Why Realists Cling to their Thingy is due to Psychology

[Veritas Aequitas]

Why philosophical realists cling desperately to the thing-in-itself [absolutely independent of the human conditions] is due to desperate psychology of TERROR!

Calling VA. What causes the phenomena we experience?

Whatever are phenomena, they are observable and can be verified and justified via the scientific FSERC as the gold standard of credibility and objectivity.
Whatever the causes, they are explained therein by the scientific FSERC.

Also, what is it that experiences phenomena? It must itself be phenomenal, because there are no noumena. So the transcendental ego can't be a thing-in-itself. But then, how do we experience it through the senses and mental categories?

In modern philosophical use, the term phenomena means things as they are experienced through the senses and processed by the mind as distinct from things in and of themselves (noumena).

According to Kant, there is the empirical-self and transcendental-ego [apperception].
Re Descartes, Kant asserted there is only the "I-THINK' there is no the "I-AM" which is claimed to survive physical death. So there is no real existing noumenal self but one can think of it as a thought.

According to Kant as with Hume, the transcendental-ego [apperception] is merely an emergent from a bundle of activities [a priori and a posteriori] and when a person dies, there is no more such self because there is no more activities.

The transcendental-ego [apperception] (I-that-Think) experiences the empirical self i.e. from first-person experience or from the collective [psychology and science]. The empirical self can be regarded as the "phenomenal" self to one's transcendental ego or to the collective.

Analogy:
Say there is a symphonic orchestra comprising of 100 instrumental player.
When everyone is playing his instrument, the symphonic-orchestra emerged as an entity with consciousness and it aware of its own self and the parts of it plus being aware of it external environment.
When the orchestra stop playing and everyone keep their instruments leave their position, this entity with consciousness just vanish.

That is how the transcendental ego emerged out of 13.7 billion years of history.

Why philosophical realists want to cling to an absolutely independent noumenal self, noumenon or thing-in-itself is due to the inherent desperate psychology.
As I had challenged, there is no loss if we give up this belief and ideology. Why philosophical realists insist on clinging to it as an ideology is a psychological issue grounded on TERROR!

For example, the majority of philosophical realists as theists insist upon a soul [noumenal self] that exists after death due to the terrible terror of Hell.

The other non-theistic philosophical realists also fear the threat of terror albeit in a more subliminal form. This is translated to no objective moral facts.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes:

[Iwannaplato]

Well, an ad hominim mind reading thread.

Notice that VA has not supported his assertion, he merely states it a few times. For example...

The other non-theistic philosophical realists also fear the threat of terror albeit in a more subliminal form. This is translated to no objective moral facts.

He conflates asserting with demonstrating, but more humorously jumps almost randomly realism to no objective moral facts, despite most of the world's realists, theist or non-theist believing in objective moral facts.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes:

[Iwannaplato]

Iwannaplato's Notes:

[Iwannaplato]

Here here gives an analogy to the emergence of consciousness

Analogy:
Say there is a symphonic orchestra comprising of 100 instrumental player.
When everyone is playing his instrument, the symphonic-orchestra emerged as an entity with consciousness and it aware of its own self and the parts of it plus being aware of it external environment.
When the orchestra stop playing and everyone keep their instruments leave their position, this entity with consciousness just vanish.

But there's no justification for this analogy being an accurate model of how consciousness arose.

So, no justification for the model.
No justification for why we can rule out that realists, especially non-naive ones, arrived at their position via reason.

Note: doesn't he realize that not believing in/starting to doubt the existence of objective morals can be frightening and is generally frightening. I mean, as long as we are going to start ad hom threads, one might as well be thorough.
1) not believing in objective morals is an extreme minority position. IOW you have social mammals, humans, who have arrived at a belief that slightly to seriously alientates them from other humans. That generally leads to anxiety and fear.
2) there is also the ongoing anxiety and fear that many humans will feel if they start to doubt objective morals - how do they choose their actions? how can they condemn behavior they abhorr? and so on.

But VA's naive psychology is only brought in to attack what he seems to see as his enemies, without any actually general application.

[Iwannaplato]

Notes on third positions, nuanced positions, mixed positions and general psychological musing

[Atla]

Why philosophical realists cling desperately to the thing-in-itself [absolutely independent of the human conditions] is due to desperate psychology of TERROR!

When you keep getting your ass handed in rational debates, it's time to go all out on emotional shock tactics!!

[Impenitent]

clingy to my thingy is almost lyrical...

I guess VA is a fan of Frozen...

"Let it go, let it gooooo"

-Imp

[Iwannaplato]

clingy to my thingy is almost lyrical...

I guess VA is a fan of Frozen...

"Let it go, let it gooooo"

-Imp

I'm afraid you've missed the sexual aspects of VA's Cling to their Thingy and his real beef, so to speak, with Realists.