.

You are intellectually insane when the best you can do is to babble accusations without arguments and justifications.

I am confident when we dig into the details you are the ignorant one.

[Iwannaplato]

I have already explained somewhere.

Theists as philosophical realists believe in a mind-independent God creating a mind-independent universe.
DO YOU deny theists [also philosophical realists] had killed millions of non-believers for blasphemy and merely as non-believers?

You are conflating theism with realism. And this has been pointed out before, but you keep repeating the ridiculous argument.

Meat eaters have murdered millions. Are you a meat eater? Should we be afraid of you?
[and before you whip out Hitler, his vegetarianism was a propaganda myth]

To demonstrate some causal connection between realism and violence you would need to show that anti-realists are less violent.
Good luck.