Gary Childress wrote: ↑Wed Jun 12, 2024 9:23 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Mar 02, 2020 11:01 am
Realism [philosophical or metaphysical] is an ideology driven by an evolutionary default of a sense-of-externalness which insist reality and things exist absolutely independent of the human conditions, i.e. they exist regardless of whether there are humans or not.
Antirealismwhich emerged later opposes and rejects the ideology of realism[p].
"
Materialism" is Philosophical Materialism aka Philosophical Realism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism
There are many perspectives to Philosophical realism but they are all reducible to its main principle as defined above.
The point here is whichever philosophical stance one take, it is reducible to either Realism [Philosophical] or Idealism [antirealism].
My preference in term of idealism is Kant's Transcendental Idealism which is also represented by Empirical Realism.
Thus to debate effectively one must be able to reduce one's "form" of philosophy to its "substance" else it would be mess to tangle with merely the varied "forms" and not dealing with its roots the substance. Agree?
Are you suggesting that "realism" and "materialism" are equivalent? If so, then do you believe that all things are "material", and nothing is immaterial or "ideal"? Or are you suggesting that "materialism" can be expanded to include the ideal as well?
Maybe I'm not following your statement that "all philosophies are reducible to "realism" vs "idealism". Because you then seem to say that there is something called "anti-realism" and if that is true, then is your philosophy also reducible to "realism" vs "idealism"? Are you a "realist" or are you an "idealist"? Or is your philosophy NOT reducible to "realism" vs "idealism" and therefore not part of the category "all philosophies"?
There are nuances to the general "Realism vs Idealism."
In a more refined perspective, a realist can be an idealist, in this case, there is need for qualification.
I have to keep the title short in the OP but in the details, I stated;
The point here is whichever philosophical stance one take, it is reducible to either Realism [Philosophical] or Idealism [
antirealism].
So in detail it is Philosophical Realism vs Philosophical AntiRealism [Idealism].
or Philosophical Realism vs ANTI-Philosophical_Realism [Idealism].
I wrote above
"
Materialism" is Philosophical Materialism aka Philosophical Realism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism
There are many perspectives to Philosophical realism but they are all reducible to its main principle as defined above, i.e. the main element is '
absolutely independent of the human conditions'. The important term is 'absolutely'.
Overall, I oppose and reject
philosophical realism, I am ANTI-philosophical_realism.
My preference in term of idealism is Kant's Transcendental Idealism which is also represented by Empirical Realism [its relative and not absolute independence].
It unfortunate there are nuances to the general "Realism vs Idealism" that is the reason many are quite lost in understand where they stand in terms of philosophy.