Well you noticed the right word, “Realism”. You still don’t comprehend what the word means. You keep wanting to argue about whether there is a Reality. The word “Realism” isn’t about Reality. It is about only the belief that there is a Reality.
A realist is one who (just as your own quote stated) accepts the point of view, the perspective, the belief, that there is a reality. Whether he is right or wrong about that is irrelevant to the fact that he is a “Philosophical Realist”.
Realism is a BELIEF concerning a Reality.
Now. Can you understand at least that one word? That it is merely a belief or point of view and not a statement or declaration?
You are again refusing to - at least - try to understand what other ILP members say. This is because of your stubborn ignorance. You are ignoring all arguments that have proven you wrong, and you are isolating those arguments of the other ILP members that can only be attacked then if and only if they are isolated from their context, so that they just look like mere statements but not like arguments any more. Your many logical fallacies and your anti-logical mindset in general can be proven very easily. Almost everyone has done this in each of your threads.
Another point is that you misuse famous, preferably the most famous philosophers like Kant and Plato as strawmen. The last time you misused Kant as a strawman, this time you misuse Plato and Protagoras as strawmen.
Plato interpreted as well as you do. You yourself quoted this:
Yes, INTERPRETED BY PLATO.
Note what I said about the truth.
But what does your “anti-reality” mean?
Every “anti-reality” refers to reality. It is also an interpretation of reality. Otherwise a speaker of “anti-reality” would not know what this speaker is talking about (this reminds me of somebody.)
Plato said that the true reality was an ideality as the reality of the ideas. The ideal realm is different from the real realm. But in order to exist, the ideal realm must be a bit similar to the real realm. Otherwise we could not say anything about it, since we would not know know what it “is”. We have to refer to reality even then if we are talking about ideality.
If ideality is to you what you call “anti-reality”, then it is your interpretation, so that you would have to tell us what your definition of “reality” is, but you have already said almost everywhere that you believe in your schizoid and delusional “multiple realities”. So it is very probable that you believe that the “anti-reality” also belongs to this “multiple realities”. In addition, you believe in an “anti-objectivity”, which means that you believe in solipsism. So according to your belief, each solipsist has an own reality or/and an own “anti-reality” or/and even own “multiple realities”, and you do not care about the contradictions that are integrated in your belief and religion.
So if I only see the front of an object (e.g. human face) and assume that this object has a back of specific kind (e.g. back of head) I am not the one who is performing this measurement? Instead, this measurement is objective i.e. true no matter what? Simply because one says so?
You really don’t understand the answer to this question?
What one believes and how one acts are two different things. I can believe in realism but act like a solipsist. If I think that all of my opinions are necessarily true, i.e. that they are necessarily unquestionably reality itself, then I am practically a solipsist even if I believe that my opinions reflect an external reality that is somewhere out there.
‘BElIEF’ is worse.
The critical point is how do you prove your belief of Realism is true?
Truth = facts = verifiable and justifiable by evidence and supported by reason.
I contradict as no one has contradicted hitherto, and am nevertheless the reverse of a negative spirit. I am the harbinger of joy, the like of which has never existed before; I have discovered tasks of such lofty greatness that, until my time, no one had any idea of such things. Mankind can begin to have fresh hopes, only now that I have lived. Thus, I am necessarily a man of Fate. For when Truth enters the lists against the falsehood of ages, shocks are bound to ensue, and a spell of earthquakes, followed by the transposition of hills and valleys, such as the world has never yet imagined even in its dreams. The concept “politics” then becomes elevated entirely to the sphere of spiritual warfare. All the mighty realms of the ancient order of society are blown into space—for they are all based on falsehood: there will be wars, the like of which have never been seen on earth before. Only from my time and after me will politics on a large scale exist on earth.
Note Philosophical Anti-Realists do not believe in anti-reality per se. “Anti-” in this case is merely ‘against’ and Philosophical Anti-Realists have their own theory of what-is-reality.
What is reality is reality and that has to be justified philosophically and rationally.
What happened was within the Western Philosophy community, a group of people claimed their views represent reality, thus ‘Realism’.
Note this is only a claim but it is not necessary true.
Philosophical Realism as representing what-is-reality is a half-cooked theory.
The Philosophical Anti-Realists are a group of those who do not agree with the Realists’ view of ‘what is reality’.
The Philosophical Anti-Realists has their own philosophical views of ‘what is reality.’
The Philosophical Anti-Realists general believe reality is mind-interdependent but there are various forms to this general view.
You may not realize it, in fact your views are solipistic and implicit/inherent your view of reality is solipsism. Note my proof of this in this thread; viewtopic.php?f=1&t=193716
Try to prove me wrong on this!
It’s possible that any opinion that you have, can be false/wrong.
However, nobody goes around thinking “I have this opinion and I know it’s false”. That wouldn’t make any sense. Everybody thinks that the opinions they hold are true.
“Realism” is the belief that there is a Reality, regardless of whether anyone fully understands that reality.
Learn the words.
False.
The “Anti-realist” believes that there is NO Reality (just as you have claimed in the past). I would say that YOU are an “anti-realist”, but in reality, I think that you are merely confused and too busy preaching your sermons to learn anything.
He has a good reason to “not realize this”, because it is nonsense.
The question is WHO decides whether any given opinion is true or false. Is it humans, as Protagoras says, or is it something that is independent from humans e.g. objective reality? If you say the former, i.e. humans, then you’re a dark-age idiot as per James’s definition. (I believe James is a dark-age idiot too.)
What confusion, my friend? You are the one who is confused here. And this is because you’re trying to use an approach in a situation for which it is not applicable. Basically, you’re using linear thinking when it is not applicable. You get seriously confused and annoyed when processing words in a linear fashion does not help you understand what the other person is saying. That’s what’s confusing you and also what makes you think other people are confused. We’ve been over this so many times in the past.
People are free to think that what I write is a waste of time or that it is valuable or anything in between. What they think is not in my control.
You don’t have to read anything that I write and you don’t have to respond to anything that I write. You’re deciding to spend your time in a particular way.
This is why your philosophical knowledge is so narrow and shallow.
It is very typical in philosophy for a group to come up with a set of philosophical ideas and give it a name. It is the same everywhere.
The meaning of words are based on human consensus and do not necessary reflect the reality until there is sufficient verification and rational justifications.
Note the word ‘gay’ has its proper reference when only defined by the user.
Show me the proof for that ‘Reality’ regardless of whether anyone fully understands that “reality”.
Your reification of “that reality” is driven by psychological impulses just as the claim of certainty ‘X caused effect Y’ [note Hume]
I have never claimed there is no reality. Where did I say so?
What I have claimed is that ‘reality’ that you claimed as absolutely real is actually an illusion.
I believe the Sun, Moon, and the likes are real but such realness is emergent and actualized interdependently with the subjects.
He has a good reason to “not realize this”, because it is nonsense.
[/quote]
Where is your arguments?
It doesn’t matter if there is any proof or even any evidence. What the word MEANS is that the person believes that there is a Reality.
Certainly you already know that the word “theist” refers to someone who BELIEVES there is a God, whether he has any proof or not.
It is the same with the word “Realist”. It is about what is believed, not whether anyone is right in their beliefs. It is merely a language issue. Why can’t you see something as simple as that?
As soon as you claimed that everyone has their own “reality”. That means that there is no actual reality. Or did that not occur to you?
No one is arguing with that.
That is a bit senseless, but still, THAT IS YOUR REALISM THEORY, that you certainly cannot prove any more than others can prove theirs (in fact, certainly less).