Philosophy Now Forum

From the following videos one will note there are no solutions in establishing what is the real external world.

Direct vs Indirect Realism (Philosophy of Perception)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hs-jJMTjHoo
Philosophy of perception [Indirect Realism] is questioning how we view the world, is the true reality that which we immediately perceive and what knowledge can we gain based on what we see.

Direct Realism claims that which we immediately perceive is the exact reality outside of our minds, whereas Indirect realism claims the external reality is actually different to that which we perceive and we do not in fact perceive the external world directly, what we see in our minds is not what truly exists outside of our minds.




Direct Realism



Indirect Realism


John Locke's Primary and Secondary Qualities
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLK4d6avtIM
Primary Qualities are real while secondary qualities are mind dependent.


George Berkeley's Idealism
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-lDlxVQy4c
Both primary and secondary qualities are mind-dependent.
Do we have good grounds to reject a material world? Is all of reality just in the mind?
Reality is sustained by the mind of a God.

All the above objections counters there is an independent external world.

So, is there a real mind-independent external world?
Can anyone prove there are an absolute mind-independent external world out there?

Discuss??
Views??

Notes:

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jun 17, 2024 11:04 am John Locke's Primary and Secondary Qualities
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLK4d6avtIM
Primary Qualities are real while secondary qualities are mind dependent.


George Berkeley's Idealism
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-lDlxVQy4c
Both primary and secondary qualities are mind-dependent.
Do we have good grounds to reject a material world? Is all of reality just in the mind?
Reality is sustained by the mind of a God.

All the above objections counters there is an independent external world.

So, is there a real mind-independent external world?
Can anyone prove there are an absolute mind-independent external world out there?

Discuss??
Views??

Argument 1: our perceptions shouldn't change with distance. I should see the tower having the same height from any distance. Therefore primary qualities are also mind-dependent.

Counter: distance is also a mind-independent primary quality and perception is relative to it, and grow up.

Argument 2: we can't directly perceive the external world, therefore there is no external world.

Counter: non sequitur, and grow up.

Any serious objection? Of course not. There is none, Kant's childish transcendental idealism was demolished long ago, some weak-minded people simply still cling to it.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jun 17, 2024 11:04 am From the following videos one will note there are no solutions in establishing what is the real external world.

Direct vs Indirect Realism (Philosophy of Perception)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hs-jJMTjHoo

One recommendation is to not start off a discussion as if the issue is resolved. You want us to note there are no solution in establishing what is the real external world. The video itself leaves the answer open. It's a discussion, one that raises some of the problems of two forms of realism. Get that. Some ideas are tossed around.
But somehow for VA this video allows us to 'note' his philosophical position is correct.
So many years of these appeals to authority, with the claims that now it's all resolved.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jun 17, 2024 11:04 am From the following videos one will note there are no solutions in establishing what is the real external world.

Direct vs Indirect Realism (Philosophy of Perception)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hs-jJMTjHoo
Philosophy of perception [Indirect Realism] is questioning how we view the world, is the true reality that which we immediately perceive and what knowledge can we gain based on what we see.

Argument 1: indirect realism has to assume dualism.

Counter: completely incorrect, it's the dualistic Western philosophy that is trapped in such a delusion. A good example of Western philosophers forever chasing their own tails due to their own wrong assumption, and concluding that the problem is insoluble. Naturally, colors don't just exist 'in our minds' and physical stuff doesn't just exist 'out there', as the two belong to one and the same (kind of) world. Colors are physical, or in other words, the so-called physical world is colors here and there. All three videos I watched have fundamentally misunderstood indirect realism's most likely nature.

Argument 2: we can't know for sure that different people perceive the different sense-data from which they form their mental phenomena, therefore they don't. Therefore reality is wholly subjective.

Counter: non sequitur, and grow up. Also red herring, we can't be absolutely sure of anything. Otherwise, we have all the reason to think that people do perceive the same sense-data (minus the fact that even the 'same' sense data can be slightly different at every spatiotempiral location due to how electromagnetic waves propagate etc.)

Argument 3: we can't ever be sure of the existence of the external world, so why assume it?

Counter: again red herring, we can't be absolutely sure of anything. But if it talks like a ducks, walks like a duck etc. and it perfectly consistently act like a duck always, then grown-ups tend to assume that it's a duck.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Jun 17, 2024 2:27 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jun 17, 2024 11:04 am From the following videos one will note there are no solutions in establishing what is the real external world.

Direct vs Indirect Realism (Philosophy of Perception)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hs-jJMTjHoo

One recommendation is to not start off a discussion as if the issue is resolved. You want us to note there are no solution in establishing what is the real external world. The video itself leaves the answer open. It's a discussion, one that raises some of the problems of two forms of realism. Get that. Some ideas are tossed around.
But somehow for VA this video allows us to 'note' his philosophical position is correct.
So many years of these appeals to authority, with the claims that now it's all resolved.

The issue is as resolved as an issue can be, indirect realism is correct.

Reminder of the questions I raised below;

All the above objections counters [oppose] there is an independent external world as claimed by direct realism or indirect realism.
Berkeley's Idealism counters direct and indirect realism but ultimately claim there is an human independent God.

So, is there a real mind-independent external world?
Can anyone prove there are an absolute mind-independent external world out there?

Discuss??
Views??

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Jun 18, 2024 2:25 am Reminder of the questions I raised below;

All the above objections counters [oppose] there is an independent external world as claimed by direct realism or indirect realism.
Berkeley's Idealism counters direct and indirect realism but ultimately claim there is an human independent God.

So, is there a real mind-independent external world?
Can anyone prove there are an absolute mind-independent external world out there?

Discuss??
Views??

Science can and did prove it. What do you even mean by proof?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Jun 18, 2024 2:25 am Reminder of the questions I raised below;

All the above objections counters [oppose] there is an independent external world as claimed by direct realism or indirect realism.
Berkeley's Idealism counters direct and indirect realism but ultimately claim there is an human independent God.

So, is there a real mind-independent external world?
Can anyone prove there are an absolute mind-independent external world out there?

Discuss??
Views??

Now he words in a more appropriate way. There are objections to realism in what he quoted and included.
But note: now he is shifting the onus. He has gone from presenting his thesis, to expecting others to prove the opposed thesis. 1) this leaves out agnostic opinions 2) conflates proving his thesis with other people not proving theirs.

It's a cliche, but sometimes effective tactic, including a mystification.

Note how in both this topic and the other one

viewtopic.php?t=42063

VA didn't even try to formulate any arguments of his own. Neither against indirect realism. Nor in favor of his transcendental idealism. If you can't talk about something in simple language (or rather in any language in VA's case), chances are you don't understand it well enough.