VA believes in an Independent External Reality
Posted: Sun Jun 02, 2024 4:11 am
I believes in an external reality independent of the human conditions BUT only in the relative sense [empirical realism] and not in the absolute sense [philosophical realism].
Here is a related discussion on the topic:
Re Kant's Empirical Realism, I do recognize [cognize] there is a human independent external reality,
BUT empirical realists [me] do not accept this as absolute, i.e. a thing-in-itself as an ideology like you [philosophical realism] do.
The empirical realists accept whatever is empirical and empirical-externalness as very real and independent of the human conditions within the common and conventional sense or FSERC.
Thus the apple on the tree outside in my garden is an external reality independent of my human conditions within the common and conventional sense or FSERC.
The approaching train on the track I am standing on is very real and independent of my human conditions within the common and conventional sense or FSERC, so I will immediately jump of the rail track to ensure I am not smashed to pieces.
But in a higher philosophical perspective from deeper reflection, the above external independent common and conventional sense reality is not absolute but contingent upon the human conditions are a higher and subtle level.
I have given the analogy in physics contrasting between the realist classical and Einsteinian
physics and those of the antirealist Quantum Mechanics.
You and philosophical realists insist there is only an external reality independent of the human conditions within the common and conventional sense as absolute, conditioned and cling to it as a dogmatic ideology.
So a Kantian is an Empirical Realist [based on whatever is empirical] and is not a philosophical realist which claim the independence of the external reality is absolute as a thing-in-itself.
In a way, a Kantian [empirical realist also transcendental idealist] believes in two-truths, i.e.
Level 1 deals with everyday practical realities of the physical world to ensure basic and intermediate survival.
Level 2 deals with all the sophisticate philosophical problems [theistic, moral, epistemology, ontological] that has been raised up to the present.
One cannot rely on level 1 knowledge to resolve level 2 issues.
If yours is "which the rest of us call the universe or reality" that is merely linguistic and empty.
To be realistic you must qualify, predicate or condition the reality, i.e.
"which the rest of us realized and call the universe or reality as contingent upon a human-based FSERC, e.g. the scientific FSERC.
If you don't qualify what your reality is contingent upon,
then it is 'reality-in-itself' i.e. not contingent upon anything, or is absolutely unconditional or it is merely an empty linguistic claim or statement.
To be realistic, the universe or reality must be contingent [so not in-itself].
The only contingent condition is the human conditions.
It is the ignorance and insistence of philosophical realists which are the reasons we still cannot resolve the theist-non_theist debate, the moral_realism vs moral_relativism, all other philosophical dichotomies and antinomies.
This hindrance by philosophical realists [you] had hindered humanity's progress to cope with the rising greater threats to humanity.
My point:
I as a Kantian empirical realist recognize a human-independent external reality which at the ultimate level is contingent upon the human conditions.
I also accept, "the moon predates humans" but only relative to the human conditions at the ultimate level.
Philosophical Realists [PH et al] insist there is only a human-independent external reality existing absolutely as a thing-in-itself as a dogmatic ideology, i.e. exist regardless of whether there are humans or not.
For a p-realist, there is no room to shift gears to higher perspectives, philosophical realism is the only way or the highway.
Discuss??
Views??
Here is a related discussion on the topic:
You missed my points which I have explained many times.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sat Jun 01, 2024 7:51 am Here's VA's latest chef d'oeuvre:
'If there were no humans, there is no relevance for a 'human-independent' reality.'
Erm. Perhaps this means the following:
'The only reason for talking about a human-independent reality is if there are humans. If there were no humans, the claim that reality is independent from humans would be otiose.'
But this is ridiculous. We're arguing about the existence of a reality that is, in fact, independent from humans. And VA denies such a thing exists, while having to camouflage the silliness of this claim.
Because, of course, VA knows that the universe existed before humans evolved, would have existed had humans not evolved, and will exist when humans are gone.
But what VA's Kantian faith cannot in any way allow is the existence of 'reality-in-itself' - which the rest of us call the universe or reality.
So the trick is to call the universe 'reality-as-humans-perceive-know-and-describe-it', and then deny that such a thing can be independent from humans. It's a linguistic sleight-of-hand.
Re Kant's Empirical Realism, I do recognize [cognize] there is a human independent external reality,
BUT empirical realists [me] do not accept this as absolute, i.e. a thing-in-itself as an ideology like you [philosophical realism] do.
The empirical realists accept whatever is empirical and empirical-externalness as very real and independent of the human conditions within the common and conventional sense or FSERC.
Thus the apple on the tree outside in my garden is an external reality independent of my human conditions within the common and conventional sense or FSERC.
The approaching train on the track I am standing on is very real and independent of my human conditions within the common and conventional sense or FSERC, so I will immediately jump of the rail track to ensure I am not smashed to pieces.
But in a higher philosophical perspective from deeper reflection, the above external independent common and conventional sense reality is not absolute but contingent upon the human conditions are a higher and subtle level.
I have given the analogy in physics contrasting between the realist classical and Einsteinian
physics and those of the antirealist Quantum Mechanics.
You and philosophical realists insist there is only an external reality independent of the human conditions within the common and conventional sense as absolute, conditioned and cling to it as a dogmatic ideology.
So a Kantian is an Empirical Realist [based on whatever is empirical] and is not a philosophical realist which claim the independence of the external reality is absolute as a thing-in-itself.
In a way, a Kantian [empirical realist also transcendental idealist] believes in two-truths, i.e.
- 1. -there is an empirical external reality which is independent of the human conditions with the common and conventional sense but only relatively.
At level 1, I also accept, "the moon predates humans" but only relative to the human conditions at the ultimate level.
2. the "empirical external reality which is independent of the human conditions with the common and conventional sense" is contingent within the human conditions at the higher and subtle ULTIMATE level.
Level 1 deals with everyday practical realities of the physical world to ensure basic and intermediate survival.
Level 2 deals with all the sophisticate philosophical problems [theistic, moral, epistemology, ontological] that has been raised up to the present.
One cannot rely on level 1 knowledge to resolve level 2 issues.
At level I, I do agree with the above in alignment with the common and conventional sense or FSERC.PH wrote:Because, of course, VA knows that the universe existed before humans evolved, would have existed had humans not evolved, and will exist when humans are gone.
You are ignorant that what you "call the universe or reality" is actually "reality-in-itself' i.e. it exists by itself regardless of whether there are human or not.PH wrote:But what VA's Kantian faith cannot in any way allow is the existence of 'reality-in-itself' - which the rest of us call the universe or reality.
If yours is "which the rest of us call the universe or reality" that is merely linguistic and empty.
To be realistic you must qualify, predicate or condition the reality, i.e.
"which the rest of us realized and call the universe or reality as contingent upon a human-based FSERC, e.g. the scientific FSERC.
If you don't qualify what your reality is contingent upon,
then it is 'reality-in-itself' i.e. not contingent upon anything, or is absolutely unconditional or it is merely an empty linguistic claim or statement.
To be realistic, the universe or reality must be contingent [so not in-itself].
The only contingent condition is the human conditions.
It is the ignorance and insistence of philosophical realists which are the reasons we still cannot resolve the theist-non_theist debate, the moral_realism vs moral_relativism, all other philosophical dichotomies and antinomies.
This hindrance by philosophical realists [you] had hindered humanity's progress to cope with the rising greater threats to humanity.
My point:
I as a Kantian empirical realist recognize a human-independent external reality which at the ultimate level is contingent upon the human conditions.
I also accept, "the moon predates humans" but only relative to the human conditions at the ultimate level.
Philosophical Realists [PH et al] insist there is only a human-independent external reality existing absolutely as a thing-in-itself as a dogmatic ideology, i.e. exist regardless of whether there are humans or not.
For a p-realist, there is no room to shift gears to higher perspectives, philosophical realism is the only way or the highway.
Discuss??
Views??