I find that everybody who calls themselves a realist is wrong because people aren't actually capable of knowing what's real and what isn't.

Realists are usually pessimists and some are optimists.

@Anonymous: That's such a load of bullshit. First of all you have to assume empirical perception, or you have to argue empirical perception. You can't use that argument on every philosophical discussion, or discussions will become stagnant. So the logical conclusion is; shut up. Your distrust of empirical evidence is a discussion on it's own, NOT a throwaway punchline for every other discussion.

That said, your second line makes me want to punch you in the face. The second half of your statement is either used to mellow the first part, in which case you could have just not said anything, or as completion, in which case you should most likely go back to elementary.

On topic:
Personally I consider myself a realist. I have somewhat pessimistic views, but I'm aware of my prejudice in those and try to account for that before acting upon then. Most people who consider themselves optimists are usually bullshitters. Assuming the best possible outcome for any (or a) situation is what I consider to be an optimist. "Optimists" usually call themselves this because they know they have some views that are baseless and either don't have the willpower to keep searching or because they don't feel like defending their views. Realists are often called nihilistic or pessimistic because they don't share some moral norm, or because they refuse to "hope" for a better outcome. The difference between a realist and a pessimist is that a realist doesn't assume the worst possible outcome, but considers it.

@Anonymous: So English is my second language, typos happen.

not a lot of options. now im going to go smoke some old nasty weed. maybe racism and cats will be funny when i get back.

@Anonymous: You're a load of bullshit.

@Anonymous: I think there's an objective reality, but we can never see it objectively because we're part of it.
My reason for thinking there is an objective reality is the consistency of the subjective representations of reality, I think they must describe something that exists. In the same way that you can't see a 3D object in its entirety because part of it is on the other side, but you can be confident (but not certain) of what it is like and that it exists.

@Anonymous: Good job at being a gentlemen on the Internet. I do like how you put your words together. However, there will always be statements that can be used to draw further discussion from, such as "describe something that exists"

Where?

In a place we've decided to call "objective" or is objective merely the average of our subjective views of the universe? It becomes a word game at this point. What is "really real" versus what's only in your head, etc.

Anyway, surprising to see someone uphold an objective reality sanely. You're a rare bird, btw I also believe in your objective reality (I think)

--The Management

imo "objective" "neutral" and "material" are often found pal-ing around