Philosophical Realism is an Impossibility

[Veritas Aequitas]

It is impossible for Philosophical Realism to be real.

Philosophical Realism is the basis used by p-realists to argue that 'Morality cannot be objective'.
I will argue philosophical realism is false, unrealistic, thus has no credibility to their claim 'morality cannot be objective'.

Philosophical Realism [absolute human/mind-independent] is an Impossibility to be real.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

Whatever is real, true, factual, knowledge, objective is contingent upon a human-based [collective of subjects] Framework and System [FS]. The scientific FS is the gold standard of the credibility of reality and objectivity.

Here is the syllogism;

• 1.. Reality is all-there-is
  2. All-there-is comprised humans, i.e. intricately part and parcel of reality.
  3. Therefore humans cannot be absolutely mind-independent of reality.

4. Therefore, philosophical realism which claims absolute mind-independent reality is impossible to be real or related to reality

All-there-is covers the following:
"Absolute Reality" "Unified Reality" "Totality" or "Total Reality" "All-Encompassing Reality" "Monistic Reality" "The Whole" or "The Whole of Reality" "Ontological Unity"

So, philosophical realism is false, unrealistic, thus has no credibility to their claim 'morality cannot be objective'.


Discuss??
Views??

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes:

To illustrate the concept that humans are ultimately interconnected with and integral to reality as a whole, here are examples that highlight the inseparability of parts from the entirety of a system, while still allowing for some relative independence or distinct function. Here are a few that might resonate as intuitive, relatable metaphors:

The Ocean and Waves
Imagine reality as the ocean and individual beings, including humans, as waves. Each wave has a distinct form and can be observed as relatively independent, but it is inseparable from the ocean’s totality. Without the ocean, there would be no wave, and each wave’s form and motion depend on the ocean’s currents, winds, and depth. This example shows how individual parts are fundamentally expressions of a unified whole.

Cells in the Body
Just as individual cells make up a larger organism, humans are like cells within the vast body of reality. Each cell has some degree of independence, carrying out its specific functions, yet it cannot exist separately from the organism as a whole. This example emphasizes that while parts may function independently to some extent, they rely on and contribute to the totality.

The Web of a Spider
Reality can be seen as a spider’s web, with each strand representing individual beings, objects, or processes. While each strand of the web is distinct and can be examined individually, the web’s structure and strength arise from the interconnections between all its parts. Removing or altering one strand affects the entire web. This metaphor illustrates interdependence and how even seemingly separate parts are embedded within a greater, interconnected reality.

Ecosystem Interdependence
In an ecosystem, various organisms—plants, animals, microorganisms—exist in a balanced, interdependent web of life. Each species has a degree of autonomy in its environment, but the entire system depends on the mutual contributions of all its members. For instance, the oxygen produced by trees supports animals, while animals contribute to nutrient cycling. This model helps show that no element is entirely independent; each is woven into the larger fabric of the ecosystem.

A Symphony Orchestra
Reality can be thought of as a symphony, with each human (or thing) representing a musician or instrument. Each musician can play independently, but the full composition requires all instruments to play together harmoniously. If one instrument is out of sync or missing, it alters the sound of the symphony. This analogy emphasizes that individuals may have relative independence, but they ultimately contribute to and are shaped by the entire orchestral composition.

A River and Its Tributaries
Imagine reality as a river with numerous tributaries. Each tributary appears separate, flowing along its own path, but all streams contribute to and form the main river. The tributaries’ movement, speed, and flow are determined by their connection to the larger body of water. This example shows that while parts may appear distinct, they all contribute to a greater unity and depend on that unity for their own existence.

The Light Spectrum
White light consists of all colors within the visible spectrum. When passed through a prism, it divides into individual colors, each of which appears distinct, but they are all expressions of the same light. Humans can be thought of as individual colors—relatively independent, yet ultimately manifestations of a single, continuous reality. Without the whole spectrum, individual colors cannot exist, as they are all dependent expressions of light.

“The Blind Men and the Elephant”
“The Blind Men and the Elephant” is a parable about a group of blind men who touch an elephant and form different conclusions about what it is like:
Each blind man feels a different part of the elephant, such as the trunk, tusk, ear, or leg, and then describes what the elephant is like. For example, one blind man might say the elephant is like a snake, while another might say it's like a fan. The men come to different conclusions and realize they are in disagreement.
The story illustrates that one's subjective experience is limited and can't account for the totality of truth. It can also be used to teach the importance of communication, respecting different perspectives, and seeing the big picture.

Each of these examples illustrates that while individual components (like humans) can have a degree of relative independence, they are ultimately inseparable from the broader structure or system (reality) of which they are an integral part. These metaphors might help underscore the point that reality isn’t a collection of absolutely independent parts but rather a complex, interwoven whole.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes:

[Atla]

VA conflates interconnectedness with mind-dependence, two unrelated concepts, because he can't process logic.

[Iwannaplato]

VA conflates interconnectedness with mind-dependence, two unrelated concepts, because he can't process logic.

1.. Reality is all-there-is
2. All-there-is comprised humans, i.e. intricately part and parcel of reality.
3. Therefore humans cannot be absolutely mind-independent of reality.

1) He has the verb comprises in the tense for some reason, perhaps a typo. But it's an odd verb. Includes, encompasses, both would be better. With comprise as the verb he's taking an odd stand. All of reality comprises (makes up) humans. Is there anything left over to comprise the earth or seals?
2) Notice that this time the focus is not on whether reality is independent of humans, but the reverse.
3) Then there's the issue of no one ever assuming that all of reality is independent of humans, since humans are part of reality. Obviously all of reality cannot be indepedent of something that is a part of that category.
4) What most people mean is that parts of reality can exist even if (or even when) not perceived by some other parts of reality. So, it's a strawman, though it's so odd and unclear, it might not be, I suppose.
5) Let's put it through the lens of another part of reality.

1.. Reality is all-there-is
2. All-there-is includes hummingbirds, i.e. intricately part and parcel of reality.
3. Therefore hummingbirds cannot be absolutely mind-independent of reality.

Well, obviously. But then the question is a actually whether flowers not seen, drunk from and pollinated by hummingbirds exist anyway.

Or we could keep his odd verb choice 'comprised'

1.. Reality is all-there-is
2. All-there-is comprised Tyrannosaurus Rex, i.e. intricately part and parcel of reality.
3. Therefore T-Rex cannot be absolutely mind-independent of reality.

But here we are anyway.

[Veritas Aequitas]

VA conflates interconnectedness with mind-dependence, two unrelated concepts, because he can't process logic.

1.. Reality is all-there-is
2. All-there-is comprised humans, i.e. intricately part and parcel of reality.
3. Therefore humans cannot be absolutely mind-independent of reality.

1) He has the verb comprises in the tense for some reason, perhaps a typo. But it's an odd verb. Includes, encompasses, both would be better. With comprise as the verb he's taking an odd stand. All of reality comprises (makes up) humans. Is there anything left over to comprise the earth or seals?
2) Notice that this time the focus is not on whether reality is independent of humans, but the reverse.
3) Then there's the issue of no one ever assuming that all of reality is independent of humans, since humans are part of reality. Obviously all of reality cannot be indepedent of something that is a part of that category.
4) What most people mean is that parts of reality can exist even if (or even when) not perceived by some other parts of reality. So, it's a strawman, though it's so odd and unclear, it might not be, I suppose.
5) Let's put it through the lens of another part of reality.

1.. Reality is all-there-is
2. All-there-is includes hummingbirds, i.e. intricately part and parcel of reality.
3. Therefore hummingbirds cannot be absolutely mind-independent of reality.

Well, obviously. But then the question is a actually whether flowers not seen, drunk from and pollinated by hummingbirds exist anyway.

Or we could keep his odd verb choice 'comprised'

1.. Reality is all-there-is
2. All-there-is comprised Tyrannosaurus Rex, i.e. intricately part and parcel of reality.
3. Therefore T-Rex cannot be absolutely mind-independent of reality.

But here we are anyway.

Yours is the strawman.

The OP states:

Philosophical Realism [absolute human/mind-independent] is an Impossibility to be real.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism
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 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.

Obviously 'hummingbirds' and 'T-Rex' are off topic.
It is so absurd to claim that 'hummingbirds' and 'T-Rex' or other non-humans are capable to clinging to an ideology of philosophical realism like humans.

Philosophical realists claim reality [all there is] is absolutely human/mind independent.
As I had demonstrated above, an absolutely human/mind independent reality is an impossibility.

Encompass
as in to surround
to form a circle around
is not a very appropriate term.

I also stated;
All-there-is covers the following:
"Absolute Reality" "Unified Reality" "Totality" or "Total Reality" "All-Encompassing Reality" "Monistic Reality" "The Whole" or "The Whole of Reality" "Ontological Unity"

Comprised:
as in to contain
as in to constitute
https://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/comprise

is very appropriate to align with being intricately part and parcel of all-there-is.

As such to reify philosophical realism as real is delusional.

[Iwannaplato]

Comprised:
as in to contain
as in to constitute
https://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/comprise

As in 'is comprised of'. Water is comprised of hydogen and oxygen.

It's a past simple verb in your sentence, not a past participle. But fine, now I understand what you meant.
Perhaps it was a mere typo.

And no response to the rest of my post. Well, there's a response, but since it's never clear what you are responding to or if you are responding directly to any point (except this on on the comprised issue), I didn't see the connections and I think you're mostly repeating yourself. Reasserting your position as response.

[Dr Faustus]

It is impossible for Philosophical Realism to be real.

Philosophical Realism is the basis used by p-realists to argue that 'Morality cannot be objective'.
I will argue philosophical realism is false, unrealistic, thus has no credibility to their claim 'morality cannot be objective'.

Philosophical Realism [absolute human/mind-independent] is an Impossibility to be real.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

Whatever is real, true, factual, knowledge, objective is contingent upon a human-based [collective of subjects] Framework and System [FS]. The scientific FS is the gold standard of the credibility of reality and objectivity.

Here is the syllogism;

• 1.. Reality is all-there-is
  2. All-there-is comprised humans, i.e. intricately part and parcel of reality.
  3. Therefore humans cannot be absolutely mind-independent of reality.

4. Therefore, philosophical realism which claims absolute mind-independent reality is impossible to be real or related to reality

All-there-is covers the following:
"Absolute Reality" "Unified Reality" "Totality" or "Total Reality" "All-Encompassing Reality" "Monistic Reality" "The Whole" or "The Whole of Reality" "Ontological Unity"

So, philosophical realism is false, unrealistic, thus has no credibility to their claim 'morality cannot be objective'.


Discuss??
Views??

That reminds me the negative dialectic of Adorno.
Adorno defines philosophy to him, as the sharp conscience of non identity between the subject and the object. But this strong conscience of non identity does not mean that there an autonomous subject able to think what he wants. It is more associated in fact to the autonomy of the object actually, which is a realistic position.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Comprised:
as in to contain
as in to constitute
https://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/comprise

As in 'is comprised of'. Water is comprised of hydogen and oxygen.

It's a past simple verb in your sentence, not a past participle. But fine, now I understand what you meant.
Perhaps it was a mere typo.

And no response to the rest of my post. Well, there's a response, but since it's never clear what you are responding to or if you are responding directly to any point (except this on on the comprised issue), I didn't see the connections and I think you're mostly repeating yourself. Reasserting your position as response.

Present your point more clearly, i.e. like,

"This is your point [or thesis].
I don't agree because of these reasons, arguments, etc."

If the counter is reasonable, there is no way I will leave it unattended,
because I am equiped with this from Kant:

In this enquiry I have made Completeness my chief aim, and I venture to assert that there is not a single metaphysical problem which has not been solved, or for the solution of which the key at least has not been supplied.
CPR Axiv

if I do not attend to a reasonable counter it would mean there is no completeness, leaving holes and unresolved fundamental [not ALL] philosophical issues from my perspective.