Philosophical Realism is Solipsistic [re FJ]

[seeds]

Here is a problem with Philosophical Realists and their Philosophical Realism;

• 1. P-realists believe in an absolute mind-independent reality and things.
  2. Mind independent things in this case are illusory. [proof given in various threads - also note the SCANDAL below]
  3. Other minds (things) are mind-independent things.
  4. So, other minds are illusory.
  5. Thus, the p-realist's believe his mind is the only real thing.
  
  6. Solipsism is where one believe his mind is the only real thing.
  7. Therefore, the p-realist is solipsistic.

Let's try to break the above down, line-by-line...

• 1. P-realists believe in an absolute mind-independent reality and things.

Okay.

• 2. Mind independent things in this case are illusory. [proof given in various threads...]

Correction: A biased and confused "opinion" is given in various threads.

• 3. Other minds (things) are mind-independent things.

If taken to mean that other minds are independent of one another, then agreed.

• 4. So, other minds are illusory.

No, the other minds are not illusory to themselves. In other words, they themselves know that they are real.

• 5. Thus, the p-realist's believe his mind is the only real thing.

As usual, that is an egregious overreach of a conclusion, in that, logically, the only thing that a p-realist can be sure of is the existence and reality of her own mind, and therefore has absolutely no way of knowing the ontological status of other minds.

• 6. Solipsism is where one believe his mind is the only real thing.

Okay.

• 7. Therefore, the p-realist is solipsistic.

In what bizarro universe does the following syllogism (taken directly from your argument above) make any sense?...

• 1. P-realists believe in an absolute mind-independent reality and things.
  6. Solipsism is where one believe his mind is the only real thing.
  7. Therefore, the p-realist is solipsistic.

The fact that no one (neither p-realists nor anti-realists) can be certain if other minds are illusory or not, you have once again proven yourself to be the undisputed master when it comes to displaying brazen non sequiturs in the conclusions of your silly arguments.
_______

[Veritas Aequitas]

Here is a problem with Philosophical Realists and their Philosophical Realism;

• 1. P-realists believe in an absolute mind-independent reality and things.
  2. Mind independent things in this case are illusory. [proof given in various threads - also note the SCANDAL below]
  3. Other minds (things) are mind-independent things.
  4. So, other minds are illusory.
  5. Thus, the p-realist's believe his mind is the only real thing.
  
  6. Solipsism is where one believe his mind is the only real thing.
  7. Therefore, the p-realist is solipsistic.

Let's try to break the above down, line-by-line...

• 1. P-realists believe in an absolute mind-independent reality and things.

Okay.

• 2. Mind independent things in this case are illusory. [proof given in various threads...]

Correction: A biased and confused "opinion" is given in various threads.

• 3. Other minds (things) are mind-independent things.

If taken to mean that other minds are independent of one another, then agreed.

• 4. So, other minds are illusory.

No, the other minds are not illusory to themselves. In other words, they themselves know that they are real.

• 5. Thus, the p-realist's believe his mind is the only real thing.

As usual, that is an egregious overreach of a conclusion, in that, logically, the only thing that a p-realist can be sure of is the existence and reality of her own mind, and therefore has absolutely no way of knowing the ontological status of other minds.

• 6. Solipsism is where one believe his mind is the only real thing.

Okay.

• 7. Therefore, the p-realist is solipsistic.

In what bizarro universe does the following syllogism (taken directly from your argument above) make any sense?...

• 1. P-realists believe in an absolute mind-independent reality and things.
  6. Solipsism is where one believe his mind is the only real thing.
  7. Therefore, the p-realist is solipsistic.

The fact that no one (neither p-realists nor anti-realists) can be certain if other minds are illusory or not, you have once again proven yourself to be the undisputed master when it comes to displaying brazen non sequiturs in the conclusions of your silly arguments.
_______

The above is a strawman.
That you take out premise 2, 3, 4, 5 showed you are a cheater.

4. So, other minds are illusory.[/list]
No, the other minds are not illusory to themselves. In other words, they themselves know that they are real.

Where did I state the other minds are illusory to themselves.
It follows from 1, 2 and 3 that is it the p-realists would have believed other minds are illusory.

5. Thus, the p-realist's believe his mind is the only real thing.[/list]
As usual, that is an egregious overreach of a conclusion, in that, logically, the only thing that a p-realist can be sure of is the existence and reality of her own mind, and therefore has absolutely no way of knowing the ontological status of other minds.

It is because the p-realists "has absolutely no way of knowing the ontological status of other minds" that other minds are illusory and do not exists as real, thus solipsistic.

If you take all the above account, the above argument is valid.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Mr. Bean??
viewtopic.php?p=657358#p657358
You are getting very insecure and emotional with your Mr. Bean thingy which is typical of theists like you clinging to straws.

Here is a problem with Philosophical Realists and their Philosophical Realism;

• 1. P-realists believe in an absolute mind-independent reality and things.
  2. Mind independent things in this case are illusory. [proof given in various threads - also note the SCANDAL below]
  3. Other minds (things) are mind-independent things.
  4. So, other minds are illusory.
  5. Thus, the p-realist's believe his mind is the only real thing.
  
  6. Solipsism is where one believe his mind is the only real thing.
  7. Therefore, the p-realist is solipsistic.

Let's try to break the above down, line-by-line...

• 1. P-realists believe in an absolute mind-independent reality and things.

Okay.

• 2. Mind independent things in this case are illusory. [proof given in various threads...]

Correction: A biased and confused "opinion" is given in various threads.

• 3. Other minds (things) are mind-independent things.

If taken to mean that other minds are independent of one another, then agreed.

• 4. So, other minds are illusory.

No, the other minds are not illusory to themselves. In other words, they themselves know that they are real.

• 5. Thus, the p-realist's believe his mind is the only real thing.

As usual, that is an egregious overreach of a conclusion, in that, logically, the only thing that a p-realist can be sure of is the existence and reality of her own mind, and therefore has absolutely no way of knowing the ontological status of other minds.

• 6. Solipsism is where one believe his mind is the only real thing.

Okay.

• 7. Therefore, the p-realist is solipsistic.

In what bizarro universe does the following syllogism (taken directly from your argument above) make any sense?...

• 1. P-realists believe in an absolute mind-independent reality and things.
  6. Solipsism is where one believe his mind is the only real thing.
  7. Therefore, the p-realist is solipsistic.

The fact that no one (neither p-realists nor anti-realists) can be certain if other minds are illusory or not, you have once again proven yourself to be the undisputed master when it comes to displaying brazen non sequiturs in the conclusions of your silly arguments.
_______

[Veritas Aequitas]

I have no intention in using the "premises that p-realists do not agree with" to prove "Philosophical Realism is Solipsistic" and believe I had [NOT] done so.

You are the stupid one who think I cannot understand that is something the p-realist would disagree.
That is obvious without any need to mention it.

This is so far beyond ridiculous I don't even know what to say anymore. You believe you haven't used any premises that realists don't agree with, and yet it's so obvious that realists disagree that you don't even need to mention it. I cannot possibly face palm any harder.

You're full of nonsense, you've made that perfectly clear va.

1. Flat Earthers insist the Earth is flat.
2. Science had proven the Earth is flat
3. The Earth is flat.

Surely the flat earthers don't agree or never agree with 2 but that does not mean the argument is not valid.

2 is the same as my premise 4. Anti-p_realists relying on human-based FSR-FSK has proven the philosophical realism idea of mind-independence is illusory.
I have provided the links to the proofs.

It is stupid logically to insist my argument is not valid because you do not agree with premise 4.

The basis of my argument is stood of the shoulders of a giant, i.e. Kant who is regarded as one of the greatest philosophers of all time.
Your condemnation of my argument is merely driven by a primal evolutionary default.

I have no intention in using the "premises that p-realists do not agree with" to prove "Philosophical Realism is Solipsistic" and believe I had [NOT] done so.

To clarify, I believe I was thinking of something else.
This is why I included
1. P-realists never claim their Philosophical Realism is Solipsistic.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I have no intention in using the "premises that p-realists do not agree with" to prove "Philosophical Realism is Solipsistic" and believe I had [NOT] done so.

You are the stupid one who think I cannot understand that is something the p-realist would disagree.
That is obvious without any need to mention it.

This is so far beyond ridiculous I don't even know what to say anymore. You believe you haven't used any premises that realists don't agree with, and yet it's so obvious that realists disagree that you don't even need to mention it. I cannot possibly face palm any harder.

You're full of nonsense, you've made that perfectly clear va.

Not only is he making stuff up about realists his number three...

3. Other minds (things) are mind-independent things.

which he has to consider true for his 'deduction' to make any sense, entails that he MUST believe other minds do not exist. He has stated many times that mind independent things do not exist.

So, while out on his loopy attack on realists he managed to accidently damn himself to solipsism.

Realists believe mind independent things exist. Antirealists of his extreme position do not.

It is mind-bogglingly absurd stuff.

The above is false accusations based on ignorance.

My view is that of anti(philosophical_realism) of the Kantian kind.
In this case, an anti(philosophical_realism) is an empirical realist.
An empirical realist believes there are mind-independent [relative] empirical minds out there which can be verified via the scientific FSK.

A Realist is also an Idealist & An Anti-realist is also a realist
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=32913

Note how Kant stated, to the empirical realist, there are external things [including other minds] that are independent of the mind of the perceiver, but only relatively.
As such, an anti(philosophical_realist) or empirical realist cannot be solipsistic.

"Matter is with him [Empirical Realist], therefore, only a Species of Representations (Intuition), which are called External, not as standing in Relation to Objects-in-themselves, External, but because they relate Perceptions to the Space in which all Things are External to one another, while yet the Space itself is in us."

I bet you don't have a clue what Kant is asserting; but note Kant is one of the greatest philosopher of all time and you are just a philosophical gnat, so don't try to condemn Kant's view [which I relying on] with arrogance and ignorance.

[Flannel Jesus]

Your condemnation of my argument is merely driven by a primal evolutionary default.

No, it's based on the clearly observable fact that your arguments are not good. Your reflexive need to wave away criticisms of your arguments is because you can't stand the pain of looking at your own arguments honestly. That's why you said that straight up bullshit I quoted, where you switched from "I didn't use any premises realists disagree with" to "obviously realists disagree with this premise" without showing any capacity for self reflection at all

[Iwannaplato]

Your condemnation of my argument is merely driven by a primal evolutionary default.

No, it's based on the clearly observable fact that your arguments are not good. Your reflexive need to wave away criticisms of your arguments is because you can't stand the pain of looking at your own arguments honestly. That's why you said that straight up bullshit I quoted, where you switched from "I didn't use any premises realists disagree with" to "obviously realists disagree with this premise" without showing any capacity for self reflection at all

And this...

Your condemnation of my argument is merely driven by a primal evolutionary default.

is a kind of ad hominem

Ad hominem (Latin for 'to the person'), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a term that refers to several types of arguments, most of which are fallacious. Typically this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself. This avoids genuine debate by creating a diversion to some irrelevant but often highly charged issue. The most common form of this fallacy is "A makes a claim x, B asserts that A holds a property that is unwelcome, and hence B concludes that argument x is wrong".

[seeds]

In what bizarro universe does the following syllogism (taken directly from your argument above) make any sense?...

• 1. P-realists believe in an absolute mind-independent reality and things.
  6. Solipsism is where one believe his mind is the only real thing.
  7. Therefore, the p-realist is solipsistic.

The fact that no one (neither p-realists nor anti-realists) can be certain if other minds are illusory or not, you have once again proven yourself to be the undisputed master when it comes to displaying brazen non sequiturs in the conclusions of your silly arguments.

The above is a strawman.
That you take out premise 2, 3, 4, 5 showed you are a cheater.

I clearly pointed out what was wrong with your so-called premises - 2, 3, 4, and 5,...

(most of which were not so much premises, but fallacious conclusions)

...thus showing them to be irrelevant to the fact that your central argument, which is encapsulated in the syllogism formed by points 1,6, and 7,...

• 1. P-realists believe in an absolute mind-independent reality and things.
  6. Solipsism is where one believe his mind is the only real thing.
  7. Therefore, the p-realist is solipsistic.

...is a brazen non sequitur that is founded upon dubious (unprovable) assertions.

• 4. So, other minds are illusory.

No, the other minds are not illusory to themselves. In other words, they themselves know that they are real.

Where did I state the other minds are illusory to themselves.
It follows from 1, 2 and 3 that is it the p-realists would have believed other minds are illusory.

You didn't state it, I stated it in order to demonstrate that it is completely irrelevant if p-realists believe other minds are illusory (non-existent), because, as an actual matter of fact, the other minds know that they themselves are not illusory, thus unequivocally proving the p-realist's belief to be wrong.

Furthermore, if you are going to assert that p-realists are solipsists who thus believe that other minds are illusory, then that means there can exist only one actual p-realist (as per true solipsism). Which then raises the question of who this one (and only) p-realist might be???

So, answer that question, V: - which one of the p-realists you keep going on about is the real solipsist, and which ones are but mere fabrications of the one true solipsist's mind?

• 5. Thus, the p-realist's believe his mind is the only real thing.

As usual, that is an egregious overreach of a conclusion, in that, logically, the only thing that a p-realist can be sure of is the existence and reality of her own mind, and therefore has absolutely no way of knowing the ontological status of other minds.

It is because the p-realists "has absolutely no way of knowing the ontological status of other minds" that other minds are illusory and do not exists as real, thus solipsistic.

If you take all the above account, the above argument is valid.

Sorry, V, but if you take all of the above into account, this latest argument regarding p-realists might even be dumber than your...

"...if God isn't perfect, then God is an impossibility to be real..."

...argument.

And that's quite an achievement.

(Nah, I take that back. Nothing could be dumber than your "God is an impossibility to be real" horse crap.)
_______

[Veritas Aequitas]

Your condemnation of my argument is merely driven by a primal evolutionary default.

No, it's based on the clearly observable fact that your arguments are not good. Your reflexive need to wave away criticisms of your arguments is because you can't stand the pain of looking at your own arguments honestly. That's why you said that straight up bullshit I quoted, where you switched from "I didn't use any premises realists disagree with" to "obviously realists disagree with this premise" without showing any capacity for self reflection at all

Personally I am convinced Philosophical Realism is solipsistic which I gathered from the Kantian perspective.
My argument so far may not be convincing so far to you and others, but I am not giving up.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Note my revised argument with help from ChatGPT.

Philosophical Realism is Solipsistic 3
viewtopic.php?p=657590#p657590