Philosophy Now Forum

VA actually behaves a lot like Peter Holmes. The difference is that VA is 100% sure that he's right, and Peter is 100% sure that you're wrong. Clarification, please. Which 'you' do you think I'm 100% sure is wrong? IWP? You (CIN)? Or just everyone else? Me, certainly. That was clear from your attit...

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Nov 11, 2024 9:15 am

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Nov 11, 2024 9:08 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Nov 11, 2024 3:04 am
I sense there are fears in learning the truths of reality.

Waste of time.

That is what happened when the intellect go loopy like a broken record or damaged bot.

Waste of time.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Nov 11, 2024 3:04 am

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Nov 10, 2024 3:23 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Nov 10, 2024 8:43 am
It is very valid and sound to ask?

Giving Up Your Philosophical Realism, What is there to Lose?
viewtopic.php?t=43083

Waste of time.

I sense there are fears in learning the truths of reality.

Waste of time.

It is none of your business with what I post here nor that of others. There is no official obligation, but merely a principle of 'supply and demand' and mutual interests based on free will. Cheap escape route? I stated the above as statements and not as 'argument' so there is no issue of deduction ...

It is obvious the statements above are valid and practical. Okay, so you really don't know what deductive validity is. Your premise is false, so the argument is unsound. But even if the premise were true, the conclusion doesn't follow. You're wasting your own and everyone else's time here. It is no...

How do you prove [demonstrate, justify] there is a reality that is absolutely independent from humans? i.e. it exists regardless of whether there are humans or not. Consider the following argument. Premise: We can't prove the existence of a reality absolutely independent from humans. Conclusion: Th...

The problem is the whole of natural science [gold standard] by its default cannot confirm anything absolutely. Therefore it does not follow that relative natural science can confirm your realists' absolutely human independent reality . You have a fallacy of equivocation here. Get it? Nonsense. The ...

VA actually behaves a lot like Peter Holmes. The difference is that VA is 100% sure that he's right, and Peter is 100% sure that you're wrong. Clarification, please. Which 'you' do you think I'm 100% sure is wrong? IWP? You (CIN)? Or just everyone else? And anyway, certainty and doubt are frames of...

You are not doing science per se but adopting a philosophical position [philosophical realism] that is immature in insisting there is an absolutely human independent reality out there and in your body. Before there were humans, there was an absolutely human independent reality. And the whole of nat...

You are not doing science per se but adopting a philosophical position [philosophical realism] that is immature in insisting there is an absolutely human independent reality out there and in your body. Before there were humans, there was an absolutely human independent reality. And the whole of nat...

According to Popper a scientific realist , scientific truths at best are merely 'polished conjectures'. So where is the real thing in science? The only way is you must speculate and assumed there is a real thing beyond scientific what is confirmed by scientific justification. Popper didn't argue th...

There is no need at all to speculate there is something real beyond [transcendental] what science confirmed as scientifically real. There is no need at all to speculate that there is not something real that the natural sciences investigate. Such speculation is irrational. Are you aware of the signi...

PH: You are still merely repeating the claim that reality is 'contingent upon the human conditions' - which is false. Your claim that reality 'emerged' and 'is realised' prior to its being perceived, known and described by humans is, to repeat, banal. Of course it did. The universe existed long bef...

Even if we could objectively quantify pleasure, pain, happiness, unhappiness, and so on - even if there could be scalar measurements of these things - none of this would entail moral conclusions.

Your revised conclusion does nothing to sort out the problem. You are still merely repeating the claim that reality is 'contingent upon the human conditions' - which is false. For the record, here's your claim: Premise: Reality emerged and is realized [contingent upon human conditions] prior to bei...