Correlationsim and Realism

[Jim B.]

Well, Kant didn't prove we don't know things-in-themselves either, did he? But what are the odds...?

I think, perhaps, what makes me lean towards correlationism is that we do tend to look at things mostly as they relate TO US - like, when we look around, we usually see - eg - "tables, cups & chairs" ... and not "wood, clay, & cotton" ... which pretty much jives with what Heidegger said. And, if we DO take a more analytic look at things, assume a more "present-at-hand" attitude, it's usually because something's NOT working, or perhaps because we think we can make it work "better" ....but either way, the whole thing really does seem to be "FOR US" - or "all about us" - doesnt it?

... &'otherwise, as H.says, we tend to ignore things; they withdraw, remain backgrounded & only semi-existent.

I agree with you but...If the FOR-USness really defined our conceptual horizons, could we know that it does? This probably sounds like sophistry, but if the assumption that the horizons can be seen past and if that assumption is foundational to language and thought, then maybe there's a way to synthesize the for-usness and beyond-usness if the two are essentially bound up in each other. As H. would say, we are the being to which Being discloses itself.