Philosophy Now Forum

FDP, you may denial it but in essence you are a Philosophical Realist as evident from what you have posted.

The majority are inclined toward philosophical realism as driven by an evolutionary default of the sense of 'mind-independence' which is imperative for basic survival. Thus by default the majority who discuss philosophy are likely to be philosophical realists unless justified otherwise.

You may not be an ontological-based Metaphysical Realist but based on your postings so far, you are a philosophical realist as defined below:

Philosophical realism—.......— is the view that a certain kind of thing (ranging widely from abstract objects like numbers to moral statements to the physical world itself) has mind-independent existence,
i.e. that it exists even in the absence of any mind perceiving it
or that its existence is not just a mere appearance in the eye of the beholder.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

the determinant of why you are a philosophical realist is bolded in the above definition of what is philosophical realist, i.e.
i.e. that it exists even in the absence of any mind perceiving it

You cannot deny your 'what is reality' is grounded to the above,
"it [what is a real thing, object] exists even in the absence of any mind perceiving it" i.e.
it exists regardless of whether there are humans or not.
This is a claim of absolute mind-independence.

Relative mind-independence is where the concept of mind-independence is ultimately meta-mind-related.

If otherwise, show why you are not a philosophical realist as defined above?

Even if you run away from the above to be a pragmatist, you will still be a philosophical realist ultimately, i.e. after a long discussion with AI[wR]:

4. Can You Justify Charging Pragmatists as Philosophical Realists?
Yes, and here’s the reasoning:

High Conviction Equals Commitment: If a pragmatist holds the practical assumption of mind-independence with high conviction, they are effectively committed to it in a way indistinguishable from a philosophical realist in everyday life.

Philosophical Realism Isn’t Always Metaphysical: Philosophical realism does not necessarily require metaphysical realism. A pragmatic commitment to mind-independence can count as philosophical realism because it still involves a stance about the nature of existence.

5. Conceding Non-Metaphysical Realism
To be fair and precise, you could frame your charge like this:

"You are a philosophical realist because of your high conviction in the mind-independent existence of objects, even if your justification is pragmatic rather than metaphysical."

By conceding that they are not a metaphysical realist, you acknowledge their avoidance of deep ontological commitments while still holding them accountable for their high conviction in mind-independence.

My point:
FDP, you may denial it but in essence you are a Philosophical Realist as evident from what you have posted.
Because philosophical realism is grounded on an illusion
Why Philosophical Realism is Illusory
viewtopic.php?t=40167
your critiques my views herein are not credible and fangless.

Notes:

Notes:

No I'm not

Or perhaps I am.

It doesn't matter either way when the issue at hand is a pseudo problem that doesn't matter in the least.

Diarrhea Pants is just a Cynic, and I'm guessing, around age 26-28, so also just clueless and ignorant about deeper topics and identifications.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Fri Jan 17, 2025 8:36 am Or perhaps I am.

Yes, you are, it is obvious.

the determinant of why you are a philosophical realist is bolded in the above definition of what is philosophical realist, i.e.
i.e. that it exists even in the absence of any mind perceiving it


If you reject the above, you're an ANTI-Philosophical_Realist; this in unlikely given what you have been posting here.

It doesn't matter either way when the issue at hand is a pseudo problem that doesn't matter in the least.

Whatever issue at hand, it is about 'reality' i.e. all-there-is which has to be,
i.e. that it exists even in the absence of any mind perceiving it

or otherwise, i.e. ANTI-Philosophical_Realist.

If you reject reality either way, then you are in unreal la la land.

Philosophical-Realism as I had argued, is grounded on an illusion.
What matter most is your credibility in critiquing my views based on an ideology that is grounded on an illusion.

I am still waiting on this:
FDP, Justify Your 'What is Real?
viewtopic.php?t=43367

Point is your 'what is real' is based on Philosophical-Realism which is grounded on an illusion:
Why Philosophical Realism is Illusory
viewtopic.php?t=40167

I can't be bothered being a realist or an antirealist, the whole thing is a pseudoproblem.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Jan 21, 2025 3:15 am I am still waiting on this:
FDP, Justify Your 'What is Real?
viewtopic.php?t=43367

I answered you there.