A 'Realist' is an 'Idealist'.

A ‘Realist’ is an ‘Idealist’.
No, that is not a contradiction nor oxymoron if we deliberate them in different senses and in the following context.

  1. A typical realist is an empirical idealist.

  2. A transcendental idealist is an empirical realist.

A. The conventional and philosophical definition of a ‘realist’ is one who believe that reality exists independent and externally of the human mind and conditions.

B. The definition of an ‘idealist’ is one that is in direct contrast to the ‘realist’, i.e. one who believes that reality exists inter-dependent and internally within the human mind and conditions.

The realist believes empirical reality exists independent of his mind.
To the realist, the empirical world send data from the external to his internal senses for processing.
Thus the nearest empirical reality to the realist is that which is his mind.
This is in a sense, more inline with the definition of the idealist, i.e. B.

Therefore a realist is in fact an idealist, i.e. an empirical idealist.
Empirically, the philosophical realist is an empirical idealist.

The point is those realists who accuse [put down] others of being idealist are ignorant they are idealists, i.e. empirical idealists.

It is not easy to see the ‘turn.’
Anyone get it?

Realist = Your hopeful fantasies have nothing to do with the real future.
Idealist = Our hopeful dreams create whatever future we choose to be real.