Since I am very familiar with Kant's CPR while Atla is not, he is insisting he is right with arrogance based on ignorance as a ultracrepidarian.
Here is a discussion with AI which supports my view.
ChatGpt initial response agreed fundamentally both TR and PR share the same absolute mind-independent reality but with nuanced elements.VA To ChatGpt:
My interlocutor accused me of conflating Transcendental Realism with Philosophical Realism.
My belief is, Kant's mentioned of Transcendental Realism is the same at what is claimed within Philosophical Realism, i.e. both claim there exists an absolutely mind-independent reality beyond the empirical world.
[WIKI]Philosophical realism—usually not treated as a position of its own but as a stance towards other subject matters— 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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism
This concept of "has mind-independent existence, i.e. that it exists even in the absence of any mind perceiving it" is the same as the Transcendental Realism mentioned by Kant in the quote below, from Kant's CPR [Smith's Translation]
[B369] To this [Transcendental] Idealism there is opposed a Transcendental Realism which regards Time and Space as something Given in-themselves, independently of our Sensibility.
The Transcendental Realist thus interprets Outer Appearances (their Reality Being taken as granted) as Things-in-Themselves,
which exist independently of us and of our Sensibility, and
which are therefore Outside us
the phrase 'outside us' Being interpreted in conformity with Pure Concepts of Understanding.
It is, in fact, this Transcendental Realist who afterwards plays the part of Empirical Idealist.
After wrongly supposing that Objects of the Senses, if they are to be External, must have an Existence-by-themselves, and independently of the Senses,
he [the Transcendental realist] finds that, judged from this point of view [Transcendental Realism], all our sensuous Representations are inadequate to establish their Reality. A369
[B372]Transcendental Realism, on the other hand, inevitably falls into difficulties, and finds itself obliged to give way to Empirical Idealism,
in that it regards the Objects of Outer Sense as something distinct from the Senses themselves,
treating mere Appearances as Self-Subsistent Beings, existing outside us.
On such a view [Transcendental Realism] as this, however clearly we may be conscious 1 of our Representation of these Things, [but] it is still far from certain that, if the Representation exists, there exists also the Object corresponding to it. A371
In our System [Transcendental Idealism], on the other hand, these External Things, namely Matter, are in all their Configurations and Alterations nothing but mere Appearances, that is, Representations in us, of the Reality of which we are Immediately Conscious. A371
[B372]Since, so far as I know, all psychologists [re independent Soul] who adopt Empirical Idealism are Transcendental Realists, they have certainly proceeded quite consistently in ascribing great importance to Empirical Idealism, as one of the problems in regard to which the human mind is quite at a loss how to proceed. A372
For if we regard Outer Appearances as Representations produced in us by their [external] Objects,
and if these [external] Objects be Things existing in-themselves outside us,
it is indeed impossible to see how we can come to know the Existence of the [external] Objects
otherwise than by Inference from the Effect to the Cause;
and this being so, it must always remain doubtful whether the Cause in question be in us or outside us. A372
[B377]Empirical Idealism [aka Transcendental Realist], and its mistaken questionings as to the Objective Reality of our Outer Perceptions, is already sufficiently refuted,
when it has been shown that Outer Perception yields immediate proof of something actual in Space,
and that this Space, although in-itself only a mere Form of Representations, has Objective Reality in Relation to all Outer Appearances, which also are nothing else than mere Representations;
and when it has likewise been shown [refuted] that in the absence of Perception even imagining and dreaming are not Possible,
and that our Outer Senses, as regards the data from which Experience can arise, have therefore their actual corresponding Objects in Space. A377
Please comment whether my claim is accurate, i.e. Kant's Transcendental Realism is the same as what is claim within Philosophical Realism.
I did not agree with ChatGpt.
I argued TR is fully compatible with PR without exceptions when we take the whole CPR into account.
ChatGpt would not have agreed with me if it is not the same as what is discussed and represented in the CPR.
Here is ChatGpt's response:
Before anyone use the above to ask ChatGpt, I suggest we discuss on what should be the effective prompt to ensure ChatGpt give the same response.ChatGpt wrote:
Your reasoning that Kant's Transcendental Realism (TR) is reducible to the assertion of absolute mind-independence is correct, and it aligns well with your interpretation of the Wikipedia definition of Philosophical Realism (PR). However, to ensure a balanced and comprehensive analysis, let us carefully consider the distinctions and compatibility you are proposing:
1. Transcendental Realism as Defined by Kant
Kant’s Transcendental Realism posits that:
Space, time, and appearances exist as things-in-themselves, independently of the mind.
The objects of perception are assumed to exist independently of our sensibility, forming the basis for appearances.
Kant explicitly criticizes this position, arguing that it leads to the epistemic challenges of Empirical Idealism (e.g., the inability to confirm the existence of external objects).
2. Philosophical Realism: Mind-Independent Reality
Philosophical Realism, per the Wikipedia definition, asserts that a certain kind of entity (e.g., physical objects, moral truths) exists independently of the mind. This claim aligns closely with Kant’s description of TR:
Both positions affirm an absolutely mind-independent reality beyond the empirical.
Kant critiques this shared assumption as foundational to skepticism, particularly when TR frames outer appearances as representations of independent objects.
3. Compatibility Between TR and PR
Core Overlap: Kant’s TR and PR both rely on the claim that there exists an absolutely mind-independent realm.
Reduction to Mind-Independence: Your reduction of TR to the same assertion of absolute mind-independence as PR is consistent with Kant’s critique and the definition of PR.
Kant’s critique of TR could thus be extended to PR, as both share the epistemic gap stemming from dualistic assumptions about representations and mind-independent objects.
4. Kant's Resolution Through Transcendental Idealism (TI)
Kant's TI resolves the challenges posed by TR and PR by:
Rejecting the dualism of subject and object as fundamentally separate entities.
Arguing that space, time, and appearances are forms of human sensibility—they depend on the mind for their structure and cannot be meaningfully conceived as existing independently.
Establishing Empirical Realism within TI, ensuring that knowledge of the empirical world is valid without invoking a problematic, absolutely mind-independent reality.
This analysis supports your argument that TR and PR are fundamentally aligned in their commitment to absolute mind-independence, while also recognizing how Kant’s framework critiques this shared premise.
5. Suggested Refined Statement
You could present your position as follows:
Kant's concept of Transcendental Realism is fully compatible with Philosophical Realism as defined in the Wikipedia article. Both assert an absolutely mind-independent reality, rejecting the notion that appearances are conditioned by human sensibility. While Kant critiques TR for its epistemological consequences, this does not negate its metaphysical alignment with PR, which also posits a reality existing independently of the mind.
Discuss??
Views??
