# Realist Or ANTI-Realist



## CaramelChocolate (Jan 17, 2005)

Realist - Believes things exist whether we are observing them or not.

Anti-Realist - Believes things only exist when we observe them.


----------



## snavneet (Jan 17, 2005)

Sat Sri Akaal Ji.  

Some thoughts:

A God-Realized soul can observe everything at the same time, since it can see God at the root of all phenomena. Hence, once you've realized God, you've observed it all! So, the perfect state of God-Realization supports the Realists. And, till we reach that state of perfect bliss, we are all Anti-Realists to some extent because our minds remain engrossed in duality. With duality comes doubt. And doubt can vanish either with total faith or with complete observation. Faith still has great appeal. It can help us comprehend anything! Even things that cannot be observed with our meagre senses! I think I'll remain with the Realists!


----------



## CaramelChocolate (Jan 18, 2005)

An ANTI-REALIST theory - Berkley's Idealism [what I believe].

Since we are limited purely by being a human and GOD is all knowing etc. HE put ths perception into our mind of the world around us since it it is impossible for us to perceive one object in full at any one time... therefore he perceives it for us... so, GOD puts the assumption in our head that the rest of the object is there although we can never be fully sure of it, GOD assures us.


----------



## TeraRoop11 (Jan 18, 2005)

WJKK, WJKF!

ji, God would not lead u astray w/o reason. no, God would not lead you astray at all. if God has put the idea in your head that you have percieved an object fully, than it is true, you have done so, because God does not lie. God is truth, and His ways are truth. No wrong or evil can come of His actions.

Ji, meaning no disrespect. Regards to ALL . . . . . . . . . . . .


----------



## CaramelChocolate (Jan 19, 2005)

Faujan I never said anything of the sort.


----------



## snavneet (Jan 19, 2005)

Sat Sri Akaal Ji.  

*Caramel* Ji, simply put, I feel that we all are on a journey that starts from the point where we are Anti-Realists(Manmukhs) to the point where we become complete Realists(Gurmukhs). I'm still on the path... Thanks for invoking in me, a unique string of meaningful thoughts! :roll: 

*Faujan* Ji, you are right by saying that God would never lead us astray. But, how does one know whether the idea in one's head has come from God or from one's own false ego. Think about it. One can only be sure about the source of an idea if one has conquered one's ego by following one's Guru. Till then we remain in duality. Sometimes we listen to God but most other times we listen to our minds that act as proxies of God. Conquer your mind with the help of Gurbani, the eternal fountain of true love!


----------



## CaramelChocolate (Jan 19, 2005)

snavneet said:
			
		

> *Caramel* Ji, simply put, I feel that we all are on a journey that starts from the point where we are Anti-Realists(Manmukhs) to the point where we become complete Realists(Gurmukhs). I'm still on the path... Thanks for invoking in me, a unique string of meaningful thoughts! :roll:


Anti-Realist is not Manmukh... it is Gurmukh because you are accepting that GOD is all knowing and all controlling, unlike Realists who think they know can can be sure of everything, Idealist Anti-Realists say GOD puts it all in our head.


----------



## snavneet (Jan 20, 2005)

Sat Sri Akaal Ji.  

Caramel Ji, here I'll elaborate on my previous post.

There are people who completely believe in God, only based on their total faith in God. They are the Gurmukhs. They need no proofs or evidence about God's existence. They believe in God because they have complete faith in their Guru and hence in God. Now, consider your statement, "Realist - Believes things exist whether we are observing them or not". Looking at it from a spiritual perspective, one can conclude that since a Gurmukh believes in God totally based on one's faith, hence that Gurmukh is a Realist since (s)he starts believing in God without observing/perceiving God with the senses.

Now, there are those who are not ready to accept the existence of God based on faith. They want a complete proof of God's existence. No real Gurmukh would behave in such a fashion. So, anyone falling in this category is bound to be called a Manmukh. Now, consider your statement, "Anti-Realist - Believes things only exist when we observe them". This suggests that a Manmukh can also be called an Anti-Realist because (s)he would not accept God's existence without observing God.

And, for "Idealist Anti-Realists" to make a statement that "God puts it all in our head", they will have to have observed God, since that statement relies on that fact. Anti-Realists only believe something if they observe it. That statement implies that "Idealist Anti-Realists" have already observed God, which is most unlikely because God's existence cannot be proven by any logic or observed in any physical experiment. The experience of God is totally spiritual, for which one has to start with complete faith(like the Gurmukhs) and the actual observance of God does not happen in the physical realm at all, it happens in the spiritual realm. Nobody can actually perceive God with the senses. Hence, Anti-Realists have definitely not observed God and if they've not then they can't possibly have faith in God. Hence, they cannot say that "God puts it all in our head". Anti-Realists have to be called Manmukhs because they need to observe God to believe in Him, whereas Gurmukhs just believe in God without physical evidence due to which I've called them Realists.

Well, that's how navneet looks at it! Any inputs? :star:


----------



## CaramelChocolate (Jan 20, 2005)

You misunderstand the conepts. Realists are likely to reject God as seeing is believing for them. 
God does not come into these theories in this way, when I meant observing things I should have put observing objects.

So a Realist would say, I can see the object, so it is there even when I turn away it is there, an Anti-Realist would say I know an object is there because I can see it, but when I turn away how can I be sure?

One who is an Anti-Realist but fits into the sub category of Idealism answers this by saying... "God puts the assumption into my mind that it is there, since he is all knowing".


----------



## snavneet (Jan 21, 2005)

Sat Sri Akaal Ji.  

Caramel Ji,

I think I understood what you said in your last post but then that is not evident from the definition of a Realist and Anti-Realist given by you in the first post. It appears to be incomplete. And, I thought of all this in the context of God because this thread was started in a spiritual forum. Anyway, I'll elaborate further on my thoughts.

As per your first post, this was the definition of a Realist:




> Realist - Believes things exist whether we are observing them or not.


For a person who reads a Realist's definition for the first time, and looks at it from a spiritual perspective, that statement would imply that a Realist is likely to believe in the existence of God, whether (s)he is able to observe Him or not. Let's simply substitue God instead of things in the sentence above and maybe we can come up with some sort of definition for a Spiritual Realist and how my puny mind perceived it!

Spiritual Realist: Believes God exists whether we are observing Him or not.

There is no mention in these statements that "things" or "God" should have been observed once by a Realist before continuing to believe in "them" or "Him" without observing again. Now, if a Realist is, as you have mentioned in the previous post then the definition of a Realist should be something like this:

Realist - After observing something once, a Realist continues to believe that the thing exists even if (s)he is not observing it anymore.

On the same lines, let's look at the definition of an Anti-Realist from the first post.




> Anti-Realist - Believes things only exist when we observe them.


Let's substitue "God" in place of "things". And let's call it a definition for a Spiritual Anti-Realist.

Spiritual Anti-Realist: Believes God only exists when we observe Him.

For a layman like me, just looking at that statement makes an Anti-Realist appear like a person who will not accept God if (s)he cannot observe Him. And in your last post you mentioned, 




> "An Anti-Realist would say I know an object is there because I can see it, but when I turn away how can I be sure?"


Let's replace object with God and restate:
"An Anti-Realist would say I know God is there because I can see Him, but when I turn away how can I be sure if He continues to exist?"

This would mean that an Anti-Realist will definitely believe in God if (s)he can see Him, but will doubt God's existence if (s)he cannot see Him. This sounds more like a person who would say, "God, if you want me to believe in you then show yourself otherwise you don't exist!" Doesn't that sound like a Manmukhi attitude?

In some ways, the Anti-Realist's point of view is very abstract. In the night, (s)he will say that the Sun does not exist. In the day, (s)he will say that the moon and the stars do not exist. (S)he will close one's eyes and say that the world does not exist! And the list goes on and on. Contrary to that, a Realist would say, "Last night I saw the stars. Now it is day. I cannot see them now, but I know they exist somewhere out there. I don't see them because I'm not equipped to see them in the day." Now, with respect to God, a Realist would say, "Last year I recited Gurbaani so deeply that I felt God within my heart. These days, I do not recite Gurbaani and have stopped feeling God's presence within me. But the fault is all mine. I know God exists within me, but because my heart does not yearn for Him like it did last year, hence I cannot feel Him." To this an Anti-Realist would say, "I too recited Gurbaani and felt God within me a few months back, but when I recite Gurbaani these days I cannot feel Him. So, I think God does not exist."

Maybe you still feel I misunderstood. I feel the first definitions were very fuzzy. Anyway, read through my thoughts and please tell me where I went wrong. Waiting for your inputs.


----------



## CaramelChocolate (Jan 21, 2005)

snavneet said:
			
		

> Spiritual Anti-Realist: Believes God only exists when we observe Him.


You have still misunderstood. In realism there are no theories involving GOD. In anti-realism there is only one theory involving GOD which is called idealism.

Idealists believe GOD exist. He is all knowing. Since we are limited by our senses and we doubt our senses GOD makes us perceive the object and assume the rest of the object is there since we cannot perceive one obeject fully EVER at any one time.


----------



## snavneet (Jan 21, 2005)

Sat Sri Akaal Ji.  

Caramel Ji,

I am still not clear about where I've misunderstood because all my understanding of Realism and Anti-Realism is based on the definitions provided by you in your first post. And, in every subsequent post I've tried to justify my point of view based on those definitions. In the last post, I've even suggested modified definitions based on your inputs because the initial one's appear to be fuzzy and incomplete. Since, your replies have not been as forthcoming as I had expected, I'll put everything in terms of a simple questionnaire that'll be easier for you to answer and will help me to understand the concepts better.

Please read the statements below and label the subject as a Realist or an Anti-Realist and justify if needed:

1) I believe that you exist even though I've never seen you in person. What am I?

2) I believe that atoms of matter exist even though my senses cannot perceive them the way scientists define them. What am I?

3) A man blind from birth says that light does not exist. What is he?

4) Another man blind from birth says that light exists. What is he?

5) A man became blind at a later stage in life and then he was found saying that light exists. What is he?

6) A man became blind at a later stage in life and then he was found saying that light does not exist. What is he?

7) I believe in the concept of death even though I don't remember having died anytime in the past. What am I?

8) I believe that there is a soul within me even though I've no ways to prove it to your senses through any physical experiments. What am I?

9) I've never seen Mr.XYZ, but I believe Mr.XYZ exists. What am I?

10) A person has never seen Mr.XYZ and believes that Mr.XYZ does not exist. What is he?

11) There is someone who met Mr.XYZ yesterday and today when I met him, he told me that Mr.XYZ exists. What is he?

12) Another person met Mr.XYZ yesterday but today when I met him, he told me that Mr.XYZ does not exist. What is he?

13) I see myself in mirror reflections. I find people noticing me in everyday life. People call me by my name and talk to me at length, making me feel that I exist as this body. But I do not believe I am this body. What am I?

14) My friend found dinosaur bones in his backyard, but he believes that dinosaurs never existed. He tells me, "Show me a living, breathing dinosaur!" What do you call him?

15) I believe that nothing is impossible. What am I?

16) Mr.X believes that reality has an intrinsic, mind-independent nature. What is he?

17) Mr.Y believes that reality has no intrinsic, mind-independent nature. What is he?

Do you feel that God is external to the set that realists/anti-realists use to analyze objects/phenomena?


----------



## CaramelChocolate (Jan 22, 2005)

*Snaveet, sorry for not being clear enough.*

_1) I believe that you exist even though I've never seen you in person. What am I?_
*Realist
*_2) I believe that atoms of matter exist even though my senses cannot perceive them the way scientists define them. What am I?_
*Realist*
_3) A man blind from birth says that light does not exist. What is he?_
*More likely to be anti-realist, but an anti-realist blind person is more likely to say "how can I know for sure that light exists?"*
_4) Another man blind from birth says that light exists. What is he?_
*Realist*
_5) A man became blind at a later stage in life and then he was found saying that light exists. What is he?_
*Realist*
_6) A man became blind at a later stage in life and then he was found saying that light does not exist. What is he?_
*Anti-realist*
_7) I believe in the concept of death even though I don't remember having died anytime in the past. What am I?_
*Realist... an anti-realist will accept the rare possibility that we can never really know what death is etc.*
_8) I believe that there is a soul within me even though I've no ways to prove it to your senses through any physical experiments. What am I?_
*Tough one because anti-realism and realism is all about physical objects and matter. I would argue anti-realist because you can be mentally sure of your own mind/consciousness/soul but when it comes to believing in other souls, an anti-realist would say "how do I know I am not in a world where I alone am being tested and all are robots out their by God?"*
_9) I've never seen Mr.XYZ, but I believe Mr.XYZ exists. What am I?_
*Realist*
_10) A person has never seen Mr.XYZ and believes that Mr.XYZ does not exist. What is he?_
*More closer to being an anti-realist. But I want to make it clear that rather than denying it altogether, anti-realist will always say "how can I fully know for sure? how can I trust my senses fully? my senses limit my knowledge and experience"*
_11) There is someone who met Mr.XYZ yesterday and today when I met him, he told me that Mr.XYZ exists. What is he?_
*Realist*
_12) Another person met Mr.XYZ yesterday but today when I met him, he told me that Mr.XYZ does not exist. What is he?_
*More likely to be anti-realist, but look to answer of no.10*
_13) I see myself in mirror reflections. I find people noticing me in everyday life. People call me by my name and talk to me at length, making me feel that I exist as this body. But I do not believe I am this body. What am I?_
*Could be either*
_14) My friend found dinosaur bones in his backyard, but he believes that dinosaurs never existed. He tells me, "Show me a living, breathing dinosaur!" What do you call him?_
*Could be either*
_15) I believe that nothing is impossible. What am I?_
*More likely anti-realist*
_16) Mr.X believes that reality has an intrinsic, mind-independent nature. What is he?_
*Realist*
_17) Mr.Y believes that reality has no intrinsic, mind-independent nature. What is he?_
*Anti-realist*
_Do you feel that God is external to the set that realists/anti-realists use to analyze objects/phenomena?_
*I believe that GOD is all knowing and therefore puts the perception in our mind of an object since due to our limitations of our senses and being in a physical body we cannot even know one object fully at any one time.*


----------



## snavneet (Jan 22, 2005)

Sat Sri Akaal Ji.  

Caramel Ji,

Thanks a lot for your reply! And sorry for the constant trouble I've been causing you. I made you write that essay for me!

For one last time, I'll just refer to your first reply in the last post:




> 1) I believe that you exist even though I've never seen you in person. What am I?





> *Realist*


Let's modify that question just a bit, so that the "you" in it actually alludes to "God". Then it would look something like this,

1) I believe that you (God) exist even though I've never seen you in person. What am I?
REALIST?? 
(Don't think about any other concepts you've stated. Just think about this literally! As if I'm talking to the God that my Satgurus have mentioned in their Baani...)

That was the doubt all the time!

Anyway, I think we have skinned those definitions completely! So, I'll try to add more to this discussion whenever I learn something new about all this. I still wonder why so few people have voted on this poll. Any clues?

And once again, thanks for your time.


----------



## CaramelChocolate (Jan 22, 2005)

snavneet said:
			
		

> So, I'll try to add more to this discussion whenever I learn something new about all this. I still wonder why so few people have voted on this poll. Any clues?


Because I wasn't being clear enough ::


----------



## Eclectic (Jan 23, 2005)

CaramelChocolate said:
			
		

> Realist - Believes things exist whether we are observing them or not.
> 
> Anti-Realist - Believes things only exist when we observe them.


 I'm not sure where I would stand. I mean... I think I may be more of a realist, but most definately mixed with idealist. You see, I live by a few simple rules:

  1. Try not to hurt anyone, including yourself.
  2. Realize and live to the fullest and in harmony with the Divine spark within you.
  3. Believe and it shall be given

  What does that make me? (besides weird lol)


----------



## CaramelChocolate (Jan 23, 2005)

Idealism is an anti-realist theory. You cannot be a realist idealist.

But what you have said is not about thoughts is about beliefs so in all respect they are not really relavent to either realism or anti-realism .


----------



## ravisingh (Jan 23, 2005)

Chocolate caramel:

Just a few points of clarification:

Berkleyian idealism has everything to do with ideas and beliefs because his metaphysics contain only two things: ideas and perceivers. 

According to Berkely all that we can be acquainted with are our ideas (hence the term idealism). The opposite of this is realism (either direct [our awareness of objects is unmediated] or representational [our awareness of things are mediated by our ideas --most philosophers believe this now days] ). These concepts have everything to do with the relationship between the observer and the observed --this does not appear to be what you want to talk about.

Correct me if I am wrong, but you seem to want to discuss whether God is all knowing/perceiving or not. IMHO this is a distinct issue. I think that your view on realism is irrelevant to your belief in God's properties. I think that it would be more useful to talk about the realism/anti-realism issue without any reference to God (as bringing god in requires a whole host of assumptions). The only reason Bishop Berkley brings god into this [how berkely gets god in his argument: 1.all ideas require a mind (a perceiver) to exist 2.all that exists are ideas 3.ideas (including objects) exists even when we are not perceiving them 4.in order to exist they must be perceived by a mind 5. God perceives all ideas] to was to in some sense prove the existence of god --although his arguments were very influential in Epiricism especially on Hume.

IMHO indian thought in general is closer to representalism because of the stress on Maya (which is unreal) and Sat or Gyan which is real. Talking about anything being unreal seems to imply that the opposite (ie real things) exist.

Chocolate caramel I am very surprised that you are 16 I did not read Berkely until I was a 1st year undergraduate student --good for you!


----------



## Eclectic (Jan 23, 2005)

CaramelChocolate said:
			
		

> Idealism is an anti-realist theory. You cannot be a realist idealist.
> 
> But what you have said is not about thoughts is about beliefs so in all respect they are not really relavent to either realism or anti-realism .


 But can your beliefs really exist without your thoughts? I try to base my actions on the three things above.


----------



## drkhalsa (Jan 24, 2005)

CaramelChocolate said:
			
		

> *Snaveet, sorry for not being clear enough.*
> 
> _1) I believe that you exist even though I've never seen you in person. What am I?_
> *Realist
> ...



Thanks very much Caramel  your post helped understand many things I have been reading over years 
like many times I have read about mahavirs ( Jain prophet)  and now I can say that he was more of anti _realist
any many times Rajneesh also said many things according to realism and also other way around

Now About myself I would say Most of the time I am Anti realist as I believe any thing to be possible even if it comes to my wild thought and always I find it hard to say yes to a thing I am not observing in that frame of time 

But recently There came a big change after i got more knowledge about sikhism I started puting God in between my each and every observation 
so now only God is the only realist in my understanding and I am basically anti realist but when ever I bring god into each and every obsevation of mine I share his realism for the moment and when again when god is out of picture I become anti realist 

So to conclude I am anti realist on my own but has potebtial to become realist with help of god 

I dont know whether I have understood it rightly but you can correct me


----------



## CaramelChocolate (Jan 24, 2005)

> Correct me if I am wrong, but you seem to want to discuss whether God is all knowing/perceiving or not. IMHO this is a distinct issue.


No no I am assuming it as it is the most logical and common assumption when we think about God.



> (as bringing god in requires a whole host of assumptions).


Yes you are right, but the way I have explained it [hopefully] makes the concept of anti-realism more logical, and puts God up on his throne where he should be and us stuck in our body with limited knowledge.



> IMHO indian thought in general is closer to representalism because of the stress on Maya (which is unreal) and Sat or Gyan which is real. Talking about anything being unreal seems to imply that the opposite (ie real things) exist.


I still feel that Indian thought fits in more with Anti-Realism rather than the Abrahamic faiths...



> Chocolate caramel I am very surprised that you are 16 I did not read Berkely until I was a 1st year undergraduate student --good for you!


Haha... I HAVE to do it... am studying philosophy and it is very confusing  :8- 



> But can your beliefs really exist without your thoughts? I try to base my actions on the three things above.


Beliefs stem from thoughts. The fact we think can prove our own existance to only us... Cotigo ergo sum - "I think therefore I am".



> so now only God is the only realist in my understanding and I am basically anti realist but when ever I bring god into each and every obsevation of mine I share his realism for the moment and when again when god is out of picture I become anti realist


When you leave the body and merge with/become one with God you are then in a sense God yourself... so therefore you are all perceiving all knowing and then you are a realist I guess. But when you are worshipping God and become absorbed in him you are still an anti-realist because you are still not all-perceiving as you are still in a body even though not fully attached to it.


----------



## ravisingh (Jan 24, 2005)

QUOTE=CaramelChocolate]No no I am assuming it as it is the most logical and common assumption when we think about God. 
Perhaps I should clarify: I don't see why you need to bring god into this at all. You seem to be begging the question (ie you are assuming that which you are trying to demonstrate) because you want to believe what you are terming anti-realism requires a god that constantly perceives all things so that objects can continue existing when you are not perceiving them. So you are getting to anti-realism because of your realist assumption that objects continue existing --sort of a philosophical slight of hand that Berkeley is also guilty of.

Caramel chocolate said :I still feel that Indian thought fits in more with Anti-Realism rather than the Abrahamic faiths...

I have to disagree with you on this one. I think that Indian thought allows far more interesting metaphysical objects but at its core it is staunchly representational. You could be right about this though I haven't given it much thought. As you probably know brahma (or pratkri,chit, consciousness, etc.) is usually termed the ultimate reality and most if not all Indian thought relies heavily on this concept. Even in your view at least God must be ultimately real (hence I don't think that you are really an anti-realist)

Caramel chocolate said: Haha... I HAVE to do it... am studying philosophy and it is very confusing  :8- 

It doesen't get any better I am currently in the midst of graduate level work in philosophy so take it from me a lot of confusion and angst lies ahead!


----------

