I voted non-skeptical realism because this is the most rational choice for me. Idealism just have too many important unanswered points that resemble a catch-22 situation. The rest of the choices are non-issue for me.

Speaking of the large number of votes that the non-skeptical realism received at PhilPapers, this is as close as we could get from philosophical consensus, an issue which, in another thread, @jgill had pointed out -- philosophy had not achieved a consensus on something.

I'm not surprised that the votes went this way.

Non-sceptical realism.

The danger of this poll is that it feeds the layperson’s impression that the existence of the external world is the central issue in philosophy.

Understanding the ways that realism breaks down is most interesting I guess. But that doesn't entail being an idealist. Agnostic might make most sense, but that implies indifference. I'm going to be agnostic to the poll :grimace:

The danger of this poll is that it feeds the layperson’s impression that the existence of the external world is the central issue in philosophy. — Jamal

This is a good point. It's easy to mistake the poll as a poll about existence, instead of epistemology or knowledge.

This is a good point. It's easy to mistake the poll as a poll about existence, instead of epistemology or knowledge. — L'éléphant

I think once again, this doesn't capture the nuances of the argument whether it's metaphysics or epistemological realism. Kant would say that there are true empirical statements, but still claims those statements are true for the human observer. What is that? Well, transcendental idealism, but that label alone doesn't say much as both a realist an idealist might agree with him epistemologically. Both would agree in regards to synthetic posteriori statements about the world.

Kant would say that there are true empirical statements, but still claims those statements are true for the human observer. — schopenhauer1

If Kant had said this, then he was just repeating what's already in his premise -- empirical statements are made by humans.

External World: I accept or lean towards: — Banno

It is interesting that none goes for idealism yet. I remember debating in some threads with members who were Platonist.

If Kant had said this, then he was just repeating what's already in his premise -- empirical statements are made by humans. — L'éléphant

Correct, I think? Humans make observations of the world. Insofar as these observations are contingently known through our experiences, they tell us facts about the world. Realists would agree with that. Yet Kant is an idealist. The structure is in yo head. So there are "real" facts, but their origin is not the external world. So that's why I said the "epistemological" part doesn't necessarily make a difference. It is needs both the epistemological and metaphysical for a complete picture.

I would have checked 'idealism' but for the fact that I think the usual notion of what it means is mistaken in such a way that is basically incorrigible.

But I've noticed a couple of recent intellectual trends which might serve in its place

Radical constructivism is an approach to epistemology that situates knowledge in terms of knowers' experience. It looks to break with the conception of knowledge as a correspondence between a knower's understanding of their experience and the world beyond that experience. Adopting a sceptical position towards correspondence as in-principle impossible to verify because one cannot access the world beyond one's experience in order to test the relation, radical constructivists look to redefine epistemology in terms of the viability of knowledge within knowers' experience. — Wikipedia

Note the convergence with QBism in physics:

(Other interpretations) all have something in common: They treat the wave function as a description of an objective reality shared by multiple observers. QBism, on the other hand, treats the wave function as a description of a single observer’s subjective knowledge. It resolves all of the quantum paradoxes, but at the not insignificant cost of anything we might call “reality.” Then again, maybe that’s what quantum mechanics has been trying to tell us all along — that a single objective reality is an illusion. — Quanta Magazine

I will admit I am interested in Bernardo Kastrup's 'analytical idealism'.

-----

The danger of this poll is that it feeds the layperson’s impression that the existence of the external world is the central issue in philosophy. — Jamal

It still remains a scandal to philosophy and to human reason in general that the existence of things outside us … must be accepted merely on faith, and that if anyone thinks good to doubt their existence, we are unable to counter his doubts by any satisfactory proof. — Kant, Critique of Pure Reason, B519

Plus ca change....

It is interesting that none goes for idealism yet. I remember debating in some threads with members who were Platonist. — javi2541997

I myself waver between idealist and neutral monist, but I’d vote for “the alternatives provided in the poll are too unclear to answer” - which, unfortunately, is not an alternative provided in the poll.

If philosophers categorize “non-skeptical realism” then there should also be such a thing as “skeptical realism”. Both of these are to me very muddled concepts in need of further clarification. Assuming this is possible.

Then the categories of “idealism” and “realism” are presented as though they were somehow incompatible when it comes to an external world. C.S. Peirce’s views serve as one clear-cut example to the contrary. Posing idealism against realism is about as philosophically astute as would be posing realism against materialism. Muddled, or at least so I find.

I am agree with you that those concepts are muddled. One option is "agnostic/undecided", when, in my humble opinion, these two are different concepts and the first tend to be connected with religion rather than the big debate on realism.

As I expected, most of the votes went to "non-skeptical realism" because after reading and taking part in some threads, most of the members founded their arguments based on such theory.
Nonetheless, a few years ago I started a thread on "Gödel's philosophy of mathematics" and it truned out in a platonic idealism conversation.

I appreciate that at least, you deeply considered the option of "idealism" but it is true that is complex to answer.

I voted for "non-skeptical realism" because I lack compelling grounds to doubt that the "external world" is real (i.e. ineluctable, subject-invariant, fatal).

The danger of this poll is that it feeds the layperson’s impression that the existence of the external world is the central issue in philosophy. — Jamal

The central issue οf Philosophy is the construction of wise theoretical frameworks capable to expand our understanding on all aspects of the world.The existence of the external world is the epistemic source and starting point for ALL philosophical inquiries and the only available way we have to evaluate our conclusions as wise or not.
This poll shows that most Academic philosopher finally took seriously the 10 main problems of modern Philosophy highlighted by Mario Bunge in his book : Philosophy in Crisis: The Need for Reconstruction (2001).

The central issue οf Philosophy is the construction of wise theoretical frameworks capable to expand our understanding on all aspects of the world — Nickolasgaspar

What about the existence of ourselves rather than finding knowledge on external world? Cartesian thought can be important to develop such theories frameworks. I don’t think that external world is necessarily the main point or cause of every philosophical theory...

and the only available way we have to evaluate our conclusions as wise or not. — Nickolasgaspar

And how we "evaluate" conclusions?

What about the existence of ourselves rather than finding knowledge on external world? — javi2541997

Our existence(self) is one of the aspects of the world we experience.

I don’t think that external world is necessarily the main point or cause of every philosophical theory... — javi2541997

-well you can not study your self without taking in to account your environment. We are the product of the external world.

And how we "evaluate" conclusions — javi2541997

By evaluating their knowledge value. A claim is wise when it is based on knowledge

I voted "Other" because it left room to explain why "The question is too unclear to answer".

Is there an external world? Yes.
Do we experience it as it is? No.
Is our knowledge of it an accurate representation of it? We try.

well you can not study your self without taking in to account your environment. We are the product of the external world. — Nickolasgaspar

I see it reverse. The external world is a product of our consciousness and how we interpret it. If it is "real" or not depends on the theories, and that's why some are Platonist, agnostic, skepticism, etc... all of those help us to understand if everything around us real, but we start with the basic affirmative premise of Cogito ergo sum: "I think, therefore I am", not taking in account if the environment is real or not.

A claim is wise when it is based on knowledge — Nickolasgaspar

And knowledge is based on what?

your inverse view has zero epistemic or philosophical value. As Wolfgang Pauli would have pointed out, its "Not even Wrong". Whether a scientists or a philosopher (who is truly interested in wisdom) subscribes to a Pseudo philosophical worldview(Idealism, Materialism) is irrelevant. In order to do his job he will still need to scan the empirical world for data in order to produce any meaningful framework.


Declarations of this short can never be part of Philosophy since the acceptance of such ontological not only offers zero understanding about the world, they also fails to explain the External Limitations and Empirical Regularities that we register and we have to obey in order to survive and flourish.

Consciousness is a label we use to describe a phenomenon with specific properties.(Mind being able to direct its conscious attention to important stimuli, external or internal).
Mistaking the label of an abstract concept (quality) to be an entity is a common error Idealists do in their effort to provide answers to their questions. i.e. Many things that Knowledge or truth is something out there to be found, or Mathematics is not a descriptive tool but a constructive "agent".
This is bad language mode.

And knowledge is based on what? — javi2541997

Knowledge is nothing more than an evaluation term. We declare a claim to be "knowledge" when it is in direct agreement with objective facts and it with demonstrable instrumental value.
If a conclusion is in conviction with what we know, then it can not be wise by definition.

A recent thread has me wondering how far the community here differs from the general community of philosophers. It seems, from the noise, that there are more folk hereabouts who reject realism than in the wider philosophical community. — Banno

Who in that tread was rejecting realism?

Funny thing is: it doesn't make sense to call a world "external" unless you think there's an "internal" somewhere. :razz: :razz: :razz:

Funny thing is: it doesn't make sense to call a world "external" unless you think there's an "internal" somewhere — frank

:100: :up:

Do we experience it as it is? No. — Fooloso4

What does it mean for an object to be 'as it is' (or the oft substituted 'as it really is')?

Things are for us as observed or conceived or experimented on by us.

Things are for us as observed or conceived or experimented on by us — Fooloso4

As opposed to what?

As opposed to what? — Isaac

As opposed to claims about how things are independent of us.

As opposed to claims about how things are independent of us. — Fooloso4

That's the concept that's unclear. What do you mean when you say that a thing can be some way independent of us. What sort of properties could it have, what might it's boundaries be? I can't make any sense of an object having a 'way' it is that is the way it 'really' is.

Take a tree. I think its a tall plant with a trunk and green leaves. What might it be 'as it is'?

You are making my point.

Is there an external world? Yes.
Do we experience it as it is? No.
Is our knowledge of it an accurate representation of it? We try. — Fooloso4

I guess this would be my answer too. But...

I struggle with the words 'as it is'? Can there ever be a final 'as it is' that is not also subject to a particular perspective? Isn't the implication of such wording a god's eye view? (I know you are not arguing for this)

I struggle with the words 'as it is'? — Tom Storm

Part of the problem is that a dog having four legs, for example, is independent of us. That is just the way it is. But I think we go too far if we draw the conclusion that there is a way things are that is independent of us that we can know or talk about in a meaningful way.

How about “the fact that we’re even talking about an ‘external world’ is kind of ridiculous” as an option?