Is 13.7b of physical & 3.5b years of organic history Relevant

[Veritas Aequitas]

This OP is relevant to Moral Theory

Is the 13.7 billion years of physical history and 3.5 billion years of organic history that conditioned reality [all-there-is] including humanity and humans, relevant and has a significant impact to any philosophical issue?


1. Philosophical Realists who claim reality is absolutely human/mind independent, i.e. it exists regardless of whether there are humans or not, DO NOT see the relevance of the above physical and organic history.

This 'emergence' of life, including humans, is irrelevant.

2. On the other hand, the philosophical antirealists [Kantian & like] insist the 13.7 billion years of physical history and 3.5 billion years of organic history plus the human condition IS NOT absolutely human/mind independent of the reality they are intricately part and parcel of.

My principle is this;
whatever is real, true [or false], fact, knowledge and objective is contingent upon a human-based framework of emergence, realization and cognition [knowledge] of reality plus
the 13.7 billion years of physical history and 3.5 billion years of organic history that conditioned reality [all-there-is] including humanity and humans.

Say the conclusion and claim 'Water is H2O';
Who [1 or 2] is more realistic, the philosophical realists or the philosophical antirealists?

Discuss??
View??

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes:

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes:

[Atla]

2. On the other hand, the philosophical antirealists [Kantian & like] insist the 13.7 billion years of physical history and 3.5 billion years of organic history plus the human condition IS NOT absolutely human/mind independent of the reality they are intricately part and parcel of.

English isn't my mother tongue either, but I'm fairly sure that the above doesn't make any fucking sense.

human conditions independent of humans?

evolution of the world independent of the world?

absolutely independent?

What?

[Veritas Aequitas]

2. On the other hand, the philosophical antirealists [Kantian & like] insist the 13.7 billion years of physical history and 3.5 billion years of organic history plus the human condition IS NOT absolutely human/mind independent of the reality they are intricately part and parcel of.

human conditions independent of humans?
evolution of the world independent of the world?
absolutely independent?
What?

The above is not significantly an 'English' [language] issue but rather the inability to understand is more due to philosophical incompetence from shallow, narrow and dogmatic thinking.

"the human condition IS NOT absolutely human/mind independent of the reality they are intricately part and parcel of."

Philosophical realism is the view that a certain kind of thing has 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.

Philosophical realism is generally referenced to the a mind-independent external world; I have extended this to 'reality' because it is impossible to draw the fine line between a physical human and the external world.

[Atla]

2. On the other hand, the philosophical antirealists [Kantian & like] insist the 13.7 billion years of physical history and 3.5 billion years of organic history plus the human condition IS NOT absolutely human/mind independent of the reality they are intricately part and parcel of.

human conditions independent of humans?
evolution of the world independent of the world?
absolutely independent?
What?

The above is not significantly an 'English' [language] issue but rather the inability to understand is more due to philosophical incompetence from shallow, narrow and dogmatic thinking.

"the human condition IS NOT absolutely human/mind independent of the reality they are intricately part and parcel of."

Philosophical realism is the view that a certain kind of thing has 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.

Philosophical realism is generally referenced to the a mind-independent external world; I have extended this to 'reality' because it is impossible to draw the fine line between a physical human and the external world.

"because it is impossible to draw the fine line between a physical human and the external world."
this is in English - well more or less

"Philosophical realism is generally referenced to the a mind-independent external world; I have extended this to 'reality' "
this isn't

"the human condition IS NOT absolutely human/mind independent of the reality they are intricately part and parcel of."
and this is still total gibberish

[Iwannaplato]

This OP is relevant to Moral Theory

Is the 13.7 billion years of physical history and 3.5 billion years of organic history that conditioned reality [all-there-is] including humanity and humans, relevant and has a significant impact to any philosophical issue?


1. Philosophical Realists who claim reality is absolutely human/mind independent, i.e. it exists regardless of whether there are humans or not, DO NOT see the relevance of the above physical and organic history.

This 'emergence' of life, including humans, is irrelevant.

Right off the bat this is an extremely poor sub-argument. Quoting PH, out of context,does not demonstrate what Philosophical Realists -an enormous group of people with varied positions, arguments and approaches, believe. Further it must be relevant to some specific argument or not. Obviously philosophical realists consider those conclusions relevant to many things, given that realists spend an incredibly amount of time doing research to reach those conclusions.

2. On the other hand, the philosophical antirealists [Kantian & like] insist the 13.7 billion years of physical history and 3.5 billion years of organic history plus the human condition IS NOT absolutely human/mind independent of the reality they are intricately part and parcel of.

My principle is this;
whatever is real, true [or false], fact, knowledge and objective is contingent upon a human-based framework of emergence, realization and cognition [knowledge] of reality plus
the 13.7 billion years of physical history and 3.5 billion years of organic history that conditioned reality [all-there-is] including humanity and humans.

And you've now made an assertion and not even an argument, lumping together people with all sorts of postions on different philosophical issues.

Say the conclusion and claim 'Water is H2O';
Who [1 or 2] is more realistic, the philosophical realists or the philosophical antirealists?

Discuss??
View??

You'll have to connect the dots here and make a coherent argument.

[Veritas Aequitas]

This OP is relevant to Moral Theory

Is the 13.7 billion years of physical history and 3.5 billion years of organic history that conditioned reality [all-there-is] including humanity and humans, relevant and has a significant impact to any philosophical issue?


1. Philosophical Realists who claim reality is absolutely human/mind independent, i.e. it exists regardless of whether there are humans or not, DO NOT see the relevance of the above physical and organic history.

This 'emergence' of life, including humans, is irrelevant.

Right off the bat this is an extremely poor sub-argument. Quoting PH, out of context,does not demonstrate what Philosophical Realists -an enormous group of people with varied positions, arguments and approaches, believe. Further it must be relevant to some specific argument or not. Obviously philosophical realists consider those conclusions relevant to many things, given that realists spend an incredibly amount of time doing research to reach those conclusions.

2. On the other hand, the philosophical antirealists [Kantian & like] insist the 13.7 billion years of physical history and 3.5 billion years of organic history plus the human condition IS NOT absolutely human/mind independent of the reality they are intricately part and parcel of.

My principle is this;
whatever is real, true [or false], fact, knowledge and objective is contingent upon a human-based framework of emergence, realization and cognition [knowledge] of reality plus
the 13.7 billion years of physical history and 3.5 billion years of organic history that conditioned reality [all-there-is] including humanity and humans.

And you've now made an assertion and not even an argument, lumping together people with all sorts of postions on different philosophical issues.

Say the conclusion and claim 'Water is H2O';
Who [1 or 2] is more realistic, the philosophical realists or the philosophical antirealists?

Discuss??
View??

You'll have to connect the dots here and make a coherent argument.

All philosophical realists share the same generic belief, i.e.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism
Philosophical realism – is the view that a certain kind of thing has [absolute] 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.

The different types of philosophical realism are;
-Indirect Realism
-Direct Realism
-Kant's Transcendental Realism (as critiqued by Kant)
-scientific realism
-incl. theism - God is absolute mind-independent

[Iwannaplato]

There is no coherent argument. In fact it is so incoherent it is hard to even ask clarifying questions. I know what you think of realism and what the various realisms have in common, but the whole Water H2O thing in the OP cannot be followed. It's gestural at best.