Man is the Measure of All Things

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.

-Nietzsche, Ecce Homo

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!

There is such a thing as linear thinking and in some minds this form of thinking is the only form of thinking that exists.

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.

False.

“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.)

You should learn how to use your right side of the brain and stop being so fixated on words. There is more to life than words.

“Objective reality” doesn’t decide anything … it’s not alive. Only live beings can decide and judge.

Learn the words you use and your right side won’t have to struggle so much with your confusion.

There you go. So you agree with Protagoras. Thanks for wasting people’s time.

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.

You’re free to think whatever you want to think.

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.

Thanks for the advice, I appreciate it.

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).

Proofs are beyond you.

I understand what is ‘belief’ and it is stated in that Wiki article as a belief.
But in this case my extended thought is Philosophical Realists claim what they believe is really or the most real. Note Plato’s Forms. This is the same as ‘God exists’ is a belief, but theists insist their God is real who listens and answers prayers, send his message via messengers/prophet, created the Universe and represent all of reality.

Now, are you admitting what is really real [aside from truths and perception of that reality] to you is a belief? You only has a belief of what is real.

Note the difference between ‘belief’ and ‘knowledge’ [justified true beliefs].

Note “belief” is without factual certainty, so how can your ‘reality’ as idealized be credibly real?

I did not claim everyone has their own ‘reality.’
I stated reality is an emergent on a collective basis with various subsets conditioned to various Frameworks and System, i.e. common sense [generic DNA], Scientific, etc.

Actually it is your sort of claim of reality, i.e. a reality that is independent of mind that result in each individual having their own ‘reality’ ultimately as opposed to the shared-reality I am claiming.

That is a sign that you don’t have any arguments to counter my views.

Humanity describing itself as the measure of all things strikes me as arrogance and hubris but then again human civilization is an exercise of false confidence.

Nah, the concept of ‘humans measure of all things’ is including ‘warts and all’.

When humanity understand and acknowledge that concept then they will realize they [individual(s) and groups] must be accountable for all things [good and evil] and thus must take responsibilities to correct all the evils and ills contributed by humans.