There are no moral facts

[Veritas Aequitas]

There is no reality that exists independently by itself.

True, when we reflect philosophically we are bound to reach an infinite regression, therefrom Wittgenstein's maxim applies;

"Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent." (Tractatus 7)

So, I am just going to quote you, so you can see thanks for looking back and replying to that, and taking it seriously. Those links are also going to be quite interesting. I'll take a look and will get on commenting, for sure.

I always enjoyed Wittgenstein, but there were just a few things that I didn't really accept. First-off, that idea that "There is no reality that exists independently by itself." But I supposed that is the bare minimum that you have to critique, if you want to have a discussion against his philosophies. hahaha

But I should I save that for the other threads?

Are you familiar with Philosophical Realism;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

In metaphysics, [Philosophical] Realism about a given object is the view that this object exists in reality independently of our conceptual scheme. In philosophical terms, these objects are ontologically independent of someone's conceptual scheme, perceptions, linguistic practices, beliefs, etc.

Realism can be applied to many philosophically interesting objects and phenomena: other minds, the past or the future, universals, mathematical entities (such as natural numbers), moral categories, the physical world, and thought.

Realism can also be a view about the nature of reality in general, where it claims that the world exists independent of the mind, as opposed to non-realist views (like some forms of skepticism and solipsism, which question our ability to assert the world is independent of our mind). Philosophers who profess realism often claim that truth consists in a correspondence between cognitive representations and reality.

I am for Philosophical Anti-Realism, i.e. of the Kantian sort, not of skepticism nor solipsism.

If you want to argue against "There is no reality that exists independently by itself" then you can argue against Kant's there is no-thing-itself.

It is very obvious within Common and Conventional sense, things are external and exist independent of the human conditions - I am not denying such externality and independence, but upon more serious philosophical reflection and viewing the nuances, that is not the case.

Note these threads I raised;

• The 'Independent External World' is Kindergarten Stuff.
  viewtopic.php?f=5&t=29011
  
  To Insist there is an Independent Reality is an Oxymoron.
  viewtopic.php?f=5&t=28956
  
  Russell: There is No Real Table??
  viewtopic.php?f=5&t=27599

What is an Interdependent Reality?

• Reality is an Emergence
  viewtopic.php?f=5&t=28671

[Gary Childress]

It is very obvious within Common and Conventional sense, things are external and exist independent of the human conditions - I am not denying such externality and independence, but upon more serious philosophical reflection and viewing the nuances, that is not the case.

I'm not sure I understand. You seem to be saying that you are not denying "externality and independence" but "upon more serious philosophical reflection" you are saying it's not the case; so doesn't that mean you ARE denying it? Or what do you mean by the passage above?

[Veritas Aequitas]

It is very obvious within Common and Conventional sense, things are external and exist independent of the human conditions - I am not denying such externality and independence, but upon more serious philosophical reflection and viewing the nuances, that is not the case.

I'm not sure I understand. You seem to be saying that you are not denying "externality and independence" but "upon more serious philosophical reflection" you are saying it's not the case; so doesn't that mean you ARE denying it? Or what do you mean by the passage above?

Yes I deny it when deliberated at the meta-level.

Example;
I accept the sighted and felt table exists within common sense and the conventional sense.
But I argue there is no 'real' table-in-itself within a higher philosophical sense.

Russell: There is No Real Table??
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=27599

[Sculptor]

LP is now a dead duck, but a lot of its principles are still adopted by the Analytic Philosophy and people like you in arguing on 'what is fact' which is no different from what the LPs argued as 'fact'.

You missed my point?
I meant I will produce an explanation [later] on how your view of 'what is fact' is inherited from the bastardized philosophy of the logical positivists.

The point is that LP is dead exactly because of it failure to address moral issues.
Facts predate LP, and facts persist beyond LP.
LP is therefore not a valid referent.

What are you talking about?
You are very ignorant on this.

Yes we all know the whole world is ignorant when it comes to your absurd fantasies.

[Sculptor]

The idea that there are moral facts, or that moral rules are objectively true seems to be reserved to a small confused cadre of posters, since it does not appear in any serious philosophical literature.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/

How can you be so ignorant.

It must be all those books I keep reading.

[Skepdick]

It must be all those books I keep reading.

Ah! That explains why you are such a moron.

You are a consumer of narratives, not a creator of knowledge.

[Sculptor]

It must be all those books I keep reading.

Ah! That explains why you are such a moron.

You are a consumer of narratives, not a creator of knowledge.

As always you cannot hesitate to make a complete a r s e h o l e of yourself

[Skepdick]

As always you cannot hesitate to make a complete a r s e h o l e of yourself

I am following in your footsteps.

Much to learn. Long way to your level of perfection.

I am still waiting on you to tell us why your religion insists the holocaust is amoral.

[Gary Childress]

It is very obvious within Common and Conventional sense, things are external and exist independent of the human conditions - I am not denying such externality and independence, but upon more serious philosophical reflection and viewing the nuances, that is not the case.

I'm not sure I understand. You seem to be saying that you are not denying "externality and independence" but "upon more serious philosophical reflection" you are saying it's not the case; so doesn't that mean you ARE denying it? Or what do you mean by the passage above?

Yes I deny it when deliberated at the meta-level.

Example;
I accept the sighted and felt table exists within common sense and the conventional sense.
But I argue there is no 'real' table-in-itself within a higher philosophical sense.

Russell: There is No Real Table??
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=27599

Thanks for the clarification.

So is it a matter of what level at which we are discussing or contemplating the table? Do you think that one level takes ultimate precedence over another or does that depend upon what one is discussing or contemplating? For example: If one is talking on the level of quantum physics, we might talk about there being no table at all (just a collection of particles, forces, fields, or whatnot) and if one is talking about where to place a cup of coffee, one would be talking at the level of the existence of tables.

Or when you say no "real table in itself" do you mean something along the lines of idealism that there is no external reality at all.

[Sculptor]

As always you cannot hesitate to make a complete a r s e h o l e of yourself

I am following in your footsteps.

Much to learn. Long way to your level of perfection.

I am still waiting on you to tell us why your religion insists the holocaust is amoral.

You are such a dick.
Look back. I said the holocaust was immoral.
I'm still waiting for you to LOOK up the difference between moral, immoral and amoral
I shall not be holding my breath.
If you want to follow in my footsteps you might want to read a book or two; preferably two with contradictory viewpoints.

[Skepdick]

You are such a dick.
Look back. I said the holocaust was immoral.

Obviously YOU are saying it, moron. Do you not understand that I understand what you are saying?

I was asking you to explain why you are disagreeing with the sound&valid reasoning which concludes that it's amoral.

Why are you rejecting the true conclusions of your own religion? Isn't that "irrational"?

I'm still waiting for you to LOOK up the difference between moral, immoral and amoral

I am aware of the differences, moron.

That's why i am asking why you are saying that it's immoral when your religion concludes that it's amoral.

If you want to follow in my footsteps you might want to read a book or two; preferably two with contradictory viewpoints.

I don't need to read a book. I have you.

On the one hand you insist that the holocaust is immoral.
On the other hand you subscribe to a religion which insists that it's amoral.

I am asking you to explain how you've rectified the cognitive dissonance.

P1. Natural selection is amoral.
P2. The holocaust is natural selection
Sound&valid conclusion: The holocaust is AMORAL.
Sculptor's conclusion: The holocaust is IMMORAL

[Sculptor]

You are such a dick.
Look back. I said the holocaust was immoral.

Obviously YOU are saying it, moron. Do you not understand that I understand what you are saying?

I was asking you to explain why you are disagreeing with the sound&valid reasoning which concludes that it's amoral.

Take a f cking hint you moron. Look up the meaning of amoral and immoral.
|Now f ck off back under your rock.

b: being neither moral nor immoral
specifically : lying outside the sphere to which moral judgments apply
Science as such is completely amoral.

You are on your own.

[Skepdick]

Take a f cking hint you moron. Look up the meaning of amoral and immoral.
|Now f ck off back under your rock.

b: being neither moral nor immoral
specifically : lying outside the sphere to which moral judgments apply
Science as such is completely amoral.

You are on your own.

I understand the meanings of moral and amoral, moron. That's why I am grilling you over the incompatible conclusions.

P1. Natural selection is amoral.
P2. The holocaust is natural selection
Sound&valid conclusion: The holocaust is AMORAL.
Sculptor's conclusion: The holocaust is IMMORAL

For somebody who keeps whining that other people don't address your points, you sure are avoiding my point like the plague.
Is your religion at risk of collapsing in on itself or something?

[Sculptor]

Take a f cking hint you moron. Look up the meaning of amoral and immoral.
|Now f ck off back under your rock.

b: being neither moral nor immoral
specifically : lying outside the sphere to which moral judgments apply
Science as such is completely amoral.

You are on your own.

I understand the meanings of moral and amoral, moron. That's why I am grilling you over the incompatible conclusions.

P1. Natural selection is amoral.
P2. The holocaust is natural selection
Sound&valid conclusion: The holocaust is AMORAL.
Sculptor's conclusion: The holocaust is IMMORAL

For somebody who keeps whining that other people don't address your points, you sure are avoiding my point like the plague.
Is your religion at risk of collapsing in on itself or something?

This is my last post to you
P1. True
P2. False.
Conclusion meaningless.

[Skepdick]

I understand the meanings of moral and amoral, moron. That's why I am grilling you over the incompatible conclusions.

P1. Natural selection is amoral.
P2. The holocaust is natural selection
Sound&valid conclusion: The holocaust is AMORAL.
Sculptor's conclusion: The holocaust is IMMORAL

For somebody who keeps whining that other people don't address your points, you sure are avoiding my point like the plague.
Is your religion at risk of collapsing in on itself or something?

This is my last post to you
P1. True
P2. False.
Conclusion meaningless.

I already explained to you why that is called SPECIAL PLEADING. Do I have to do it again? Yip....

P1. Any cause that reduces reproductive success in a portion of a population potentially exerts evolutionary pressure, selective pressure or selection pressure, driving natural selection.
P2. The holocaust reduced reproductive success in a portion of the jewish population.
C. The holocaust is natural selection.

The argument remains sound&valid.
Sculptor continues to reject the conclusion for reasons he cannot justify.