Should we afford primacy to reality or to mind? What a foolish question! How could we do one without the other in either case?
I try not to buy into the presumed dichotomy between “realism” and “idealism” in philosophy. “Realism” is supposed to express the idea that reality is mind-independent. “Idealism” is supposed to express the concept that for us, ideas are all that can be. Either of these perspectives, swallowed naïvely, will lead us astray. In this respect, I always found Robert Anton Wilson’s use of “zetetic”, which express the idea that there is an objective reality but our only access to it is via our mind, to be apposite. But really he was just paraphrasing Kant without realising it.
I do not see myself as a “realist” nor an “idealist”, although if I was significant enough to incorporate into the records of this philosophical sporting match it’s a safe bet I’d be assigned to team “idealist”. But ever since encountering Heidegger’s account of “thrownness” – the fact that we are thrown into this world and it makes no sense whatsoever to doubt its reality – I’ve wanted to retire gracefully from the ring on this particular battle.