Philosophy Now Forum

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Aug 31, 2021 6:42 am This realist versus anti-realist is traceable ...
I can track it to 4 billion years to the days our one-celled animals emerge to differentiate what is food and not food not there "independent" of their body.

Hehehe that's a new one

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Aug 31, 2021 6:42 am You are speaking from a very ignorant vantage point.

Re Kant it is very regular we hear of the following;

• What Alfred North Whitehead said about Plato (that all of Western philosophy was merely a footnote to Plato) could easily be said about Kant in regard to modern philosophy.
  a quickie search

Thus it is justify to ground the realist versus anti-realist to Kant. I have also cover sufficiently those of the related literatures subsequent to Kant to the present day.

This realist versus anti-realist is traceable to its grounds in Greek philosophy way back to >600BC and Eastern Philosophy, >5000 years ago.
I can track it to 4 billion years to the days our one-celled animals emerge to differentiate what is food and not food not there "independent" of their body.

Again, going astray, while confirming what I just said. So it is worth stating it again. I am still hoping it would get a proper answer:

It can now be properly established, based in part on your own admissions, that:

• 1. You're mostly ignorant of what modern realism entails. You have not read realist literature, including Critical Realism, and your stance on the subject of realism vs. anti-realism is based almost exclusively on Kant's 18th century depiction of realism and whatever anti-realist literature says about realism. That's what you call "extensive research" and it's absolutely laughable.

• 2. While you pretend to be the judge that settles the matter, you're actually the biased attorney pleading for the anti-realist side. Your case lacks impartiality and disinterested objectivity. One can never expect that the "proof" demanded in your OP will ever satisfy the requirements that you place there supposedly to settle the matter. In fact, the whole thing is a vitiated circle from the start, as the requirements for "proof" are invalidated by anti-realist assumptions. It is like the famous depiction of Baron Munchhausen pulling himself out of a mire by his own hair.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Aug 31, 2021 6:42 am Show me your Critical Realism literatures and their arguments you think I have missed out?

You said you have researched realism extensively. I asked you to identify all that realist literature that you researched. I'm still waiting for an answer.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Aug 31, 2021 6:42 am Note the separate threads I have raised in order to understand your arguments and to get to the bottom of the issues.

There's no good reason for diverting to other threads and not dealing with my arguments right here. That is a lame excuse.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Aug 31, 2021 6:42 am I am familiar with most of the notable counters by 'famous' scholars [mostly of the analytic kind]...

Nah, you're stuck with Kant. I don't believe you're familiar with anything else and you have provided enough evidence to substantiate that belief.

Conde Lucanor wrote: ↑Tue Aug 31, 2021 3:41 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Aug 31, 2021 6:42 am You are speaking from a very ignorant vantage point.

Re Kant it is very regular we hear of the following;

• What Alfred North Whitehead said about Plato (that all of Western philosophy was merely a footnote to Plato) could easily be said about Kant in regard to modern philosophy.
  a quickie search

Thus it is justify to ground the realist versus anti-realist to Kant. I have also cover sufficiently those of the related literatures subsequent to Kant to the present day.

This realist versus anti-realist is traceable to its grounds in Greek philosophy way back to >600BC and Eastern Philosophy, >5000 years ago.
I can track it to 4 billion years to the days our one-celled animals emerge to differentiate what is food and not food not there "independent" of their body.

Again, going astray, while confirming what I just said. So it is worth stating it again. I am still hoping it would get a proper answer:

It can now be properly established, based in part on your own admissions, that:

• 1. You're mostly ignorant of what modern realism entails. You have not read realist literature, including Critical Realism, and your stance on the subject of realism vs. anti-realism is based almost exclusively on Kant's 18th century depiction of realism and whatever anti-realist literature says about realism. That's what you call "extensive research" and it's absolutely laughable.

• 2. While you pretend to be the judge that settles the matter, you're actually the biased attorney pleading for the anti-realist side. Your case lacks impartiality and disinterested objectivity. One can never expect that the "proof" demanded in your OP will ever satisfy the requirements that you place there supposedly to settle the matter. In fact, the whole thing is a vitiated circle from the start, as the requirements for "proof" are invalidated by anti-realist assumptions. It is like the famous depiction of Baron Munchhausen pulling himself out of a mire by his own hair.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Aug 31, 2021 6:42 am Show me your Critical Realism literatures and their arguments you think I have missed out?

You said you have researched realism extensively. I asked you to identify all that realist literature that you researched. I'm still waiting for an answer.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Aug 31, 2021 6:42 am Note the separate threads I have raised in order to understand your arguments and to get to the bottom of the issues.

There's no good reason for diverting to other threads and not dealing with my arguments right here. That is a lame excuse.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Aug 31, 2021 6:42 am I am familiar with most of the notable counters by 'famous' scholars [mostly of the analytic kind]...

Nah, you're stuck with Kant. I don't believe you're familiar with anything else and you have provided enough evidence to substantiate that belief.

You are merely noises above without substance.
As I suggested present or re-present [since they are all messed up] your arguments clearly.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Aug 31, 2021 6:42 am Show me your Critical Realism literatures and their arguments you think I have missed out?

You said you have researched realism extensively. I asked you to identify all that realist literature that you researched. I'm still waiting for an answer.

It is ridiculous and I don't want to waste time listing the whole Bibliography I have on all the realists' literature I have covered.
Generally I have >9500 file in >600 folders in my Main Philosopher Folder and appx 50% of that would be related to those of the typical Realists.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

I have already provided sufficient information on this.

It would be more effective, based on what I have provided so far, for you to list down what I have not covered as your so claimed Critical Realism.

Again, no arguments, lame excuses to avoid the issues and more intellectual dishonesty.

This one has to be the top of them all:

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Sep 01, 2021 5:38 am It is ridiculous and I don't want to waste time listing the whole Bibliography I have on all the realists' literature I have covered.
Generally I have >9500 file in >600 folders in my Main Philosopher Folder and appx 50% of that would be related to those of the typical Realists.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

Everything that comes out of your keyboard is nonsense. Let's take that claim of yours: 50% of 9500 files in your computer makes 4750 of files supposedly related to realist literarture. Making a generous assumption that it would take one week to read each file (which would include major works, of course), it would have taken you 91 years to read them all. And that just for realist literature, you still would have required some more years to tackle the anti-realist ones, plus 3 more years you said you dedicated to "research Kant". That's at least around 100 years of "research" on you alone. I call that the biggest load of BS one could ever imagine.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Sep 01, 2021 5:38 am I have already provided sufficient information on this.

No, you have dodged the question because that's your only resource left. I mean, not just "not enough information", but nothing. If you had made "extensive research" as you claimed, and you had the complete bibliography from your "research" right before your eyes, you could choose at least the 10 or 20 most relevant works and paste it here.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Sep 01, 2021 5:38 am It would be more effective, based on what I have provided so far, for you to list down what I have not covered as your so claimed Critical Realism.

All evidence points at you only covering Kant's CPR. You know nothing of realism in general, except what you took from a Wikipedia article, and you are completely ignorant of Critical Realism.

Conde Lucanor wrote: ↑Thu Sep 02, 2021 1:32 am Again, no arguments, lame excuses to avoid the issues and more intellectual dishonesty.

This one has to be the top of them all:

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Sep 01, 2021 5:38 am It is ridiculous and I don't want to waste time listing the whole Bibliography I have on all the realists' literature I have covered.
Generally I have >9500 file in >600 folders in my Main Philosopher Folder and appx 50% of that would be related to those of the typical Realists.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

Everything that comes out of your keyboard is nonsense. Let's take that claim of yours: 50% of 9500 files in your computer makes 4750 of files supposedly related to realist literarture. Making a generous assumption that it would take one week to read each file (which would include major works, of course), it would have taken you 91 years to read them all. And that just for realist literature, you still would have required some more years to tackle the anti-realist ones, plus 3 more years you said you dedicated to "research Kant". That's at least around 100 years of "research" on you alone. I call that the biggest load of BS one could ever imagine.

You are indeed very ignorant based on your shallow experience.
The point is when one has mastered one aspect of a subject [in months or weeks, 3 years in the case of Kant's], the next 100 books and articles will be easy since they are all repetitive of the major principles, so what I look for are merely differences, any critique or novel ideas. I can cover 100 to 200 of them in a week by merely scanning and reading to the abstracts, contents, prefaces, reviews, etc.

I also have various methodologies to do speed reading.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Sep 01, 2021 5:38 am I have already provided sufficient information on this.

No, you have dodged the question because that's your only resource left. I mean, not just "not enough information", but nothing. If you had made "extensive research" as you claimed, and you had the complete bibliography from your "research" right before your eyes, you could choose at least the 10 or 20 most relevant works and paste it here.

Nothing?? You are resorting to desperation and lying.
What would you do if I can produce 'something' in my previous post?

I have raised the following thread which is a reduction to the realist and anti-realist issues'
All Philosophies Reduced to Realism vs Idealism
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=28643
I will not be able to discuss if I had not covered sufficient grounds in the issues.

The point that you want me to spoon feed you indicate your lack of depth and width on philosophical subjects.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Sep 01, 2021 5:38 am It would be more effective, based on what I have provided so far, for you to list down what I have not covered as your so claimed Critical Realism.

All evidence points at you only covering Kant's CPR. You know nothing of realism in general, except what you took from a Wikipedia article, and you are completely ignorant of Critical Realism.

It is because that you are ignorant of the fundamentals of 'realism' that you infer I am ignorant of 'philosophical realism'.

I have been covering the issue of Philosophical Realism versus Anti-Philosophical_Realism for a long time.
In the course of it I would have come across 'Critical Realism' but because it made no dent nor is significant to the issue I had not taken nor it is imprinted strongly in my memory. I mentioned I've heard of Roy Bhaskar long ago and the likes but had put that aside.
I have also done extensive research on Meillassoux re his Correlation and Speculative Realism and again I find that has no significance to the realist vs anti-realist issue.

Btw, you have not presented nor defended why your "Critical Realism" is significant or relevant to the issue?
As I had stated 'critical realism' is merely a subset of Philosophical Realism,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

Just as the the "Critical Race Theory" is traceable to Kant's Critical Philosophical, I bet Bhaskar's 'Critical Realism' is also traceable to Kant's Critical Philosophy and he would have bastardized the term 'critical' and 'transcendental' to suit his social studies in the background.

Here is a list of what I have read of Critical Realism.

• Critical Realism & Kant Transcendental Arguments Viskovatoff Alex
  Critical Realism and Its Critics Roy Wood Sellars
  Critical Realism Essential Readings Ed Bhaskar Archer Collier Lawson Norrie
  Critical Realism Post-positivism & Possibility of Knowledge Ruth Groff
  Critical Realism_ An Introduction to Roy Bhaskar Philosophy Andrew Collier
  Critique Reclaiming_naturalized_critical_realism Kaidesoja on McWherter
  Reclaiming Reality A Critical Introduction to Contemporary Philosophy Roy
  Review of Essays in Critical Realism 1921 Allan Dorward
  The Failure of Critical Realism 1922 Turner
  The Failure of Critical Realism 1922 Turner Sugden Sherwood Monist
  Why Critical Realism Fails to Justify Critical Social Research Martyn Hammersley
  A Realist Theory of Science - Critical Realism Roy Bhaskar
  What is Critical Realism - Center for Critical Realism
  Critical Realism and Composition Theory Donald Judd
  Critical Realism in Perspective Neo-Kantian Matthias Neuber
  Critical realism -Perception WIKI
  Critical Realism vs Kant Transcendental Idealism
  Critique What is Critical about critical realism Daniel Little
  Reclaiming Reality A Critical Introduction to Contemporary Philosophy Roy Bhaskar
  Review of Essays in Critical Realism 1921 A LaLande English
  What is Critical Realism, Chap 9 Roy Bhaskar's Reclaiming
  What is Critical Realism in Judd

These are the Critiques of Critical Realism

• Critique Bhaskar critical realism re Kant Bill Jefferies
  Critique of Bhaskar Cartwright
  Critical Realism re Transcendental Stephen Clarke
  Critique of Bhaskar Critical Realism vs Kant Tran Idealism G Duindam • 2017
  Critique Why Critical Realists Ought to be Transcendental Idealists G Duindam
  Critique of Critical Realism re Kant Meillassoux Laurelle Alison Assiter

I have not read Roy Bhaskar's book in details [but Chap 9 in detail] but Donald Judd and Collier gave a summary of Bhaskar views.

• Chapter 9 in
  Reclaiming Reality
  A critical introduction to contemporary philosophy
  Roy Bhaskar
  
  1 The Emergence of Transcendental Realism
  2 Transcendental Realism, Science and Scientific Realism
  3 Transcendental Realism and Critical Naturalism: Limits on Naturalism And The Idea Of An Explanatory Critique
  4 Critical Realism and Its Implications

Now what do you think I would be ignorant regarding Critical Realism?

Btw, I have requested many times, you have yet to answer the challenge in the OP.
Your bastardized term 'Critical Realism' would not be of help at all.

Conde Lucanor wrote: ↑Thu Sep 02, 2021 1:32 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Sep 01, 2021 5:38 am It is ridiculous and I don't want to waste time listing the whole Bibliography I have on all the realists' literature I have covered.
Generally I have >9500 file in >600 folders in my Main Philosopher Folder and appx 50% of that would be related to those of the typical Realists.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

Everything that comes out of your keyboard is nonsense. Let's take that claim of yours: 50% of 9500 files in your computer makes 4750 of files supposedly related to realist literarture. Making a generous assumption that it would take one week to read each file (which would include major works, of course), it would have taken you 91 years to read them all. And that just for realist literature, you still would have required some more years to tackle the anti-realist ones, plus 3 more years you said you dedicated to "research Kant". That's at least around 100 years of "research" on you alone. I call that the biggest load of BS one could ever imagine.

Here is a list of Threads I have opened in this Forum;
Almost all of them are reducible to Realism versus Anti-Realism dichotomy.
In many of these threads I would have included the relevant references to the Topic.

• Empirical Claims are Not Provable??
  
  The Universe Predated Humans?
  
  Reality is Inaccessible?
  
  There is no "Reality-Gap"?
  
  Why Philosophical Realists are Dogmatic in their Views?
  
  A Kantian Person is NEVER a Thing-in-Itself
  
  The Science of Philosophy?
  
  Dewey's Rejection of the Realists' View
  
  A Kantian Person is NEVER a Thing-in-Itself
  
  Is Philosophical 'Realism' Imperative for Science?
  
  Realists as Animals Cannot Recognize Themselves in a Mirror
  
  Kant's Transcendental Idealism: SEP: By Stang
  
  Bernardo Kastrup: Everything is Mind
  
  Non-Euclidean Geometry vs Kantian Space
  
  A Realist is also an Idealist
  
  Kant's Copernican Revolution
  
  Russell: "Perhaps There is No Table At ALL?" Chapter-1 in full
  https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Prob ... Philosophy
  
  Quine on Abstract Objects
  
  There are No Things-in-Themselves
  
  Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists
  viewtopic.php?f=5&t=32481
  
  Humans are the Co-Creator of Reality They are In [2]
  
  Hermeneutics: Applications?
  
  Richard Rorty
  
  The Mind is a Physical Thing
  
  Knowledge by acquaintance v knowledge by description
  
  A Philosophical Realist is an Empirical Idealist
  
  Are Humans 'Programmable'?
  
  What is a Framework and System of Knowledge? [FSK]
  All Modern Philosophy is a Footnote to Kant.
  
  PH: Assumed Reality and linguistic FSK of reality reply Post1
  Post2 [Wittgenstein]
  Post Science Credibility and Advantage -post
  
  Enactivism -co-creators
  
  What is your Framework and System of Reality?
  
  Is Humanity the Standard Bearer of Reality?
  
  Is there an Ultimate Reality?
  
  Meta-Hallucination versus 'General' Hallucinations.
  
  Why Take the Leap into La La Land?
  
  Donald Hoffman: There is No Objective Reality
  
  Scientific Realism Assumes an Independent Objective Reality
  
  From 'No Man's Land' to 'La La Land'
  
  Neils Bohr, Complementary & Yin-Yang
  
  No Thing in Itself
  
  Humans are the Co-Creator of Reality They are In
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISdBAf-ysI0 AL-Khalili
  viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31180
  
  What IF Humans are Extinct – Does the Universe Still Exists?
  
  JTB - Traditional Versus Modern View
  
  You and ALL are Part and Parcel of Reality.
  
  What is Philosophical Objectivity?
  viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31416
  
  7 Dimensions of Objectivity – Mathew Kramer
  viewtopic.php?p=471122#p471122
  Post: Objectivity vs Subjectivity
  
  Reality is an Emergence
  viewtopic.php?f=5&t=28671
  
  Your brain hallucinates your conscious reality
  viewtopic.php?f=11&t=25316
  
  What is Really Real?
  
  All Philosophies Reduced to Realism vs Idealism
  viewtopic.php?f=5&t=28643
  
  Relativistic Quantum Mechanics vs. Realism
  
  The 'Independent External World' is Kindergarten Stuff.
  
  What is Truth?
  
  To Insist there is an Independent Reality is an Oxymoron.
  
  What is Philosophy?
  
  The Case Against Reality - Dr. Hoffman Dec 29, 2019 note repeated thread above 2020
  
  Which of these is Real and True?
  
  Is a Perfect Circle Real?
  
  Russell: There is No Real Table??
  
  Russell: The No Man's Land and Philosophy

Conde Lucanor wrote: ↑Thu Sep 02, 2021 1:32 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Sep 01, 2021 5:38 am It is ridiculous and I don't want to waste time listing the whole Bibliography I have on all the realists' literature I have covered.
Generally I have >9500 file in >600 folders in my Main Philosopher Folder and appx 50% of that would be related to those of the typical Realists.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

Everything that comes out of your keyboard is nonsense. Let's take that claim of yours: 50% of 9500 files in your computer makes 4750 of files supposedly related to realist literarture. Making a generous assumption that it would take one week to read each file (which would include major works, of course), it would have taken you 91 years to read them all. And that just for realist literature, you still would have required some more years to tackle the anti-realist ones, plus 3 more years you said you dedicated to "research Kant". That's at least around 100 years of "research" on you alone. I call that the biggest load of BS one could ever imagine.

You misunderstand his process. Reading and comprehending aren't what he does with those htings. He sorts them neatly into folders instead of doing that. Ask him about his expert analysis of the Quaran to see what I mean.

The dude made a whole big deal about reading Rorty last year because he got it into his head I was super into that. I was mildly worried that I might have to read the damn thing again myself to discuss his boring opinons on it. Luckily I never needed to do that because all he ever did was convert a pdf to Word and then mess around with the document formatting before deciding that he didn't really agree with unspecified parts of the book. He never even managed to understand the book's title.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Sep 02, 2021 7:25 am You are indeed very ignorant based on your shallow experience.
The point is when one has mastered one aspect of a subject [in months or weeks, 3 years in the case of Kant's], the next 100 books and articles will be easy since they are all repetitive of the major principles, so what I look for are merely differences, any critique or novel ideas. I can cover 100 to 200 of them in a week by merely scanning and reading to the abstracts, contents, prefaces, reviews, etc.

I also have various methodologies to do speed reading.

That is completely ridiculous. I don't know who you think will be fooled with all that nonsense about studying 200 works per week. Speed reading? Pfff...please. I'm pretty sure though, that in general you spend a lot of effort in fooling yourself.

The point is still the same: you have based all your arguments on your supposed expertise on the subject of realism vs anti-realism and dismissing counterarguments with the shallow and pretentious claim of one "being ignorant". Well, you have truly crashed against your own ignorance, and let me tell you: it's looking pretty bad. I wouldn't ask you to be good at lying, but you'd rather say nothing instead of making a fool out of yourself. For example, after shouting out loud that you have extensively researched realism, you admit of having "put aside" Critical Realism and just "having heard of Roy Bhaskar long ago", but you also then include one of his major works and other texts commenting his work (secondary sources as those that you dismiss when they go against Kant) among the list of your "extensive research" on realism. This list includes several anti-realist works, even though you claim it is realist literature. Absurd.

To put the cherry on top of it all, we get that your only real source for Bhaskar's realism is one chapter in one book, written by an assistant English teacher.
https://www.pittstate.edu/languages/fac ... -judd.html

Posting lots of threads? Give me a break. It means nothing, but I do give you this: you're the king of diverting subjects to other threads. Such a mess.

Conde Lucanor wrote: ↑Sat Sep 04, 2021 3:33 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Sep 02, 2021 7:25 am You are indeed very ignorant based on your shallow experience.
The point is when one has mastered one aspect of a subject [in months or weeks, 3 years in the case of Kant's], the next 100 books and articles will be easy since they are all repetitive of the major principles, so what I look for are merely differences, any critique or novel ideas. I can cover 100 to 200 of them in a week by merely scanning and reading to the abstracts, contents, prefaces, reviews, etc.

I also have various methodologies to do speed reading.

That is completely ridiculous. I don't know who you think will be fooled with all that nonsense about studying 200 works per week. Speed reading? Pfff...please. I'm pretty sure though, that in general you spend a lot of effort in fooling yourself.

The point is still the same: you have based all your arguments on your supposed expertise on the subject of realism vs anti-realism and dismissing counterarguments with the shallow and pretentious claim of one "being ignorant". Well, you have truly crashed against your own ignorance, and let me tell you: it's looking pretty bad. I wouldn't ask you to be good at lying, but you'd rather say nothing instead of making a fool out of yourself. For example, after shouting out loud that you have extensively researched realism, you admit of having "put aside" Critical Realism and just "having heard of Roy Bhaskar long ago", but you also then include one of his major works and other texts commenting his work (secondary sources as those that you dismiss when they go against Kant) among the list of your "extensive research" on realism. This list includes several anti-realist works, even though you claim it is realist literature. Absurd.

To put the cherry on top of it all, we get that your only real source for Bhaskar's realism is one chapter in one book, written by an assistant English teacher.
https://www.pittstate.edu/languages/fac ... -judd.html

Posting lots of threads? Give me a break. It means nothing, but I do give you this: you're the king of diverting subjects to other threads. Such a mess.

There you go again making noises and strawman instead of presenting your argument. You are just speculating and in no position nor has authority to judge re what I have done with the files in my Philosophy Directory. My Kant folder itself has > 2000 files in >100 sub-folders, which I have no problems covering since I claim I am a reasonable expert on Kant.

Note I read Chapter 9 of Bhaskar's book and various sources re What is Critical Realism.
I have read most of the articles on the Critique of Bhaskar's work. I had ignored Bhaskar earlier because his works [in my assessment] is not significant to the realist vs anti-realist issue.

As I had stated what you have been doing is merely making noises [empty vessel] without presenting anything of substance. That is an embarrassment to yourself.
You have not presented your arguments why Critical Realism support your points and I am sure you have not read the criticisms of Critical Realism. If so, give me an idea of your position which I have requested many times.

I anticipate you will continue to blabber and make noises instead of presenting your arguments to support your Critical Realism and the challenge in the OP. Are you even aware of the various Criticisms against Critical Realism?

If you have read the threads I raised and understand the realist vs anti-realist issue thoroughly you will note they are relevant to the issue. Instead of making noises, justify your point critically.

"In any case, the OP is on you the realist [you’re a critical realist] to prove there are real objects that exists absolutely independent of the human conditions.
You have failed to do so this far."


Every time your look back and x is still there, reality has proven itself. There is no burden of proof for the realist, since it's the only rational possibility.

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
There you go again making noises and strawman instead of presenting your argument. You are just speculating and in no position nor has authority to judge re what I have done with the files in my Philosophy Directory. My Kant folder itself has > 2000 files in >100 sub-folders, which I have no problems covering since I claim I am a reasonable expert on Kant.

No, your illusion and desire to be an expert on Kant doesn't make you an expert on Kant.

My argument has been presented clearly, the evidence is available for anyone to see, and your argument has been refuted beyond reasonable doubt. In case it needs to be restated: I have proven, using his own statements, that Veritas Aequitas believes one can rely on secondary sources to reach a thorough comprehension of the philosophical doctrines of particular authors, yet he was previously advancing a claim on the contrary. It was required, you said, that one relied on the primary sources to be competent and fully illustrated, which would mean you are ignorant and incompetent in understanding realism. You admitted such ignorance of Bhaskar's critical realism, you are clueless about Bungean realism, know nothing of Sellars' scientific realism and had simply dismissed summarily Meillassoux realist challenges to Kantian and post-Kantian philosophy. Who are you then to advance prejudices against Bhaskar's work and decide that it is not relevant to the realist/anti-realist debate? And so you now, finding convenient to contradict yourself, want to reclaim competence in such areas, having to eat your own argument of demanding an expert level in Kantian philosophy, a level that as has been easily shown, you are not proficient yourself. Worst for you, I had not relied only on secondary sources, as I have read enough of Kant's work to form a judgement.

The folders in your computer? Yes, thank you, they have been a formidable evidence to support my point above. You have nothing left but to shout it is only noise. Desperate people react to unpleasing sounds that way.

Conde Lucanor wrote: ↑Mon Sep 06, 2021 1:18 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
There you go again making noises and strawman instead of presenting your argument. You are just speculating and in no position nor has authority to judge re what I have done with the files in my Philosophy Directory. My Kant folder itself has > 2000 files in >100 sub-folders, which I have no problems covering since I claim I am a reasonable expert on Kant.

No, your illusion and desire to be an expert on Kant doesn't make you an expert on Kant.

My argument has been presented clearly, the evidence is available for anyone to see, and your argument has been refuted beyond reasonable doubt. In case it needs to be restated: I have proven, using his own statements, that Veritas Aequitas believes one can rely on secondary sources to reach a thorough comprehension of the philosophical doctrines of particular authors, yet he was previously advancing a claim on the contrary. It was required, you said, that one relied on the primary sources to be competent and fully illustrated, which would mean you are ignorant and incompetent in understanding realism. You admitted such ignorance of Bhaskar's critical realism, you are clueless about Bungean realism, know nothing of Sellars' scientific realism and had simply dismissed summarily Meillassoux realist challenges to Kantian and post-Kantian philosophy. Who are you then to advance prejudices against Bhaskar's work and decide that it is not relevant to the realist/anti-realist debate? And so you now, finding convenient to contradict yourself, want to reclaim competence in such areas, having to eat your own argument of demanding an expert level in Kantian philosophy, a level that as has been easily shown, you are not proficient yourself. Worst for you, I had not relied only on secondary sources, as I have read enough of Kant's work to form a judgement.

The folders in your computer? Yes, thank you, they have been a formidable evidence to support my point above. You have nothing left but to shout it is only noise. Desperate people react to unpleasing sounds that way.

You are still making noises without presenting anything of substance.

On the other hand I have made the attempts to address all the specific issues you are concerned with by opening separate threads to get to the bottom of it.

Note the main point of this OP is for you to prove "An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists" and you have not done so.
Instead you have veered off to the issue of realist vs anti-realists.

You are the one who mentioned Bunge, Meillassoux, Bhaskar, etc. but you have not presented anything to support their stance against anti-realism [re Kantian]. The onus is on you to justify their stance first and then for me to counter where relevant.
I have already opened a thread on Critical Realism and presented some debunking of it. Where is your participation in that thread to reinforce your argument.

You should open new threads on Bunge [not significant to me] and Meillassoux [Speculative Realism] to justify your argument against anti-realism [Kantian].

Btw, I am taking break from responding to your noises until you present reasonably solid arguments to support your stance.

Note the number of files in my Philosophy and Kantian Folder is a side-issue [a clue I am not that ignorant], what counts significantly must be the arguments I am presenting.

Nah! I am not chasing after any label such as being 'an expert on Kant' but rather I strive to interpret Kant as close as possible to Kant's view in the CPR by doing the necessary reading and work as an average reader.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Sep 06, 2021 5:27 am

Conde Lucanor wrote: ↑Mon Sep 06, 2021 1:18 am
The folders in your computer? Yes, thank you, they have been a formidable evidence to support my point above. You have nothing left but to shout it is only noise. Desperate people react to unpleasing sounds that way.

You are still making noises without presenting anything of substance.

It is easy to understand why I didn't get a counterargument to my last statement: there isn't, there can't be, it would be futile resistance. The fact is that you're not familiar with any form of realism other than that which Kant presents in the CPR. You are ignorant of what scientific realism and critical realism entail, and your whole vision of the realism/anti-realism debate is impaired. That goes directly to the point of addressing the challenge in the OP: the existence of things in themselves is a transcendental condition for the possibilty of science. You can still always deny access to objects independent of our minds, but in doing so, you are necessarily committed to rejecting science. You cannot understand this because you're still stuck with Kant's account of realism (the one that was possible at his time).

BTW, files in a folder do not imply immunity to ignorance, just as books in the shelves of a library do not imply erudition from the library clerk.

Conde Lucanor wrote: ↑Tue Sep 07, 2021 3:49 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Sep 06, 2021 5:27 am

Conde Lucanor wrote: ↑Mon Sep 06, 2021 1:18 am
The folders in your computer? Yes, thank you, they have been a formidable evidence to support my point above. You have nothing left but to shout it is only noise. Desperate people react to unpleasing sounds that way.

You are still making noises without presenting anything of substance.

It is easy to understand why I didn't get a counterargument to my last statement: there isn't, there can't be, it would be futile resistance. The fact is that you're not familiar with any form of realism other than that which Kant presents in the CPR. You are ignorant of what scientific realism and critical realism entail, and your whole vision of the realism/anti-realism debate is impaired.
That goes directly to the point of addressing the challenge in the OP: the existence of things in themselves is a transcendental condition for the possibilty of science. You can still always deny access to objects independent of our minds, but in doing so, you are necessarily committed to rejecting science. You cannot understand this because you're still stuck with Kant's account of realism (the one that was possible at his time).

BTW, files in a folder do not imply immunity to ignorance, just as books in the shelves of a library do not imply erudition from the library clerk.

You are still making noises without substantial arguments.

Show me where [posts I have made] I am ignorant of What is Scientific Realism and Critical Realism?
Rather it is you who is ignorant of Scientific Realism and Critical Realism proper.
If you are well versed with Critical Realism you should have commented your views on the thread I raised re Critical Realism.
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=33573

That goes directly to the point of addressing the challenge in the OP: the existence of things in themselves is a transcendental condition for the possibilty of science. You can still always deny access to objects independent of our minds, but in doing so, you are necessarily committed to rejecting science. You cannot understand this because you're still stuck with Kant's account of realism (the one that was possible at his time).

You are the one who is ignorant of the issues.

Note Kant in rejecting mind-independent thing-in-itself claimed science is still a possibility as presented in his CPR and the Prolegomena.
Example: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-science/
Denying access to objects independent of minds do not necessary reject science.
If you still insist, show proof instead of making noises about it.

The main leverage of Science is on empirical evidences not on the thing-in-itself.
The thing-in-itself is merely assumed by certain aspects of science, i.e. Newtonian Physicists and not by all physicists.
Anyone can still proceed with science without accepting the assumption of the thing-in-itself.

Even theists like Newton who ground his theories on God can still produce scientific theories which are acceptable by scientists and others. Non-theists just cut off the God grounding and stick with what is required by the Scientific Framework and Method.
The same cut off can be done to the Realist assumption in Science re an independent thing-in-itself and the scientific theories are still valid.

BTW, files in a folder do not imply immunity to ignorance, just as books in the shelves of a library do not imply erudition from the library clerk.

Clerk in a library is a Bad analogy.
However, it is very possible there are people who are show-offs, e.g. building a big library their homes, load them with books [but never read them] to give the impression to other they are intellectuals.

As I had stated I have read, reviewed [read the abstracts, reviewed] all the books, articles, note and relevant information in my Philosophy Folder.
This is not critical and thus a side issue, what is critical is whether I can present justified sound arguments from these references, which I have done so.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Sep 07, 2021 5:59 am You are still making noises without substantial arguments.

Show me where [posts I have made] I am ignorant of What is Scientific Realism and Critical Realism?
Rather it is you who is ignorant of Scientific Realism and Critical Realism proper.

Do I really need to say this again?:

For example, after shouting out loud that you have extensively researched realism, you admit of having "put aside" Critical Realism and just "having heard of Roy Bhaskar long ago", but you also then include one of his major works and other texts commenting his work (secondary sources as those that you dismiss when they go against Kant) among the list of your "extensive research" on realism. This list includes several anti-realist works, even though you claim it is realist literature. Absurd.

To put the cherry on top of it all, we get that your only real source for Bhaskar's realism is one chapter in one book, written by an assistant English teacher.
https://www.pittstate.edu/languages/fac ... -judd.html

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Sep 07, 2021 5:59 am You are the one who is ignorant of the issues.

Note Kant in rejecting mind-independent thing-in-itself claimed science is still a possibility as presented in his CPR and the Prolegomena.
Example: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-science/
Denying access to objects independent of minds do not necessary reject science.
If you still insist, show proof instead of making noises about it.

You had to read the entire A Realist Theory of Science, not secondary sources, to understand the Critical Realism project, but since you avoided it, you are still ignorant. I did read it and studied it, so I do understand it and I'm able to comment on it, based on my extensive research.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Sep 07, 2021 5:59 am The main leverage of Science is on empirical evidences not on the thing-in-itself.
The thing-in-itself is merely assumed by certain aspects of science, i.e. Newtonian Physicists and not by all physicists.
Anyone can still proceed with science without accepting the assumption of the thing-in-itself.

Empirical evidence only makes sense as evidence, and science only becomes intelligible, when its objects exist in themselves. Otherwise, anything goes.