Talk:Philosophical realism

message: Coming from critical theory, this terminology is very confusing. We use the term "realist" for people who say literature should depict particular real-world instances rather than abstract universals. We use the term "idealist" for the Platonists who say you should depict universals. The two terms are in some respects the reverse of how they're used here, even though they're based on the same ancient writings. Probably this difference in terminology should be mentioned somewhere. Philgoetz (talk) 05:58, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Terminology

message: -- "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 humorous, seeing that realism is defined by having beliefs that correspond 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 reciprocal 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)
replies: text: "Legalists were political realists who sought to attain a “rich state with powerful army” and to ensure domestic stability in an age marked by intense inter- and intra-state competition." -- That doesn't sound anything like Philosophical realism.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blue Mist 1 (talk • contribs) 23:08, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Straightforwardness

message: 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)
thread_title: In physics

message: 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)
thread_title: Realist Philosophers?

message: 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)
thread_title:  cite-ism 

message: "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)
thread_title:  Who Won? 

message: "In recent times, debates concerning realism have become quite contentious due mostly in part to the influence of postmodernism"
Perhaps this can be explained in more detail in a section. What exactly are the relevant issues here?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.240.178 (talk) 11:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contention with postmodernism? 

message: Hello, i have just added a short "realism in religion" section because i had previously linked to this article's page while working on improving the Church of Reality page. As far as i know, the Church of Reality is the only religion founded upon the principles of philosophical realism -- but i would love to hear of any others, if known, with an eye toward including them in Wikipedia as well. Thanks! catherine yronwode, not logged in, and therefore posting as "64" 64.142.90.33 (talk) 18:43, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this an "owned" article? The one-paragraph "Realism in religion" section was summarily deleted 2 days after being written with no explanatory edit-comment and with no discussion here. That is not standard operating policy for an open-source encyclopedia, in my experience. I am reinserting the section. If someone has a problem with it, they ought to discuss it here. Thanks! catherine yronwode, not logged in, and therefore posting as "64" 64.142.90.33 (talk) 15:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've deleted this a second time, as the Church of Reality is off-topic, and would receive undue weight to be included here. Aryder779 (talk) 20:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Realism in religion section 

message: There are many forms of realism: "metaphysical" is just one of them, is a technical term, not to be used in the introduction. --Gazal Cotre (talk) 17:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Metaphysical realism

message: Not necessarily, many forms of ontological idealism are compatible with realism. I'd suggest removing this, too general.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.243.191.105 (talk) 20:58, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: "Realism is contrasted with idealism"

message: No, it is not.  There is nothing about idealism that is opposed to the realism.  But it seems implicit that realism+idealism=theism, whereas anti-realism+idealism=solipsism.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:2E24:AA0:5194:7E86:698E:DD8C (talk) 18:30, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: From the article: "realism is contrasted with idealism."

message: "Analytical philosophers generally have a commitment to scientific realism, in the sense of regarding the scientific method as a reliable guide to the nature of reality." This sentence should be removed. As almost any claim about what analytical philosophers are committed to, this is far to general. Many analytical philosophers, like philosophers specialized in ethics or philosophy of language, may not commit to any view on these questions. And there are many analytical philosophers of science who would clearly disagree. For instance, I don't think neither Carnap, Quine nor Kuhn would agree that science discovers "the nature of reality".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.0.218.180 (talk) 13:11, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Scientific realism and analytical philosophy

message: Changed lead sentence from about metaphysics to about attitudes with a reference. Arnlodg (talk) 21:02, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Philosophical realism/metaphysics is about attitudes