Realsim vs anti-realism
Posted: Sat Feb 20, 2021 2:11 pm
Interesting discussion addressing facets of realism vs anti-realism dichotomy other than purely metaphysical or ontological ones
The death of realism
In defense of realism
Post-realism
Post-realism offers a solution to a highly dangerous world of competing perspectives where everyone supposes that they are right. Namely, we give up believing we are right and the belief that there is a right to be found. Some ways of holding the world prove to be remarkably effective and others can cause untold distress. It is our joint task to examine and explore the perspectives available and identify their strengths and weaknesses. The future of philosophy is not the pursuit of the one answer. There is no single definition of a term. No point of view that will be sustained in all circumstances. We have not found it in the last few thousand years and few can imagine that it is about to be uncovered. Instead the future of philosophy is to be found in the exploration of alternative frameworks in search of solutions to the many problems that we face.
Philosophers should challenge current theories that are left unexamined because they are familiar and commonplace. They should identify weaknesses in these outlooks, including their own, while at the same time striving to build new accounts of the world to address these flaws and to formulate precise theories that can be applied and tested. The solutions will not be definitive or final. They will not be objectively true. They will not be descriptions of openness. But, as systems of closure, they will enable us to intervene to valuable effect, and just perhaps help us make a better world.
The death of realism
In defense of realism
Post-realism
Post-realism offers a solution to a highly dangerous world of competing perspectives where everyone supposes that they are right. Namely, we give up believing we are right and the belief that there is a right to be found. Some ways of holding the world prove to be remarkably effective and others can cause untold distress. It is our joint task to examine and explore the perspectives available and identify their strengths and weaknesses. The future of philosophy is not the pursuit of the one answer. There is no single definition of a term. No point of view that will be sustained in all circumstances. We have not found it in the last few thousand years and few can imagine that it is about to be uncovered. Instead the future of philosophy is to be found in the exploration of alternative frameworks in search of solutions to the many problems that we face.
Philosophers should challenge current theories that are left unexamined because they are familiar and commonplace. They should identify weaknesses in these outlooks, including their own, while at the same time striving to build new accounts of the world to address these flaws and to formulate precise theories that can be applied and tested. The solutions will not be definitive or final. They will not be objectively true. They will not be descriptions of openness. But, as systems of closure, they will enable us to intervene to valuable effect, and just perhaps help us make a better world.