What's the Loss if P-Realism is Rejected?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Philosophical Realism [p-realism] is defined as:

Philosophical realism – .. is the view that a certain kind of thing (ranging widely from abstract objects like numbers to moral statements to the physical world itself) has [absolutely] 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.

* for those who reject the concept of mind, refer to 'independent of human conditions'.
Reality within philosophical realism is claimed to exist regardless of whether there are humans or not.

Realism-in-general is an evolutionary default which is accepted as relatively independent of the human conditions.
However, p-realists adopt and cling to [like there is no tomorrow] philosophical realism dogmatically as an ideology where the mind-independence is absolute and unconditional of the human conditions [beliefs, judgments, opinions, etc.].

My question is:
What is the loss to humanity if we were to reject philosophical-realism totally?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes:
I wrote somewhere;
The only thing that p-realists will lose is the security blanket and psychological comfort in clinging to that ideology of absolute human independence.

The ideology of philosophical realism is inferred from the basic inference of cause and effect [but note Hume's Problem of absolute Causation].
The basis idea and logic is, if things are perceived, then there must be the-perceived that cause the perception. This the-perceived must be absolutely independent of the human conditions and they exist regardless of whether there are humans or not.

To think otherwise, i.e. there is no the-perceived would generate cognitive dissonances which are very painful they trigger the seeking of consonance.

But Hume has already given us a lead [and argument] that whatever is obvious, i.e. there must be a cause for every effect is not absolute.
The basis for this yearning for a cause is not absolutely real but rather based on the psychology of constant conjunction, customs and habit.

From Hume's lead, we can also consider that there is no absolute cause i.e. the perceived that represent perceptions.
There are more nuances to be considered where we cannot be hasty in jumping to conclusion that is an absolute mind independent reality out there.

But if one do not jump to the conclusion which is obvious, then there is the triggering of very painful [terror] cognitive dissonances arising out of an existential crisis.

So to deal and pacify the cognitive dissonances, philosophical realists cling to the philosophical realism, i.e. there is an absolute mind-independent thing [that-which-is-perceived] out there.

One fact is the belief of an absolutely mind-independent reality out there generates its loads of negative baggage.
To overcome the negative baggage, anti-p-realists bite the bullet and reject philosophical realism while trying to find rational answers to the dilemma of facing a cold turkey of cognitive dissonances.

The only thing that p-realists will lose is the security blanket and psychological comfort in clinging to that ideology of absolute human independence.
On the other hand, humanity has a lot to gain from steering away [with anti-p_realism] from philosophical realism and its negative baggage.

[Atla]

The loss to humanity would be humanity itself, along with the rest of the real world. Like it or not, but once reality is completely constructed using the features of your mind, you always inevitably end up with solipsism, where you merely pretend that this isn't solipsism. Imo you already act like a solipsist, which is untenable.

[Veritas Aequitas]

notes:

[Iwannaplato]

The only thing that p-realists will lose is the security blanket and psychological comfort in clinging to that ideology of absolute human independence.

The ideology of philosophical realism is inferred from the basic inference of cause and effect [but note Hume's Problem of absolute Causation].
The basis idea and logic is, if things are perceived, then there must be the-perceived that cause the perception. This the-perceived must be absolutely independent of the human conditions and they exist regardless of whether there are humans or not.

To think otherwise, i.e. there is no the-perceived would generate cognitive dissonances which are very painful they trigger the seeking of consonance.

But Hume has already given us a lead [and argument] that whatever is obvious, i.e. there must be a cause for every effect is not absolute.
The basis for this yearning for a cause is not absolutely real but rather based on the psychology of constant conjunction, customs and habit.

VA doesn't know what the left hand is doing. On the one hand he is attributing causes, in an amateur, sophomoric ad hom, where he mind reads all realists tell them their fear is causing their belief. While the other hand is using Hume to undermine causation. I've chided VA for not reading his links and quotes, and now I'd like to chide him for not reading his own text in his post while writing that post.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The thinking of some are very shallow.

What I am asking is:
What if all philosophical realists at the same time declared they no longer believe in philosophical realism, i.e. the belief that reality and things exist regardless of whether there are humans or not.
This meant they are indifferent to the above belief of philosophical realism.

After their declaration and rejection of philosophical realism- all at the same time - will the universe just disappear?

[Flannel Jesus]

My question is:
What is the loss to humanity if we were to reject philosophical-realism totally?

What's the loss if we reject anit-realism?

[Iwannaplato]

The thinking of some are very shallow.

What I am asking is:
What if all philosophical realists at the same time declared they no longer believe in philosophical realism, i.e. the belief that reality and things exist regardless of whether there are humans or not.
This meant they are indifferent to the above belief of philosophical realism.

After their declaration and rejection of philosophical realism- all at the same time - will the universe just disappear?

The idea that realists would think the universe would disappear if people stopped believing in realism shows a profound misundertanding of realism.

[Atla]

If I turned 'Kantian' anti-realist, it would mean that 'you guys' have always just been a figment of my imagination. Yes, neatly placed into a framework of space and time and causality, and of total consistency that can go on forever in space and time, but ultimately still just illusory. Not actually there. Because there is only my mind, and I am my mind so there's nothing outside of me.

I could very much do without VA or Skepdick being real, but there are many people and animals and plants and things I'd like to remain real, thank you.

[Veritas Aequitas]

My question is:
What is the loss to humanity if we were to reject philosophical-realism totally?

What's the loss if we reject anit-realism?

Since realism is an evolutionary default, the majority of are realists and philosophical realists [the majority of whom are theists].

In general those who consciously rejected philosophical realism [anti-p_realism] are based on their growth in higher rationality and wisdom.
If all these anti-p_realists were to revert back to p-realists there would be a loss of the higher rationality and related wisdom cultivated so far.

[Iwannaplato]

My question is:
What is the loss to humanity if we were to reject philosophical-realism totally?

What's the loss if we reject anit-realism?

It would entail that VA's prime attack on PH's criticism of the idea of objective morals would be gone.
Is it possible that that prospect might elicit fear in our most prolific anti-realist?

One thing that would be lost with the loss of the belief in realism would be an explanation for why there is such consistency in different people's experiences of the same spaces. What maintains things such that they arise again when people return to them or diverse people experience them? We would also need an explanation for how consciousness suddenly arose with a universe around it. Or the appearance of a universe. None of this rules out anti-realism, but there would certainly be some immediate work to do.

Nor does VA's fear about anti-realism not being the case, demonstrate anything about the truth of anti-realism.

[Flannel Jesus]

If all these anti-p_realists were to revert back to p-realists there would be a loss of the higher rationality and related wisdom cultivated so far.

Seems entirely speculative. Seems like anybody who has any position X could say "rejecting X would be a loss of the higher rationality and related wisdom cultivated so far." So you saying it sounds mostly like a reflection of your own biases more than anything.

If my position is realism, I could just as easily say "rejecting realism would be a loss of the higher rationality and related wisdom cultivated so far." Anybody with any belief might say that.

[Impenitent]

Philosophical Realism [p-realism] is defined as:

Philosophical realism – .. is the view that a certain kind of thing (ranging widely from abstract objects like numbers to moral statements to the physical world itself) has [absolutely] 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.

* for those who reject the concept of mind, refer to 'independent of human conditions'.
Reality within philosophical realism is claimed to exist regardless of whether there are humans or not.

Realism-in-general is an evolutionary default which is accepted as relatively independent of the human conditions.
However, p-realists adopt and cling to [like there is no tomorrow] philosophical realism dogmatically as an ideology where the mind-independence is absolute and unconditional of the human conditions [beliefs, judgments, opinions, etc.].

My question is:
What is the loss to humanity if we were to reject philosophical-realism totally?

other people would no longer exist when not being immediately perceived...

sounds like a great objective basis for morals...

-Imp

[Iwannaplato]

If all these anti-p_realists were to revert back to p-realists there would be a loss of the higher rationality and related wisdom cultivated so far.

Seems entirely speculative. Seems like anybody who has any position X could say "rejecting X would be a loss of the higher rationality and related wisdom cultivated so far." So you saying it sounds mostly like a reflection of your own biases more than anything.

If my position is realism, I could just as easily say "rejecting realism would be a loss of the higher rationality and related wisdom cultivated so far." Anybody with any belief might say that.

Yes. VA is basically bragging about himself:
1. I'm more rational and wiser than you.
2. I can face the truth and you are cowards.

Neither of which is an argument supporting anti-realism.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Philosophical Realism [p-realism] is defined as:

Philosophical realism – .. is the view that a certain kind of thing (ranging widely from abstract objects like numbers to moral statements to the physical world itself) has [absolutely] 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.

* for those who reject the concept of mind, refer to 'independent of human conditions'.
Reality within philosophical realism is claimed to exist regardless of whether there are humans or not.

Realism-in-general is an evolutionary default which is accepted as relatively independent of the human conditions.
However, p-realists adopt and cling to [like there is no tomorrow] philosophical realism dogmatically as an ideology where the mind-independence is absolute and unconditional of the human conditions [beliefs, judgments, opinions, etc.].

My question is:
What is the loss to humanity if we were to reject philosophical-realism totally?

other people would no longer exist when not being immediately perceived...
sounds like a great objective basis for morals...
-Imp

You missed the point.

AntiRealists [Kantian] accept people do exists when not being immediately perceived, BUT they do not accept that dogmatically as an ideology.

Within common sense and conventional sense, AntiRealists [Kantian] accept people do exists when not being immediately perceived but that is only in the relative sense and not absolutely under all conditions.

For Antirealists in opposition to the p-realists' absolute claim, within certain overriding and relative conditions, other people existence is somehow related to the human conditions [human nature].

AntiRealists do not make the following crude claim, "other people would no longer exist when not being immediately perceived..."