Realist Or ANTI-Realist

[CaramelChocolate]

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]

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!