Philosophy Now Forum

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Aug 09, 2025 8:19 am Without a circle there is no "outside of a circle" for "outside of a circle is an observation of a relationship with a circle thus necessitating a circle.

Again, you can't observe the outside of a circle. But that doesn't mean that there can't be an outside. Just because you can't observe something doesn't mean it can't exist. But this is incomprehensible to the Kantian-Buddhist mind. Who knows why, maybe it's a cognitive defect.

There is no proof for what cannot be observed for the only thing proven would be a limit to observation by its absence. To say things exist outside of observation is to make the observable distinction of "outside observation", thus making it a distinction of observation thus within observation as the limits which form it.

There is no absolute proof for or against things outside observation (or for anything for that matter). So antirealism isn't a fact, it's a philosophy which can be wrong.

This is very simple, yet for some reason these guys (Johndoe Michael, VA, many Kantians) can't understand it. I really don't get why.

There is no absolute proof within observation outside of context. Absolute proof is subject to context given context is what contains and puts the limit to a set of relations between things, "within context x the phenomena of why y occurs" may mean "y" is absolute only within "x".


The distinction of "outside of observation" is an observation.

Given empiricism requires the context of the test as a means of observing phenomena, and empirical truths require testing if they are to be scientific, there is no strict empirical truth outside of observation.

See, he literally can't do it.

There is no empirical proof that reality exists outside observation, the mind, for all empirical proof is within observation by nature of the test, the test being a conceptualization.

The distinction of "outside observation" is a paradox as "outside observation" is a distinction within observation, thus leaving only observation.

Proof is an interpretation by context, contextualization is the manifestation of distinction through conceptualization....there is no proof outside the mind.

Strawman after strawman. He can't address what I actually said because he can't process it.

Antirealism was never a fact, it is an interpretation. Just as realism was never a fact, it is an interpretation.

Facts are mere contexts by which specific relationships are observed, and they change over time. Antirealism not being a fact has no lasting effect as facts have no lasting effect...as contexts change, facts change. There is no fixed empirical fact.

A pure mental reality cannot be conflated with antirealism for if concepts are real, and empiricism is a concept, then empiricism is real.

The reality of a concept is derived by the change it induces, thus a mind oriented reality is the highest proof of all things for it contains its own proof by the nature of the mind constituting proof.

Empiricism is a conceptualization of pure sensory data, thus with the conceptualization of sensory data sensory data ceases to be sensory data by transformation into concept.

They think that the mind-oriented reality is the highest proof of all things, they can't admit or realize that the alternative philosophy is (at least) on equal footing.

Any alternative philosophy to a mind oriented reality is a mind oriented reality as philosophy is a mind oriented reality by nature of its assertions as concepts.

And you use your hands to pick up stuff and do stuff, therefore the universe is hand-oriented. Deep.

The body is directed by the mind.