Indirect Realism is not Philosophical AntiRealism

[Veritas Aequitas]

All philosophical issue are reducible to the Realism[p] vs AntiRealism[]p].
Indirect Realism belongs to the Philosophical Realism camp and cannot be Philosophical AntiRealism nor straddle in between both camps.

From ChatGpt [wR]

Indirect Realism is a subset of Philosophical Realism. Let's break this down to see why.

Philosophical Realism
Philosophical realism is the belief that certain kinds of things have mind-independent existence. That is, these things exist regardless of whether they are being perceived by any mind. This includes a broad range of entities such as physical objects, numbers, and moral values.

Indirect Realism
Indirect realism, also known as representative realism, is the view that we do not perceive the external world directly. Instead, we perceive it through a conceptual framework or mental representations. Our perceptions are mediated by our sensory organs and cognitive processes, meaning we experience a version of the external world that is filtered and constructed by our minds.

The Relationship Between Indirect Realism and Philosophical Realism
Mind-Independent Reality: Indirect realism posits that there is a real, external world that exists independently of our perception of it. This aligns with the core tenet of philosophical realism, which asserts the existence of a mind-independent reality.

Perception: While indirect realism acknowledges that our perception of the external world is mediated and not direct, it does not deny the existence of the external world itself. This mediated perception still aims to represent a reality that is independent of our minds.

Philosophical Antirealism
Philosophical antirealism, on the other hand, denies that a mind-independent reality exists, or at least that we can have any knowledge of it. Antirealists argue that what we perceive or know is in some way dependent on our mental frameworks, linguistic practices, or conceptual schemes.

Conclusion
Given that:

Indirect realism affirms the existence of a mind-independent external world,
Philosophical realism asserts that entities exist independently of our perception or conception,
Philosophical antirealism denies or questions the existence or knowability of a mind-independent reality,
It follows that indirect realism is a form of philosophical realism. Both indirect realism and philosophical realism agree on the existence of a mind-independent reality. The difference lies in the nature of our perception of that reality. Thus, indirect realism cannot be categorized as philosophical antirealism.

In summary, indirect realism is indeed a subset of philosophical realism, as both maintain that an external, mind-independent world exists.

Indirect realism cannot be both nor straddle both philosophical realism and philosophical antirealism.

*there are some nuance if idealism is taken into account.
Indirect realism can be a sort of idealism but it is not philosophical anti-realism in essence.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes:

[MicheleBHall]

All philosophical issue are reducible to the Realism[p] vs AntiRealism[]p].
Indirect Realism belongs to the Philosophical Realism camp and cannot be Philosophical AntiRealism nor straddle in between both camps.

From ChatGpt [wR]

Indirect Realism is a subset of Philosophical Realism. Let's break this down to see why.

Philosophical Realism
Philosophical realism is the belief that certain kinds of things have mind-independent existence. That is, these things exist regardless of whether they are being perceived by any mind. This includes a broad range of entities such as physical objects, numbers, and moral values.

Indirect Realism
Indirect realism, also known as representative realism, is the view that we do not perceive the external world directly. Instead, we perceive it through a conceptual framework or mental representations. Our perceptions are mediated by our sensory organs and cognitive processes, meaning we experience a version of the external world that is filtered and constructed by our minds.

The Relationship Between Indirect Realism and Philosophical Realism
Mind-Independent Reality: Indirect realism posits that there is a real, external world that exists independently of our perception of it. This aligns with the core tenet of philosophical realism, which asserts the existence of a mind-independent reality.

Perception: While indirect realism acknowledges that our perception of the external world is mediated and not direct, it does not deny the existence of the external world itself. This mediated perception still aims to represent a reality that is independent of our minds.

Philosophical Antirealism
Philosophical antirealism, on the other hand, denies that a mind-independent reality exists, or at least that we can have any knowledge of it. Antirealists argue that what we perceive or know is in some way dependent on our mental frameworks, linguistic practices, or conceptual schemes.

Conclusion
Given that:

Indirect realism affirms the existence of a mind-independent external world,
Philosophical realism asserts that entities exist independently of our perception or conception,
Philosophical antirealism denies or questions the existence or knowability of a mind-independent reality,
It follows that indirect realism is a form of philosophical realism. Both indirect realism and philosophical realism agree on the existence of a mind-independent reality. The difference lies in the nature of our perception of that reality. Thus, indirect realism cannot be categorized as philosophical antirealism.

In summary, indirect realism is indeed a subset of philosophical realism,poppy playtime chapter 3 as both maintain that an external, mind-independent world exists.

Indirect realism cannot be both nor straddle both philosophical realism and philosophical antirealism.

*there are some nuance if idealism is taken into account.
Indirect realism can be a sort of idealism but it is not philosophical anti-realism in essence.

Considering the positives of indirect realism and philosophical anti-realism does not necessarily require a rejection of the external world. Understanding how indirect realism allows for a perception of reality brings a spirit of autonomy.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Considering the positives of indirect realism and philosophical anti-realism does not necessarily require a rejection of the external world. Understanding how indirect realism allows for a perception of reality brings a spirit of autonomy.

Philosophical Realism [indirect realism is a subset of it] is an ideology derived from an evolutionary default of 'externalness' which facilitated basis survival. Philosophical Realism & indirect claims an absolutely mind-independent externa world while philosophical realism [Kantian] does not reject but claim a relatively mind-independent external world.

While indirect realism [an improvement over direct realism] facilitated basic survival, the 'Enlightenment' exposed loads of its cons as an ideology which is hindering the progress of humanity in the present and the future.

Thus while we maintain the sense of externalness and mind-independence we need to understands its limitation and not to cling to it dogmatically as an ideology with absoluteness without compromise.

Here is a list of cons of philosophical realism, thus to indirect realism.
The Cons of Philosophical Realism
viewtopic.php?t=43061

The point is the pros of mind-independence [absolute] are being eroded with the current exponential expansion of knowledge and technology; as such there is need to focus on the alternative views of philosophical antirealism [Kantian], i.e. of relative mind-independence.