Hi Dick,

First, let me say that there is nothing embarrassing about being an anti-realist. Some of the most brilliant philosophers are anti-realist (e.g., Micheal Dummett) so there is nothing wrong about that. Let me reply to your post though:

>>>It is my position that they (and you) are being unrealistic in presuming that their senses are delivering to them an exact representation of reality. It is for the purpose of maintaining this unrealistic position that they have created the category of “illusion”. Every time they discover a case where they can prove that their senses have lied, they stick it into the category of “illusion” so that they do not have to include it in their analysis: i.e., they do this so they can continue to believe their perceptions are exact presentations of reality.

• I take a realist attack, just organized! - doctordick - July 30, 2001 - 20:08 UTC
  • I still (still) think you are being anti-realist - harvey1 - July 30, 2001 - 23:50 UTC
    • And you are wrong! - doctordick - July 31, 2001 - 15:59 UTC
      • You mean to say that you think I'm incorrect? - harvey1 - July 31, 2001 - 17:32 UTC
        • Let's say you do not express my ideas accurately! - doctordick - July 31, 2001 - 20:01 UTC
          • LOL - harvey1 - July 31, 2001 - 21:06 UTC
            • Are you having fun guessing? - doctordick - August 1, 2001 - 16:01 UTC
              • This is what happens when we stopped the quizzes - harvey1 - August 1, 2001 - 17:29 UTC