Here is a clue from ChatGpt [with reservations] leading to the point that
Objective Reality has 0 (Zero) Rationality.
"Objective Reality" in this case is on the basis of Philosophical Realism;
- Philosophical Realism .. – is the view that a certain kind of thing has mind-independent existence, i.e. that it exists even in the absence of any mind perceiving it or that its existence is not just a mere appearance in the eye of the beholder. WIKI
"Philosophical Realism" is an oxymoron because there is nothing realistic in it except illusions.
The effective basis of Objectivity is that of the FSK-ed Objectivity.
There are Two Senses of 'Objectivity'
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39326
Anon wrote:Question: On a scale of 1 to 10 from least rational to most rational, could you rate how rational the idea is that objective reality doesn't exist?
ChatGpt: "From a philosophical standpoint, the idea that objective reality doesn't exist is often discussed within the context of solipsism, idealism, or various forms of anti-realism. These positions argue that reality is either entirely mental or constructed in some way, and they often lack empirical evidence to support their claims. From this perspective, it might be considered less rational. Let's rate it as 2 on the scale."ChatGPT wrote:The idea that objective reality doesn't exist is a complex philosophical concept that has been debated for centuries. It's important to note that the assessment of rationality can vary among individuals and within different philosophical frameworks. Here's a general perspective:
From a philosophical standpoint, the idea that objective reality doesn't exist is often discussed within the context of solipsism, idealism, or various forms of anti-realism. These positions argue that reality is either entirely mental or constructed in some way, and they often lack empirical evidence to support their claims. From this perspective, it might be considered less rational. Let's rate it as 2 on the scale.
However, it's essential to recognize that philosophy is a discipline that frequently explores ideas at the fringes of rationality. Some philosophers have developed sophisticated arguments for these positions, even if they are not widely accepted. In this sense, the rationality of the idea can be higher in the context of philosophical discourse. Let's rate it as 5 in this context.
From a scientific and empirical standpoint, the idea that objective reality doesn't exist is generally considered less rational. Scientific methodologies rely on the assumption that there is an objective reality that can be studied and understood through empirical observation and evidence. Most scientific endeavors would be challenging or impossible without this foundational assumption. Therefore, in a scientific context, this idea might be rated quite low, perhaps around 2 on the scale.
It's important to acknowledge that debates about the nature of reality and the limits of human perception continue, and different philosophical and scientific perspectives exist. People's views on this idea may vary widely, and it's subject to ongoing discussion and debate. In some contexts, it might be rated higher on the rationality scale due to the complexity of the arguments and the richness of the philosophical discourse. Let's rate it as 4 in this context.
In summary, the rationality of the idea that objective reality doesn't exist depends on the context and perspective from which it is considered. It's a concept that spans the spectrum from less rational to more rational, and the rating can vary among individuals and disciplines.
Because ChatGpt lumped up all the various anti-realism and idealism, it gave a rating of 2 on the scale of rationality.
In the case of philosophical_realism [objective reality is absolutely mind-independent and real], from a ANTI-philosophical realists' the rationality would be rated at 0 [Zero], because philosophical realism is grounded on an illusion.
The only question left is why you stick to such ridiculous arguments, so we look at where they are coming from.