Philosophy Now Forum

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Thu Jul 20, 2023 9:45 am No, that's ridiculous. There are plenty of ideas that exist in the world that I don't think are inconsistent. I might not think they are correct, but being incorrect is very different from being inconsistent. This just sounds like an excuse for your inconsistencies.

and then antirealists also find contradictions in his posts.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Jun 11, 2023 2:51 am Note my improved argument re why god is impossible to be real [empirically].
The other Argument:

Why God must be absolutely Perfect

• i. All humans are programmed with an innate unavoidable existential crisis that generate terrible primal cognitive dissonance.
  ii. The critical task for all humans is to soothe the cognitive dissonances.
  iii. For theists [major types], the only balm to soothe the cognitive dissonance is an absolutely perfect God.

It is impossible for God to exists as real

• P1. For all theists, God must be absolutely perfect and existing as real [i.],
  
  P2. But, Absolute perfection is impossible to exists as real
  
  C1. Therefore it is impossible for God to exists real.

Note:
The next 3 posts below are critical to the OP.

I disagree on one major point.
Atheists treat God the same way Theists treat God, as "absolutely perfect".
The difference between Atheism and Theism is that Atheists claim absolute perfection is unreal, Theists claim absolute perfection is real.
I'll go further to say that this is the basis of reality itself between Atheists and Theists.
Therefore there's a fundamental difference in context and definition...
Reality as "absolutely perfect" or "absolutely imperfect".

On this point, there is much argument between Atheists and Theists.
On the ground of morality, this argument converts into moral good (absolute perfection) versus moral evil (absolute imperfection).
Theists herald acts of moral goodness as evidence of God.
Atheists herald acts of moral evil as evidence against God.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Jul 20, 2023 10:35 am

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Thu Jul 20, 2023 9:45 am No, that's ridiculous. There are plenty of ideas that exist in the world that I don't think are inconsistent. I might not think they are correct, but being incorrect is very different from being inconsistent. This just sounds like an excuse for your inconsistencies.

and then antirealists also find contradictions in his posts.

Exactly.

Waving away any critiques of inconsistency as "you're just saying that because you disagree with me" isn't it. There are people whose conclusions I do agree with, but whose arguments are internally inconsistent. There are people I disagree with whose arguments are not internally inconsistent. He's just trying to find a quick and easy way to brush off the critiques.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Jul 20, 2023 3:14 am Yours is Philosophical Realism [absolute mind independence]

This is a pretty grave insult imo. There are many kinds of realists, but VA deliberately accuses FJ of a certain kind of realism, absolute mind independence, that one would have to be a retarded, delusional, maybe mean-spirited moron to believe in. VA did this on purpose.

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Jul 20, 2023 3:14 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Jul 20, 2023 3:14 am Yours is Philosophical Realism [absolute mind independence]

This is a pretty grave insult imo. There are many kinds of realists, but VA deliberately accuses FJ of a certain kind of realism, absolute mind independence, that one would have to be a retarded, delusional, maybe mean-spirited moron to believe in. VA did this on purpose.

I've noticed a hedging-bets pattern with VA. When something might be problematic to argue against, add in 'absolute', which gives more swingroom later.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Thu Jul 20, 2023 9:45 am No, that's ridiculous. There are plenty of ideas that exist in the world that I don't think are inconsistent. I might not think they are correct, but being incorrect is very different from being inconsistent. This just sounds like an excuse for your inconsistencies.

If you think where there is inconsistencies or incorrectness I am very serious in discussing and resolving them.
For example you think my point re 'solipsism' is inconsistent or fallacious, I made it a point to raise a specific thread to deal with it until it is resolved, e.g.

Philosophical Realism is Solipsistic [re FJ]
viewtopic.php?t=40383

Noted there is something outstanding in that thread, I was not aware of it because you did not quote my post.
I will address that.

My main point is for integrity and knowledge sake I will Never leave any issue unresolved [except those in the ignore list] as long as the discussion is amiable.

What the fuck do you mean "there is nothing outstanding"? You think if someone disagrees with you and you write a reply, that nullifies the disagreement? That's not how anything works. There's EVERYTHING outstanding in that thread.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Jul 20, 2023 3:17 pm I've noticed a hedging-bets pattern with VA. When something might be problematic to argue against, add in 'absolute', which gives more swingroom later.

I think you guys keep misunderstanding this, and for a good reason. Remember number 1. from my anti-realism vs realism comment, the philosophical God's eye view?

VA really thinks that philosophical realism = absolute mind-independence. He even keeps linking the Wiki page on philosophical realism, which of course doesn't even remotely claim anything of the sort. In short he really accuses all philosophical realists of believing that their minds ("they") aren't part of the universe.

This is a strawman of such unfathomable proportions that I think you guys keep missing it. It's not really comprehensible how someone could equate all philosophical realism with absolute mind-independence.

So he's been vehemently arguing with realists for many years now against a position that almost no realist actually holds. That's also imo how he arrives at the realism = solipsism claim.

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Jul 22, 2023 2:27 pm I think you guys keep misunderstanding this, and for a good reason. Remember number 1. from my anti-realism vs realism comment, the philosophical God's eye view?

VA really thinks that philosophical realism = absolute mind-independence. He even keeps linking the Wiki page on philosophical realism, which of course doesn't even remotely claim anything of the sort. In short he really accuses all philosophical realists of believing that their minds ("they") aren't part of the universe.

This is a strawman of such unfathomable proportions that I think you guys keep missing it. It's not really comprehensible how someone could equate all philosophical realism with absolute mind-independence.

I have seen that, yes. Apart from equivocations on what mind-independence means.

So he's been vehemently arguing with realists for many years now against a position that almost no realist actually holds. That's also imo how he arrives at the realism = solipsism claim.

Ah. Well, if that's what he means, his deductions are hilariously badly worded.

I see his latest versions are changed...

1. P-realists believe in an absolute mind-independent reality and things.
2. Mind independent things in this case are illusory. [proof given in various threads - also note the SCANDAL below]
3. Other minds (things) are mind-independent things.
4. So, other minds are illusory.
5. Thus, the p-realist's believe his mind is the only real thing.

6. Solipsism is where one believe his mind is the only real thing.
7. Therefore, the p-realist is solipsistic.

I mean, his English is poor, sometimes, in ways that make him look less intelligent. The 'in this case' is misleading in number 2.
And it's funny that he doesn't realize how damning his deduction above is for his version of antirealism.
If he is correct that other minds are mind-independent things, then his antirealism is solipsistic.
It's a kamakazi argument.
He also has no good way in English, if he understand the difference, to express when he means something entails X, and when someone believes X. He is utterly incapable of being clear about this.

But, anyway, I agree that if that is his belief he's utterly confused about realism. Which is not surprising.
And, again, there are equivocations he does not have a handle on around the words with 'dependant' as their root.

In philosophy, realism signifies the assertion of the existence of a reality independently of our thoughts or beliefs about it.

IOW it isn't idealism.

Independent means 'not dependent on'.
The Moon exists even if we aren't looking at it.
Other minds exist even if we can't directly experience their experience.
The Big Bang exists even if there were no minds back then.

It is the opposite of solipsism.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Jul 22, 2023 10:53 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Jul 22, 2023 2:27 pm I think you guys keep misunderstanding this, and for a good reason. Remember number 1. from my anti-realism vs realism comment, the philosophical God's eye view?

VA really thinks that philosophical realism = absolute mind-independence. He even keeps linking the Wiki page on philosophical realism, which of course doesn't even remotely claim anything of the sort. In short he really accuses all philosophical realists of believing that their minds ("they") aren't part of the universe.

This is a strawman of such unfathomable proportions that I think you guys keep missing it. It's not really comprehensible how someone could equate all philosophical realism with absolute mind-independence.

I have seen that, yes. Apart from equivocations on what mind-independence means.

So he's been vehemently arguing with realists for many years now against a position that almost no realist actually holds. That's also imo how he arrives at the realism = solipsism claim.

Ah. Well, if that's what he means, his deductions are hilariously badly worded.

I see his latest versions are changed...

1. P-realists believe in an absolute mind-independent reality and things.
2. Mind independent things in this case are illusory. [proof given in various threads - also note the SCANDAL below]
3. Other minds (things) are mind-independent things.
4. So, other minds are illusory.
5. Thus, the p-realist's believe his mind is the only real thing.

6. Solipsism is where one believe his mind is the only real thing.
7. Therefore, the p-realist is solipsistic.

I mean, his English is poor, sometimes, in ways that make him look less intelligent. The 'in this case' is misleading in number 2.
And it's funny that he doesn't realize how damning his deduction above is for his version of antirealism.
If he is correct that other minds are mind-independent things, then his antirealism is solipsistic.
It's a kamakazi argument.
He also has no good way in English, if he understand the difference, to express when he means something entails X, and when someone believes X. He is utterly incapable of being clear about this.

But, anyway, I agree that if that is his belief he's utterly confused about realism. Which is not surprising.
And, again, there are equivocations he does not have a handle on around the words with 'dependant' as their root.

In philosophy, realism signifies the assertion of the existence of a reality independently of our thoughts or beliefs about it.

IOW it isn't idealism.

Independent means 'not dependent on'.
The Moon exists even if we aren't looking at it.
Other minds exist even if we can't directly experience their experience.
The Big Bang exists even if there were no minds back then.

It is the opposite of solipsism.

Mistaking the contents of our own minds for objects existing absolutely independent from us, is indeed an illusion. And Kant has indeed shown this, but one doesn't need to read Kant to realize this rather simple fact. Imo aside from maybe PH, there isn't anyone on the forum who doesn't already know this.

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Jul 23, 2023 7:23 am Mistaking the contents of our own minds for objects existing absolutely independent from us, is indeed an illusion. And Kant has indeed shown this, but one doesn't need to read Kant to realize this rather simple fact. Imo aside from maybe PH, there isn't anyone on the forum who doesn't already know this.

Well VA more or less considers independent to mean: not sharing the same reality and having no possible causal or other interaction. Which is not a realist position. In fact it goes against realism. I do wonder sometimes how much his problems with English are at least adding to his confusions. I mean his English is very good. But he's run to the Moon with his interpretation of some terms and for native speakers it's easy to see he's developed straw men based on a semantic freedom he seems utterly unaware of.

There's a cube of iron in a room. The realist believes the cube is still in the room when no one is looking in the room. They also believe that the qualites of the iron cube are not dependent on that mind. That in some sense it is a cube even when no one is looking at it. The color, dark grey is certainly an interpretation of bouncing photons. And there may be other qualities that to varying degrees are skewed through human primate motor cortex and sensory filters. But that we can know something about what is there when no one is looking and also that there is not simply infinitely malleable nothingness there, ready to be turned into anything by perception, that's on the realist spectrum.

He's turned all of that into 'things out there are completely isolated always from human minds and cannot interact or have causal interchanges with minds and no one can draw any conclusions about those things.'

It's a ridiculous straw man. And oddly antirealist. His attacks on realism end up being attacks on his own metaphysical antirealism. His extreme version of it. Van Frassen, someone he's put post from here, is agnostic as far as noumena. VA is an 'atheist'.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Fri Jul 21, 2023 6:10 am What the fuck do you mean "there is nothing outstanding"? You think if someone disagrees with you and you write a reply, that nullifies the disagreement? That's not how anything works. There's EVERYTHING outstanding in that thread.

Don't get too emotional, anyway I am not surprised that it is coming from a p-realists.

I wrote:

• Noted there is something outstanding in that thread, I was not aware of it because you did not quote my post.
  I will address that.
  
  My main point is for integrity and knowledge sake I will Never leave any issue unresolved [except those in the ignore list] as long as the discussion is amiable.

I may not have presented the premises effectively in the earlier threads but I am convinced I am right, i.e. Philosophical Realism in one perspective is solipsistic.

Here is the third version which I believe is valid since I got ChatGPT [with some reservation] to prepare the argument based on information I had given it.

Philosophical Realism is Solipsistic 3
viewtopic.php?t=40509

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Jul 23, 2023 11:42 am

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Jul 23, 2023 7:23 am Mistaking the contents of our own minds for objects existing absolutely independent from us, is indeed an illusion. And Kant has indeed shown this, but one doesn't need to read Kant to realize this rather simple fact. Imo aside from maybe PH, there isn't anyone on the forum who doesn't already know this.

Well VA more or less considers independent to mean: not sharing the same reality and having no possible causal or other interaction. Which is not a realist position. In fact it goes against realism. I do wonder sometimes how much his problems with English are at least adding to his confusions. I mean his English is very good. But he's run to the Moon with his interpretation of some terms and for native speakers it's easy to see he's developed straw men based on a semantic freedom he seems utterly unaware of.

There's a cube of iron in a room. The realist believes the cube is still in the room when no one is looking in the room. They also believe that the qualites of the iron cube are not dependent on that mind. That in some sense it is a cube even when no one is looking at it. The color, dark grey is certainly an interpretation of bouncing photons. And there may be other qualities that to varying degrees are skewed through human primate motor cortex and sensory filters. But that we can know something about what is there when no one is looking and also that there is not simply infinitely malleable nothingness there, ready to be turned into anything by perception, that's on the realist spectrum.

He's turned all of that into 'things out there are completely isolated always from human minds and cannot interact or have causal interchanges with minds and no one can draw any conclusions about those things.'

It's a ridiculous straw man. And oddly antirealist. His attacks on realism end up being attacks on his own metaphysical antirealism. His extreme version of it. Van Frassen, someone he's put post from here, is agnostic as far as noumena. VA is an 'atheist'.

Your above is full of ignorance.

I have to qualify philosophical realists believe in an absolutely mind-independent reality, because I as an empirical realist who also believe in a mind-independent reality but that is on a relative basis.

When dealing with more complex philosophical issues, we have to more precise.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Jul 25, 2023 6:06 am Your above is full of ignorance.

I have to qualify philosophical realists believe in an absolutely mind-independent reality, because I as an empirical realist who also believe in a mind-independent reality but that is on a relative basis.

When dealing with more complex philosophical issues, we have to more precise.

This would be your admission that you've been shamelessly strawmanning almost everyone here for years. You must have been doing it on purpose. Most philosophical realists here (and elsewhere) are empirical realists and don't believe in absolute mind-independence.

You are 100-150 years late with attacking absolute mind-independence, Western philosophy and science already had that "revolution". It's yesterday's news.

Atla wrote: ↑Tue Jul 25, 2023 2:33 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Jul 25, 2023 6:06 am Your above is full of ignorance.

I have to qualify philosophical realists believe in an absolutely mind-independent reality, because I as an empirical realist who also believe in a mind-independent reality but that is on a relative basis.

When dealing with more complex philosophical issues, we have to more precise.

This would be your admission that you've been shamelessly strawmanning almost everyone here for years. You must have been doing it on purpose. Most philosophical realists here (and elsewhere) are empirical realists and don't believe in absolute mind-independence.

You are 100-150 years late with attacking absolute mind-independence, Western philosophy and science already had that "revolution". It's yesterday's news.

It is an oxymoron for a philosophical realist to be an empirical realist.



With reference to the above image;

Philosophical Realism [Transcendental Realism] [Empirical Idealism]
A philosophical realist claims the candle exists absolutely mind-independent of the observer.
This means that, if the observer get out of the room or close his eyes, the mind-independent candle is still existing as proven by the point that the candle is still there when he opens his eyes.

It may be objected that the candle is not absolutely mind-independent because candles are dependent on humans to make them.

To avoid the above objection, philosophical realists will invoke the examples of dinosaurs, the moon and the like.
The claim is that the noumenon moon exist absolutely mind-independent in the sense, the noumenon moon pre-existed human and will continue to exists even if humans are extinct.

In this case, the noumenon moon which exist absolutely mind-independent has a transcendental existence, i.e. beyond mind. the empirical and sensible.

The philosophical realists cannot be empirical realists because the philosophical realists claim absolutely mind-independence while the empirical realists claim relative mind-independence.

Philosophical realists insist the real moon is the absolutely mind-independent existing out there as a positive noumenon and unknowable.
What is knowable of the positive noumenon is based on empirical evidences which are situated in the mind of the observer.
In this case the empirical evidences [dependent on the mind] are not real, what is really-real is the mind-independent positive noumenon out there.
Since to the p-realists, the empirical evidences [dependent on the mind] are not real, p-realists cannot be Empirical Realists.

In this sense, the philosophical realists is a transcendental realist and an empirical idealist.
The philosophical realist is an empirical idealist because he is relying in his mind [idealistic] to infer the absolutely mind-independent noumenon existing beyond his mind.


Empirical Realism
What is real to the Empirical Realists are based on the the empirical evidences [dependent on the mind]; thus mind-conditioned empirical reality.
The empirical realists do not claim the supposed mind-independent candle is absolutely mind-independent of the observer, but rather it is relatively mind-independent as conditioned to his whole human conditions individually and collectively.
In this sense what is real is based on what is empirical with rationality, thus empirical realism.

What is empirical realism however is subsumed within Transcendental Idealism where overall it is conditioned upon the human conditions.

Transcendental Idealism is something like living with a Biosphere, where all the apparently independent things are all interdependent.
Biosphere 2
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biosphere_2