No Humans = No Human-based Reality

[Veritas Aequitas]

The only reality is a human-based reality.
It is delusional to reify ideologically, a reality beyond a human-based reality. This is driven by an evolutionary default that generate desperate psychology.

Btw, antirealists [Kantian] do recognize in one perspective, there is a reality that is human or mind independent BUT do not claim this is ABSOLUTELY independent, i.e. regardless whether there are humans or not. This is where the antirealist is also an Empirical Realist in another perspective. However, antirealism is the ultimate.

On the other hand, realists [philosophical] claim there is an ABSOLUTELY mind or human independent reality which exists regardless whether there are humans or not.

Here is my argument, i.e. no humans mean there is no absolutely human or mind independent reality;

But we corrected the opinion that the sun orbits a flat earth, by finding out the fact of the matter - something that just is the case - the thing you say is a delusion.

As I had argued, human relied on the human-based science-astrological FSERC to confirm the Earth orbits the Sun.
Without humans, there is no way we can realize and confirm the Earth orbits the Sun.

So what? This is trivially true. 'If there were no humans, then humans couldn't know the earth orbits the sun.' Well, der. Point is, the earth does, in fact, in reality, orbit the sun. That's a feature of reality that just is the case, and would be the case if there were no humans to know it's the case. So your argument is empty.

You are missing a lot of nuances of reality re the above.
It is obvious, if there were no humans, then there is no human-knowing of the earth orbits the sun.
But as expected you missed this out;
If there we no humans, then there is no human-emergence-of-reality and human-realization-of-the reality of the 'the Earth' 'the Sun' 'orbits' thus no 'Earth orbits the Sun.'
If there were no humans, "reality" [crudely and temporary] could be like this, i.e. clusters of particles:



The above crude 'reality' ultimately may be this, i.e. nothing! if there are no humans to enable reality to emerge, then to be realized as real and then cognized, known and described;



The point is the above more matured antirealists' view has greater utility for humanity's progress towards the future than the primitive and primal realists' view.
When reality it turned inward, it enable humanity better control [that is optimal*] of its own destiny within reality. * optimal means not-absolute.

Discuss??
Views??

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes: KIV

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes:
I have already raised my threads to argue that Humans are the Co-creator of the reality they are in.

Humans are the Co-Creator of Reality They are In create
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISdBAf-ysI0 AL-Khalili
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31180

Humans are the Co-Creators of Reality They are In [3]
viewtopic.php?t=35227&sid=3441fc462ad43 ... 5768e163cf

[phyllo]

No Humans = No Human-based Reality

Talk about truisms

[Sculptor]

The only reality is a human-based reality.
Discuss??
Views??

Typical antopomorphic delusion.
No wonder you talk such bollocks on moralty. This explains it all.

[Impenitent]

no dodos = no dodo based reality

was the world as the dodos perceived it the same world as humans perceived it?

one believes there exists an unobserved bit of ice 2 meters within an iceberg floating in the Artic circle...

one believes there exists an unobserved part of a rock 2 kilometers under the surface of the Earth...

until someone observes it, is it a supposition?

it isn't observed, but can you stand on it?

-Imp

[Veritas Aequitas]

No Humans = No Human-based Reality

Talk about truisms

I should have added to the above "truism."
No Humans = No absolutely human-based independent Reality out there.
but there is a lot of nuances to it to be deliberated philosophically;

If the above is not true, then the belief is,
there is an absolutely independent reality out there regardless of whether there are humans or not.
This is the realist [philosophical & metaphysical] belief.

The critical issue is when the above is ideologized, the dogmatic ideology leads to;

• 1. An absolutely independent real God out there regardless of whether there are humans or not. Such a belief leads to God who is evil and contribute evil to humanity via theists who are fundamentally philosophical realists.
  
  2 An absolutely independent real Soul out there regardless of whether there are humans or not. This soul is temporary in the human self but being independent will leave the body to heaven if the person is not sinful.
  
  3. Dualism an all its related problems. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism
  
  4. Philosophical Skepticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism
  
  5. The contention between realism vs antirealism and the many negatives from realism.
  
  6. A hindrance to moral facts, moral-fact-deniers rejects the existence of objective human-based independent moral facts, so morality is not objective.
  
  7. Many other philosophical issues, e.g, Substance theory, Correspondence Theory of Truths, etc.

The above realism [philosophical] is driven by an evolutionary default of the sense of external_ness and outer_ness that facilitate basic survival.
Such an instinct becomes malignant when it is adopted as a dogmatic ideology.

Antirealists [Kantian] as Empirical Realists do believe in mind-independence of external_ness and outer_ness but they do not insist upon it as a dogmatic ideology in the ultimate sense.

The ultimate sense of "No Humans = No absolutely human-based independent Reality out there" i.e. antirealism [Kantian] rejects the above ideology and avoid all its negatives and evil.
The antirealism view enable humans and humanity to have a reasonable degree of control over reality [human-based reality].

From a bigger picture, the "No Humans = No absolutely human-based independent Reality out there" is more realistic, tenable and pragmatic, especially for the progress of Morality towards perpetual peace, harmony and flourishing within humanity.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Typical antopomorphic delusion.
No wonder you talk such bollocks on moralty. This explains it all.

See my above explanation above on why the OP is critical for humanity's progress.

[phyllo]

I should have added to the above "truism."
No Humans = No absolutely human-based independent Reality out there.
but there is a lot of nuances to it to be deliberated philosophically;

Some people on this site think that "the stuff out there" is reality.

You, on the other hand, think that what humans think, evaluate, discover, etc about "the stuff out there" is reality.


I'm just amazed that you guys can make hundreds (maybe thousands?) of posts about that difference of opinion, difference of definition, difference of POV.

[Sculptor]

Typical antopomorphic delusion.
No wonder you talk such bollocks on moralty. This explains it all.

See my above explanation above on why the OP is critical for humanity's progress.

Why should I ?

[Veritas Aequitas]

I should have added to the above "truism."
No Humans = No absolutely human-based independent Reality out there.
but there is a lot of nuances to it to be deliberated philosophically;

Some people on this site think that "the stuff out there" is reality.

You, on the other hand, think that what humans think, evaluate, discover, etc about "the stuff out there" is reality.


I'm just amazed that you guys can make hundreds (maybe thousands?) of posts about that difference of opinion, difference of definition, difference of POV.

Why? because all philosophical issues are reducible to realism[p] vs antirealism.
Realism is an evolutionary default thus they are the majority, while antirealism [Kantian and others] are the later more 'advanced' philosophical thoughts.
Here's a critical observation;
The majority of Anglo-American philosophers are p-realists while the majority of the European and Eastern philosophers are anti-p-realists.

The problem here and the many volley-posts is because the majority of realists adopt realism as an no compromise ideology in the form of philosophical and metaphysical realism which held dogmatically, i.e. my way of the highway.

Realism is instinctual thus driving dogmatic philosophical realism and most p-realists will be triggered with cognitive dissonances and its pains when they are presented with antirealistic views.
Philosophical realists react emotionally the same as theists [also are philosophical realists] when their mind-independent reality or God is challenge with opposite views. Note how much vitriols, condemnations, contempt, disdain, hatefulness, hostility, malevolence, maliciousness, virulence and the likes are thrown at antirealists by p-realists here.

This difference in opinions is more of a psychological issue rather than an epistemology or metaphysical one.

[phyllo]

Why? because all philosophical issues are reducible to realism[p] vs antirealism.
Realism is an evolutionary default thus they are the majority, while antirealism [Kantian and others] are the later more 'advanced' philosophical thoughts.
Here's a critical observation;
The majority of Anglo-American philosophers are p-realists while the majority of the European and Eastern philosophers are anti-p-realists.

It makes practically no difference to anyone which one is adopted.

The problem here and the many volley-posts is because the majority of realists adopt realism as an no compromise ideology in the form of philosophical and metaphysical realism which held dogmatically, i.e. my way of the highway.

Realism is instinctual thus driving dogmatic philosophical realism and most p-realists will be triggered with cognitive dissonances and its pains when they are presented with antirealistic views.
Philosophical realists react emotionally the same as theists [also are philosophical realists] when their mind-independent reality or God is challenge with opposite views. Note how much vitriols, condemnations, contempt, disdain, hatefulness, hostility, malevolence, maliciousness, virulence and the likes are thrown at antirealists by p-realists here.

That's just the people here and the culture of this website.

This difference in opinions is more of a psychological issue rather than an epistemology or metaphysical one.

It's 99.9% psychology. To pull a random number out of my hat.