 |
| - Yeah, I´m real bro. What about it? |
Can we *not* be direct realists? Isn´t indirect realism really self-refuting?
For instance, how does the indirect realist *know* that the sky isn´t blue?
Presumably, because he is a direct realist about the wavelengths of light, the
existence of brains, the latest advances in color-theory, and what not. Or is
it indirect realism all the way down? But if so, how can we be sure of anything?
If we can never know the thing in itself, we can´t even know that it´s real.
But anti-realism doesn´t really work either. The anti-realist either becomes a postmodernist,
and that way, madness lays. Or he has to become a direct realist about the
phenomena in the mind of God.
Isn´t indirect realism or anti-realism really a kind of weird
anthropocentrism turned inside out? A certain kind of direct realists want to
believe that humans can know everything, while the opposite position is that we
can´t know anything – but that still makes us *special* somehow, the only
creature that doesn´t really belong here. Maybe the truth is too hard to bear:
that we can know absolutely that we cannot know absolutely…except a few things
that are truly terrifying in their absoluteness. For instance, that humans
won´t exist forever, and that we´ll never leave this rock…
For a midnight rant you're *out there*! Interesting. that we absolutely know we cannot know absolutely. But really, with our minds we recognize phenomena in the "mind" of God? It raised the question "does God have a mind?"
ReplyDeleteOf course. My point was that philosophical idealist often take that position, but if so, they are direct realists about whatever they think is in God´s mind.
ReplyDelete