Philosophy Now Forum

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Dec 01, 2023 12:31 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Dec 01, 2023 3:23 am

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Nov 30, 2023 10:05 pm Well, stone me.
So, the thing we call reality would exist if there were no humans. It would have 'emerged' and 'realised' since the universe began.

If there were no humans, there would be no emerged & realized reality that exist.
Reality emerged and is realized upon a human-based FSR and is perceived, known, believed and described via FSK.

This is complete nonsense.
It's mistaking what we believe, know and say about reality for reality itself.
And you agree that 'there are things out there (a)waiting to be seen by humans'. So you're asserting two utterly contradictory claims.

I suggest you stop and think very deeply about the fundamental mistake you're making. You muddle up three separate and different things:
what there is;
what we believe and
[what we] know about
what there is;
and what we say about what there is.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Dec 02, 2023 6:50 am PH and realists believe there exists a reality [& things] independent of what realists believe, know and say about.

I challenge PH and Realists [philosophical] to prove 'reality itself' that is absolutely independent of the human condition, exists as real.

Note there are two main types of realists, i.e.
1. Philosophical [Transcendental] Realists [p-realists]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism]
2. Empirical Realists.

If p-realists do not agree they conform to 1 above, explain what is your realist position?

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Dec 01, 2023 12:31 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Dec 01, 2023 3:23 am
If there were no humans, there would be no emerged & realized reality that exist.
Reality emerged and is realized upon a human-based FSR and is perceived, known, believed and described via FSK.

This is complete nonsense.
It's mistaking what we believe, know and say about reality for reality itself.
And you agree that 'there are things out there (a)waiting to be seen by humans'. So you're asserting two utterly contradictory claims.

I suggest you stop and think very deeply about the fundamental mistake you're making. You muddle up three separate and different things:
what there is;
what we believe and
[what we] know about
what there is;
and what we say about what there is.

Actually, p-realists are the one who is ignorant, philosophically immature and incompetent.

The fact is what theists are proposing is an evolutionary default that is inherent in ALL humans, they are all kindergarten stuffs.
It is still inherent in ALL, so, anti-realists [Kantian] don't have to stop and think very deeply about any fundamental mistake I could be making with this evolutionary default.
Rather anti-realists have already used reflective and critical thinking to understand what is really real beyond that evolutionary default that entrapped one to be dogmatic with a reality that is absolutely independent of the human conditions.

Relatively, on this issue, theists are still stuck in kindergarten, while anti-realists [Kantian] are doing their PhD thesis on the said issue. it is not easy for p-realists to understand the above difference.

The Challenge:
I challenge PH and Realists [philosophical] to prove 'reality itself' that is absolutely independent of the human condition, exists as real.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Dec 02, 2023 6:50 am In insisting there are no objective moral facts and that morality cannot be objective, PH and realists believe there exists a reality [& things] independent of what realists believe, know and say about.

I challenge PH and Realists [philosophical] to prove 'reality itself' that is absolutely independent of the human condition, exists as real.

Note there are two main types of realists, i.e.
1. Philosophical [Transcendental] Realists [p-realists]
..... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism
2. Empirical Realists.

If p-realists do not agree they conform to 1 above, explain what is your realist position?

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Dec 01, 2023 12:31 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Dec 01, 2023 3:23 am
If there were no humans, there would be no emerged & realized reality that exist.
Reality emerged and is realized upon a human-based FSR and is perceived, known, believed and described via FSK.

This is complete nonsense.
It's mistaking what we believe, know and say about reality for reality itself.
And you agree that 'there are things out there (a)waiting to be seen by humans'. So you're asserting two utterly contradictory claims.

I suggest you stop and think very deeply about the fundamental mistake you're making. You muddle up three separate and different things:
what there is;
what we believe and
[what we] know about
what there is;
and what we say about what there is.

Actually, p-realists are the one who is ignorant, philosophically immature and incompetent.

The fact is what theists are proposing is an evolutionary default that is inherent in ALL humans, they are all kindergarten stuffs.
It is still inherent in ALL, so, anti-realists [Kantian] don't have to stop and think very deeply about any fundamental mistake they could be making with this evolutionary default.
Rather anti-realists have already used reflective and critical thinking to understand what is really real beyond the evolutionary default that entrapped one to be dogmatic with a reality that is absolutely independent of the human conditions.

Relatively, on this issue, theists are still stuck in kindergarten, while anti-realists [Kantian] are doing their PhD thesis on the said issue. it is not easy for p-realists to understand the above difference.

The Challenge:
I challenge PH and Realists [philosophical] to prove 'reality itself' that is absolutely independent of the human condition, exists as real.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Dec 02, 2023 7:29 am Prove that you exist and are not a p-zombie.
Prove that you are not a brain in a vat.
Prove that the present moment follows some past moment.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Dec 02, 2023 7:50 am

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Dec 02, 2023 7:29 am Prove that you exist and are not a p-zombie.
Prove that you are not a brain in a vat.
Prove that the present moment follows some past moment.

It is off topic, more so to raise another challenge to answer a challenge.
Suggest you raise separate OPs for the above.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Dec 02, 2023 7:53 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Dec 02, 2023 7:50 am

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Dec 02, 2023 7:29 am Prove that you exist and are not a p-zombie.
Prove that you are not a brain in a vat.
Prove that the present moment follows some past moment.

It is off topic, more so to raise another challenge to answer a challenge.
Suggest you raise separate OPs for the above.

Did you not understand the point?
Do you not see that I was pointing out an implicit assumption in the OP?
Your ad hominim assessment of my motives was incorrect.
I don't think external reality exists in the way ontological realists do. I am not sure, but I don't think so.
So, I am not evading a challenge. I am pointing out a problem with the challenge itself.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Dec 02, 2023 7:53 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Dec 02, 2023 7:50 am

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Dec 02, 2023 7:29 am Prove that you exist and are not a p-zombie.
Prove that you are not a brain in a vat.
Prove that the present moment follows some past moment.

It is off topic, more so to raise another challenge to answer a challenge.
Suggest you raise separate OPs for the above.

Did you not understand the point?
Do you not see that I was pointing out an implicit assumption in the OP?
Your ad hominim assessment of my motives was incorrect.
I don't think external reality exists in the way ontological realists do. I am not sure, but I don't think so.
So, I am not evading a challenge. I am pointing out a problem with the challenge itself.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Dec 02, 2023 6:50 am In insisting there are no objective moral facts and that morality cannot be objective, PH and realists believe there exists a reality [& things] independent of what realists believe, know and say about.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Dec 02, 2023 6:50 am I challenge PH and Realists [philosophical] to prove 'reality itself' that is absolutely independent of the human condition, exists as real.

Note there are two main types of realists, i.e.
1. Philosophical [Transcendental] Realists [p-realists]
..... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism
2. Empirical Realists.

If p-realists do not agree they conform to 1 above, explain what is your realist position?

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Dec 01, 2023 12:31 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Dec 01, 2023 3:23 am
If there were no humans, there would be no emerged & realized reality that exist.
Reality emerged and is realized upon a human-based FSR and is perceived, known, believed and described via FSK.

This is complete nonsense.
It's mistaking what we believe, know and say about reality for reality itself.
And you agree that 'there are things out there (a)waiting to be seen by humans'. So you're asserting two utterly contradictory claims.

I suggest you stop and think very deeply about the fundamental mistake you're making. You muddle up three separate and different things:
what there is;
what we believe and
[what we] know about
what there is;
and what we say about what there is.

Actually, p-realists are the one who is ignorant, philosophically immature and incompetent.

The fact is what theists are proposing is an evolutionary default that is inherent in ALL humans, they are all kindergarten stuffs.
It is still inherent in ALL, so, anti-realists [Kantian] don't have to stop and think very deeply about any fundamental mistake they could be making with this evolutionary default.
Rather anti-realists have already used reflective and critical thinking to understand what is really real beyond the evolutionary default that entrapped one to be dogmatic with a reality that is absolutely independent of the human conditions.

Relatively, on this issue, theists are still stuck in kindergarten, while anti-realists [Kantian] are doing their PhD thesis on the said issue. it is not easy for p-realists to understand the above difference.

The Challenge:
I challenge PH and Realists [philosophical] to prove 'reality itself' that is absolutely independent of the human condition, exists as real.

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Dec 02, 2023 8:32 am Different rules apply to VA. While realists are required to prove a positive, he is not required to prove his negative. His negative is proven by default and is unquestionable.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Dec 02, 2023 8:13 am

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Dec 02, 2023 7:53 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Dec 02, 2023 7:50 am
It is off topic, more so to raise another challenge to answer a challenge.
Suggest you raise separate OPs for the above.

Did you not understand the point?
Do you not see that I was pointing out an implicit assumption in the OP?
Your ad hominim assessment of my motives was incorrect.
I don't think external reality exists in the way ontological realists do. I am not sure, but I don't think so.
So, I am not evading a challenge. I am pointing out a problem with the challenge itself.

The OP is shorten as a matter of convenience, I have qualified and explained the precise application of the the OP's title, i.e.

I wrote;
"I challenge PH and Realists [philosophical] to prove 'reality itself' that is absolutely independent of the human condition, exists as real."

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Dec 02, 2023 8:13 am I wrote in another post;

"ontological realism" is not intersubjective per se.
If one's ontology refer to a reality that is absolutely mind-independent [independent of subjects] that is not intersubjective.
It not demeaning to identify the fact that philosophical realists are ideological with their beliefs.

The term 'ontological' is a very loose term.
see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology
As such, one can be an ontological philosophical realist or ontological empirical realist.
An ontological philosophical realist is likely to be ideological.