Philosophy Now Forum

Philosophical Realism [absolute] versus Philosophical AntiRealism [relative]

Philosophical Realism [cover indirect/direct realism, scientific realism ] claims there is a real absolutely mind-independent object [noumenon] beyond empirical observations.
see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

On the other hand, Philosophical antirealism oppose and reject such a claim, i.e. it is impossible for a real absolutely mind-independent object [noumenon] to exists beyond empirical observations.

Rather, Philosophical antirealists [Kantian] claim there is only a relatively mind-independent object within the empirical world. As such, while humans do observe an apple on a tree out there which is independent from humans physically, somehow [require detailed explanations] they are still related to the human conditions.

Here at 54:37
https://youtu.be/ISdBAf-ysI0?t=3268
Professor Jim Al-Khalili stated,
"In some strange sense, it really does suggest the moon doesn't exists when we are not looking. It truly defies common sense."

So, there is no absolutely mind-independent moon if there are no humans.

While Al-Khalili [as a Quantum Physicist] admit the above, as a dogmatic philosophical realist he is unable to accept the above fact from QM. This reflect a psychological issue dealing with the pains of cognitive dissonances which he had to avoid.

I had argued, philosophical realism is a dogmatic ideology that is adopted from an evolutionary default to deal with an existential crisis that generate cognitive dissonance that generate terrible and terrific existential pains and terror at a subliminal level.

While philosophical realists are at the mercy of the above terror, philosophical antirealists has evolved and matured further to be able to manage the terror of the evolutionary default to some degrees.

As such the contentions between Philosophical Realists [absolute] versus Philosophical AntiRealists [relative] has to be revealed by Critical Philosophy and resolved at the psychological level and not the epistemological level.

Discuss??
Views??

Note this is merely philosophical discussion not a "whack-a-mole" game.

Notes:

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Dec 07, 2024 5:56 am Discuss??

Why bother? You're lazily pasting the same old shit over and over again.
search.php?st=0&sk=t&sd=d&sr=posts&keyw ... or_id=7896

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Dec 07, 2024 6:09 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Dec 07, 2024 5:56 am Discuss??

Why bother? You're lazily pasting the same old shit over and over again.
Jim-Al-Khalifi-stated-84-fucking-times.PNG

You are so dumb.
If you do a search in say google on a word or name, there could be a million or billion hits; it is the same within philosophical or other forum where a term could have many hits, but they are likely to be used in different contexts and purposes, e.g. as in this OP which redirect the issue to psychology rather than epistemology.
Even if there are repetitions, so what? do you scroll through past OPs often.

I updated the search, the link is here
search.php?st=0&sk=t&sd=d&sr=posts&keyw ... or_id=7896

You do the same things over and over and over again. There's a reason why you do this, but you will sulk if I use the word.

VA… I have a couple of questions..


Are you saying the moon only exists when there is a human mind to conceptualise it? And, is the mentally constructed concept the truth or is the constructed concept an illusion?

Fairy wrote: ↑Sat Dec 07, 2024 8:20 am VA… I have a couple of questions..
Are you saying the moon only exists when there is a human mind to conceptualise it? And, is the mentally constructed concept the truth or is the constructed concept an illusion?

It is more of a negative focus than a positive one.

The philosophical realists insist the moon exists [prior, present and future] regardless of whether there are humans or not, i.e. in the absolute sense.
This sort of thinking has led to all sorts of philosophical issues and problem plus also leading to evil acts committed by evil people grounding on such ideology.
Philosophical realism is an ideology adopted from an evolutionary default of a necessary mind-independence to facilitate basic survival, thus a belief of the majority.

Because philosophical realism is problematic and has evil potential, the more evolved humans [minority] opposed and rejected the ideology of philosophical realism and they propose the anti-philosophical_realism views, i.e. philosophical antirealism.
There are many types of philosophical antirealism, mine is that of Kantianism.

Philosophical antirealists would not claim directly and positive in the manner "the moon only exists when there is a human mind to conceptualise it" but rather,
the moon cannot exists without being somehow related to the human conditions.

We also need to avoid 'the existence of the moon is dependent on humans' which can be very misleading.

The point is:

• Reality is all-there-is
  all there is comprised of Humans
  Therefore reality cannot be apart from humans or
  Therefore Humans are somehow a part of reality.
  Since the moon [or any thing] is part of reality
  The moon [or anything] cannot be absolutely independent of humans.

The moon [or anything] is only relatively human/mind-independent. Note the term 'relatively' to humans is critical

As such the philosophical antirealists' claim is valid.
The question is to explain the 'somehow' to make it sound.

The "somehow" requires very detailed and extensive explanations and justifications and I will not be going into its details here.
But at least for the moment the philosophical antirealists argument is valid.

ETC -spellings & omission

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Dec 07, 2024 9:30 am

Fairy wrote: ↑Sat Dec 07, 2024 8:20 am VA… I have a couple of questions..
Are you saying the moon only exists when there is a human mind to conceptualise it? And, is the mentally constructed concept the truth or is the constructed concept an illusion?

It is more of a negative focus than a positive one.

The philosophical realists insist the moon exists [prior, present and future] regardless of whether there are humans or not, i.e. in the absolute sense.
This sort of thinking has led to all sorts of philosophical issues and problem plus also leading to evil acts committed by evil people grounding on such ideology.
Philosophical realism is an ideology adopted from an evolutionary default of a necessary mind-independence to facilitate basis survival, thus a belief of the majority.

Because philosophical realism is problematic and has evil potential, the more evolved humans [minority] opposed and rejected the ideology of philosophical realism and they propose the anti-philosophical_realism views, i.e. philosophical antirealism.
There are many types of philosophical antirealism, mine is that of Kantisnism.

Philosophical antirealists would not claim directly and positive in the manner "the moon only exists when there is a human mind to conceptualise it" but rather,
the moon cannot exists without being somehow related to the human conditions.

We also need to avoid 'the existence of the moon is dependent on humans' which can be very misleading.

The point is:

• Reality is all-there-is
  all there is comprised of Humans
  Therefore reality cannot be apart from humans or
  Therefore Humans are somehow a part of reality.
  Since the moon [or any thing] is part of reality
  The moon [or anything] cannot be absolutely independent of humans.

The moon [or anything] is only relatively human/mind-independent. Note the term 'relatively' to humans is critical

As such the philosophical antirealists' claim is valid.
The question is to explain the 'somehow' to make it sound.

The "somehow" requires very detailed and extensive explanations and justifications and I will not be going its details here.
But at least for the moment the philosophical realists argument is valid.

I understand what you’re saying. So thanks for that reply. It was very well explained.

VA… I have another question to ask you.

Do you have any thoughts about the concept of Nonduality?

Would you agree that true reality is Nondual, and that the mind made conceptual duality is only a false representation of the true reality?

Fairy wrote: ↑Sat Dec 07, 2024 10:15 am VA… I have another question to ask you.

Do you have any thoughts about the concept of Nonduality?

Would you agree that true reality is Nondual, and that the mind made conceptual duality is only a false representation of the true reality?

I see "the true reality" could lead to dualism in some ways.
However if we view reality is all-there-is where humans are intricately a part of it, that would be non-dual in the relative sense.

If one claim non-dual in the absolute sense, then there is a sort of hidden and implied duality.

My principle is:
Whatever-is-reality is contingent upon a human-based framework and system [FS] of which the scientific FS is the most credible and objective at present, thus the gold standard.

I believe the Buddhist Two-Truths Doctrine is very pragmatic in this case:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_truths_doctrine

The two truths doctrine states that there is:

Provisional or conventional truth (Sanskrit saṁvṛti-satya, Pāli sammuti sacca, Tibetan kun-rdzob bden-pa), which describes our daily experience of a concrete world, and
Ultimate truth (Sanskrit paramārtha-satya, Pāli paramattha sacca, Tibetan: don-dam bden-pa), which describes the ultimate reality as sunyata, empty of concrete and inherent characteristics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_truths_doctrine

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Dec 07, 2024 10:31 am

Fairy wrote: ↑Sat Dec 07, 2024 10:15 am VA… I have another question to ask you.

Do you have any thoughts about the concept of Nonduality?

Would you agree that true reality is Nondual, and that the mind made conceptual duality is only a false representation of the true reality?

I see "the true reality" could lead to dualism in some ways.
However if we view reality is all-there-is where humans are intricately a part of it, that would be non-dual in the relative sense.

If one claim non-dual in the absolute sense, then there is a sort of hidden and implied duality.

My principle is:
Whatever-is-reality is contingent upon a human-based framework and system [FS] of which the scientific FS is the most credible and objective at present, thus the gold standard.

I believe the Buddhist Two-Truths Doctrine is very pragmatic in this case:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_truths_doctrine

The two truths doctrine states that there is:

Provisional or conventional truth (Sanskrit saṁvṛti-satya, Pāli sammuti sacca, Tibetan kun-rdzob bden-pa), which describes our daily experience of a concrete world, and
Ultimate truth (Sanskrit paramārtha-satya, Pāli paramattha sacca, Tibetan: don-dam bden-pa), which describes the ultimate reality as sunyata, empty of concrete and inherent characteristics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_truths_doctrine

Thanks.

I totally resonate with this knowledge as a truth.

I’d also like to add my own principle: which is another truth: maybe an overlooked truth: and which is a non-truth.
What is a non- truth? It’s a truth that cannot be spoken of. If you can say it. IT is not the truth.

I think that correlates with this subject topic you have started. Maybe !

Professor Jim Al-Khalili stated,
"In some strange sense, it really does suggest the moon doesn't exists when we are not looking. It truly defies common sense."

This violates the Conservation of Energy.

If the moon ceases to exist when you look away, then that is a sudden unaccountable change in the amount of energy in the universe.

phyllo wrote: ↑Sat Dec 07, 2024 2:18 pm

Professor Jim Al-Khalili stated,
"In some strange sense, it really does suggest the moon doesn't exists when we are not looking. It truly defies common sense."

This violates the Conservation of Energy.

If the moon ceases to exist when you look away, then that is a sudden unaccountable change in the amount of energy in the universe.

Zero-energy universe hypothesis
The idea that the total amount of energy in the universe is zero, because the positive energy of matter is canceled out by the negative energy of gravity

Zero-energy universe hypothesis
The idea that the total amount of energy in the universe is zero, because the positive energy of matter is canceled out by the negative energy of gravity

Irrelevant to the Conservation of Energy. The total energy of the universe may be zero but the energy of the moon is not zero.

phyllo wrote: ↑Sat Dec 07, 2024 2:18 pm

Professor Jim Al-Khalili stated,
"In some strange sense, it really does suggest the moon doesn't exists when we are not looking. It truly defies common sense."

This violates the Conservation of Energy.

If the moon ceases to exist when you look away, then that is a sudden unaccountable change in the amount of energy in the universe.

Only if we accept VA's lie, but few people think that the Moon literally disappears when no one is looking at it. There is certainly no evidence for this idea.

Nor does Al-Khalili think that, that's why he said "in some strange sense" first. To many people that strange sense is best conceptualized as the Moon being in superposition when no one is looking. It's infinitely spread out everywhere and nowhere at once, like a probability wave. And when you are looking at it, it is in a certain location and state.