2

If realism is not opposed to idealism, but to anti-realism, and realism is just a generic position applied to certain things but not others, why we often hear that idealism is anti-reality, that realism is opposed to idealism (here for instance), and why realism is defined somehow in opposition to idealism (See this question and its answers, amont other sources backing my question).

Starckman
  • 1,254
  • 3
  • 11
  • This is because there are multiple "flavors" of antitheses: *inverse*, *reverse*, and *obverse* come to mind; or think of antipodes (opposite ends of a spectrum) vs. not being on the same spectrum at all, or being on a spectrum *A* that is antipodal to a spectrum *B* (on a higher-order level). Offhand, anti-realism is the *inverse* of realism, whereas idealism is a *reversal* (of the priority of *res* over *eidos*, so to say). (I am not confident in this exact assessment and offer it merely for illustrative purposes.) – Kristian Berry Feb 23 '23 at 06:00
  • The higher-order spectra description: imagine first a line segment *A*, each of whose endpoints is antipodal relative to the other. Label the endpoints *a* and *b*. Now, *a* and *b* are opposites internally for *A*. But now imagine, second-dimensionally, another line segment *B*, which is antipodal for a *square* determined by the parallelism of *A* and *B*. So while some *a*.2 might be parallel to *a*, there, with some *b*.2 diagonal to *a*, yet *a*.2 is still "opposed to" *a* on this higher-order/higher-dimensional level. – Kristian Berry Feb 23 '23 at 06:06
  • Because uses of "idealism" historically were and still are all over the place and, overall, incoherent, as [Wikipedia illustrates](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism#Definitions). Their attempt to square the circle by distilling a common denominator only confuses it further. [SEP](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/idealism/#Intr) gives up on that, distinguishes "two fundamental conceptions of idealism" in modern philosophy, metaphysical and epistemological, and sticks to the former only. It is still a mess, but less so. – Conifold Feb 23 '23 at 07:10
  • 1
    @Conifold The wikipedia page says: "Metaphysical idealism is an ontological doctrine that holds that reality itself is incorporeal or experiential at its core." and "subjective idealists and phenomenalists tend to privilege sensory experience over abstract reasoning" But I thought that precisely idealists believe in the superiority of mental representation over sensory experience, that to me can not but be physical – Starckman Feb 23 '23 at 07:29
  • 1
    "Precisely idealists" do not exist, the word has no precise meaning even remotely. SEP is a much more authoritative source, but even they give a whole spread of what "idealists believe", including interpreting sensory and other experience as non-physical, and foundation of reality at that, or not. The label is just not of much use you'd like to make of it. – Conifold Feb 23 '23 at 07:38
  • Realism *is* opposed to idealism. I think what you meant to say is that realism is not the opposite of idealism. That is, there are anti-realist positions that are not idealist. – David Gudeman Feb 23 '23 at 07:55
  • @DavidGudeman "*We also agree with Jeremy Dunham, Iain Hamilton Grant, and Sean Watson when they write that "the idealist, rather than being anti-realist, is in fact… a realist concerning elements more usually dismissed from reality", namely mind of some kind or other*", SEP. I have a feeling that it is hard to come by a non-trivial sentence with "idealism" which is not false on some use of it. – Conifold Feb 23 '23 at 08:38
  • @Conifold with respect to a particular ontological category such as matter or abstract objects, realism is opposed to idealism with respect to that category. This doesn't imply that idealism has to be anti-realist with respect to all ontological categories. – David Gudeman Feb 23 '23 at 08:53
  • "the idealist denies the mind-independent reality of matter" (SEP) but I think for many people denying mind-independent reality of matter boils down to denying reality, because for many people, reality is made of mind-independent matter. (I don't know whether "reality is made of mind-independent matter" is the position held by most realists though") – Starckman Feb 23 '23 at 08:54
  • @Starckman I would have at least briefly sketched out what positions "ideealism" and "realism" - it would be educational for other readers who may not be familiar :-) (I'm going to skip my usual rant about "-isms" this time). For one, I was surprised of the more philosophical understanding of "realism" which is not quite like the everyday use. – Frank Feb 23 '23 at 14:50
  • @Frank I did not sketch the terms on purpose, because what they mean is also a part of the question (see the discussion with Conifold above) – Starckman Feb 23 '23 at 14:56
  • @Starckman OK, sounds good. Did you check the SEP? It's an amazing resource which usually has extensive historical background on the topics. Sometimes it's a bit into splitting hair in a very academic fashion, but it's really useful and authoritative :-) We should have a contest to nominate the most erudite splitting hair entry on the SEP one of these days hahaha – Frank Feb 23 '23 at 15:00
  • @Frank Yes I know it, I have consulted for some subjects, but for some other (among them idealism and realism) it is very very difficult for me to follow... So my strategy is to grab other things I can from the Internet, and to learn from discussions on Stackexchange, and understand little by little... and maybe one day I will be able to understand the SEP's "realism" article – Starckman Feb 23 '23 at 15:09
  • @Starckman This one is usually easier to read than the SEP, but still authoritative: https://iep.utm.edu/. I book I liked why the history of western philosophy by Russell - old, but decent survey, not including more modern philosophy (https://www.amazon.com/A-History-of-Western-Philosophy/dp/B08GQ7F14F/ref=sr_1_3?keywords=history+of+philosophy&qid=1677167432&sr=8-3) – Frank Feb 23 '23 at 15:49
  • @Frank I read the IEP and also Britannica. I also read Russell's *History of Western Philosophy*. Of course I also read academic papers. I prioritize reading the original texts of philosophers I like, over those whom I don't like. I also read Wikipedia in French and English. I was told Wikipedia is not good in philosophy, but I don't really agree. – Starckman Feb 25 '23 at 01:26
  • @Starckman I like to read original texts also, for philosophers I like also. Where do you find academic papers to read? – Frank Feb 25 '23 at 03:42
  • @Frank https://scholar.google.com/ – Starckman Feb 25 '23 at 04:18
  • But in fact, concerning philosophy, I simply use Google, and if an interesting academic paper pops up, I read it. For other fields, in particular experimental psychology, I use Google Scholar much more. – Starckman Feb 25 '23 at 04:19

1 Answers1

6

'Realism' is used in different ways depending on the context and on what it is being contrasted with. For example, when speaking of realism with respect to properties or universals, realism is contrasted with nominalism. Realism about mathematical objects is often contrasted with constructivism. Realism about scientific laws and entities is usually contrasted with instrumentalism. Realism about other minds might be contrasted with solipsism. Realism about morality can be contrasted with subjectivism or conventionalism. Realism with respect to the existence of an external world may be contrasted with phenomenalism, but it may also be contrasted with some forms of idealism.

Michael Dummett coined the term 'anti-realism' as a generic way to refer to anything contrasted with realism. The basic concept behind realism is that things exist, or propositions hold true, independently of us, whereas anti-realism maintains that the primary reality consists of mental constructions, perceptions, sensations, thoughts, etc. There are many different varieties of each, so it is difficult to be more specific without discussing the views of particular philosophers.

Bumble
  • 20,757
  • 2
  • 27
  • 65
  • So it comes back to my question: "is realism real?" if this term has so many meanings that at the end it means nothing... https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/96738/what-is-realism-or-is-realism-real – Starckman Feb 23 '23 at 15:15
  • "but it may also be contrasted with some forms of idealism." which forms? – Starckman Feb 23 '23 at 15:16
  • I would say particularly the classical idealism of the 18th century philosophers such as Berkeley and Hume. – Bumble Feb 24 '23 at 04:22
  • Hume was a sceptical empiricist, as far as I know – Starckman Feb 24 '23 at 04:38
  • 1
    Hume is indeed a skeptical empiricist, but this is not incompatible with being an idealist. It is somewhat controversial to describe Hume as an idealist, since he did not call his own position idealism, but he follows Berkeley in holding that ideas are fundamental and that what we call bodies or objects are just bundles of ideas. Likewise, the external world, causation, and even the self, are for Hume just the product of custom or the imagination and lack any basis in reason. – Bumble Feb 24 '23 at 05:36
  • Do you think that is the reason why we can read sometimes that Britain empiricism already possessed the seeds of idealism? (i.e. because some of its founders where idealists or somehow idealists) https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/96532/does-empiricism-already-possess-the-seeds-of-idealism – Starckman Feb 24 '23 at 05:50
  • I tend to agree that empiricism can naturally lead towards skepticism or idealism or perhaps even both. Quine, whom you quote in that question, endorses fallibilism, which can be understood as a kind of skepticism. Many of the logical positivists embraced phenomenalism and held that what we call the real world is a construction from sense data, which can be understood as a kind of idealism. – Bumble Feb 24 '23 at 06:17
  • But then why empiricism and idealism are still two different philosophies? – Starckman Feb 24 '23 at 06:23
  • Also if I am not wrong, logical empiricism/positivism developed in reaction to (English) idealism – Starckman Feb 24 '23 at 06:27
  • 1
    Let us [continue this discussion in chat](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/143135/discussion-between-bumble-and-starckman). – Bumble Feb 24 '23 at 07:59