Philosophy Now Forum

Philosophical Realists [e.g. PH et. al] rely on Philosophical Realism to insist that morality cannot be objective because there are no mind-independent objective moral facts. This is a farce, fatuous and invalid claim because,

Philosophical Realism [mind independent reality] argument as below is circular.

• 1. There exists [as real] an external world (reality) with properties and entities independent of human minds.
  2. Appearance is not-that-independent_thing-which-appears
  3. That-independent_thing-which-appears exists as real.

P-realists like PH et. al. will often present P2 as;
-Perceptions are not that-which-is perceived
-Knowledge-of is not the-known
-description-of is not the-described
-what is mental is not the real physical matter-of-fact

The above argument is circular because the p-realists offer no "proofs" nor justification to confirm their P1.
They rely on the very idea of an independent reality (P1) to justify the limitations of appearances (P2).

Here are the Problems with P2,
1. Appearance is not-that-independent_thing-which-appears implies there is a REALITY-GAP between the appearances and the-appeared.
This is problem associated with Indirect Realism.
How can we know, P2 entails P1?
The best p-realists can do is to 'mirror' or correspond P2 with P1.
This bring along its negative baggage associated with Representations.
Note also Meno's paradox.
Note the limitation of Foundationalism.

2. As with Descartes'
the appearances that what are perceived could be a deception by and evil demon.

3. There are also the loads of problem associated with Skepticism.

4. Since, perceptions, appearances, knowledge, truths, descriptions which are human-based are never fully reliable, how can they definitely justify or prove the existence of P1, "There exists [as real] an external world (reality) with properties and entities independent of human minds."

4. PH had in rare moments refer to science as the basis to justify P1.
But scientific methods [within the scientific FSERC] rely on human interpretation and observation. How can we be sure our scientific instruments and interpretations aren't also influenced by our subjective realities?
"How can a system [science] built on perception definitively prove the existence of an independent reality it can never directly access?"

The truer picture of science is that science is never about ontology [what exists] but rather that the purpose of science is to facilitate do predictions very well and improving on it in time to sustain the well-being of humanity.
Here science merely ASSUME there is something out there awaiting discovery.

5. The "that-independent_thing-which-appears" is literally the noumenon [thing-in-itself] which Kant has proven it cannot exists as real but rather it is an illusion [when realists belief and reify it is real].

The realistic alternative to 'what is reality' is the antirealism of Kantian Constructivism and other similar antirealists ideas contingent upon a human-based framework and system of emergence & realization of reality and its subsequent perception, cognition, knowing and description.

Notes:

Notes:

VA still hasn't worked out that both realism and anti-realism are circular, which was the whole effing point from the start.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jul 06, 2024 3:53 am .. How can we know ..
.. How can we be sure ..

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Jul 05, 2024 1:43 am 1. There is no 100% certainty and absolute basis of truth.

VA also hasn't worked out that it's inconsistent to demand 100% certainty and also acknowledge that there can't be 100% certainty.

From AI[wR] why antirealism [Kantian] is not circular;

AI wrote:1. Distinguishing "Forms" from "Content":
Kantian anti-realists argue that space and time, along with the categories of understanding, are not properties of the world itself but rather "forms of intuition" and "categories" that our minds impose on experience.
This allows them to explain consistent experience without relying on a mind-independent reality. Consistency arises from the shared structure of human minds, not a pre-existing reality we passively perceive.

2. Explanatory Power:
Emphasize that the Kantian framework offers a robust explanation for experience.
It can account for:
Shared, consistent experience (due to shared forms of intuition and categories)
Illusory experiences (by showing how our minds can misinterpret sensory data)
Scientific progress (by explaining how scientific theories are frameworks for interpreting experience, not necessarily reflections of an independent reality)

3. Focus on Limits of Knowledge:
Kantians acknowledge the limitations of human knowledge. We can never directly access the "thing-in-itself" but only the world as it's filtered through our mental structures.
This doesn't mean knowledge is invalid, but it highlights the role our minds play in shaping what we perceive.

4. Avoiding Circularity:
Circularity occurs when the conclusion is already assumed in the premises.
Kantian anti-realism doesn't claim to definitively prove the absence of an independent reality. It argues that the concept of an independent reality is unnecessary to explain experience.

Addressing Circularity Concerns:

Criticisms: Some might argue that the "forms" and "categories" themselves are arbitrary and could be different, leading to a skeptical position where nothing can be known for sure.
Response: Kantians can argue that the specific forms and categories might be contingent, but their function in structuring experience is universal. Without them, we wouldn't have meaningful experience at all.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jul 06, 2024 6:19 am From AI[wR] why antirealism [Kantian] is not circular;

4. Avoiding Circularity:
Circularity occurs when the conclusion is already assumed in the premises.
Kantian anti-realism doesn't claim to definitively prove the absence of an independent reality. It argues that the concept of an independent reality is unnecessary to explain experience.

Exactly, which clearly highlights that you're not a Kantian anti-realist. And that Kantian anti-realism isn't philosophical anti-realism 'proper'.

As I had stated we need to take AI with reservations and very heavy reservations especially with the very difficult Kantian philosophy.
I deal with a few AIs and I do not fully agree with them especially on the refined aspect of Kantian philosophy.

Note the case with Atla, where AI stated "I made a mistake ..." which was from a general basis, but when I highlighted the nuance of considering from the antirealists' perspective, AI gave a contrasting answer.
We cannot blame AI [acknowledge itself as vulnerable to mistakes] but the blame is the person [e.g. Atla the ignorant arrogant kindi gnat ] who interact with AI.

If anyone insist they are right about Kant, show me the relevant references in the full context from Kant's CPR [A/B xxx references] and other works.

If I've always been right about Kant and you've always been wrong, then why am I the 'ignorant arrogant kindi gnat'?

Btw you've never quoted Kant saying or implying that an independent reality can't exist. Good luck with doing so.