Has anyone, in the history of philosophy, ever objected to anti-realism that then our thoughts aren't about anything except our own minds and such that supposing we believe we have contacted a "shell" or "elemental" during an attempted ouija, due to e.g. gullibility and madness, the strange belief is not false if it can't be shown to be.

  • 1
    i imagine it's a daft question – user6917 Dec 22 '16 at 2:48
  • the only thing that is even vaguely "personal" about it is how i explain the question in the title, with an absurd case. quit breaking the rules with your bad voting – user6917 Dec 22 '16 at 11:06
  • how is the question "not answerable"? you should not be allowed to use this site – user6917 Dec 22 '16 at 11:11
  • Not quite sure what you're asking. Beliefs need not be either true or false. Like truth, falsifiability is a condition of statements, not things. – Mr. Kennedy Dec 22 '16 at 12:05
  • Anti-realism says exactly that -- that what we can't verify is neither true nor false. And anti-realists themselves have taken up your claim even when it was not an objection. Quite a number of anti-realisms and related positions, for example mentalist pantheists and modal 'realists', have insisted that all imagined things and experiences are just as real as the external environment -- just in a different way. If there is no (trustworthy) reality, one can be in conflict with conventional knowledge, but not wrong. But other than unwinding the literal definition, what is the question? – jobermark Dec 22 '16 at 15:55

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy