Philosophical Realism is Solipsistic 3

[Veritas Aequitas]

Personally, I believe Solipsism is incoherent.
https://iep.utm.edu/solipsis/#H7

However, whenever I discussed with philosophical realists I am accused of being a solipsist.
However philosophical realists are so ignorant that they are the ones who are solipsistic indirectly, thus kicking their own back.

I had gathered from the Kantian perspective, Philosophical Realism is indirectly Solipsistic. I will throw this argument back at the philosophical realists ONLY when they accused me or others as solipsistic.
So far, my arguments below has not been convincing and objections had been raised.

• Philosophical Realism is Solipsistic.
  viewtopic.php?t=40197
  
  Philosophical Realism is Solipsistic [re FJ]
  viewtopic.php?t=40383

Here is my new argument with reference to Kant and with help from ChatGPT:

• Premise 1: Philosophical realists (who are also transcendental realists) believe in a mind-independent reality.
  Premise 2: Kant argues that Transcendental Realism inevitably falls into difficulties and gives way to Empirical Idealism, which treats mere appearances as self-subsistent beings, existing outside us.
  Premise 3: Empirical Idealism considers the objects of outer sense as distinct from the senses themselves, implying that reality and other minds are confined to the empirical idealist's mind.
  Conclusion: Therefore, philosophical realists (who are transcendental realists) are implicitly solipsistic, as they subscribe to a view that confines reality and other minds to the mind of the empirical idealist.
  
  This argument attempts to show that philosophical realists, according to Kantian reasoning, end up adopting a position that can be seen as indirectly solipsistic.

One [a non-Kantian] may not agree with the premises but the above argument is valid.

If one do not agree with the valid conclusion, one will have to argue why Kant is wrong on the above premises.
To argue against Kant, one will need to understand [not necessary agree with] Kant's CPR thoroughly.

My point: "people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones"
Whilst solipsism is a philosophical topic for discussion, do not childishly accuse others of being solipsistic.

Btw, this is merely a discussion for philosophy sake, so don't get too dogmatic, pedantic and emotional.

Views??

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes: KIV

[Iwannaplato]

However, whenever I discussed with philosophical realists I am accused of being a solipsist.

Someone may have accused you of being a solipsist, but that's not a good summation of the critical reactions to your position. Some people asked questions and/or criticized arguments where you defended against the charge of solipsism. That's people disagreeing.

However philosophical realists are so ignorant that they are the ones who are solipsistic indirectly, thus kicking their own back.

Why don't you follow your own advice? At the end of this post you write....

Btw, this is merely a discussion for philosophy sake, so don't get too dogmatic, pedantic and emotional.

You just called the people you disagree with ignorant, but then say this at the end up the post. Seems hypocritical, n'est pas?

I had gathered from the Kantian perspective, Philosophical Realism is indirectly Solipsistic. I will throw this argument back at the philosophical realists ONLY when they accused me or others as solipsistic.

You are starting an independent thread, the third on this topic. You're not doing it simply in response, it is now aimed at any philosophical realist.

So far, my arguments below has not been convincing and objections had been raised.

• Premise 1: Philosophical realists (who are also transcendental realists) believe in a mind-independent reality.

You might want to tighten up this sentence. It is unclear if you are saying that all philosophical realists are also transcendental realists or if your argument is aimed at a subset of philosophical realists who are also TRs. It can be read both ways right now.

Premise 2: Kant argues that Transcendental Realism inevitably falls into difficulties and gives way to Empirical Idealism, which treats mere appearances as self-subsistent beings, existing outside us.

Your premise is that Kant asserts something. IOW premise 2 is not you asserting something about realism, it is you assertion that Kant asserted something about realism. It's not really an assertion in this deduction; it fits some disagreement about interpretations of Kant. You need to assert what you say Kant did yourself. The problem with having a premise about what Kant asserted becomes really clear when one sees below that one must read the CPR and then argue against Kant. Your premise is that your paraphrase above is 1) a correct summation of Kant's position and that 2) Kant was correct. If anyone has a problem, you give them the task of reading someone else's work and demonstrating that least 1 or 2 is not correct. If you assert number two yourself, then people don't have to go off and read CPR (again, for some) to have a discussion with you.

Premise 3: Empirical Idealism considers the objects of outer sense as distinct from the senses themselves, implying that reality and other minds are confined to the empirical idealist's mind.

IOW you're not taking responsibility for an argument here. You sending people off to argue with a dead philosopher.

Conclusion: Therefore, philosophical realists (who are transcendental realists) are implicitly solipsistic, as they subscribe to a view that confines reality and other minds to the mind of the empirical idealist.

You and Chatgpt need to reword that sentence. As it stands now it is unintelligible.

This argument attempts to show that philosophical realists, according to Kantian reasoning, end up adopting a position that can be seen as indirectly solipsistic.

So far it's not doing that. See above.

One [a non-Kantian] may not agree with the premises but the above argument is valid.

I don't think it's intelligible. And the argument isn't above. The argument is partly here and partly in the reading of the CPR. And then someone who disagrees with you may well end up having long arguments with you about whether your interpretation of Kant is correct. If you assert Premise 2 yourself, instead of saying Kant said it, they you can have a direct discussion with someone here.

If one do not agree with the valid conclusion, one will have to argue why Kant is wrong on the above premises.

Or the first and/or the third premise are false. Or partly false. Or the logic is not correct.

To argue against Kant, one will need to understand [not necessary agree with] Kant's CPR thoroughly.

Hey, we can all give people hoops to jump through. Discussions are free processes.

You have an idiosyncratic way of mounting an argument and delegating responsibility for your own position onto Kant and your readers. It's within the diversity of human styles of interaction. We'll see if anyone actually accepts the premises you have around what makes for a good conversation and who bears the onus for what.

My point: "people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones"

That makes very little sense. Why? First off it implies that people should point out possible entailments of your position, because you will then point them out in their position. But neither of those acts is nasty or out of bounds. In fact they can be useful. Further, perhaps your position is solipsistic AND realists or some of them are also solipsistic. Perhaps both positions entail, for different reasons, solipsism. IOW you seem to be assuming no one should question whether your question is a kind of solipsism or entails solipsism, because their position might entail or be solipsistic.

That's viewing this as a team sport. Both positions could have problems and it would be good, right, to find those out, regardless. There's no problem with probing your position as potentially solipsistic or even asserting it is and trying to show that. 'Punishing' realists for going into that potential problem of your position is like someone saying 'Hey don't tell me I'm cheating on my wife because I'll tell people you're embezzlling money.' It has nothing to do with philosophy. Further, it assumes that if realists are wrong or their position is problematic in some way, then your position is correct. That's a faulty assumption. Both positions could have problems and/or be incorrect.

Whilst solipsism is a philosophical topic for discussion, do not childishly accuse others of being solipsistic.

So, you responded to what you consider childish by being what you consider childish.

Btw, this is merely a discussion for philosophy sake, so don't get too dogmatic, pedantic and emotional.

I mean, the most obvious of the three criteria you are being hypocritical about is the last one. It is obvious you are being emotional about this when you call realists childish and ignorant. It's pretty pedantic to say that if you have a problem with my (supposedly) valid argument, then you'll have to read the CPR by Kant and understand it thoroughly. To disagree with you, one must demonstrate the errors in the arguments of Kant in the context of the entire CPR. I don't think I've ever seen anyone be as implicitly pedantic as that.

And what a great criterion you're trying to impose on anyone who might disagree with you. The ensuing complicated fracas over the CPR could be avoided if you actually argued the deduction yourself and took responsibility for it.

Dogmatic:

inclined to lay down principles as undeniably true.

Now in this post you did present your argument in more tentative terms than you usually do. But you regularly present your ideas and especially your criticisms of others in very dogmatic terms.

It's not 'I disagree'

It's that those you disagree with have barbaric primitive evolutionarily default positions.
Realism is a scandal and jeapordizing the whole human race.

I don't know, but that sounds a tad emotional and dogmatic.

You frame the issues in a dogmatic way regularly. If you don't realize this, well, you've already told us you don't give a damn what people say and argue, so we've been forewarned.

One person's pedantry is another person's pointing out errors in reasoning.

It's a great vague accusation. As are the other two.

[Atla]

Your premise is that Kant asserts something. It's not really an assertion in this deduction. You need to assert it yourself. The problem with having a premise about what Kant asserted becomes really clear when one sees below that one must read the CPR and then argue against Kant. Your premise is that your paraphrase above is 1) a correct summation of Kant's position and that 2) its correct. If anyone has a problem, you give them the task of reading someone else's work and at least 1 or 2 is not correct.

And even people who have been studying Kant for decades, tend to disagree over just what exactly he was saying anyway. There are, like, different camps with different interpretations, similarly to QM. Imo if Kant would had been consistent enough, this wouldn't have happened. I don't think Kant himself knew exactly either what his stance was. (Which imo wouldn't be surprising because imo he got time and space half right half wrong, which necessarily leads to problems.)

Still, the West, or at least continental Europe, was reformed by Kant's views. His main argument (or at least what his main argument seems to be according to most people), has become part of how people think. But I still suspect VA is from a Far-Eastern country and is oblivious to the above. He thinks the stuff he says is brand new to us.

[Veritas Aequitas]

However, whenever I discussed with philosophical realists I am accused of being a solipsist.

Someone may have accused you of being a solipsist, but that's not a good summation of the critical reactions to your position. Some people asked questions and/or criticized arguments where you defended against the charge of solipsism. That's people disagreeing.

However philosophical realists are so ignorant that they are the ones who are solipsistic indirectly, thus kicking their own back.

Why don't you follow your own advice? At the end of this post you write....

Btw, this is merely a discussion for philosophy sake, so don't get too dogmatic, pedantic and emotional.

You just called the people you disagree with ignorant, but then say this at the end up the post. Seems hypocritical, n'est pas?

I had gathered from the Kantian perspective, Philosophical Realism is indirectly Solipsistic. I will throw this argument back at the philosophical realists ONLY when they accused me or others as solipsistic.

You are starting an independent thread, the third on this topic. You're not doing it simply in response, it is now aimed at any philosophical realist.

So far, my arguments below has not been convincing and objections had been raised.

• Premise 1: Philosophical realists (who are also transcendental realists) believe in a mind-independent reality.

You might want to tighten up this sentence. It is unclear if you are saying that all philosophical realists are also transcendental realists or if your argument is aimed at a subset of philosophical realists who are also TRs. It can be read both ways right now.

Premise 2: Kant argues that Transcendental Realism inevitably falls into difficulties and gives way to Empirical Idealism, which treats mere appearances as self-subsistent beings, existing outside us.

Your premise is that Kant asserts something. IOW premise 2 is not you asserting something about realism, it is you assertion that Kant asserted something about realism. It's not really an assertion in this deduction; it fits some disagreement about interpretations of Kant. You need to assert what you say Kant did yourself. The problem with having a premise about what Kant asserted becomes really clear when one sees below that one must read the CPR and then argue against Kant. Your premise is that your paraphrase above is 1) a correct summation of Kant's position and that 2) Kant was correct. If anyone has a problem, you give them the task of reading someone else's work and demonstrating that least 1 or 2 is not correct. If you assert number two yourself, then people don't have to go off and read CPR (again, for some) to have a discussion with you.

Premise 3: Empirical Idealism considers the objects of outer sense as distinct from the senses themselves, implying that reality and other minds are confined to the empirical idealist's mind.

IOW you're not taking responsibility for an argument here. You sending people off to argue with a dead philosopher.

Conclusion: Therefore, philosophical realists (who are transcendental realists) are implicitly solipsistic, as they subscribe to a view that confines reality and other minds to the mind of the empirical idealist.

You and Chatgpt need to reword that sentence. As it stands now it is unintelligible.

This argument attempts to show that philosophical realists, according to Kantian reasoning, end up adopting a position that can be seen as indirectly solipsistic.

So far it's not doing that. See above.

My original 'Philosophical Realists are solipsistic' is gleaned and inferred from my reading of Kant [3 years full time].
My previous 2 threads on the issue I was not very clear when trying to paraphrase the issue to make it simple. But it did raise confusions because it is too deep for those objecting to understand.

Note in this thread I qualified "Kant's Reasoning"

This argument attempts to show that philosophical realists, according to Kantian reasoning, end up adopting a position that can be seen as indirectly solipsistic.

As such, one will have to understand Kant's CPR to understand the soundness of the above argument which is valid as qualified to Kant.

One [a non-Kantian] may not agree with the premises but the above argument is valid.

I don't think it's intelligible. And the argument isn't above. The argument is partly here and partly in the reading of the CPR. And then someone who disagrees with you may well end up having long arguments with you about whether your interpretation of Kant is correct. If you assert Premise 2 yourself, instead of saying Kant said it, they you can have a direct discussion with someone here.

The argument is valid.
Premise 2 qualifies "Kant argues .. "
As such it has to be based on Kant's argument.
On this I have already provided reference to Kant's assertion on this.
Anyone who do not agree with Kant on P2 can argue it here;
A Realist is also an Idealist
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=32913

If one do not agree with the valid conclusion, one will have to argue why Kant is wrong on the above premises.

Or the first and/or the third premise are false. Or partly false. Or the logic is not correct.

To argue against Kant, one will need to understand [not necessary agree with] Kant's CPR thoroughly.

Hey, we can all give people hoops to jump through. Discussions are free processes.

You have an idiosyncratic way of mounting an argument and delegating responsibility for your own position onto Kant and your readers. It's within the diversity of human styles of interaction. We'll see if anyone actually accepts the premises you have around what makes for a good conversation and who bears the onus for what.

I don't recall anyone making such a philosophical claim, thus a very new and unique thesis.
It is a very big call to claim 'Philosophical Realists are solipsistic'.
As such, there is no room for you to pussyfoot such a claim.

My intention of the OP is more to this;

I believe the idea of 'solipsism' is incoherent, but
"I will throw this argument back at the philosophical realists ONLY when they accused me or others as solipsistic."

My point: "people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones"

That makes very little sense. Why? First off it implies that people should point out possible entailments of your position, because you will then point them out in their position. But neither of those acts is nasty or out of bounds. In fact they can be useful. Further, perhaps your position is solipsistic AND realists or some of them are also solipsistic. Perhaps both positions entail, for different reasons, solipsism. IOW you seem to be assuming no one should question whether your question is a kind of solipsism or entails solipsism, because their position might entail or be solipsistic.

That's viewing this as a team sport. Both positions could have problems and it would be good, right, to find those out, regardless. There's no problem with probing your position as potentially solipsistic or even asserting it is and trying to show that. 'Punishing' realists for going into that potential problem of your position is like someone saying 'Hey don't tell me I'm cheating on my wife because I'll tell people you're embezzlling money.' It has nothing to do with philosophy. Further, it assumes that if realists are wrong or their position is problematic in some way, then your position is correct. That's a faulty assumption. Both positions could have problems and/or be incorrect.

I have believe
'Solipsism is incoherent'
https://iep.utm.edu/solipsis/#H7

If anyone claim that any of my philosophical views are incoherent, then, show arguments.

Btw, this is merely a discussion for philosophy sake, so don't get too dogmatic, pedantic and emotional.

I mean, the most obvious of the three criteria you are being hypocritical about is the last one. It is obvious you are being emotional about this when you call realists childish and ignorant. It's pretty pedantic to say that if you have a problem with my (supposedly) valid argument, then you'll have to read the CPR by Kant and understand it thoroughly. To disagree with you, one must demonstrate the errors in the arguments of Kant in the context of the entire CPR. I don't think I've ever seen anyone be as implicitly pedantic as that.

And what a great criterion you're trying to impose on anyone who might disagree with you. The ensuing complicated fracas over the CPR could be avoided if you actually argued the deduction yourself and took responsibility for it.

Dogmatic:

inclined to lay down principles as undeniably true.

Now in this post you did present your argument in more tentative terms than you usually do. But you regularly present your ideas and especially your criticisms of others in very dogmatic terms.

It's not 'I disagree'

It's that those you disagree with have barbaric primitive evolutionarily default positions.
Realism is a scandal and jeapordizing the whole human race.

I don't know, but that sounds a tad emotional and dogmatic.

You frame the issues in a dogmatic way regularly. If you don't realize this, well, you've already told us you don't give a damn what people say and argue, so we've been forewarned.

One person's pedantry is another person's pointing out errors in reasoning.

It's a great vague accusation. As are the other two.

It is dogmatic when one insists on one's claims without proofs, scandalous;
Mind-Independent Things; a Scandal [Insult] to Philosophy
viewtopic.php?t=40182
e.g.
Why Philosophical Realism is Illusory
viewtopic.php?t=40167

I stated Philosophical Realists claim of absolute mind-independence [of the human conditions] extend to,
'the moon pre-existed humans and will continue to exists after humans'.
In that case prove your claim if you believe in the above?

The Moon Does Not Exist If No Humans 'Look' at It
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39510

Me dogmatic??
So far, I have raised more that 250 threads in the Ethical Section and >200 in the general section. This is evident I am ever ready to open up the issues for discussion and debate.

you've already told us you don't give a damn what people say and argue, so we've been forewarned.

Wrong.
I don't give a damn about what others are commenting about me.

Protocol [philosophical] wise, there is no way I will ignore any valid and reasonable argument [provided discussion is amicable].
This is evident from the many threads I have raised to dig into the counter-argument raised.

[Veritas Aequitas]

IOW you're not taking responsibility for an argument here. You sending people off to argue with a dead philosopher.

What kind of nonsense is this?
The whole of the current philosophical activities is mainly discussing and debating on the arguments of dead philosophers from recent and back to Thales c. 624-c. 545 B.C.E.

[Atla]

But it did raise confusions because it is too deep for those objecting to understand.

Yes yes, I'll attempt to fix your argument for you:

Premise 1: There is a mostly extinct VERSION of philosophical realism, which claims absolute mind-independence
Premise 2: Kant argues that appearances can't be mind-independent
Premise 3: VA pretends that Kant also argues that noumena are impossible to be real
Conclusion: Therefore, people who believe in absolute mind-independence, don't realize that to them, other minds are absolute independent AND noumenal, so impossible to be real, so they end up being solipsistic

[Veritas Aequitas]

Your premise is that Kant asserts something. It's not really an assertion in this deduction. You need to assert it yourself. The problem with having a premise about what Kant asserted becomes really clear when one sees below that one must read the CPR and then argue against Kant. Your premise is that your paraphrase above is 1) a correct summation of Kant's position and that 2) its correct. If anyone has a problem, you give them the task of reading someone else's work and at least 1 or 2 is not correct.

And even people who have been studying Kant for decades, tend to disagree over just what exactly he was saying anyway. There are, like, different camps with different interpretations, similarly to QM. Imo if Kant would had been consistent enough, this wouldn't have happened. I don't think Kant himself knew exactly either what his stance was. (Which imo wouldn't be surprising because imo he got time and space half right half wrong, which necessarily leads to problems.)

Still, the West, or at least continental Europe, was reformed by Kant's views. His main argument (or at least what his main argument seems to be according to most people), has become part of how people think. But I still suspect VA is from a Far-Eastern country and is oblivious to the above. He thinks the stuff he says is brand new to us.

You are so ignorant. You are such a philosophical gnat.
Handwaving as usual.

Read up Kant's idea of 'antinomy'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antinomy

Kant had anticipated opposing views and that he where is put forward the middle-way to reconcile 'empiricism' with 'rationalism'.
Kant introduced his 'Critical Philosophy' which is a 'middle-way' and coincidentally Buddhism is also based on the 'Middle-Way'.

I have stated I am from the Far-East and my background is Eastern Philosophy. Admittedly in the early days I was pounded upon in Western-based when I grounded my thoughts on Eastern philosophy. Since then I have made it a point to master Western Philosophy, serious enough to spend 3 years full time on Kant and much time on other main Western philosophers.
Note the >than 400 threads I have raised in this forum which are mostly related to Western philosophy.
To justify my position, at present my Philosophy Folder in my computer is comprised on 16, 581 file in 981 folders.
If you think I am that ignorant, show me which main Western Philosophy I had missed out and totally not aware of?

You are a philosophy-gnat. If not, would you claim you have covered every aspect of Western Philosophy, Eastern Philosophy, and others?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Premise 1: Philosophical realists (who are also transcendental realists) believe in a mind-independent reality.

You might want to tighten up this sentence. It is unclear if you are saying that all philosophical realists are also transcendental realists or if your argument is aimed at a subset of philosophical realists who are also TRs. It can be read both ways right now.

Btw, the whole argument is phrased by ChatGPT based on information I provided and obviously ChatGPT is familiar with Kant's work, else, ChatGPT would have advised if it is not.

Yes, all philosophical realists are transcendental realists.
If not, show me which philosophical realists are not a transcendent realists or empirical idealists.

[Veritas Aequitas]

It's pretty pedantic to say that if you have a problem with my (supposedly) valid argument, then you'll have to read the CPR by Kant and understand it thoroughly. To disagree with you, one must demonstrate the errors in the arguments of Kant in the context of the entire CPR. I don't think I've ever seen anyone be as implicitly pedantic as that.

Kant is one of the greatest philosopher of all times.
As such, there is definitely a high credibility to Kant's approach to philosophy.

In my early days in various philosophy forums posters were quoting and referring to Kant to support their argument, while ignorant me was trying to counter them based on my ignorance of what Kant was supposed to represent. Then I thought the idea of noumenon, category imperative, synthetic a prior knowledge, and other Kant's ideas were silly and brushed them off. In that case, I was very intellectually irresponsible, philosophical immature and arguing based on ignorance.

So I set out to research into Kant to the extent I understood Kant thoroughly to my present position on Kant which I believe Kant's views are very solid and sound.

IMO, to ignore and not understanding [not necessary agree with] Kantian philosophy is very amateurish.
Many analytic philosophers has high regard for Kant's analytic philosophy but ignored Kant's discussion [& disagreements] on Metaphysics because 'Metaphysics' is such a taboo thing to them.

You are banking too much on ignorance, trying to be smart and condescending based on such a limited range of philosophical knowledge.

[Iwannaplato]

I tweaked your revision, Atla, to make it even clearer how many steps remove this is from demonstrating the conclusion in the title of the thread. I think there's at least one more layer.

Yes yes, I'll attempt to fix your argument for you:

Premise 1: There is a mostly extinct VERSION of philosophical realism, which claims absolute mind-independence and equivocations on the term 'independence' almost make this argument seem relevant.
Premise 2: Kant argues that appearances can't be mind-independent
Premise 3: VA pretends that Kant also argues that noumena are impossible to be real
Conclusion: Therefore, Kant, were he alive today, would think that people who believe in absolute mind-independence, don't realize that to them this would entail that other minds are absolute independent AND noumenal, so impossible to be real, so they end up being solipsistic.

We have a nice conclusion about what there's a good chance Kant would think, and not yet an argument that Kant is correct.

[Veritas Aequitas]

But it did raise confusions because it is too deep for those objecting to understand.

Yes yes, I'll attempt to fix your argument for you:

Premise 1: There is a mostly extinct VERSION of philosophical realism, which claims absolute mind-independence
Premise 2: Kant argues that appearances can't be mind-independent
Premise 3: VA pretends that Kant also argues that noumena are impossible to be real
Conclusion: Therefore, people who believe in absolute mind-independence, don't realize that to them, other minds are absolute independent AND noumenal, so impossible to be real, so they end up being solipsistic

The above Premise 1 is wrong.
I reference to philosophical realism as based on absolutely mind-independent is based the point the philosophical realists believe mind-independence to the extreme of believing the moon pre-existed humans and the moon will continue to exist even if there are no humans.

Show which philosophical realist do not agree to the above.

On the other hand, the empirical realist believes the empirical moon is independent of human minds but ultimately this belief of relative mind-independence cannot be absolutely independent of the human conditions, thus the human mind.

[Atla]

Your premise is that Kant asserts something. It's not really an assertion in this deduction. You need to assert it yourself. The problem with having a premise about what Kant asserted becomes really clear when one sees below that one must read the CPR and then argue against Kant. Your premise is that your paraphrase above is 1) a correct summation of Kant's position and that 2) its correct. If anyone has a problem, you give them the task of reading someone else's work and at least 1 or 2 is not correct.

And even people who have been studying Kant for decades, tend to disagree over just what exactly he was saying anyway. There are, like, different camps with different interpretations, similarly to QM. Imo if Kant would had been consistent enough, this wouldn't have happened. I don't think Kant himself knew exactly either what his stance was. (Which imo wouldn't be surprising because imo he got time and space half right half wrong, which necessarily leads to problems.)

Still, the West, or at least continental Europe, was reformed by Kant's views. His main argument (or at least what his main argument seems to be according to most people), has become part of how people think. But I still suspect VA is from a Far-Eastern country and is oblivious to the above. He thinks the stuff he says is brand new to us.

You are so ignorant. You are such a philosophical gnat.
Handwaving as usual.

Read up Kant's idea of 'antinomy'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antinomy

Kant had anticipated opposing views and that he where is put forward the middle-way to reconcile 'empiricism' with 'rationalism'.
Kant introduced his 'Critical Philosophy' which is a 'middle-way' and coincidentally Buddhism is also based on the 'Middle-Way'.

I have stated I am from the Far-East and my background is Eastern Philosophy. Admittedly in the early days I was pounded upon in Western-based when I grounded my thoughts on Eastern philosophy. Since then I have made it a point to master Western Philosophy, serious enough to spend 3 years full time on Kant and much time on other main Western philosophers.
Note the >than 400 threads I have raised in this forum which are mostly related to Western philosophy.
To justify my position, at present my Philosophy Folder in my computer is comprised on 16, 581 file in 981 folders.
If you think I am that ignorant, show me which main Western Philosophy I had missed out and totally not aware of?

You are a philosophy-gnat. If not, would you claim you have covered every aspect of Western Philosophy, Eastern Philosophy, and others?

Your self-aggrandising doesn't help, the problem isn't with the great effort you put into this, but your insufficient intellect when it comes to high-level philosophy. And that you aren't after "truth", instead first you decide what the conclusion must be, and then you look for anything that could appear to support that conclusion.

And many users here DO live in countries where their thinking was shaped for over 200 years by Kant's contribution. That's how many users here have a better understanding of what Kant was and wasn't about, and that's how you were shown wrong in hundreds of threads.

Besides Kant WAS at least partially wrong about a few things.

[Atla]

But it did raise confusions because it is too deep for those objecting to understand.

Yes yes, I'll attempt to fix your argument for you:

Premise 1: There is a mostly extinct VERSION of philosophical realism, which claims absolute mind-independence
Premise 2: Kant argues that appearances can't be mind-independent
Premise 3: VA pretends that Kant also argues that noumena are impossible to be real
Conclusion: Therefore, people who believe in absolute mind-independence, don't realize that to them, other minds are absolute independent AND noumenal, so impossible to be real, so they end up being solipsistic

The above Premise 1 is wrong.
I reference to philosophical realism as based on absolutely mind-independent is based the point the philosophical realists believe mind-independence to the extreme of believing the moon pre-existed humans and the moon will continue to exist even if there are no humans.

Show which philosophical realist do not agree to the above.

On the other hand, the empirical realist believes the empirical moon is independent of human minds but ultimately this belief of relative mind-independence cannot be absolutely independent of the human conditions, thus the human mind.

Okay whatever, I can't make any sense of what you are trying to say. Using these definitions, the Moon "absolutely" pre-existing humans, and the belief of relative mind-independence not being "absolutely" independent of the human conditions, are perfectly compatible. In fact that's how many realists think today. So then what's the difference between the two positions?

[Iwannaplato]

Yes yes, I'll attempt to fix your argument for you:

Premise 1: There is a mostly extinct VERSION of philosophical realism, which claims absolute mind-independence
Premise 2: Kant argues that appearances can't be mind-independent
Premise 3: VA pretends that Kant also argues that noumena are impossible to be real
Conclusion: Therefore, people who believe in absolute mind-independence, don't realize that to them, other minds are absolute independent AND noumenal, so impossible to be real, so they end up being solipsistic

The above Premise 1 is wrong.
I reference to philosophical realism as based on absolutely mind-independent is based the point the philosophical realists believe mind-independence to the extreme of believing the moon pre-existed humans and the moon will continue to exist even if there are no humans.

Show which philosophical realist do not agree to the above.

On the other hand, the empirical realist believes the empirical moon is independent of human minds but ultimately this belief of relative mind-independence cannot be absolutely independent of the human conditions, thus the human mind.

Okay whatever, I can't make any sense of what you are trying to say. Using these definitions, the Moon "absolutely" pre-existing humans, and the belief of relative mind-independence not being "absolutely" independent of the human conditions, are perfectly compatible. In fact that's how many realists think today. So then what's the difference between the two positions?

I mean....

On the other hand, the empirical realist believes the empirical moon is independent of human minds but ultimately this belief of relative mind-independence cannot be absolutely independent of the human conditions,

Obviously the belief a human has isn't independent of human minds. There are so many sentences in his posts that require so much dissection - while somehow you must avoid being accusable of being pedantic - because they equivocate and conflate and it leads to more discussions with more mess. There is no realist who thinks beliefs are independent of human conditions.
My thought that the moon is still there has nothing to do with my mind. Oh my God.