An Explanation Of Anti-Realism

Anti-realism is not something I hear mentioned a lot!  Anti-realism, depending on its scope, is the belief that a particular thing does not exist or that nothing at all exists.  Certain manifestations of this belief, as I will demonstrate, cannot be true, whereas other types of it can be neither verified nor falsified.  As its brevity indicates, the purpose of this post is not to summarize and examine all forms of anti-realism or provide an exhaustive commentary on the subject, but to merely introduce the concept and show how certain forms of anti-realism cannot be true.

Total anti-realism, like total skepticism, is objectively impossible.  In order for me to claim or believe that nothing at all exists, I have to exist!  Truth, a function of logic, exists by pure necessity even if I do not, as it is impossible for there to not be a way reality is, and thus it is objectively impossible for truth to not exist, again proving that total anti-realism is incapable of being correct.  Logic does not depend on consciousness or matter for its own self-necessary existence.

I will show some examples of how lesser forms of anti-realism (lesser in scope) appear in certain philosophies, although I do not often hear these examples called anti-realism; they are usually recognized by other titles.  A presentist--one who believes that only the present moment exists and denies that there is such a thing as the past or the future--would be an anti-realist regarding all time except for the present.  An ontological solipsist would deny the existence of an external world and thus would be an anti-realist concerning the external world.  When applied to values, anti-realism would be synonymous with nihilism.  Both a moral nihilist and a moral anti-realist would deny that there is such a thing as right or wrong, having the same stance towards values.  Atheists claim that no deity exists and thus are anti-realists regarding theism.

I want to draw attention to how even if certain types of anti-realism--like moral anti-realism--are true, they remain unprovable even if ultimately correct in the end.  Moral anti-realists commit a host of fallacies by concluding that something does not exist which cannot be demonstrated to not exist.  These forms of anti-realism involve fallacies like begging the question and non sequiturs, as, even if morality did not exist, no one could establish its nonexistence.

Since some forms of anti-realism deny things that cannot be false, like that truth, logic, and my mind exist, any anti-realist claims in this category cannot be true.  Because many other anti-realist claims cannot be verified even if true, no being with my limitations has any basis for believing in them.  Thus, practically all forms of anti-realism mentioned in this post are either false or fallacious, having no relevance to the worldview of a rationalist.