i agree with your comment but few seem to want to discuss it

my view is that 'materialism and realism', because they are 'spook' dependent, are a basic source of dysfunction in our society.

science is tied up in this; i.e. people rarely declare whether they view scientific understanding as 'pragmatic idealization' or as literally addressing 'reality'.

the same ambiguity as to these operative options apply to the logic we build into our discussions; i.e. the 'semantic realities' we construct.

what we have here in these discussions is an undeclared mix of realists and pragmatist idealists, with almost no-one declaring which option is implicit in the 'semantic realities' they are constructing [jacobi's 'realist' declaration is an exception]. if a person says; "i want to dismantle and destroy civilization" he is a realist and if he says; "i want to undermine the intellectual premises of civilization" he is a pragmatist idealist who understands that 'civilization' does not, simply, jumpstart from 'civilized people and what they do' but has a more deeply-rooted upstream in transgenerationally sustained teaching on how to discern 'what is real'. for the pragmatist idealist, the challenge is to encourage realists to kick their habit of 'literal belief' in the 'reality' of spooks such as 'the state', 'good and evil', 'logical/scientific truths' etc.

in other words, the pragmatist idealist would restore intuition [understanding that there is nothing beyond relational context] to its natural precedence over literal belief in the reasoned propositions and moral judgements of spook-based 'semantic reality'.