Philosophy Now Forum

The question of the nature and plausibility of realism arises with respect to a large number of subject matters, including ethics, aesthetics, causation, modality, science, mathematics, semantics, and the everyday world of macroscopic material objects and their properties. Although it would be possible to accept (or reject) realism across the board, it is more common for philosophers to be selectively realist or non-realist about various topics: thus it would be perfectly possible to be a realist about the everyday world of macroscopic objects and their properties, but a non-realist about aesthetic and moral value. In addition, it is misleading to think that there is a straightforward and clear-cut choice between being a realist and a non-realist about a particular subject matter. Rather, one can be more-or-less realist about a particular subject matter. Also, there are many different forms that realism and non-realism can take

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/realism/

This seems to be something new to me. There wasn't much talk about it (that I encountered, at least) when I was studying Philosophy at George Mason University in the late 1980s. However, it has peaked my interest after seeing some of Veritas Aequitas' posts. And I'd like to learn more about this new thing.

Can and would someone help me understand it better?

I guess, for starter questions:

What is anti-realism?

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Fri Jul 12, 2024 11:59 am Can and would someone help me understand it better?

I urge you to read a book about it (maybe many books), and don't rely on absorbing your understanding from anybody on this forum, least of all VA.

Here's a good starting point. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/real ... challenge/

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Fri Jul 12, 2024 11:59 am

The question of the nature and plausibility of realism arises with respect to a large number of subject matters, including ethics, aesthetics, causation, modality, science, mathematics, semantics, and the everyday world of macroscopic material objects and their properties. Although it would be possible to accept (or reject) realism across the board, it is more common for philosophers to be selectively realist or non-realist about various topics: thus it would be perfectly possible to be a realist about the everyday world of macroscopic objects and their properties, but a non-realist about aesthetic and moral value. In addition, it is misleading to think that there is a straightforward and clear-cut choice between being a realist and a non-realist about a particular subject matter. Rather, one can be more-or-less realist about a particular subject matter. Also, there are many different forms that realism and non-realism can take

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/realism/

This seems to be something new to me. There wasn't much talk about it (that I encountered, at least) when I was studying Philosophy at George Mason University in the late 1980s. However, it has peaked my interest after seeing some of Veritas Aequitas' posts. And I'd like to learn more about this new thing.

Can and would someone help me understand it better?

I guess, for starter questions:

What is anti-realism?

From your link:
Realism:

There are two general aspects to realism, illustrated by looking at realism about the everyday world of macroscopic objects and their properties. First, there is a claim about existence. Tables, rocks, the moon, and so on, all exist, as do the following facts: the table’s being square, the rock’s being made of granite, and the moon’s being spherical and yellow. The second aspect of realism about the everyday world of macroscopic objects and their properties concerns independence. The fact that the moon exists and is spherical is independent of anything anyone happens to say or think about the matter. Likewise, although there is a clear sense in which the table’s being square is dependent on us (it was designed and constructed by human beings after all), this is not the type of dependence that the realist wishes to deny. The realist wishes to claim that apart from the mundane sort of empirical dependence of objects and their properties familiar to us from everyday life, there is no further (philosophically interesting) sense in which everyday objects and their properties can be said to be dependent on anyone’s linguistic practices, conceptual schemes, or whatever.

Anti-realists disagree with one or both of those aspects of realism. There are also anti-realists who might argue that we can't know stuff, only, about things out there independent of us. The are not saying those things don't exist. Which leads us also to....

Non-realists exist in a number of forms also. Anti-realists are in the category, which is broader, of non-realist.
Again from your link....

Non-realism can take many forms, depending on whether or not it is the existence or independence dimension of realism that is questioned or rejected. The forms of non-realism can vary dramatically from subject-matter to subject-matter, but error-theories, non-cognitivism, instrumentalism, nominalism,relativism, certain styles of reductionism, and eliminativism typically reject realism by rejecting the existence dimension, while idealism, subjectivism, and anti-realism typically concede the existence dimension but reject the independence dimension. Philosophers who subscribe to quietism deny that there can be such a thing as substantial metaphysical debate between realists and their non-realist opponents (because they either deny that there are substantial questions about existence or deny that there are substantial questions about independence).

The first impression of the term 'Realism' as an evolutionary default is it, refer to something real and favorable which facilitate survival, thus not the tabooed falsehood.
As such, the primordial view is, any thing that is negative to the term 'real' would trigger fears, defensiveness and a threat.
As an evolutionary default, the term 'real' is not precise, but just sufficient to facilitate survival.
This is why early humans would regard any thing as real as long as it is positive to them without justifications, e.g. even God, ghosts, and supernatural things are regarded as real.

The problem is, despite the tentativeness of the term 'real' the philosophical realists hijacked the term real as their own as something that is absolutely and unconditionally real.
This is why philosophical realists will insist their God is real and anyone challenging it is a threat and is painful to them, thus they will even kill those who challenge the claim 'God is real'.

It is the same with secular philosophical theists, anyone challenging their philosophical realism is deem a threat, is painful to fact and they would do whatever to condemn or get rid of the challenger to their philosophical realism. This is so, evident in this forum because the majority [evolutionary wise] are philosophical realists or theists.

In understanding 'realism' it is critical to know the origin of the term realism; Kant is claimed to be the philosopher who introduced the term 'realism' to align with those who had opposed his claims.

Realism takes many forms.

The aim of this paper is to show that the “Critique of pure Reason” is the founding document of realism and that to the present-day Kant’s discussion of realism has shaped the theoretical landscape of the debates over realism.

Kant not only invents the now common philosophical term ‘realism’. He also lays out the theoretical topography of the forms of realism that still frames our understanding of philosophical questions concerning reality.

The paper explores this by analysis of Kant’s methodological procedure to distinguish between empirical (i.e. nonmetaphysical) and transcendental (metaphysical) realism.
This methodological procedure is still of great help in contemporary philosophy, although it has its limits.
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... of_realism

Don't listen to know-it-all idiots on here. Listen to people who know what they are talking about. Search Youtube for great science communicators like Brian Greene, Sean Carroll, Michio Kaku, Sabine Hossenfelder, Jim Al-Khalili. There are quite a few and some you might prefer over others. They don't all agree about everything, but they are all fascinating to listen to. There are lots of podcasts and Youtube videos of discussions, lectures and debates.

accelafine wrote: ↑Sat Jul 13, 2024 8:51 am Don't listen to know-it-all idiots on here. Listen to people who know what they are talking about. Search Youtube for great science communicators like Brian Greene, Sean Carroll, Michio Kaku, Sabine Hossenfelder, Jim Al-Khalili. There are quite a few and some you might prefer over others. They don't all agree about everything, but they are all fascinating to listen to. There are lots of podcasts and Youtube videos of discussions, lectures and debates.

Good advice.

Al-Khalili is the best one in QM imo, he just quite clearly describes the mysteries without distortion and admits not being able to solve them. Carroll should be taken with a grain of salt as he doesn't understand the main problem with his own philosophy, and Sabine with a bucket of salt, she can be wholly dishonest when it suits her, other times she's right on point. Kaku is awesome but a bit of a quack sometimes.

That's why you need to listen to a variety, but not people like Terrence Howard or lay people who pull a 'theory' out of their arse without knowing anything about either maths or physics and don't want to be bothered because that's too hard. Anyone can say 'Oh, I have a theory that the universe is just a bit of dirt under a giant's toenail blah blah...

accelafine wrote: ↑Sat Jul 13, 2024 8:51 am Don't listen to know-it-all idiots on here. Listen to people who know what they are talking about. Search Youtube for great science communicators like Brian Greene, Sean Carroll, Michio Kaku, Sabine Hossenfelder, Jim Al-Khalili. There are quite a few and some you might prefer over others. They don't all agree about everything, but they are all fascinating to listen to. There are lots of podcasts and Youtube videos of discussions, lectures and debates.

You are so narrow minded and stupid.

Re your views above, why are you in this forum, you should spent your time searching in Youtube.

This forum is a mixed bag philosophical forum, but generally it is for people to express their thoughts, refresh what they have learned, throwing in their ideas for discussion, responding to counter arguments, exchanging ideas, etc.

What is critical is also discretion and it has to be mutual.
No one should force or expect anyone to respond to their posts.
If nothing is worth your interest, just ignore it.

I post here purely for my selfish interests. I am doing my own research and when I come across interesting notes, I post them here for future references. I don't give a damn whether people respond to it or not. If anyone is interested in exchanging common ideas they are welcome to it.

The worst sorts of posters [such as you] are those who are petty, posting noises for the sake of noise and presenting nothing with philosophical substance.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jul 13, 2024 9:39 am

accelafine wrote: ↑Sat Jul 13, 2024 8:51 am Don't listen to know-it-all idiots on here. Listen to people who know what they are talking about. Search Youtube for great science communicators like Brian Greene, Sean Carroll, Michio Kaku, Sabine Hossenfelder, Jim Al-Khalili. There are quite a few and some you might prefer over others. They don't all agree about everything, but they are all fascinating to listen to. There are lots of podcasts and Youtube videos of discussions, lectures and debates.

You are so narrow minded and stupid.

Re your views above, why are you in this forum, you should spent your time searching in Youtube.

This forum is a mixed bag philosophical forum, but generally it is for people to express their thoughts, refresh what they have learned, throwing in their ideas for discussion, responding to counter arguments, exchanging ideas, etc.

What is critical is also discretion and it has to be mutual.
No one should force or expect anyone to respond to their posts.
If nothing is worth your interest, just ignore it.

I post here purely for my selfish interests. I am doing my own research and when I come across interesting notes, I post them here for future references. I don't give a damn whether people respond to it or not. If anyone is interested in exchanging common ideas they are welcome to it.

The worst sorts of posters [such as you] are those who are petty, posting noises for the sake of noise and presenting nothing with philosophical substance.

That's hilarious. You are the one making thread after thread on a topic that you don't appear to know much about, and then get angry when anyone posts something that you don't think 'belongs' on YOUR thread. You are a ridiculous person. I would certainly rather watch a lecture on Youtube given by a world-reknowned theoretical physicist than 'listen' to a prickly little know-nothing like you who can't seem to cope with ANYONE posting on 'his' threads.
And by the way, this is not YOUR thread so bugger off. My comment was to Gary and he seemed quite ok with it.

accelafine wrote: ↑Sat Jul 13, 2024 8:51 am Don't listen to know-it-all idiots on here. Listen to people who know what they are talking about. Search Youtube for great science communicators like Brian Greene, Sean Carroll, Michio Kaku, Sabine Hossenfelder, Jim Al-Khalili. There are quite a few and some you might prefer over others. They don't all agree about everything, but they are all fascinating to listen to. There are lots of podcasts and Youtube videos of discussions, lectures and debates.

Spot on with that list. Sean Carroll is excellent at explaining dificult concepts to laymen as us. When CERN finally proved that the Higgs exists he stood behind a podium and explained how the Higgs 'gives' mass to matter and it blew my mind. I'm not so sure of Carroll's belief in the many worlds theory - in fact I totally disagree.

Big fan of Al Kahlili, well all of them really

Just went through my "Science" utube playlist - here's a couple of vids worth watching..

If anyone has a spare hr and hansn't seen this one by Carroll - excellent explanation of the sub-atomic world..
Mysteries of Modern Physics by Sean Carroll
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBpR0LB ... 11&t=2175s


Does reality exist? | Anil Seth, Sabine Hossenfelder, Massimo Pigliucci & Anders Sandberg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=clHN2ZB ... =12&t=849s

OF COURSE - one shouldn't only rely on physicists on this topic!
Anil Kumar Seth (born 11 June 1972) is a British neuroscientist and professor of Cognitive and Computational Neuroscience at the University of Sussex. A proponent of materialist explanations of consciousness,[1] he is currently amongst the most cited scholars on the topics of neuroscience and cognitive science globally.[2]

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Jul 14, 2024 1:26 am

accelafine wrote: ↑Sat Jul 13, 2024 8:51 am Don't listen to know-it-all idiots on here. Listen to people who know what they are talking about. Search Youtube for great science communicators like Brian Greene, Sean Carroll, Michio Kaku, Sabine Hossenfelder, Jim Al-Khalili. There are quite a few and some you might prefer over others. They don't all agree about everything, but they are all fascinating to listen to. There are lots of podcasts and Youtube videos of discussions, lectures and debates.

Spot on with that list. Sean Carroll is excellent at explaining dificult concepts to laymen as us. When CERN finally proved that the Higgs exists he stood behind a podium and explained how the Higgs 'gives' mass to matter and it blew my mind. I'm not so sure of Carroll's belief in the many worlds theory - in fact I totally disagree.

Big fan of Al Kahlili, well all of them really

Just went through my "Science" utube playlist - here's a couple of vids worth watching..

If anyone has a spare hr and hansn't seen this one by Carroll - excellent explanation of the sub-atomic world..
Mysteries of Modern Physics by Sean Carroll
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBpR0LB ... 11&t=2175s


Does reality exist? | Anil Seth, Sabine Hossenfelder, Massimo Pigliucci & Anders Sandberg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=clHN2ZB ... =12&t=849s

OF COURSE - one shouldn't only rely on physicists on this topic!
Anil Kumar Seth (born 11 June 1972) is a British neuroscientist and professor of Cognitive and Computational Neuroscience at the University of Sussex. A proponent of materialist explanations of consciousness,[1] he is currently amongst the most cited scholars on the topics of neuroscience and cognitive science globally.[2]

Carroll is very much a supporter of 'many world theory'. It's his 'thing'

accelafine wrote: ↑Sun Jul 14, 2024 1:30 amCarroll is very much a supporter of 'many world theory'. It's his 'thing'

Yes, but a soul only has one version of itself. It doesn't recursively travel through EVERY option (path) available to it - that just doesn't make sense to me.

We are definitely living in a simulation | Roman Yampolskiy and Lex Fridman
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bF--UK1 ... =70&t=336s

..and don't I know it

Man am I tripping bollocks at the moment!! - it's a bit like being on LSD!!

I dropped 3 codeine tablets (90 mg) - liver converts to morphne. & 2 Indometacin (50mg)

I've got a bit of gout in my left foot and the dog needs a walk thus the meds..

Talk about synchronicty considering the topic. "Time" feels like it's echoing into some distant chamber of thought..(from the awesome book Alpha Two - by the legendary Andrew Seas )

Alpha Two is now FREE here:-
https://www.androcies.com/alphatwo.php