To put into Kant’s Perspective;
Transcendental/Philosophical Realism = objectivism = idealistic person.
Transcendental Idealism = subjectivism = realistic person.
It is not easy to explain, I will try;
Transcendental/Philosophical Realism = objectivism = idealistic person.
An pure objectivist of Transcendental/Philosophical Realism believe in an external object that is independent of the human condition, which mean there is a reality GAP between the subject and the object connected by waves.
The waves of the external object form a mental conception and idea of the object in the mind.
In this case, the subject never interact with the supposedly real object at all.
This is the reason why the pure objectivist or philosophical realist is an idealistic person.
This weakness is exposed by Meno’s Paradox.
For example a philosophical realist believe there is a real table that is external to his human subjective conditions. But the philosophical realist never get in “touch” with the real table but only is connected via electromagnetic waves from his real table.
The question is, is there a “real” table emitting waves to his brain?
Note I had quoted Russell’s doubts, i.e. “perhaps there is no table at all”
A Philosophical Realist will often condemn his counterpart as an idealist, not being aware they are the real idealist, i.e. transcendental idealist indulging in illusions.
Transcendental Idealism = subjectivism = realistic person.
On the other hand the transcendental idealist is an empirical realist.
To the empirical realist the object co-exists with the subject, there is no object that is external to the human conditions, i.e. no reality-GAP at all.
Thus the transcendental idealist or empirical realist which is intersubjective is realistic, i.e. what is cognized and emerged is what you get.
Common sense indicate there is some sort of externalness, i.e. a distance between the subject and the object [Sun 93 million miles away], but this distance is still subjective.
The term “idealist” is a derogatory term thrown at those who oppose their Philosophical Realism views.
They so called and condemned ‘idealists’ [not theistic idealists like Berkerley] are actually empirical realists, thus very realistic.