VA Conflate TR with PR??

[Veritas Aequitas]

This really isn't all that complicated. No need for extended back-and-forths with our own AIs (lmao).

Transcendental Realism is a specific type of Philosophical Realism. You can be a Philosophical Realist without being a Transcendental Realist, but you cannot be a Transcendental Realist without being a Philosophical Realist.

Philosophical Realism, as it's been used by VA in these conversations, is the broad notion that *there is some objective mind-independent reality*, regardless of it's nature. Transcendental Realism is a more specific variant that says, there is a mind-independent reality, and it's nature is *specifically this one thing*.

See post above to Atla
viewtopic.php?p=743244#p743244

[Veritas Aequitas]

Kant's CPR can't address most modern realisms. You just want it because you really want to hurt "p-realists".

Strawman.

From a nuance view, modern realism-in-general is grounded on mind-independence but there are two senses of it;

1. Absolute mind-independence, i.e. it exists regardless of whether there are humans or not, e.g. philosophical realism, transcendental realism as its subs.

2. Relative mind-independence, i.e. it is relative [not literally dependent] to humans, so no humans, no mind-independence, e.g. empirical realism and various idealisms.

Kant's CPR is grounded on his Copernican Revolution [human orientated] which opposed sense 1 where to Kant is his Transcendental Realism then but in modern times is labelled Philosophical Realism.
Kant Transcendental Realism would cover platonic realism, Descartes realism, rationalism's realism, direct/indirect realism, theism and whatever is grounded on absolutely mind-independent during his time.
So Transcendental Realism to Kant is no different with modern Philosophical Realism, i.e. re absolute mind-independence.

Kant's most original contribution to philosophy is his "Copernican Revolution," that, as he puts it, it is the representation that makes the object possible rather than the object that makes the representation possible.
This introduced the human mind as an active originator of experience rather than just a passive recipient of perception. ... as Kant alternatively puts it.
Our knowledge of the world of our experience is inevitably a knowledge that is constructed through our own frameworks and categories - this gives rise to questions about whether our "knowledge" is anything to do with the "world as it is."
https://www.age-of-the-sage.org/philoso ... lution.asp

From the above, Kant's Copernican Revolution implies there is no external "world-as-it-is" existing by itself, i.e. absolutely human mind independent, rather, the human is related to what the world is.
{humans are somehow "co-creator" of reality they are in}

Kant's Copernican Revolution [TO] opposed all Transcendental Realism which include any realism that claims absolute mind-independence which in modern time is categorized within Philosophical Realism.
So, Kant's CPR addressed [& opposed] all modern realisms that claimed absolute mind-independence, i.e. classed as Philosophical Realism.

[Iwannaplato]

Kant's CPR can't address most modern realisms. You just want it because you really want to hurt "p-realists".

Strawman.

Nope, you still do not understand what a strawman argument is. What Atla did was postentially an ad hom. Certainly it was negatively attributing motives to you. But it's not a strawman. He's is OBVIOUSLY not saying that what he wrote is your position - though you also aim similar ad homs/negative motive attributions at realists.

A strawman argument means that someone says you asserted X and you did not assert X. He did not say you asserted that. He said that really that is what is going on when use the CPR the way you do. Attribution of a motive.

Just as when you say realists are stuck in an evolutionary default and that's why they hang on to realism, this is not a strawman, it's either an ad hom or attributing motives behind the positions.

What a strawman is has been explained to you many times, it has become your regular cry/accusation, but you still do not know what a strawman is.

The problems you have as a philosophical poster are not your positions, but the fundamental misunderstandings of the process of discussion, which includes the use of many terms, understanding fallacies, inablity or lack of interest in reading what other people write and even what you quote from AIs and articles yourself, lack of response to points made, repetition and rephrasing the assertion of your position is conflated with responding to people, self-congratulatory posts, dependence on AI for your own thinking rather than as inspiration/resource, and an inability to admit even very small mistakes.

Stuff that underlies intelligent conversation. Your assumption, much like Iambiguous and others, is that your positions are challenging people to react negatively to how you respond to their posts and how you use sources. That's a self-serving interpretation. Of course some people may react to you based on what you assert, but you have that as a convenient and constant interpretation of any criticism.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Kant's CPR can't address most modern realisms. You just want it because you really want to hurt "p-realists".

Strawman.

Nope, you still do not understand what a strawman argument is. What Atla did was postentially an ad hom. Certainly it was negatively attributing motives to you. But it's not a strawman. He's is OBVIOUSLY not saying that what he wrote is your position - though you also aim similar ad homs/negative motive attributions at realists.

A strawman argument means that someone says you asserted X and you did not assert X. He did not say you asserted that. He said that really that is what is going on when use the CPR the way you do. Attribution of a motive.

Just as when you say realists are stuck in an evolutionary default and that's why they hang on to realism, this is not a strawman, it's either an ad hom or attributing motives behind the positions.

What a strawman is has been explained to you many times, it has become your regular cry/accusation, but you still do not know what a strawman is.

The problems you have as a philosophical poster are not your positions, but the fundamental misunderstandings of the process of discussion, which includes the use of many terms, understanding fallacies, inablity or lack of interest in reading what other people write and even what you quote from AIs and articles yourself, lack of response to points made, repetition and rephrasing the assertion of your position is conflated with responding to people, self-congratulatory posts, dependence on AI for your own thinking rather than as inspiration/resource, and an inability to admit even very small mistakes.

Stuff that underlies intelligent conversation. Your assumption, much like Iambiguous and others, is that your positions are challenging people to react negatively to how you respond to their posts and how you use sources. That's a self-serving interpretation. Of course some people may react to you based on what you assert, but you have that as a convenient and constant interpretation of any criticism.

You did not get it right precisely.

A straw man fallacy (sometimes written as strawman) is the informal fallacy of refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion, while not recognizing or acknowledging the distinction.[1]
One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

My strawman accusation above is quite a stretch but it has no significance to the issue.

In most cases, you, Atla and others often misrepresent my argument, thus it is very often I stated,
"I did not said ..' or "I never assert that ..."
then I had to explain what my argument meant.

[FlashDangerpants]

I feel nostalgic for the days when people actually talked about ethics in this subforum.

VA has been in this rut for years, believing that all he has to do is win the antirealism argument and then he has won the game. Does anybody but him really care about realism in general? Maybe just grant him the generalised realism thing and move on?

His main arg has all sorts of massive failings. He just assumes that if we allow his position that the world around us is fully dependent upon interpretation, then all interpretations of the wolrd are facts - that's still stupid no matter what the status of the broader realism argument is. He justifies the need for his entire "morality-proper" project on a completely unfounded assumption that efficiency is a higher, or possibly ultimate good, and this same dubious efficiency thing is what undergirds his whole position that animals are morally irrelevant.

There's a wold of minor moral philosophy that VA can participate in if you can coax him away from his tedious little obsession for a while. Just ask him to explain how he chooses that one thing is better or worse than another and a world of entertainment opens up before you, sometimes with an opportunity to raise an actual interesting point or two.

We - coillectively - are part responsible for this situation. It is obvious that VA can more or less happily just repeat himself every single day for longer than anyone else can stand to have the same boring conversation over and over again. He will never get out of that rut under his own power, so I am asking if anyone but him actually has a dog in this realism fight?

My recommendation is that we make a pact that in this subforum, moral realism and moral antirealism are the subject of debate, but for this purpose we are all happy to surrender to whatever generalised antirealism bullshit shuts VA up.

[Atla]

Kant's CPR can't address most modern realisms. You just want it because you really want to hurt "p-realists".

Strawman.

From a nuance view, modern realism-in-general is grounded on mind-independence but there are two senses of it;

1. Absolute mind-independence, i.e. it exists regardless of whether there are humans or not, e.g. philosophical realism, transcendental realism as its subs.

2. Relative mind-independence, i.e. it is relative [not literally dependent] to humans, so no humans, no mind-independence, e.g. empirical realism and various idealisms.

Kant's CPR is grounded on his Copernican Revolution [human orientated] which opposed sense 1 where to Kant is his Transcendental Realism then but in modern times is labelled Philosophical Realism.
Kant Transcendental Realism would cover platonic realism, Descartes realism, rationalism's realism, direct/indirect realism, theism and whatever is grounded on absolutely mind-independent during his time.
So Transcendental Realism to Kant is no different with modern Philosophical Realism, i.e. re absolute mind-independence.

Kant's most original contribution to philosophy is his "Copernican Revolution," that, as he puts it, it is the representation that makes the object possible rather than the object that makes the representation possible.
This introduced the human mind as an active originator of experience rather than just a passive recipient of perception. ... as Kant alternatively puts it.
Our knowledge of the world of our experience is inevitably a knowledge that is constructed through our own frameworks and categories - this gives rise to questions about whether our "knowledge" is anything to do with the "world as it is."
https://www.age-of-the-sage.org/philoso ... lution.asp

From the above, Kant's Copernican Revolution implies there is no external "world-as-it-is" existing by itself, i.e. absolutely human mind independent, rather, the human is related to what the world is.

Kant's Copernican Revolution [TO] opposed all Transcendental Realism which include any realism that claims absolute mind-independence which in modern time is categorized within Philosophical Realism.
So, Kant's CPR addressed [& opposed] all modern realisms that claimed absolute mind-independence, i.e. classed as Philosophical Realism.

Word salad, you are conflating TR with PR. Your "Absolute" mind-independence is only one thing only in TR. Kant never addressed most modern PRs.

Don't you get it? All those criticisms you received from us for years, were more or less correct. It's just that now that I'm more familiar with Kant's really odd definitions and really weird argument, I can spell it out better.

[Flannel Jesus]

This really isn't all that complicated. No need for extended back-and-forths with our own AIs (lmao).

Transcendental Realism is a specific type of Philosophical Realism. You can be a Philosophical Realist without being a Transcendental Realist, but you cannot be a Transcendental Realist without being a Philosophical Realist.

Philosophical Realism, as it's been used by VA in these conversations, is the broad notion that *there is some objective mind-independent reality*, regardless of it's nature. Transcendental Realism is a more specific variant that says, there is a mind-independent reality, and it's nature is *specifically this one thing*.

See post above to Atla
viewtopic.php?p=743244#p743244

That's not a response to me or what I said, you're just being silly. And lazy. What he said there, that you're replying to, isn't even related to what I said above. Be less lazy.

Even your own ai agrees with what I said. If you must be lazy, be lazy properly and accept it when the AI says we're right.

[Flannel Jesus]

Flannel Jesus:
Is it fair to say that Transcendental Realism isnt synonymous with Philosophical Realism, but is instead a sub-category of philosophical realism?


ChatGPT said:
ChatGPT
Yes, it is fair to say that Transcendental Realism is not synonymous with Philosophical Realism but can instead be considered a sub-category or a particular variant within the broader framework of Philosophical Realism.

Philosophical Realism:
Philosophical Realism is a general view that asserts the existence of a reality independent of our thoughts, perceptions, or beliefs. Different types of realism address various domains, such as:

Metaphysical Realism: The belief that entities exist independently of human minds or language.
Epistemological Realism: The idea that humans can know or perceive the nature of objective reality.
Scientific Realism: The view that scientific theories aim to describe the reality of the world as it truly is.
Transcendental Realism:
Transcendental Realism can be understood as a more specific interpretation of realism, particularly in relation to the philosophy of Immanuel Kant and its opposition to Transcendental Idealism. It is often used to describe a position that asserts the existence of an objective reality that not only exists independently of human perception but also has a direct, unmediated influence on human experience.

In contrast to Kant's Transcendental Idealism, which argues that we can only know things as they appear to us (phenomena) and not as they are in themselves (noumena), Transcendental Realism would posit that our knowledge can, at least in principle, grasp reality as it truly is. Some interpretations of Transcendental Realism also include a critique of the epistemological limitations Kant places on human understanding.

Why it is a Sub-Category:
Transcendental Realism shares the core tenet of Philosophical Realism—an independent reality—but it adds specific metaphysical and epistemological claims about how this reality relates to human cognition and perception. Therefore:

It fits within the broader category of Philosophical Realism.
It is not interchangeable with other forms of realism, like Scientific or Metaphysical Realism, because it introduces its unique transcendental framework.
In short, Transcendental Realism aligns with the general principles of Philosophical Realism but narrows the scope to focus on the transcendental conditions for knowledge and the relationship between cognition and independent reality.

[CIN]

My recommendation is that we make a pact that in this subforum, moral realism and moral antirealism are the subject of debate, but for this purpose we are all happy to surrender to whatever generalised antirealism bullshit shuts VA up.

If by 'surrender' you mean ignore his posts, then I'm already doing that. I ignore all posts about metaphysics anyway because I think they're a waste of time. But I don't think that will shut VA up. Nothing short of a headectomy will do that.

[Atla]

I feel nostalgic for the days when people actually talked about ethics in this subforum.

When was that? It says you joined 2 years ago, VA has been at it for like 5 years in this sub..

[seeds]

Kant's CPR can't address most modern realisms. You just want it because you really want to hurt "p-realists".

Strawman.

Nope, you still do not understand what a strawman argument is...

...What a strawman is has been explained to you many times, it has become your regular cry/accusation, but you still do not know what a strawman is.

Right you are, Iwannaplato!

However, even though he doesn't actually know what a strawman is, he sure is adept at building them. For example,...

@Seeds
Here are the additional discussion in relation to ChatGpt's response to you.

You are an absolute scoundrel whose dishonesty (as I mentioned in your other thread) has the allegedly noble and honorable Kant spinning in his grave.

Your "additional discussion" with ChatGPT...

("...in relation to ChatGpt's response to..." me)

...is a veritable case study in the use of a strawman argument wherein you brazenly substitute "God" as being the type of noumenon I was attempting to prove as being real, in place of my actual argument involving the "superpositioned electron," something of which you made absolutely no mention of in your "discussion" with ChatGPT.

As is obvious in the case above, he presents strawman arguments to ChatGPT that completely misrepresent what we say, and then shamelessly uses ChatGPT's responses to the strawman as a rebuttal to his interlocutor's actual position.

So, the question is, why have we all spent years arguing with such a deceitful and incorrigible person when, long ago, we all learned (through intense frustration and aggravation) that it's a painful exercise in utter futility?

Is it because it's hard to resist confronting the sheer hutzpah of an obvious victim of the Dunning-Kruger Effect whose manic obsession with an 18th century philosopher has impelled him to create 128 threads (out of a possible 150) on just the first three pages of just this one subforum alone?

If not that, my fellow masochists, then what's the answer?...

...(Hmm, perhaps I just answered my own question by alluding to "masochism." )
_______

[CIN]

I feel nostalgic for the days when people actually talked about ethics in this subforum.

When was that? It says you joined 2 years ago, VA has been at it for like 5 years in this sub..

I started here by debating moral objectivity with Peter Holmes (who seems to have gone AWOL: I hope he's okay).

[Atla]

I feel nostalgic for the days when people actually talked about ethics in this subforum.

When was that? It says you joined 2 years ago, VA has been at it for like 5 years in this sub..

I'm just trying to tell VA that now that he made like 300 topics on realism and antirealism, it would be a good idea for him to learn what those words (realism, antirealism) mean. It would be a big step forward for him.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Kant's CPR can't address most modern realisms. You just want it because you really want to hurt "p-realists".

Strawman.

From a nuance view, modern realism-in-general is grounded on mind-independence but there are two senses of it;

1. Absolute mind-independence, i.e. it exists regardless of whether there are humans or not, e.g. philosophical realism, transcendental realism as its subs.

2. Relative mind-independence, i.e. it is relative [not literally dependent] to humans, so no humans, no mind-independence, e.g. empirical realism and various idealisms.

Kant's CPR is grounded on his Copernican Revolution [human orientated] which opposed sense 1 where to Kant is his Transcendental Realism then but in modern times is labelled Philosophical Realism.
Kant Transcendental Realism would cover platonic realism, Descartes realism, rationalism's realism, direct/indirect realism, theism and whatever is grounded on absolutely mind-independent during his time.
So Transcendental Realism to Kant is no different with modern Philosophical Realism, i.e. re absolute mind-independence.

Kant's most original contribution to philosophy is his "Copernican Revolution," that, as he puts it, it is the representation that makes the object possible rather than the object that makes the representation possible.
This introduced the human mind as an active originator of experience rather than just a passive recipient of perception. ... as Kant alternatively puts it.
Our knowledge of the world of our experience is inevitably a knowledge that is constructed through our own frameworks and categories - this gives rise to questions about whether our "knowledge" is anything to do with the "world as it is."
https://www.age-of-the-sage.org/philoso ... lution.asp

From the above, Kant's Copernican Revolution implies there is no external "world-as-it-is" existing by itself, i.e. absolutely human mind independent, rather, the human is related to what the world is.

Kant's Copernican Revolution [TO] opposed all Transcendental Realism which include any realism that claims absolute mind-independence which in modern time is categorized within Philosophical Realism.
So, Kant's CPR addressed [& opposed] all modern realisms that claimed absolute mind-independence, i.e. classed as Philosophical Realism.

Word salad, you are conflating TR with PR. Your "Absolute" mind-independence is only one thing only in TR. Kant never addressed most modern PRs.

I have been giving you references to support my arguments.
What you have been doing is merely blabbering.
Where are your references to support your argument?

Don't you get it? All those criticisms you received from us for years, were more or less correct. It's just that now that I'm more familiar with Kant's really odd definitions and really weird argument, I can spell it out better.

Don't give childish excuses with the so-happened majority ad populum views here.
You don't understand the generally accepted definition of philosophical realism [PR] and worst you are ignorant of Kant, so his TR.
So, how could ever mount a solid argument with reference to PR and TR.
Where are your references [books, articles, etc.] to support your argument?

If you refer to AI, ask it to give specific supporting references.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I feel nostalgic for the days when people actually talked about ethics in this subforum.

When was that? It says you joined 2 years ago, VA has been at it for like 5 years in this sub..

I'm just trying to tell VA that now that he made like 300 topics on realism and antirealism, it would be a good idea for him to learn what those words (realism, antirealism) mean. It would be a big step forward for him.

Do you really understand the debate between realism versus antirealism and its nuances fully?
Give an idea of the above and with references?