Indirect Realism is Not Realistic

[Veritas Aequitas]

Depends. They are continuous with the external world, which includes other minds.

But seemingly separate from them. (I actually don't think this is the case), but I'll take a kind of common sense mixed with science approach to probing your non-dualism/indirect realism.

And there is only one first-person-view and we all "share" it.

How do we share it? How is it one first-person view? YOu see my tea mug`?

The Western worldview is based on the idea that our minds/selves are fundamentally separate from other minds/selves and the physical world. But they aren't, it's all one continuos world. There are differences but no fundamental separations.

I don't see your tea mug because that mental content is in your head, and I can perceive almost nothing of that. However the Western worldview is based on the idea that your first person view is part of your mind/self, even though it isn't. Your first person view was never yours. It is not a thing but simply existence itself which we all share, are all part of, and can't be anything but a first person view.

The above illusions are kinda what the Western world is built upon.

If based on common sense and conventional sense [FSERC], it is very true the mind/selves are separate from the discrete physical world. This common sense independence is relative and critical for basic survival. To condemn such by itself is irrational and not pragmatic.

However, at higher level [2] of reflection, the discrete physical world is actually existing continuous deterministically as a system.
But the realization is not absolute independent but ultimately contingent upon the human condition.
But the problem with philosophical realists [indirect realists and transcendental realists] is they treat this continuous entity as an absolute entity, i.e. in Kant's term the noumenal world beyond the empirical.

1. To them [some], this mind-independent noumenal world is real but unknowable [e.g. Atla].

2. Some realists believe otherwise, i.e. the noumenal world is knowable and science will eventually discover and "know" the noumenal.

3. Some philosophical realists, i.e. the theists believe the noumenal soul, the noumenal world is consolidated as consummated as an absolutely unconditional God.

According to Kant, all the above re 1, 2 and 3 are reifying and chasing an illusion and thus such belief is problematic and going nowhere.
I had argued the propensity to dig in with reifying an illusion as the most real is driven by an evolutionary default grounded on an existential crisis.

Since the idea of an absolutely mind-independent idea is so problematic, the most realistic and pragmatic belief is to adopt Kant's Copernican Revolution where reality is contingent upon the human conditions.

Indirect Realism as a subset of philosophical realism is never realistic.

[Atla]

But seemingly separate from them. (I actually don't think this is the case), but I'll take a kind of common sense mixed with science approach to probing your non-dualism/indirect realism.

How do we share it? How is it one first-person view? YOu see my tea mug`?

The Western worldview is based on the idea that our minds/selves are fundamentally separate from other minds/selves and the physical world. But they aren't, it's all one continuos world. There are differences but no fundamental separations.

I don't see your tea mug because that mental content is in your head, and I can perceive almost nothing of that. However the Western worldview is based on the idea that your first person view is part of your mind/self, even though it isn't. Your first person view was never yours. It is not a thing but simply existence itself which we all share, are all part of, and can't be anything but a first person view.

The above illusions are kinda what the Western world is built upon.

If based on common sense and conventional sense [FSERC], it is very true the mind/selves are separate from the discrete physical world. This common sense independence is relative and critical for basic survival. To condemn such by itself is irrational and not pragmatic.

However, at higher level [2] of reflection, the discrete physical world is actually existing continuous deterministically as a system.
But the realization is not absolute independent but ultimately contingent upon the human condition.
But the problem with philosophical realists [indirect realists and transcendental realists] is they treat this continuous entity as an absolute entity, i.e. in Kant's term the noumenal world beyond the empirical.

1. To them [some], this mind-independent noumenal world is real but unknowable [e.g. Atla].

2. Some realists believe otherwise, i.e. the noumenal world is knowable and science will eventually discover and "know" the noumenal.

3. Some philosophical realists, i.e. the theists believe the noumenal soul, the noumenal world is consolidated as consummated as an absolutely unconditional God.

According to Kant, all the above re 1, 2 and 3 are reifying and chasing an illusion and thus such belief is problematic and going nowhere.
I had argued the propensity to dig in with reifying an illusion as the most real is driven by an evolutionary default grounded on an existential crisis.

Since the idea of an absolutely mind-independent idea is so problematic, the most realistic and pragmatic belief is to adopt Kant's Copernican Revolution where reality is contingent upon the human conditions.

Indirect Realism as a subset of philosophical realism is never realistic.

What is realistic is to reject Kant's childish phenomena vs noumena dichotomy (something he clang to because of his existential crisis).

And instead adopt Indirect realisms's phenomena vs partially knowable noumena vs unknowable noumenon trichotomy, which is 100% realistic.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Indirect Realism as a subset of philosophical realism is never realistic.

What is realistic is to reject Kant's childish phenomena vs noumena dichotomy (something he clang to because of his existential crisis).

Handwaving at its best.
If you are to counter Kant, you will need to refer to his CPR in this case which a one whole long argument justifying the noumena is an illusion, albeit a useful illusion for his moral theory.

And instead adopt Indirect realisms's phenomena vs partially knowable noumena vs unknowable noumenon trichotomy, which is 100% realistic.

The Oxymoron of an Unknowable Noumenon
viewtopic.php?t=42651

[Atla]

Indirect Realism as a subset of philosophical realism is never realistic.

What is realistic is to reject Kant's childish phenomena vs noumena dichotomy (something he clang to because of his existential crisis).

Handwaving at its best.
If you are to counter Kant, you will need to refer to his CPR in this case which a one whole long argument justifying the noumena is an illusion, albeit a useful illusion for his moral theory.

And instead adopt Indirect realisms's phenomena vs partially knowable noumena vs unknowable noumenon trichotomy, which is 100% realistic.

The Oxymoron of an Unknowable Noumenon
viewtopic.php?t=42651

Why do you even keep saying that we don't necessarily have to agree with Kant, when we aren't allowed to disagree with him?

To counter Kant means to DISAGREE WITH THE CPR, ARE YOU REALLY THIS STUPID THAT YOU LEGIT CAN'T COMPREHEND THIS?

[Atla]

VA, before you started reading Kant, did you have a psychosis or some other issue that wiped most of your memory (about everything)?

[Veritas Aequitas]

VA, before you started reading Kant, did you have a psychosis or some other issue that wiped most of your memory (about everything)?

You admitted to have had suffered from some sort of psychosis.

I have NEVER experienced psychosis of any sort.

[Atla]

VA, before you started reading Kant, did you have a psychosis or some other issue that wiped most of your memory (about everything)?

You admitted to have had suffered from some sort of psychosis.

I have NEVER experienced psychosis of any sort.

Before you started reading Kant, did you have some issue that wiped most of your memory (about everything)?