Talk:Philosophical realism

Philosophy: Metaphysics Start‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Metaphysics

Straightforwardness

-- "Despite the straightforwardness of the realist position, there has been a lot of debate about what is real and what is meant by the term 'real'."

I find this statement very humourous, seeing that realism is defined by having beliefs that corrospond to 'reality' or 'real life', and is constantly redefined by new observations about life by living people. Therefore, wouldn't the definition of the word 'real' always be under constant redefinition due to the fact that there are constantly new observations being made by those people?

This is the reciprical relationship that I admire about realism - those who follow it seek to define the self and the world through an ever-maturing and self-critical self-awareness. 69.138.62.148 20:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In physics

I added a section on realism in physics, in part because some of the articles in quantum mechanics point at this page. I hope the addition of such a section is not objectionable. Please note that the QM debate is very different than scientific realism, which is an unrelated idea. linas 15:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Realist Philosophers?

Can someone add a list of prominent realist philosophers or links to their wikipedia pages? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.7.7.199 (talk) 06:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

It might be possible to give a list of some philosophers who have been prominent in the realist-antirealist debate (on the realist side), but it would need to be made clear that, at least as far as contemporary analytic philosophy is concerned, most philosophers can be considered realists. It would be possible to give a list of prominent anti-realists, but this might be better off on a different page. Willg1000 18:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

cite-ism

Just noticed a typical example of cite-ism: "It can also be argued that the 'realism' of physics is a much more specific notion than general philosophical realism." It not only can argued, but it is predominant view of those working in this area. But it is backed up by cite of Travis Norsen, someone who for good reason not even is important enough to a Wikipedia article. Without further knowledge, a reader knowing Norsen, but not the current discussions in philosophy of physics would be inclined to believe, that it is a fringe view in this area... --Pjacobi 07:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who Won?

"This particular dispute over realism is largely moot in contemporary philosophy, and has been for centuries." The dispute in question (between realism, nominalism and conceptualism in regards to Universals) has been rendered moot, it would appear. Unfortunately, the reader is left to decide for him/herself just which of those three came out on top. Perhaps the author would deign to enlighten we poor lesser beings?

In all seriousness, while I get the impression this is quite obvious to those more familiar with the standard presentation of philosophy, shouldn't the implied answer be made explicit in an encyclopedia context? Cyclone77 (talk) 23:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sorry about the double edit.