The majority are inclined toward philosophical realism as driven by an evolutionary default of the sense of 'mind-independence' which is imperative for basic survival. Thus by default the majority who discuss philosophy are likely to be philosophical realists unless justified otherwise.
You may not be an ontological-based Metaphysical Realist but based on your postings so far, you are a philosophical realist as defined below:
the determinant of why you are a philosophical realist is bolded in the above definition of what is philosophical realist, i.e.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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism
i.e. that it exists even in the absence of any mind perceiving it
You cannot deny your 'what is reality' is grounded to the above,
"it [what is a real thing, object] exists even in the absence of any mind perceiving it" i.e.
it exists regardless of whether there are humans or not.
This is a claim of absolute mind-independence.
Relative mind-independence is where the concept of mind-independence is ultimately meta-mind-related.
If otherwise, show why you are not a philosophical realist as defined above?
Even if you run away from the above to be a pragmatist, you will still be a philosophical realist ultimately, i.e. after a long discussion with AI[wR]:
My point:4. Can You Justify Charging Pragmatists as Philosophical Realists?
Yes, and here’s the reasoning:
High Conviction Equals Commitment: If a pragmatist holds the practical assumption of mind-independence with high conviction, they are effectively committed to it in a way indistinguishable from a philosophical realist in everyday life.
Philosophical Realism Isn’t Always Metaphysical: Philosophical realism does not necessarily require metaphysical realism. A pragmatic commitment to mind-independence can count as philosophical realism because it still involves a stance about the nature of existence.
5. Conceding Non-Metaphysical Realism
To be fair and precise, you could frame your charge like this:
By conceding that they are not a metaphysical realist, you acknowledge their avoidance of deep ontological commitments while still holding them accountable for their high conviction in mind-independence."You are a philosophical realist because of your high conviction in the mind-independent existence of objects, even if your justification is pragmatic rather than metaphysical."
FDP, you may denial it but in essence you are a Philosophical Realist as evident from what you have posted.
Because philosophical realism is grounded on an illusion
Why Philosophical Realism is Illusory
viewtopic.php?t=40167
your critiques my views herein are not credible and fangless.
