Philosophical Realism's Mind-Independence is Absurd

[Sculptor]

Philosophical Realism deny the existence of moral facts, thus morality cannot be objective....
Views?

My view is that you are confused.
If realism is at fault then that gives you your biggest problem for your absurd obsession with "objective morality".
And yes realism is at fault. This means that objective reality is at fault, and you are at fault.
People who realize that reality is a construct in each of our minds already know this and also know that to form a useful and coherent morality recognizes that people have different points of view which need to be discussed.

[Flannel Jesus]

As I had claimed as indicated above re Einstein, p-realists and theists are "of the same feathers".

Yes, it's exceptionally easy to claim something. Much harder to demonstrate it.

[Atla]

So trying to erase philosophical realism from qm is just pure hubris. It's the leap from "this is how I like to think of qm" to "this IS qm", and it's not a leap I want to let slide.

VA erased philosophical realism from all of science, so any realist interpretation of QM must be delusional. There can't be anything beyond the appearances, Kant said so.

Most scientists are simply delusional, they think that they are studiying the external world, but since there can't be an external world, it only seems like that's what they're doing.

[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.

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.

Given your post history I’m not holding my breath, especially watching you mangle Buddhism.

[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.

Given your post history I’m not holding my breath, especially watching you mangle Buddhism.

It is a serious request.
I have researched Buddhism-proper very extensively.
Show me [for knowledge sake] where I am wrong with Buddhism-proper?

Do you consider yourself an expert in Buddhism?
Of which school? or no school of Buddhism?

[Veritas Aequitas]

As I had claimed as indicated above re Einstein, p-realists and theists are "of the same feathers".

Yes, it's exceptionally easy to claim something. Much harder to demonstrate it.

It is easy to demonstrate.
One can infer Einstein is a deist and p-realist at the same time from what I had wrote earlier;

Thus the questions raised by Einstein;
"God do not play Dice" [deism]
"Does the Moon Exists if no one is looking at it." [philosophical realism].

Einstein do not believe in a personal God, thus not a theist.

However, it is often quoted re Einstein's view on God, i.e.

• "I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings."

This is cohere with his "God do not play Dice" in countering the anti-p_realists views in QM.

That theists and deists believe in a mind-independent God is the same fundamental belief of mind-independence as philosophical realism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

[Darkneos]

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.

Given your post history I’m not holding my breath, especially watching you mangle Buddhism.

It is a serious request.
I have researched Buddhism-proper very extensively.
Show me [for knowledge sake] where I am wrong with Buddhism-proper?

Do you consider yourself an expert in Buddhism?
Of which school? or no school of Buddhism?

You're not serious and you clearly haven't researched it extensively.

[Darkneos]

As I had claimed as indicated above re Einstein, p-realists and theists are "of the same feathers".

Yes, it's exceptionally easy to claim something. Much harder to demonstrate it.

It is easy to demonstrate.
One can infer Einstein is a deist and p-realist at the same time from what I had wrote earlier;

Thus the questions raised by Einstein;
"God do not play Dice" [deism]
"Does the Moon Exists if no one is looking at it." [philosophical realism].

Einstein do not believe in a personal God, thus not a theist.

However, it is often quoted re Einstein's view on God, i.e.

• "I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings."

This is cohere with his "God do not play Dice" in countering the anti-p_realists views in QM.

That theists and deists believe in a mind-independent God is the same fundamental belief of mind-independence as philosophical realism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

Never seen someone both quote and butcher QM in one post, oh wait yes I have.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Given your post history I’m not holding my breath, especially watching you mangle Buddhism.

It is a serious request.
I have researched Buddhism-proper very extensively.
Show me [for knowledge sake] where I am wrong with Buddhism-proper?

Do you consider yourself an expert in Buddhism?
Of which school? or no school of Buddhism?

You're not serious and you clearly haven't researched it extensively.

Your views cannot be taken seriously.
You seem to be coward and not daring you give your arguments and justifications for your claims.
Provide your justifications or SHUT-UP.

[Darkneos]

It is a serious request.
I have researched Buddhism-proper very extensively.
Show me [for knowledge sake] where I am wrong with Buddhism-proper?

Do you consider yourself an expert in Buddhism?
Of which school? or no school of Buddhism?

You're not serious and you clearly haven't researched it extensively.

Your views cannot be taken seriously.
You seem to be coward and not daring you give your arguments and justifications for your claims.
Provide your justifications or SHUT-UP.

Your views cannot be taken seriously. You've been shown wrong several times in this thread and now it's just embarrassing.

[Atla]

That theists and deists believe in a mind-independent God is the same fundamental belief of mind-independence as philosophical realism.

People who believe in the mind-independent external world, might also believe in the mind-independent God, and then kill other people. So it's best to get rid of all mind-independence.

I like your argumentation and would like to make my own proposal. People who have hands, could use those hands to kill other people. So we should cut off people's hands, or at least tie them to their bodies. Just to be on the safe side.

[Darkneos]

That theists and deists believe in a mind-independent God is the same fundamental belief of mind-independence as philosophical realism.

People who believe in the mind-independent external world, might also believe in the mind-independent God, and then kill other people. So it's best to get rid of all mind-independence.

I like your argumentation and would like to make my own proposal. People who have hands, could use those hands to kill other people. So we should cut off people's hands, or at least tie them to their bodies. Just to be on the safe side.

People with eyes would be able to find and target people to kill with those eyes therefor we should gouge them all out.

[Veritas Aequitas]

There is a big difference between natural mind-independence in the empirical sense and mind-independence clung to as a dogmatic ideology.

[Atla]

There is a big difference between natural mind-independence in the empirical sense and mind-independence clung to as a dogmatic ideology.

Empirical science is nonsensical without the mind-independent world, so the difference isn't very big.

And the most dogmatic ideology here is clinging to the negative noumenon, even though it makes no sense in the 21st century.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Within the human-based scientific FSK, scientists do not cling to mind-independence in the empirical external world as an IDEOLOGY.

P-realists like you and others clung to mind-independence as an ideology dogmatically to the extent some [not all] will kill those who oppose their ideology.