Philosophy Now Forum

@ FJ

In my thread;
Philosophical Realism is Solipsistic.
viewtopic.php?t=40197
I am accused of "using premises p-realist don't agree with, then prove they are wrong",

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sat Jun 10, 2023 8:29 am If you say you can prove realists believe something, and then prove that they believe that thing using premises they don't agree with, then you haven't proven anything at all..

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sat Jun 10, 2023 9:13 am The title of your thread is a claim about the beliefs of philosophical realists.

Philosophical realists don't claim to be solipsistic, so that's obviously a non starter, and if they did claim that, you wouldn't need an argument like the one in op to show it.

Instead, you provide an argument that you think proves that philosophical realists are solipsistic. Your argument is fallacious, because you cannot prove that realists believe in solipsism by using premises they don't agree with. It's really very simple.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sat Jun 10, 2023 9:35 am It's very clear why your argument is fallacious. I couldn't possibly make it clearer. You cannot prove that a group of people believe some statement by using premises they don't agree with.

I had no intention in using the premises that p-realists do not agree with to prove "Philosophical Realism is Solipsistic."
I just cannot understand [a real mystery to me] FJ's counter on how he read that I am using the premises that p-realists do not agree with to prove "Philosophical Realism is Solipsistic".

I personally believe,
Solipsism is Incoherent
https://iep.utm.edu/solipsis/#H7

There are p-realists who condemned my views as solipsism when it can be argued that the p-realists philosophical realism is fundamentally solipsistic.

Here is my revised argument why
"Philosophical Realism is Solipsistic"
Solipsism claims only one’s mind is real.

I have no intention in using the "premises that p-realists do not agree with" to prove "Philosophical Realism is Solipsistic" and will not do so.

1. P-realists never claim their Philosophical Realism is Solipsistic.

2. P-realists claimed things are mind-independent, i.e. of one's mind.
see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

3. Re 2, other minds [things] are independent of the p-realist's mind.

4. Anti-p_realists relying on human-based FSR-FSK has proven the philosophical realism idea of mind-independence is illusory.
see: Morality: Philosophical Realism's Dilemma
viewtopic.php?p=653868#p653868
The problem facing Philosophical Realism is insoluble!

5. From the Anti-p_realists' perspective, philosophical realisms entails that only the individual p-realist mind is real while other minds are illusory.

6. Solipsism claims only one’s mind is real

7. Therefore, from the Anti-p_realists' perspective, the p-realists' philosophical realism is solipsistic.

The above is from from the Anti-p_realists' perspective.

Obviously the p-realists will disagree with the above argument. Their disagreement is based on their ignorance that their philosophical stance is an ideology and they are clinging to it dogmatically.

I have demonstrated here why the mind-independent reality of p-realist is illusory;

Two Senses of Reality
viewtopic.php?t=40265

Philosophical Realism's Mind-Independence is Absurd
viewtopic.php?t=40272

Why Philosophical Realism is Illusory
viewtopic.php?t=40167

So far, no p-realists here has demonstrated nor proven their philosophical realism is realistic nor tenable.

I have no intention in using the "premises that p-realists do not agree with" to prove "Philosophical Realism is Solipsistic" and believe I had done so.

If you still think I am using "premises that p-realists do not agree with" to prove "Philosophical Realism is Solipsistic" show me where?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Jul 06, 2023 9:23 am
I have no intention in using the "premises that p-realists do not agree with" to prove "Philosophical Realism is Solipsistic" and believe I had done so.

You had no intention to use them, but you believe you have used them. I believe you have too. It looks like we're in agreement then: you have used premises realists don't agree with, and that makes the conclusion not really sensibly follow from the premises

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Thu Jul 06, 2023 9:41 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Jul 06, 2023 9:23 am
I have no intention in using the "premises that p-realists do not agree with" to prove "Philosophical Realism is Solipsistic" and believe I had [NOT] done so.

You had no intention to use them, but you believe you have used them. I believe you have too. It looks like we're in agreement then: you have used premises realists don't agree with, and that makes the conclusion not really sensibly follow from the premises

It was an omission in a sense of rushing to get it done. Now edited.

If you believe I have done it, how and where?

I think that if you try to read your premises, and really try to understand which of your premises a realist would not agree with, the answer would jump out at you. You would, if you genuinely tried, most likely see the premises in question and think, DUH, of course realists don't agree with this premise!

Please try that first, and report back. If, even after deliberate honest effort to find the answer for yourself, you still don't know which premise realists wouldn't agree with, I'll help you. But I personally think the answer is so insanely obvious that I don't believe you when you act like you don't see it. So give it a try and report back please.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Jul 12, 2023 11:25 pm Realists are solipsists despite this meaning that your core accusation about their 'absurd, primitive, evolutionary default, barbaric belief in a mind independent reality' is completely impossible, since that belief contradicts solipsism and...solipsism is a kind of antirealism, if not your form, and it is an issue that antirealisms tend to have to clarify given that a number of antirealisms deny the existence of unobservables.

I realized this was incomplete even in summary. One core difference between realism and anti-realism, especially around noumena, is realisms greater allowance for inference to things not directly experienced. Noumena are inferred to exist. The anti-realist is at the very least more cautious with inference around 'things' not directly experienced. So, of the two, anti-realism is much more likely to rule out the existence of posited things/phenomena. The question is whether, on any specific 'thing', it should be ruled out, with anti-realism ruling out noumena, in the antirealist is an antiphilosophical_realist for example. So, it doesn't make sense to wonder if realists are solipsists for two main reasons: 1) realists clearly do not believe there is only mind. They believe there is a mind independent reality. 2) realists are happy to infer the existence of things not directly experienced. Mind independent reality and all sorts of unobservables. Other minds would just be one of many, many inferred things/phenomena. Antirealism on the other hand has a stronger tendency to criticize such inference. So if one was to potentially entail solipsism, it would be antirealism, given in part because belief in other minds also goes against solipsism. But I think it needs to mount a defense. VA's own definition of and critique of realism entails the impossibility of him logically concluding realism is solipsistic (point one).

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Thu Jul 06, 2023 9:59 am I think that if you try to read your premises, and really try to understand which of your premises a realist would not agree with, the answer would jump out at you. You would, if you genuinely tried, most likely see the premises in question and think, DUH, of course realists don't agree with this premise!

Please try that first, and report back. If, even after deliberate honest effort to find the answer for yourself, you still don't know which premise realists wouldn't agree with, I'll help you. But I personally think the answer is so insanely obvious that I don't believe you when you act like you don't see it. So give it a try and report back please.

I have read my argument and I can't see any issue with it;

• 1. P-realists never claim their Philosophical Realism is Solipsistic.
  
  2. P-realists claimed things are mind-independent, i.e. of one's mind.
  see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism
  
  3. Re 2, other minds [things] are independent of the p-realist's mind.
  
  4. Anti-p_realists relying on human-based FSR-FSK has proven the philosophical realism idea of mind-independence is illusory.
  see: Morality: Philosophical Realism's Dilemma
  viewtopic.php?p=653868#p653868
  The problem facing Philosophical Realism is insoluble!
  
  5. From the Anti-p_realists' perspective, philosophical realisms entails that only the individual p-realist mind is real while other minds are illusory.
  
  6. Solipsism claims only one’s mind is real
  
  7. Therefore, from the Anti-p_realists' perspective, the p-realists' philosophical realism is solipsistic.[/quote]
  
  The above is from from the Anti-p_realists' perspective.

I believe the problem is because of the philosophical-realism vs anti-philosophicalrealism perspectives.
Btw, I am very serious in clearing this issue.

Explain in a more clearer approach why my argument above is fallacious.

My point is even though p-realists deny they are not solipsistic, from a more refined perspective their beliefs are solipsistic in nature with reference to the Reality-Gap I raised somewhere.

So, it doesn't make sense to wonder if realists are solipsists for two main reasons:
1) realists clearly do not believe there is only mind. They believe there is a mind independent reality.
2) realists are happy to infer the existence of things not directly experienced. Mind independent reality and all sorts of unobservables.

Since there are so many types of realists, my reference is always philosophical realists;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

Here is a problem with Philosophical Realists and their Philosophical Realism;

• 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.

P-realists will deny they are solipsistic, but they are ignorant that their beliefs and ideology lead them to being solipsistic.

Re 2, note Kant's accusing p-realists beliefs as a SCANDAL to philosophy, that they are unable to prove the existence of their mind-independent external world as real.

Mind-Independent Things; a Scandal [Insult] to Philosophy
viewtopic.php?t=40182

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Jul 21, 2023 2:10 am

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Thu Jul 06, 2023 9:59 am I think that if you try to read your premises, and really try to understand which of your premises a realist would not agree with, the answer would jump out at you. You would, if you genuinely tried, most likely see the premises in question and think, DUH, of course realists don't agree with this premise!

Please try that first, and report back. If, even after deliberate honest effort to find the answer for yourself, you still don't know which premise realists wouldn't agree with, I'll help you. But I personally think the answer is so insanely obvious that I don't believe you when you act like you don't see it. So give it a try and report back please.

I have read my argument and I can't see any issue with it;

This is a serious intellectual failing of yours then.

Look at premise 4

4. Anti-p_realists relying on human-based FSR-FSK has proven the philosophical realism idea of mind-independence is illusory.

You are seriously telling me, you read this premise and it did not immediately jump out to you as something realists would disagree with? You think realists think that anti realists have proven that mind independence is illusory?

You are not intellectually prepared for this conversation. You are nonsense incarnate. If you cannot even see this most basic thing that literally anybody else with an operational mind can see, you need to take a timeout and get your mind straight. It's not possible to reason with someone as mentally far gone as that.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Fri Jul 21, 2023 6:13 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Jul 21, 2023 2:10 am

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Thu Jul 06, 2023 9:59 am I think that if you try to read your premises, and really try to understand which of your premises a realist would not agree with, the answer would jump out at you. You would, if you genuinely tried, most likely see the premises in question and think, DUH, of course realists don't agree with this premise!

Please try that first, and report back. If, even after deliberate honest effort to find the answer for yourself, you still don't know which premise realists wouldn't agree with, I'll help you. But I personally think the answer is so insanely obvious that I don't believe you when you act like you don't see it. So give it a try and report back please.

I have read my argument and I can't see any issue with it;

This is a serious intellectual failing of yours then.

Look at premise 4

4. Anti-p_realists relying on human-based FSR-FSK has proven the philosophical realism idea of mind-independence is illusory.

You are seriously telling me, you read this premise and it did not immediately jump out to you as something realists would disagree with? You think realists think that anti realists have proven that mind independence is illusory?

You are the stupid one who think I cannot understand that is something the p-realist would disagree.
That is obvious without any need to mention it.

It is also p-realists by default of their philosophical realism would not agree with the anti-realists' argument.
But this is what a philosophical forum is about, i.e. a discussion and debate on whose view is more realistic.
I have already raised many threads to argue that the p-realist's idea of mind-independent is illusory.
Why Philosophical Realism is Illusory
viewtopic.php?t=40167

Thus it is only logical I can follow in that argument based on my conviction.

This is why I qualified;
5. From the Anti-p_realists' perspective, philosophical realisms entails that only the individual p-realist mind is real while other minds are illusory.

If you disagree, then prove my argument re 5 is wrong.
Why Philosophical Realism is Illusory
viewtopic.php?t=40167

You are not intellectually prepared for this conversation. You are nonsense incarnate. If you cannot even see this most basic thing that literally anybody else with an operational mind can see, you need to take a timeout and get your mind straight. It's not possible to reason with someone as mentally far gone as that.

I think you are the one who is not intellectually prepared by bringing the above very silly remarks and counter.

Whatever it is your discretion, you can just ignore my posts.

Poor VA. He mixes a specific kind of anti-realist conclusion in a deduction about what realists believe.
He can't tell the difference between what something might entail and what someone believes.
His deduction is fallacious and confused.
He cannot admit confusion.
He cannot manage to learn from feedback and lacks cognitive empathy (not referring to affective empathy).
He is criticized by antirealists, people with mixtures of antirealist and realist beliefs like Atla and by realists....
but it's because people are realists that they disagree.
It's sloppy blind-spot hack spouting.

Let's stop responding to him.

I have no intention in using the "premises that p-realists do not agree with" to prove "Philosophical Realism is Solipsistic" and believe I had [NOT] done so.

You are the stupid one who think I cannot understand that is something the p-realist would disagree.
That is obvious without any need to mention it.

This is so far beyond ridiculous I don't even know what to say anymore. You believe you haven't used any premises that realists don't agree with, and yet it's so obvious that realists disagree that you don't even need to mention it. I cannot possibly face palm any harder.

You're full of nonsense, you've made that perfectly clear va.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Fri Jul 21, 2023 7:47 am

I have no intention in using the "premises that p-realists do not agree with" to prove "Philosophical Realism is Solipsistic" and believe I had [NOT] done so.

You are the stupid one who think I cannot understand that is something the p-realist would disagree.
That is obvious without any need to mention it.

This is so far beyond ridiculous I don't even know what to say anymore. You believe you haven't used any premises that realists don't agree with, and yet it's so obvious that realists disagree that you don't even need to mention it. I cannot possibly face palm any harder.

You're full of nonsense, you've made that perfectly clear va.

Not only is he making stuff up about realists his number three...

3. Other minds (things) are mind-independent things.

which he has to consider true for his 'deduction' to make any sense, entails that he MUST believe other minds do not exist. He has stated many times that mind independent things do not exist.

So, while out on his loopy attack on realists he managed to accidently damn himself to solipsism.

Realists believe mind independent things exist. Antirealists of his extreme position do not.

It is mind-bogglingly absurd stuff.

Yeah, but it makes perfect sense when you realize all of the arguments from the start are just motivated reasoning. These aren't real arguments meant to hold real philosophical weight or be compelling to people who can think clearly, it's just a bunch of motivated reasoning.

Reinterpreting all his threads with this in mind makes everything crystal clear.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Fri Jul 21, 2023 8:41 am Yeah, but it makes perfect sense when you realize all of the arguments from the start are just motivated reasoning. These aren't real arguments meant to hold real philosophical weight or be compelling to people who can think clearly, it's just a bunch of motivated reasoning.

Reinterpreting all his threads with this in mind makes everything crystal clear.

Ah, motivated reasoning. I guessed what it meant, but googled to it. Thanks for the new term.

I think the OP would be a nice homework assignment. The student who can find the most errors in it and clearly explain why they are errors gets a signed copy of Van Frassen's latest work.

_______



_______