The "I" for example is not separate from its perceptions in so far as these perceptions are only so because they are perceived by the "I" - being in fact contingent on the "I"s awareness. — javra

As Nietzsche wrote:

What gives me the right to speak of an 'I' as cause, and finally of an 'I' as cause of thought?'

What gives me the right to say that the "I" causes thoughts, as if the "I" is separate to the thoughts it has?

I agree that the "I" is not separate to either its perceptions or thoughts. But what are the implications of this? The implication is that perceptions and thoughts are an intrinsic part of the "I".

In the same way, iron is an intrinsic part of the Eiffel Tower. Remove the iron, and what is left? Nothing.

Remove the perceptions and thoughts, and what is left? Nothing. There is no "I" remaining.

Doesn't this entail that with each change in thought thunk there will then necessarily be an ontological change in the "I" addressed? If so, how can the same "I" be privy to different thoughts? — javra

Yes, for each change in thought there will be an ontological change in the "I". Are you the same person you were ten years ago?

There is the question of identity through time. The "I" is not just the thought being had at the present moment in time, but is the complete set of thoughts stored as memories that stretch back into the distant past.

The problem is, if the "I" is separate to its thoughts, then how can the "I" know about its thoughts? The "I " can only know about the thoughts it has if these thoughts are an intrinsic part of the "I", such that "I" is its thoughts.

If the "I" is separate to its thoughts, the question is, how can the "I" be privy to any thoughts at all?

If I have a conscious thought/belief that I am seeing something, could that thought/belief be doubted? — Kranky

Nietzsche is right to point out that people naturally separate the "I" from the "thought".

What gives me the right to speak of an 'I' as cause, and finally of an 'I' as cause of thought?'

However, this cannot be the case, otherwise it would lead into the homunculus problem of infinite regression.

It is more likely that "I" is the thought rather than it is the "I" that is having the thought.

It still remains the case that a thought cannot doubt itself.

If I have a conscious thought/belief that I am seeing something, could that thought/belief be doubted? — Kranky

No. What could the existence of the thought/belief by doubted by? Only by a thought/belief. Then it would be the case that a thought/belief was doubting its own existence, which is a logical impossibility, as a thought/belief must exist in order for it to doubt its own existence.

"I think therefore I am" is the first principle of Descartes philosophy.

Philosophy writing, then. I think it must start with a philosophical idea or concept to be explored, discussed or analysed. And/or a particular philosopher's view and arguments. Compared to your own. — Amity

Perhaps this also:

What is philosophy?
Philosophy has two aspects. First, the study of fundamental questions such as existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language. Second, thinking deeply and critically about the topic using evidence, and clear, logical reasoning about this evidence. (based on GPT 4o)

What is a philosophy essay?
A philosophy essay starts with a thesis. The thesis is about a specific philosophical question, concept or argument. The essay then defends or explores this thesis using evidence and clear, logical reasoning about the evidence. The essay should question assumptions implicit within the thesis, engage with different viewpoints and explore implications if the thesis is true. (based on GPT 4o)

Curious what proportion of the Philosophy Forum fulfils these criteria, including my own posts.

But do these definitions exclude Friedrich Nietzsche, the German philosopher, who used a blend of philosophy, poetry and personal reflection?

Also, do these definitions exclude Jacques Derrida, the French philosopher, who argued that language is inherently unstable and challenged the idea of absolute logical certainty?

The problem with excluding logic is that my feelings about a topic are equal to your feelings about the same topic, and it then comes down to who can shout the loudest.

It is not necessary, or even desired, to write the perfect, academic essay! Unless that is what your aim is. — Amity

I want to know how to write the perfect, academic philosophy essay, even if it is beyond my ability.

I have the essay's title and am aiming at 2,000 words. For the rest of this month probably tabulating what should be included in a good philosophy essay and will start researching next month.

As with SpaceX's Iterative Design Process, perhaps being shot down occasionally is part of the learning process.

Because this is an open, free and easy environment — Amity

It's good to have an open environment. However, I do avoid political threads on the Forum because they generally break the spirit of what a philosophy essay should be, in that claims are often made with minimal effort in justifying them with either evidence or reasoned argument.

You keep coming up with ideas for an essay. How are you getting on with yours? — Amity

At the moment an actual essay is taking second place to trying to understand what a "Philosophy Essay" actually is.

I am going through various guides to "How to write a philosophy essay" and trying to tabulate what these guides have in common.

Every so often I make a post including my understanding of what a "Philosophy Essay" is in the expectation of being shot down.

I'm thinking particularly of the aphorisms of Nietzsche and Cioran here. I like that approach, but it doesn't quite fit with the idea of a philosophical essay. — Baden

A philosophy essay logically defends a claim. Nietzsche used the aphoristic style to free himself from a metaphysical search for the fundamental nature of reality. Must all philosophy essays be about the metaphysical search for the fundamental nature of reality? Discuss.

I think it is a silly claim and not one I will be making! — Amity

However, perhaps that is exactly the claim to make. If you can persuade others about a claim you think is silly, then it should be a cake walk to persuade others about a claim you think sensible.

When writing a philosophy essay, it is perhaps not essential to believe in your claim, only to logically argue for your claim.

If someone else can then make their own logical argument why your claim is silly, you can then take their argument on board and adjust your own position. An example of SpaceX's Rapid Design Iteration.

Dr Matt Williams of Jesus College Oxford made the point that he felt he always achieved high marks because he sometimes started with an outlandish claim which he argued well.

Until today, I had no idea that 'flash philosophy' was a thing. — Amity

Thanks for the link. I had never come across the concept before.

I like the idea of an essay in two halves. or even 4 quarters and a bit. Is it true that 'All you need is love'? — Amity

Question = All you need is love?

Possible claim = I argue that all you need is love.

I agree. Perhaps at its core a philosophy essay is about making a claim and logically defending it, regardless of whether in a formal or informal style.

I personally don't agree that all you need is love, so I would be interested in being persuaded otherwise.

"Why are we tempted to say that mathematics are universal?" — Moliere

Another useful source here

Question = "Why are we tempted to say that mathematics are universal?"

Why not do a Boris Johnson and write 500 words defending one's claim that "I argue that mathematics is not universal" and then another 500 words defending one's claim that "I argue that mathematics is universal".

From Reuters, London

Boris Johnson, who campaigned prominently for Britain to leave the European Union ahead of a June referendum, argued in favour of remaining in the bloc in an unpublished newspaper column two days before backing Brexit, according to a newspaper report.

As Sun Tzu wrote:

If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.

Actually, it may be hard to defend the view that ' All you need is Love' in 2000 words — Jack Cummins

Perhaps that's what would make it a good thesis for a philosophy essay.

The Thread allows 5,000 words, but the Seán Radcliffe essay that won him the 2023 Irish Young Philosopher Awards Grand Prize and Philosopher of Our Time Award was only about 1,500 words.

A philosophy essay is a dialogue between the author and the reader, and there may not be a correct or definitive answer, as long as the essay is well-argued within a logical structure.

The philosophy essay wants your personal opinion, a little bit of evidence for your opinion, a reason or two why this evidence is relevant, one or two obvious counter-arguments and a reason or two why you rebut the counter-arguments.

Perhaps "academic" just means a well-argued claim within a logical structure.

I have noticed in the last year, that the forum has become more academic...............................The only danger is that it may become elitist. — Jack Cummins

This gives a possible thesis: "The Academic elitist world-view is bad for society"

The topic of 'All You Need is Love' may be a good one — Jack Cummins

Let thesis = "All you need is love"

Let your claim = I argue that all you need is love

In a couple of thousand words, persuade me.

Also, with an essay it seems that there is a need to come up with an independent view. — Jack Cummins

As I see it:

A philosophy essay is a specific thing and is not the same thing as a literary essay. This is a "Philosophy writing challenge". In a philosophy essay, one starts with a thesis about which one makes a claim and then defends it.

In fact, it is not even necessary to believe the claim that you are making, as long as you make a strong argument for it.

For example, the thesis could be "The public are better off under an Oligarchy than a Democracy" You could either defend this claim, oppose this claim or claim that sometimes Oligarchies are better than Democracies. Whichever claim you are making, you need to support your claim with a strong argument.

Perhaps a philosophy essay is more about your reasoned defence of your claim than the actual topic itself.

As regards independent view, I am assuming that an essay of say 2,000 words at undergraduate level will be more suitable than a PhD Dissertation of say 100,000 words. This affects what is meant by "independent view".

In an undergraduate philosophy essay, the writer is not expected to independently develop a new philosophical idea, but is expected to show independence of thinking in reasoning about existing philosophical ideas.

There is a difference between having a view that is independent of current philosophical ideas and having an independent view about current philosophical ideas.

For example:
1) You could begin with a declarative statement expressing your opinion "The public are better off under an Oligarchy than a Democracy"
2) Then i) give the main evidence that supports your claim and ii) your reasons why this evidence supports your claim.
3) Then give one or two main counter-arguments
4) Then give reasons why you rebut these counter-arguments
5) Finish by summarising your reasons why the evidence supports your claim and your reasons for rebutting the counter-arguments.

As an exercise in writing a philosophy essay, you could defend a claim that you don't even believe in, as long as you made a persuasive case.

I don't understand how we could replace 1 by 3. — frank

If there is one object in the world, dividing it into three parts does not involve infinities. In our numbering system, dividing 1 by 3 does involve infinities.

This suggests that infinity is an artificial problem of our numbering system. Perhaps a different numbering system would avoid the problem of infinity altogether.

Could you describe what mind-independent world could be? — Corvus

Impossible for the mind to describe a mind-independent world.

What do we do with numbers like pi that go on forever? — frank

One third of 1 is 0.33333...........continuing to infinity.

If we altered our numbering system, such that we replaced 1 by 3, then one third of 3 is 1. This avoids any problem of infinity.

This suggests that the problem of infinity is an artificial problem of our numbering system.

Similarly with pi.

They are subjective mental states, nothing to do with knowledge. — Corvus

Our only knowledge about any mind-independent world, any objective reality, starts with our subjective mental states. This means that knowledge about an objective reality cannot be separated from our subjective mental states.

When there is discrepancies in the claims of knowledge on the same situation or object between different folks, you always have chance to carry out testimonies on the knowledge via repeated observations, experiments, or testing on the claims, and update your false beliefs, or correct the other folks false claim on his knowledge. — Corvus

True, if two people make different claims about the same situation, for example, one says the postbox is red, and the other says the postbox is green, their claims can be judged.

But as regards perception, what a person perceives in their mind cannot be judged by anyone other than that person, as mind reading is impossible.

In exactly the same way, any pain a person experiences cannot be judged by anyone other than that person, as mind reading is impossible.
===============================================================================

What we see is the only world there is. There is no other world. — Corvus

You could only know what another person sees in their mind if you were a mind reader, which is an impossibility.

Only a mind reader could know that what another person sees in their mind is the same as what they see.

Seeing a colour and feeling a pain are both subjective experiences that are unknowable to any one other than a mind reader.
===============================================================================

Mind-independent world is meaningless if you cannot see or know what it is. — Corvus

If you knew something about a mind-independent world then it couldn't be a mind-independent world.

That would be like knowing something that is unknown.

We do have knowledge about the truth of reality, because we have perception and reasoning and inferring on the perception. Not just perception. — Corvus

Ideal Realism is about a relation between the mind and the world: "The universe is just ideas in the head, but real. Matters are only real when accessible and interactable. When not, all matters are just ideas."

If person A was stung by a wasp, only person A would know their particular pain. Person B may know their own particular pain when stung by a wasp, but as mind reading is not possible, it is impossible for person B to know person A's particular pain.

The top light of a traffic light is labelled "red", the middle light is labelled "orange" and the bottom light is labelled "green".

When person A sees the top light of a traffic light, only person A knows the particular colour that they see. Similarly, person B knows the particular colour that they see. As mind reading is not possible, it is impossible for person B to know the particular colour that person A sees.

Therefore person B can never know whether they are seeing the same or different colour to person A

Therefore, it is possible that persons A and B are in fact seeing different colours.

If persons A and B are seeing different colours, then either one of them or both of them are wrong about the reality of the colour of the top light.

If person B is wrong about the true nature of the traffic light, then this means that even though they see a particular colour of the top traffic light, that particular colour may not in reality be the actual colour of the top traffic light. This means that even though person B sees the colour red, the top traffic light may not in reality be red.

If person B is right about the true nature of the top traffic light, it is possible that person A is wrong.

If person A is wrong about the true nature of the top light, then this means that even though they see a particular colour of the top traffic light, that particular colour may not in reality be the actual colour of the top traffic light. Therefore, even though person A sees the colour red, the top traffic light may not in fact be red.

But persons A and B are interchangeable,

Therefore, it is possible that a person may see a colour that in fact doesn't exist in reality in the world

Direct Realism is the theory that all people directly see the colour that exists in reality in the world, but as mind reading is not possible, this is unknowable.

Therefore Direct Realism is not a valid philosophy. The reality of a mind-independent world is inaccessible to the mind.

For empirical cases like seeing colour red, you must go out and investigate further and verify for the truth, if needed. — Corvus

Suppose in reality the truth is that an object in the world is green, but for whatever reason you always perceive green objects as red.

You could look at the green object from all directions and all times of the day and will always see this green object as red.

How is it possible for the human mind to analyse the fact that they always see a red object to discover the truth of reality that the object in the world is actually green?
===============================================================================

Your seeing colour red is not knowledge. — Corvus

Your seeing the colour red is knowledge about what is in the mind, but is not knowledge about what is in the world.

Knowledge is justified true belief.

As regards the mind, the colour you see is the colour you see, regardless of its name. The colour you see is necessarily a justified true belief, and is therefore knowledge.

As regards the world, you may believe the colour of the object is red. You may be able to justify that the colour of the object is red. But if the object is in reality actually green, then you have no knowledge about the truth of reality.

Perception cannot give us knowledge. It can only present with what is perceived in the form of raw data i.e. shapes, colours, sounds, words and motions. That is where it ends. It is our reasoning and inference which give us knowledge on the reality. Hence both DR and IRists are wrong. — Corvus

We perceive the colour red and reason that it was caused by a red object in the world.

Knowledge is justified true belief.

Just because we have reasoned that our perception of the colour red was caused by a red object in the world, suppose we are mistaken, and in fact our perception of the colour red was not caused by a red object in the world.

Suppose it was caused by a green object. We wouldn't then have knowledge about reality in the world.

Why should our perceptions necessarily give us knowledge about the world?

Perception cannot give us knowledge. It can only present with what is perceived in the form of raw data i.e. shapes, colours, sounds, words and motions. That is where it ends. It is our reasoning and inference which give us knowledge on the reality. Hence both DR and IRists are wrong. — Corvus

It depends what is meant by "knowledge".

Knowledge could mean justified true belief. If I believe that the Eiffel Tower is 330m tall and can justify my belief, perhaps I read it in Encyclopedia Britannica, and the Eiffel Tower is actually 330m tall, then I have knowledge about the Eiffel Tower

I agree that we perceive things and can then use our reason on these perceptions in order to give us knowledge about the world, such that the Eiffel Tower is 330m tall.

But in order to reason about my perceptions, I must first know that I am perceiving the colour red, for example. I don't think that I am seeing the colour red. I don't believe that I am seeing the colour red. I don't need to reason that I am seeing the colour red. I know that I am seeing the colour red.

Is knowing something knowledge? Is knowing that I see the colour red knowledge that I see the colour red?

In propositional terms, when I say "I know the Eiffel Tower is 330m tall", the fact "the Eiffel Tower is 330m tall" is knowledge. Similarly, when I say "I know I see the colour red", the fact "I see the colour red" is knowledge.

I would say that I have knowledge that I see colours, shapes, sounds, etc

It seems that knowledge can be about what is in the mind as well as what is outside the mind.

Does it mean that Indirect Realist can only have beliefs? No knowledge at all?
And likewise, Direct Relists can only have knowledge? No beliefs at all? — Corvus

The meaning of the words "direct knowledge" and "indirect knowledge" depends on context.
In ordinary language, I have direct knowledge of The Empire States Building as I have visited it, but I only have indirect knowledge of The Space Needle as I have never been there.

In philosophy, I have direct knowledge of my perceptions of the colour grey and rectangular shape, but I only have indirect knowledge through reasoning of the something in the world that may have caused my perceptions.

The meaning of the words "knowledge" and "belief" depends on context.
In ordinary language, I know that the Eiffel Tower is in Paris, and I believe that the Eiffel Tower was built in 1889.

In philosophy, I know my perception of the colour red, and I believe that there is something in the world that caused this perception.

The Indirect Realist
Not entirely. The Indirect Realist has knowledge about what exists in their mind, such as when they perceive the colour red. But they argue that we can only have beliefs about what exists in the world that may be causing these perceptions in the mind.

The Direct Realist
The Direct Realist argues that they have knowledge about what exists in their mind, such as when they perceive the colour red, and they argue that they also have knowledge about the something in the world that caused these perceptions in the mind.

However, as I see it, Direct Realist is an invalid philosophy. IE, they are wrong.

That seems to imply that they are back to the dualism. — Corvus

Yes, but there is nothing fundamentally wrong with dualism.

If there was no dualism there would be no language. A word on the one hand exists as a shape and on the other hand exists as a representation of something else.

1) What is the significance of direct and indirect knowledge?...........................................3) What are the differences in direct and indirect knowledge compared to knowledge? — Corvus

I have direct knowledge of New York because I have been there, but only have indirect knowledge of Seattle as I have never been there.

I have direct knowledge of my perception of red, but only have indirect knowledge of the something in the world that might have caused it

Indirect knowledge signifies a belief.

I believe that the Space Needle in Seattle was originally sketched on a napkin, but I don't know it for a fact as I wasn't there at the time.
===============================================================================

2) Indirect or direct on relation to what? — Corvus

In relation to something in the world. The relation between what exists in the mind and what exists in the world.

That sounds confusing. Is it not the other way around? Are you sure you haven't put them wrong way around in the definition? What significance the word "indirect" have in the name? Why indirect? — Corvus

I don't believe so.

Suppose someone perceives the colour red. Both the Indirect and Direct Realist would agree that something in the world caused their perception.

The Direct Realist would argue that they are directly seeing the something in the world that caused their perception. They argue that the something in the world is actually red.

The Indirect realist argues that they are directly perceiving the colour red in their mind and only know about the something in the world that caused their perception indirectly through reason. They argue that the something in the world might be red, might be green, might be a wavelength of 700nm or might be something else altogether.

The Direct Realist argues that they have direct knowledge about the something in the world that caused their perception, whereas the Indirect Realist argues that their reasoning can only give them indirect knowledge about the something in the world that caused their perception.

So what is the difference between indirect realism and direct realism? From what you are saying, they sound exactly the same claims. — Corvus

As I wrote on page 2

Suppose someone perceives the colour red. Both the Indirect and Direct Realist would agree that something in the world caused their perception.

The Direct Realist says the person is directly perceiving the cause of their perceiving the colour red. The Indirect realist says that the person is only directly perceiving the colour red.

You seem to be confusing the point that I was trying to point out the fact that transcendental idealism has problem of having dualistic view of the world i.e. phenomenon and noumenon — Corvus

A dualistic view in itself is not necessarily incorrect. For example, a word is an example of dualism. On the one hand it exists as a shape and on the other hand it exists as what it is representing.

This describes Direct Realism:

When the perceiver and the world is in direct physical contact which allows the perceiver to have direct perception, sensation, and interaction with the world or objects in the world, the world presents to the perceiver as physical entity or material objects. — Corvus

This describes the Direct Realist closing their eyes and using their imagination:

When the perceiver is only thinking about the world without direct visual or material sensation or perception, the world is in the mind of the perceiver as ideas only. — Corvus

You haven't answered the key point question. What do you mean by "regardless of any cause"? Why is it relevant to the point? — Corvus

I wrote "When I perceive the colour red, I perceive the colour red regardless of any cause."

It goes back to your two previous statements:

You end up having 2x copies of every object in your perception, and wonder which one is the real object. — Corvus

Indirect realism's problem is using sense data as the medium of perception, which doesn't make sense. — Corvus

I am trying to show that this is a misrepresentation of Indirect Realism. For Indirect Realism, there is only "1x copy of every object in your perception."

This means that when an Indirect Realist perceives the colour red, they are only directly perceiving the colour red. They are only directly perceiving one thing. They are not directly perceiving two things, the colour red and the cause of their perception of the colour red.

As I wrote:

When the Indirect Realist perceives the colour red, for example, they are not perceiving a representation of the colour red, they are directly perceiving the colour red.
Anything otherwise would lead into the homunculus problem of infinite regression.
What the Indirect Realist does believe is that there is something in the world that has caused them to perceive the colour red, but it is unknowable whether this something in the world is actually red or not. The Indirect Realist reasons that it is not, but cannot know for sure.
In a sense, the colour red that is directly perceived is a representation of the unknown something in the world, which may or may not be the colour red.
There is only one object of perception for the Indirect Realist, and that is the direct perception of the colour red.

What are the ultimate reality for these folks in detail? — Corvus

Presumably the same as for the idealists and the materialists.

The point of idealism or materialism is to define what the ultimate reality is in the end. — Corvus

It sounds like a tautological statement, which doesn't convey any knowledge. — Corvus

The statement "When I perceive the colour red, I perceive the colour red" is a tautological statement.

The statement "When I perceive the colour red, I perceive the colour red regardless of any cause" is not a tautological statement.

Suppose someone perceives the colour red. Both the Indirect and Direct Realist would agree that something in the world caused their perception.

The Direct Realist says the person is directly perceiving the cause of their perceiving the colour red. The Indirect realist says that the person is only directly perceiving the colour red.

Saying "When I perceive the colour red, I perceive the colour red regardless of any cause" is distinguishing Indirect from Direct Realism.
===============================================================================

The point of idealism or materialism is to define what the ultimate reality is in the end. But IR and DR seem to just make vague statements on how they perceive via unknown causes or directly. They just end there. So what is the ultimate reality? They don't seem to be interested in it. Hence no point. — Corvus

A bold statement that neither Indirect nor Direct Realism are interested in the nature of ultimate reality.

Indirect Realism is about the limits of knowledge of ultimate reality. Direct Realists do believe that they know ultimate reality.

There would be no cases such that the cause of break is unknown in medical incidents. — Corvus

I doubt that the cause of a medical condition is always known.

Even though the broken leg has a cause, the doctor is treating the broken leg, the doctor is not treating the cause of the broken leg.

When I perceive the colour red, I perceive the colour red regardless of any cause.
===============================================================================

Not really. Their systems are not denied here. Rather, the OP is based on their systems, but seeing the world in a different way like Husserl and Merlou Ponty have done. — Corvus

You may not deny Indirect and Representational Realism, but you infer there is no point in them.

Doesn't sound it has a point in saying that something has cause but they don't know what the cause is. — Corvus

Doesn't sound it has a point in saying that something has cause but they don't know what the cause is. — Corvus

It would be like a doctor refusing to treat someone in pain with a broken leg until they knew the cause of the break.

It is a brave statement that there is no point in Indirect or Representational Realism, and philosophers such as Aristotle, John Locke, Immanuel Kant, Rene Descartes, Baruch Spinoza and Bertrand Russell were mistaken.

Any objects or world unobserved don't exist. They are imagined or believed to exist. — Corvus

Why should I believe in the existence of an object in the world that I have never observed existing?
===============================================================================

Indirect realism's problem is using sense data as the medium of perception, which doesn't make sense. — Corvus

It may be that your problem with Indirect Realism is, as you said on page 1: "You end up having 2x copies of every object in your perception, and wonder which one is the real object."

But this is not the case for the Indirect Realist. There is no medium of perception. There is just perception.

When the Indirect Realist perceives the colour red, for example, they are not perceiving a representation of the colour red, they are directly perceiving the colour red.

Anything otherwise would lead into the homunculus problem of infinite regression.

What the Indirect Realist does believe is that there is something in the world that has caused them to perceive the colour red, but it is unknowable whether this something in the world is actually red or not. The Indirect Realist reasons that it is not, but cannot know for sure.

In a sense, the colour red that is directly perceived is a representation of the unknown something in the world, which may or may not be the colour red.

There is only one object of perception for the Indirect Realist, and that is the direct perception of the colour red.

In Ideal Realism, unperceived objects such as the country of Australia or the object Eifel Tower don't exist until observed or perceived. — Corvus

I don't think that Australians will be happy to know that they don't exist because an Ideal Realist in the Kerguelen Islands has never heard of them.
===============================================================================

Ideal Realism also says that we perceive the world with experience via the bodily sense organs loaded with ideas, not direct. — Corvus

This sounds like the existing term "Indirect Realism" (Wikipedia - Direct and indirect realism)

I would brand this way of seeing the world and perception as Ideal Realism — Corvus

"Ideal Realism" as described sounds like the existing term "Direct Realism" (Wikipedia - Direct and indirect realism)

Even the Direct Realist can dream and imagine.

It's actually quite easy if you follow my disclaimer since understanding of such a world does not require the understander to lack a mind. It just requires the world under consideration to lack the mind. — noAxioms

We agree that there is the domain of the mind and the domain of a mind-independent world.

The problem remains that your disclaimer requires the mind to be able to understand something that we agree by defintion is independent of the mind, ie, to understand existence in a mind-independent world.

This is the same problem of how is it possible to know the unknown.

Your disclaimer makes the OP logically impossible to answer.

Disclaimer: I am not talking about ideals or the mental abstraction of Santa or anything else..........................Such an argument requires an epistemological/empirical definition of existence, and I am attempting a discussion on a metaphysical definition. — noAxioms

If we had no perceptions, we would have nothing to reason about. But we do have perceptions. Idealism reasons that there is no mind-independent world. Indirect Realism reasons that our perceptions are only representations of any mind-independent world. Direct Realism reasons that our perceptions are a one to one correspondence with the mind-independent world.

As you say, any reasoning about E1 to E6 combining Idealism, Direct Realism and Indirect Realist would result in contradictions.

Sounds like combining them would create contradictions, not just convolution. — noAxioms

Only the Direct Realist argues that we can understand existence independent of the mind, yet this is a logical impossibility. It is logically impossible because any such understanding of a mind-independent world depends on the mind understanding something that is mind-independent.

This topic is about ontology and realism, and not about perception. — noAxioms

Our only knowledge about ontology and realism is founded on our perceptions, and our only understanding of the metaphysical depends on the epistemological/empirical.