Abstract

The thesis of this dissertation is that "the realism-idealism debate" is both a theoretical and a practical dispute. The practical dimension has been largely ignored because the deficiencies in the theoretical positions have gone unnoticed. As theoretical doctrines, realism and idealism are best interpreted as semantic theories specifying the conditions in virtue of which our statements are true and false. As semantic doctrines, however, both realism and idealism are false. Neither semantic theory is consistent with other philosophical positions to which most contemporary philosophers are committed. Once it is acknowledged that most of the participants to the realism-idealism debate are not actually committed to either semantic realism or semantic idealism, the doctrines of "practical realism" and "practical idealism" can be given the attention they deserve. ;In Chapter One it is argued that the only acceptable candidate for a theoretical construal of realism is "semantic realism" as applied to the class of statements that express our ontological commitments. Chapter Two defends this claim against contemporary physicalist realists who argue that realism is strictly an "ontological" doctrine. Chapter Three investigates two famous arguments that are generally thought to be the strongest justification for the truth of semantic realism. It is shown that whether or not they are sound, they do not actually argue to the conclusion that semantic realism is true. Chapter Four presents what I refer to as "particularist" refutations of semantic realism and semantic idealism. Neither semantic realism nor semantic idealism is consistent with our "considered convictions" about the meaning of our utterances and thus should be rejected. Finally, Chapter Five offers a preliminary account of "practical realism" and "practical idealism" and thus a new model for the interpretation of many types of realism-idealism discourse