Realism/anti-realism?
The term "realism" has different meanings in different fields. In philosophy it refers to the belief that "true concepts" can be discerned by studying the material world. While no two horses are alike, we can understand what all horses have that makes them horses by studying horses themselves. In the same way, we can understand what virtue is by studying virtuous people even though those people are all unique. Realism asks us to get beneath the surface of the world to discover the theories or concepts that connect things that might otherwise seem to be quite distinct.
What is the difference between surrealism and anti-realism?
In the later part of the 19th century (late 1700's ) it was called the positivist age. It meant an age of faith in positive consequences, close observation of nature and human realms. It was a time when romanticism was rejected and replaced for realism, and the ordinary world. Light and color had to be in the fore front. In the 1880's painter views changed this then was the beginning of the anti- realism. it emerged shortly before World war 1 Many artists used this to express personal feelings or feelings that were to invoke public opinion. An example of realism is pretty much any of the Renaissance art where the anti realism can be found in paintings such as Jaques -Louis David's Napoleon crossing the Saint Bernard. This was meant to show him as a strong person. Hope this helps :)
Disproving anti-realism and dualism?
I'd talk mostly about the laws of physics and how they work. You could say that we clearly agree on some objective world as we are commmunicating at all, and that objective existence requires material or medium of some sort. You could also argue Ockham's razor, the simplest explanation being that the world is what it appears, more or less. Modern Psychology has turned very materialist. The belief that we are able to physically explain the existence of the mind in the brain, not in platonic imaginary land, is an important argument. A transcendental ontology of the mind is really what these dualists and idealists are resting on. If you want a definitive work on this subject, check out Kant's Critique of Pure Reason.
What is anti-realism?
At time of writing, it is not totally clear to me what the context of the question “what is anti-realism?” is. The below answer assumes that the context is philosophy.There isn't really such a thing as anti-realism simpliciter.Rather, one is anti-realist about something.Let's take a common example. Realists about morality believe that there is a fact of the matter about morality. So, they think that moral propositions purport to express facts that are in some important sense independent of human experience, and that these propositions can either agree or disagree with the facts.The anti-realist about morality denies this. There are very many species of moral anti-realism, and it would take too long to go into much detail in a Quora answer.Much the same is true about anti-realism about other things. Realism is about things being in some important sense independent from human perception. Anti-realism is the denial of realism. One can be a realist/anti-realist about many things eg. Morality, other minds, the existence of matter, colours, and many other examples.
What is anti realism in theatre? What are some examples of it?
Anti-realistic theatre is any form of theatre which rejects realism.In the early 20th century, a huge realism movement emerged under Konstantin Stanislavski. His performance methods, known now as “method acting” or “Stanislavski’s system”, relied heavily on emotional memory and becoming the character. He was focused on truth through extremely realistic portrayals of characters and situations. It was a naturalistic performance style.At this same time, a counter anti-realism movement came about. Some were former students of Stanislavski’s; some were just actors, pushing boundaries as artists tend to do. Much of this work came in the late 1940’s, triggered by the total upheaval of Europe during WWII.Anti-realism was rooted in symbolism, metaphor, and themes versus straightforward storytelling. Performances were abstract, and many were devised. There was often a focus on a social message or criticism, and the audience was expected to actively engage in the performance versus passively watch it.Examples of types of anti-realism:Theatre of the Absurd[1]Epic theatre/theatre of alienation (Bertolt Brecht)[2]Theatre of Cruelty/surrealism (Antonin Artaud)[3]Arguably, Theatre of the Oppressed (Augusto Boal). It came later, but doesn’t fit in the category of realistic theatre[4]Brecht has a number of plays (The Caucasian Chalk Circle; The Threepenny Opera) and Boal has at least one book discussing his methods, so they would be good ones to look at for more about anti-realism.Footnotes[1] Theatre of the Absurd - Wikipedia[2] Epic theatre - Wikipedia[3] Theatre of Cruelty - Wikipedia[4] Theatre of the Oppressed - Wikipedia
What's the difference between idealism and anti-realism?
"Idealism" is a specific kind of anti-realism that has to do with metaphysics. "Anti-realism" is a broader term that can apply to many things in philosophy. You can be a moral anti-realist for example. Or an anti-realist in regards to philosophy of science. Or an anti-realist in regards to the nature of reality, etc. And they all mean different things.
Which has more powerful arguments scientific realism or antirealism? And which is more prevalent among scientists these days?
Whew, that’s a tough question and I would not trust anyone’s answer on it, seeing as very smart and careful philosophers disagree on the issue. (It’s complicated enough that it’s not a straightforward thing for anyone to weigh in and say, “this side’s stronger”.)(There’s a lot of literature to explore on this - try starting here: Scientific Realism)I don’t know that anyone’s surveyed scientists about it, but I’d speculate… that the vast majority would be realists. They’re used to treating the theoretical entities they commonly use in their work as real, not as mere calculational devices or useful fictions. But… it’s also pretty unclear that it matters! It’s not clear that antirealist scientists would “do science” any differently, compared to realist scientists. (There are arguments about that, too!)As an extra… here’s a Nobel prize winner addressing this issue: The Nobel Prize in Physics 1926 He’s defending being a realist about atoms, as a practicing scientist.
What's the difference between moral anti-realism and moral nihilism?
moral anti-realism morals don't exist (I am right) moral nihilism your belief that morals exist is a mistake (you are wrong)
Are moral realism and cognitivism the same? Are moral anti-realism and non-cognitivism the same?
As I understand it, whereas moral realism and moral anti-realism are stances on the view as to whether ethical statements are true, cognitivism and non cognitivism are stances of whether ethical statements can be valid.So the former is about the world, the second is linguistic.To put it another way, a moral anti-realist, faced with the statement: "If killing an innocent human is always wrong, and all fetuses are innocent humans, then killing a fetus is always wrong," if they were a cognitivist, might disagree the proposition, but would accept the proposition as valid and a priori true. They accept the logic of it.A non-cognivitist would not accept the proposition as valid or a priori true, considering it to be nonsense language.