Is the Realism vs Idealism dichotomy not just dualism in disguise?
Nope. Dualism is something entirely different. The realism vs idealism debate is just an argument over whether it’s a good idea to make compromises or not. A realist can accept the exact same ideals as an idealist, he just thinks that those ideas are unattainable, and that we should try to make this world the best we can. Take marijuana. A realist and an idealist could both think people shouldn’t smoke marijuana. An idealist would say it should be outlawed. A realist might say that no matter what you do, people are going to smoke marijuana. Better to legalize it so you can tax it and control it. They’re two different ends of a spectrum, two different approaches to the same problem. They’re not intended to be reconciled.
First off, dualism is a specific position in philosophy of mind; as opposed to a dichotomy, so they can’t be the same thing – this would be a category error. Realism, idealism and dualism are however closely connected. I assume you mean ontological realism, ontological idealism; and ontological dualism. Dualism is the view that there is a fundamental ontological distinction between the mind and the physical world. Opposed to this is monism, which says that there is only one type of thing – depending on the type of monist, either mind/thought, or a physical world existing entirely independently of thought. Idealism commits one to monism, since it asserts that there is no world beyond the mental – nothing exists unless it is being perceived. This leaves no room for a physical world independent of thought, and thus no room for a fundamental distinction between two types of things – mind and matter – which both really exist. A realist on the other hand can be either a monist (this would be
