This is perhaps not a "beginners" question, so my apologies if it is misplaced.

Can anyone here recommend a good introductory textbook on metaphysics that is sympathetic to anti-realism? Carter's and Loux's textbooks appear to be worthwhile, but my understanding (perhaps incorrect) is that they are convinced realists, and I'd like to read about the subject from a different perspective.

Thanks in advance.

Emil:

Not necessarily something by a convinced anti-realist, but ideally by someone leaning more to that side than the realist side. Of course, I don't want something that is biased to one side or other, but, just as Loux, for instance, is supposed to give both sides a fair hearing, despite his preference for realism, I'd just like to see whether there is an introductory textbook that does the same thing, but that is written by one who leans toward the anti-realist side of the debate. Perhaps it does not exist, but that's what I am here to see!

Turing Equivalent:

Thanks; I am not familiar with van Fraassen's work, but I'll have a look.

this guy Michael Dummett - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Van Fraassen, and Dummett deals with issues that are rather advanced. If you read them, you have to read their journal articles. Tough for someone in your shoe. I think you need to learn something less demanded. Probably, a general introduction to metaphysics.

Only, Dummett's anti-realism turns out to be a kind of warmed-over verificationism. An epistemology, rather than a metaphysics. But maybe that is the only kind that makes any sense.

I can understand why you would be interested in anti realism.. It is not my cup of tea. I love metaphysics.

But anti-realism is part of metaphysics. Isn't it? Why would I (especially) be interested in ant-realism? If anything, I am a realist.

The usual anti realists reject metaphysical speculation.

Why would you suppose that? Berkeley was an anti-realist, but he hardly rejected metaphysical speculation. He metaphysically speculated all over the map. Leibniz was an idealist, and therefore he was an anti-realist. But Leibniz was a metaphysician in the grand style. Hegel is another example.

Can you explain to me why Berkeley is a realist in metaphysics? Did he no posit that minds ought to be fundamental?

Can you explain to me why Berkeley is a realist in metaphysics? Did he no posit that minds ought to be fundamental?

He is not a realist. Read again.

He is an anti-realist.

Berkeley was an immaterialist. He held that there are no material substances. There are only finite mental substances and an infinite mental substance, namely, God

This is perhaps not a "beginners" question, so my apologies if it is misplaced.

Can anyone here recommend a good introductory textbook on metaphysics that is sympathetic to anti-realism? Carter's and Loux's textbooks appear to be worthwhile, but my understanding (perhaps incorrect) is that they are convinced realists, and I'd like to read about the subject from a different perspective.

Thanks in advance.

I think there is good evidence that he is a realist. Here is why. He is a idealist, but yet, he still want to maintain that when we closer our eyes, there is still something there to sustain it. The table would still be there, because it is in the mind of god. This "god like substance" looks a lot like an ontological commitment.