Reality-Itself is Impossible to be Real

[Veritas Aequitas]

1. The knowledge-of-reality is not reality-itself.
This is what PH & gang will claim as in 'the description is not the described', 'appearance is not that which appears' which I (& majority) agrees with, if reality-itself is taken in the general sense.

2. Science can only give knowledge of reality but never of reality-itself.

3. Science is the gold standard of credibility and objectivity of knowledge of reality-itself.

4. Since science is merely knowledge-of-reality, it is impossible for humans to know reality-itself [1] till eternity. [unless a tool better than science is discovered which I do not think is possible].

5. Philosophical Realists [PH & gang] claimed that reality-itself is reality-in-itself, i.e. a feature of reality that is the case, just-is, and the like, which is absolutely independent of human opinion, beliefs, and judgment, i.e. it exists regardless of whether humans exist or not.

6. Philosophical realists are relying on crude inferences without justifications to claim there is reality-in-itself, but since reality-in-itself is eternally impossible to be real, philosophical realists are chasing an illusion.

7. Philosophical realists ignorantly invoke 'science' but science is merely knowledge-of-reality [4] which cannot be reality-itself [1].

8. Therefore the philosophical realists conception of an absolutely human/mind independent reality-itself cannot be really real.

.............
What is really-real?
What is really-real is confined to that which is contingent upon a human-based collective-of-subject framework and system of emergence, realization and cognition of reality [FSERC] which is subsequently known and described.

[Veritas Aequitas]

A Simpler Approach to Asserting "No Reality-in-itself"
While Kant's Transcendental Dialectics provide a robust philosophical framework for understanding the limitations of human knowledge, there are simpler ways to express the idea that "there is no reality-in-itself."

Here are a few options:

1. Relativism:
Assertion: "Reality is subjective and depends on the perspective of the observer."
Explanation: This approach suggests that there is no objective, universal reality, and that what we perceive as reality is shaped by our individual experiences, beliefs, and cultural backgrounds.

2. Phenomenalism:
Assertion: "Reality is only what appears to us in experience."
Explanation: This view argues that we can only know the world through our senses and that there is no underlying, objective reality beyond our perceptions.

3. Idealism:
Assertion: "Reality is mental or spiritual in nature."
Explanation: Idealism suggests that the physical world is a creation of the mind or a projection of consciousness.

These are just a few examples, and the choice of approach will depend on your specific philosophical inclinations and the context in which you want to use the assertion.

Ultimately, the idea of "no reality-in-itself" is a fundamental philosophical question that has been debated for centuries. While Kant's Transcendental Dialectics offer a sophisticated and detailed analysis, simpler formulations [as above] can also effectively convey the concept.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes:

While,
2. Science can only give knowledge-of-reality but never of reality-itself.

Philosophical Skepticism,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosoph ... m#Overview
claims all forms of knowledge are doubtful.

Therefore, to even claim there is reality-itself out there, is actually moot, since there is no way one can ever know what is reality-itself per se for eternity.

Kant demonstrated in the CPR that reality-itself as reality-in-itself is an illusion.


So, what is most practical is to accept whatever is really-real is that "emergence" which is contingent upon the collective-of-humans framework and system.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes:

[FlashDangerpants]

Is VA slowly learning to make fun of himself?

[Iwannaplato]

1. The knowledge-of-reality is not reality-itself.
This is what PH & gang will claim as in 'the description is not the described', 'appearance is not that which appears' which I (& majority) agrees with, if reality-itself is taken in the general sense.

2. Science can only give knowledge of reality but never of reality-itself.

3. Science is the gold standard of credibility and objectivity of knowledge of reality-itself.

4. Since science is merely knowledge-of-reality, it is impossible for humans to know reality-itself [1] till eternity. [unless a tool better than science is discovered which I do not think is possible].

5. Philosophical Realists [PH & gang] claimed that reality-itself is reality-in-itself, i.e. a feature of reality that is the case, just-is, and the like, which is absolutely independent of human opinion, beliefs, and judgment, i.e. it exists regardless of whether humans exist or not.

6. Philosophical realists are relying on crude inferences without justifications to claim there is reality-in-itself, but since reality-in-itself is eternally impossible to be real, philosophical realists are chasing an illusion.

7. Philosophical realists ignorantly invoke 'science' but science is merely knowledge-of-reality [4] which cannot be reality-itself [1].

8. Therefore the philosophical realists conception of an absolutely human/mind independent reality-itself cannot be really real.

.............
What is really-real?
What is really-real is confined to that which is contingent upon a human-based collective-of-subject framework and system of emergence, realization and cognition of reality [FSERC] which is subsequently known and described.

So, I guess we can conclude that VA only has knowledge of his experience of philosophical realists, but no knowledge of them in themselves. So, he is talking about what's in his head. Therefore, no one should take this personally.

[Veritas Aequitas]

So, I guess we can conclude that VA only has knowledge of his experience of philosophical realists, but no knowledge of them in themselves. So, he is talking about what's in his head. Therefore, no one should take this personally.

There are no philosophical-realists-in-themselves, i.e. philosophical-realists souls that are absolutely independent and survive physical death.

There are however philosophical-realists who are biological humans with empirical selves that empirically justifiable via the science-biology and science-psychological FSERC.
In addition, there are philosophical realists who are humans justifiable via common sense, social, political, etc. beings who exists independent of each other.

[Iwannaplato]

So, I guess we can conclude that VA only has knowledge of his experience of philosophical realists, but no knowledge of them in themselves. So, he is talking about what's in his head. Therefore, no one should take this personally.

There are no philosophical-realists-in-themselves, i.e. philosophical-realists souls that are absolutely independent and survive physical death.

Yeah, in my joke, I was referencing, for example, the problem of other minds, but that goes over your head, so you hallucinate other issues.

There are however philosophical-realists who are biological humans with empirical selves that empirically justifiable via the science-biology and science-psychological FSERC.

Well, you're not the only philosophically interested person who find unbelievably convoluted ways of stating the obvious.

[Iwannaplato]

And of course VA, in the title of this thread, ignores the early Wittgenstein quote that he uses in an appeal to authority against realists.

[Atla]

2. Science can only give knowledge of reality but never of reality-itself.

It can, according to science. While science can never be 100% accurate about reality-itself, it is usually thought that it is over 0% accurate about reality-itself.

[seeds]

"...Reality-Itself is Impossible to be Real..."

Without quoting any form of Internet AI, what is your own personal definition of the word "real"?

1. The knowledge-of-reality is not reality-itself.

I have often asserted that anything that lies on the opposite side of absolute nothingness is "real" in some context or another. Therefore, because the "knowledge" of reality" is not a part of the absolute nothingness realm, it can thus be considered as being "real" in its appropriate context.

This is what PH & gang will claim as in 'the description is not the described', 'appearance is not that which appears' which I (& majority) agrees with, if reality-itself is taken in the general sense.

This kind of sounds like you are acknowledging the existence of the noumenal realm.

Indeed, it almost sounds like you realize that it would be...

"...absurd to conclude that there can be appearance without anything that appears..."

Hmmm, where have I heard that before? Oh yeah, it was said by your Uncle Kant (slightly paraphrased).

2. Science can only give knowledge of reality but never of reality-itself.

Again, you further imply the existence of the noumenal realm. What is the ontological status of this "reality-itself" you keep referring to?

3. Science is the gold standard of credibility and objectivity of knowledge of reality-itself.

Science is the domain of a bunch of amoeba-like entities who haven't the slightest clue as to how and why they and their "surroundings" (the petri dish they call a "universe") came into existence.

4. Since science is merely knowledge-of-reality, it is impossible for humans to know reality-itself [1] till eternity. [unless a tool better than science is discovered which I do not think is possible].

I'm certain that it is unwittingly (unconscious) on your part but, again, you keep alluding to the existence of the noumenal realm. So, again I must ask, what is this "reality-itself" you keep referencing?

5. Philosophical Realists [PH & gang] claimed that reality-itself is reality-in-itself, i.e. a feature of reality that is the case, just-is, and the like, which is absolutely independent of human opinion, beliefs, and judgment, i.e. it exists regardless of whether humans exist or not.

I suggest that those who believe that the universe exists regardless of whether or not humans exist are "Philosophical Commonsense-alists" who have at least two or more working brain cells with which to logically analyze our situation and thus conclude that we humans had nothing whatsoever to do with the manifestation of the physiological setting that made our coming into existence possible.

6. Philosophical realists are relying on crude inferences without justifications to claim there is reality-in-itself, but since reality-in-itself is eternally impossible to be real, philosophical realists are chasing an illusion.

Now there's the VA I'm used to hearing. Not the one who, in the first few statements above, seemed to unwittingly acknowledge the existence of the noumenal ("reality-in-itself") realm.

7. Philosophical realists ignorantly invoke 'science' but science is merely knowledge-of-reality [4] which cannot be reality-itself [1].

And we're back to you, once again, unwittingly implying the existence of the noumenal realm, which, according to Kant, one must be willing to at least think (as in be open to the possibility) that such a realm may indeed exist.

Your inability to realize the implications of your assertions is giving me mental whiplash.

8. Therefore the philosophical realists conception of an absolutely human/mind independent reality-itself cannot be really real.

Then what, pray tell, is "really real"?

What is really-real?
What is really-real is confined to that which is contingent upon a human-based collective-of-subject framework and system of emergence, realization and cognition of reality [FSERC] which is subsequently known and described.

Ah, of course. it's so obvious when you present it like that.

Everything becomes clear when presented in your formulaic-like arrangement of letters.

Behold the truth of reality made manifest in the "VAFSERCRRTEAFA", or the...

..."Veritas Aequitas Framework and System of Emergence, Realization, and Cognition of Reality Revealed Through the Employment of Annoying and Forgettable Acronyms".
_______

[Atla]

Then what, pray tell, is "really real"?

Imo it could fall somewhere between the "real, but not really that real" and the "really, REALLY real".

For every degree of real, there is an FSK, and there are as many FSKs as VA wants.

[accelafine]

Never heard any actual physicists talk in absurd, clumsy acronyms. There's no point in an acronym if you can't actually say it; that kind of defeats the purpose of them. Framework and system of emergence, realization and cognition of reality. Why are people pretending that this means something? Pretentious twat.

[Iwannaplato]

Never heard any actual physicists talk in absurd, clumsy acronyms. There's no point in an acronym if you can't actually say it; that kind of defeats the purpose of them. Framework and system of emergence, realization and cognition of reality. Why are people pretending that this means something? Pretentious twat.

Generally, people are mocking when they use his terms. They aren't terrible terms; it's the, yes, pretentiousness and then all the contradictions in his posts that people react to. He's also opted to talk down to people, most of the time, and he does this despite not managing to respond to the points other people make. I don't mean that he doesn't respond well. He usually quotes their points, then repeats his postion. In other words, the doesn't really respond at all.

He doesn't live up to his FSERC system. He doesn't notice all the contraditions in his various positions, so it's natural to point out these things and even use his jargon while doing it.

He is also centered on appeals to authority: AIs, this or that philosopher. While not knowing what some basic fallacies are, he positions himself as above other people, people who actually read his posts and respond to specific things he says.

[accelafine]

Never heard any actual physicists talk in absurd, clumsy acronyms. There's no point in an acronym if you can't actually say it; that kind of defeats the purpose of them. Framework and system of emergence, realization and cognition of reality. Why are people pretending that this means something? Pretentious twat.

Generally, people are mocking when they use his terms. They aren't terrible terms; it's the, yes, pretentiousness and then all the contradictions in his posts that people react to. He's also opted to talk down to people, most of the time, and he does this despite not managing to respond to the points other people make. I don't mean that he doesn't respond well. He usually quotes their points, then repeats his postion. In other words, the doesn't really respond at all.

He doesn't live up to his FSERC system. He doesn't notice all the contraditions in his various positions, so it's natural to point out these things and even use his jargon while doing it.

He is also centered on appeals to authority: AIs, this or that philosopher. While not knowing what some basic fallacies are, he positions himself as above other people, people who actually read his posts and respond to specific things he says.

It's hard (impossible) to respond to something that doesn't make any sense.