I didn't miss anything, you are trying to have it both ways "but that is only in the relative sense and not absolutely under all conditions."Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Jun 23, 2024 3:16 amYou missed the point.Impenitent wrote: ↑Sat Jun 22, 2024 2:07 pmother people would no longer exist when not being immediately perceived...Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jun 22, 2024 5:31 am Philosophical Realism [p-realism] is defined as:
* 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?
sounds like a great objective basis for morals...
-Imp
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..."
thanks for the insult
-Imp