Peter Holmes & Delusional Facts

[Veritas Aequitas]

You are totally ignorant of Kant's Critique of Pure Reason. Therein Kant critiqued [condemned] the ideas of Descartes and Plato as illusory [yes literally non-sense].

It was thus that Plato left the World of the Senses, as setting too narrow Limits to 2 the Understanding, and ventured out beyond it on the wings of the Ideas, in the empty Space of the Pure Understanding. A5B9

In the above Kant condemned Plato as literally engaged in nonsense, i.e. went beyond the sensible into la la land beyond the Understanding.

Kant also condemned Descartes' Cogito.

So don't try to critique Kant or Russell until you have read their relevant work thoroughly with reasonable understanding of their theories.

You are talking nonsense in the above.
Prove to me things-in-themselves exist in-themselves unconditionally?

Things-that-can-be-perceived are merely ideas without any real referents.
For things-that-can-be-perceived to be real they must first be interacted with humans and then perceived. Thus for something to be real, there is inevitable conditioning.

So, condemning Plato's and Descartes' metaphysical delusions leads naturally to the delusion that there are things-in-themselves whose unconditional existence needs to be proved. Perhaps a malicious demon prevents us from knowing them. What codswallop. I suggest you reconsider Kant having removed your conventional-received-wisdom goggles.

There you go again, it is dishonest to critique Kant and be so arrogant when you have not read Kant's CPR thoroughly to understand it [not necessary agree].

Kant demonstrated things-in-themselves do not exist as real, i.e. they are illusory.

It is you who insist facts-in-themselves exist and are real, so the onus is on you to prove they are exists as real unconditionally.
So my challenge remains .. prove to me facts-in-themselves exist as real.

A fact is 'a thing that is known to exist, to have occurred, or to be true'. (And, obviously, of those three things only a factual assertion - a linguistic expression - can be true or false.)

What is the point of linguistic truth of a things without any reference to its reality.
Whatever is a linguistic truth and fact is ONLY conditioned and confined to a linguistic framework and system which in your case is imbued with elements of bastardized philosophy of the logical positivists and those of analytic-philosophy.
The linguistic FSK has no solid grounds in relation to reality but merely describe what is supposedly reality.

Read the definition: a fact is a thing that is known to exist [or] to have occurred...

There's nothing linguistic about those things, so nothing that can be true or false. But to repeat, there are three things:
features of reality that are or were the case:
what we believe and know about them; and
what we say about them which, classically, may be true or false.

The dictionary definition of the word 'fact' - merely reflecting actual usage - conflates the first and third of those separate and different things - which has caused and causes a world of philosophical confusion.

Your stupid question is an example: 'What is the point of linguistic truth of a things [sic] without any reference to its reality[?]'

There is no truth EXCEPT linguistic truth. Features of reality just are or were, neither true nor false. Outside language, reality is not linguistic. The truth is not out there, any more than falsehood is. I suggest you let these glaringly obvious facts sink in and percolate - because, when you grasp them properly, you'll see the muddle you've been in.

The sort of Kantian idealism you're flirting with comes from a fundamental mistake about the nature and function of language - I call it the myth of propositions - a mistake that the later Wittgenstein recognised in his earlier work and, by extension, in the whole western philosophical tradition.

You are wrong and stupid in insisting "there is no truth EXCEPT linguistic truth."

What about the very obvious scientific truths?
Are you insisting they don't exist?

In addition, there are many types of truths and facts; they are all conditioned upon their respective Framework and System of Knowledge.

There's nothing linguistic about those things, so nothing that can be true or false. But to repeat, there are three things:
1. features of reality that are or were the case:
2. what we believe and know about them; and
3. what we say about them which, classically, may be true or false.

How can you say anything about them until we have done 2 i.e. establish what we believe and what we know about them.

I assert there is no way for 2 except to rely upon specific framework and system of knowledge.

You keep ignoring FSKs but merely stuck with linguistic truths.
Btw, linguistic truths are conditioned upon the linguistic FSKs.

It is therefore very stupid [philosophically] to insist there are no truths except linguistic truths.

Note Quine's critique of linguistic / analytic truths:

Like other analytic philosophers before him, Quine accepted the definition of "analytic" as "true in virtue of meaning alone". Unlike them, however, he concluded that ultimately the definition was circular.
In other words, Quine accepted that analytic statements are those that are true by definition, then argued that the notion of truth by definition was unsatisfactory.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willard_V ... istinction

[Veritas Aequitas]

In terms of reality, your linguistic FSK is delusional in contrast to any FSK [e.g. Science, Morality, etc.] that are established to verify and justify reality based on experience of reality and empirical evidences of reality couple with philosophical reasoning.

The Kantian demand to know what a fact-in-itself really is comes from the metaphysical delusion that what we call truth, facts and objectivity aren't what we say they are.

Nope!
What the Kantian assert is, what you claim as fact-in-itself or fact-by-language which is based on the linguistic Framework and System, is an illusion and thus delusional.
Your linguistic fact is nonsense, i.e. non-sensible as Kant condemned Plato's forms and universals. [CPR A5-B9]

For any fact to be realistic, it must incorporate the sensible [experienced and evidenced] plus the understanding [intellect].

Note the delusional state you are in when you insist the 'physical' table is really real.
But in reality you are merely ASSUMMING there is a real table out there.
Therefore whatever is table exists only in your head as an idea.
There is no really-real table out there.
Even if you can feel and sense something like a solid table you are not in 'touch' with any real table. There is always a GAP between you and your assumed reality.
Thus the thing of fact that is really real to you is NONSENSE, i.e. not in touch or in solid contact with the your senses.
... (note the problem with the Correspondence Theory of Truth)
This is what early-Russell meant when he asserted "perhaps there is no table at all"!
He meant there is no real unconditional table-in-itself.

Therefore insisting that your linguistic fact is really-real is delusional.

What is really-real as fact can be at best conditional upon the human conditions and conditioned upon the specific Framework and System.

Thus there are moral facts that are justified empirically and philosophically that are conditioned upon a moral framework and system.

Note the insane contortion required to argue that the physical table I'm sitting at now isn't really real, but is only an illusion - that I can only ever assume it's real - but that I can never know what it really is. And philosophers wonder why everyone else thinks we're off with the fairies.

There is no contortion at all.
The physical table to me [Kant] is empirically and philosophically real and this can be verified and justified via the scientific method and philosophical reasoning. This is based on observation, experience and empirical evidences and therefrom justified.

You are on the other hand is an idealist.
You insist the physical table exists independent of your mind, observations, experiences and empirical evidences.
That mean the physical table exists outside and external to all the above.
If the physical table you claim exists, how do you know "what you know" really correspond to the real table out there.
There is no way you can reconcile what you perceived as real with what is supposedly really real.
Therefore what is really real is only in your mind and no where else, what you take to be really real that is external to your mind is unreachable [note the reality GAP] and merely ASSUMED.

Note Meno's Paradox

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meno
  Meno suggests that it is impossible to seek what one does not know, because one will be unable to determine whether one has found it.

To determine whether one has found it, the only effective method is rely upon a FSK, e.g. the scientific FSK and others.
Thus the truth of a thing is always conditioned upon the Framework and System of Knowledge that truth or fact emerges from.

Therefore there are moral facts/truths emerging from Moral Framework and System.

[Veritas Aequitas]

It's a fact that facts are important?

I have seen less idiotic shit on fortune cookies.

According to the Gospel of Skep Dick, that is only a belief.

LOL.. the above demonstrate you are from the kindergarten class of Philosophy.

What is fact by default is conditioned upon a specific Framework and System of Knowledge, asserting 'it is a fact' without qualification get you no where.

[Peter Holmes]

You are totally ignorant of Kant's Critique of Pure Reason. Therein Kant critiqued [condemned] the ideas of Descartes and Plato as illusory [yes literally non-sense].

In the above Kant condemned Plato as literally engaged in nonsense, i.e. went beyond the sensible into la la land beyond the Understanding.

Kant also condemned Descartes' Cogito.

So don't try to critique Kant or Russell until you have read their relevant work thoroughly with reasonable understanding of their theories.

You are talking nonsense in the above.
Prove to me things-in-themselves exist in-themselves unconditionally?

Things-that-can-be-perceived are merely ideas without any real referents.
For things-that-can-be-perceived to be real they must first be interacted with humans and then perceived. Thus for something to be real, there is inevitable conditioning.

So, condemning Plato's and Descartes' metaphysical delusions leads naturally to the delusion that there are things-in-themselves whose unconditional existence needs to be proved. Perhaps a malicious demon prevents us from knowing them. What codswallop. I suggest you reconsider Kant having removed your conventional-received-wisdom goggles.

There you go again, it is dishonest to critique Kant and be so arrogant when you have not read Kant's CPR thoroughly to understand it [not necessary agree].

Kant demonstrated things-in-themselves do not exist as real, i.e. they are illusory.

What things exactly was he demonstrating don't exist? What kind of things are the things-in-themselves that may or may not exist? Kant was the master furkler down the rabbit hole.

It is you who insist facts-in-themselves exist and are real, so the onus is on you to prove they are exists as real unconditionally.
So my challenge remains .. prove to me facts-in-themselves exist as real.

1 A thing can exist only 'as real'. So you're asking for proof of the existence of 'facts-in-themselves'.
2 A fact-in-itself is just a fact. So you're asking for proof of the existence of facts.
3 A fact is a thing that is known to exist, to have occurred, or to be true. So you're asking for proof of the existence of things that are known to exist, to have occurred, or to be true.
4 You claim that there are moral facts. Why are you asking for proof of the existence of facts?

What is the point of linguistic truth of a things without any reference to its reality.
Whatever is a linguistic truth and fact is ONLY conditioned and confined to a linguistic framework and system which in your case is imbued with elements of bastardized philosophy of the logical positivists and those of analytic-philosophy.
The linguistic FSK has no solid grounds in relation to reality but merely describe what is supposedly reality.

Read the definition: a fact is a thing that is known to exist [or] to have occurred...

There's nothing linguistic about those things, so nothing that can be true or false. But to repeat, there are three things:
features of reality that are or were the case:
what we believe and know about them; and
what we say about them which, classically, may be true or false.

The dictionary definition of the word 'fact' - merely reflecting actual usage - conflates the first and third of those separate and different things - which has caused and causes a world of philosophical confusion.

Your stupid question is an example: 'What is the point of linguistic truth of a things [sic] without any reference to its reality[?]'

There is no truth EXCEPT linguistic truth. Features of reality just are or were, neither true nor false. Outside language, reality is not linguistic. The truth is not out there, any more than falsehood is. I suggest you let these glaringly obvious facts sink in and percolate - because, when you grasp them properly, you'll see the muddle you've been in.

The sort of Kantian idealism you're flirting with comes from a fundamental mistake about the nature and function of language - I call it the myth of propositions - a mistake that the later Wittgenstein recognised in his earlier work and, by extension, in the whole western philosophical tradition.

You are wrong and stupid in insisting "there is no truth EXCEPT linguistic truth."

What about the very obvious scientific truths?
Are you insisting they don't exist?

Try thinking about it very hard. A feature of reality is not a linguistic expression. For example, the chemical composition of water is not a piece of language. So it can't be true or false. It can't be a 'truth' of any kind. The only things that can be have truth-value - can be true or false - are factual assertions (linguistic expressions) such as 'water is H2O'.

Truth is an attribute only of some linguistic expressions. And because we can describe reality in many different ways, there can be true chemical assertions, true physical assertions, true historical assertions, true psychological assertions, and so on. They're all factual assertions - linguistic expressions. So what you call a scientific truth is a true scientific assertion - a scientific linguistic expression that is true.

In addition, there are many types of truths and facts; they are all conditioned upon their respective Framework and System of Knowledge.

There's nothing linguistic about those things, so nothing that can be true or false. But to repeat, there are three things:
1. features of reality that are or were the case:
2. what we believe and know about them; and
3. what we say about them which, classically, may be true or false.

How can you say anything about them until we have done 2 i.e. establish what we believe and what we know about them.

I assert there is no way for 2 except to rely upon specific framework and system of knowledge.

So what? Our argument isn't about what we believe and know about features of reality. It's about whether there are moral features of reality at all - moral things that are or were the case. And that's what moral realists and objectivists have failed to demonstrate so far.

Our argument is ontological - dealing with the first of the three things: features of reality that are or were the case. Your epistemological fuss is irrelevant. That we have to use what you call an FSK to know about or understand a feature of reality is irrelevant if there's no feature of reality to know or understand in the first place. And talking about them (the third thing) is a separate matter - where truth and falsehood come in.

You keep ignoring FSKs but merely stuck with linguistic truths.
Btw, linguistic truths are conditioned upon the linguistic FSKs.

It is therefore very stupid [philosophically] to insist there are no truths except linguistic truths.

Note Quine's critique of linguistic / analytic truths:

Like other analytic philosophers before him, Quine accepted the definition of "analytic" as "true in virtue of meaning alone". Unlike them, however, he concluded that ultimately the definition was circular.
In other words, Quine accepted that analytic statements are those that are true by definition, then argued that the notion of truth by definition was unsatisfactory.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willard_V ... istinction

Quine's 'to be is to be the value of a bound variable in a quantification' (probably to paraphrase) demonstrates the myth of propositions at its malicious work. His work on analyticity doesn't even relate to what we're arguing about: the existence of a moral reality and so moral facts.

[Skepdick]

Try thinking about it very hard. A feature of reality is not a linguistic expression. For example, the chemical composition of water is not a piece of language.

Uhhh, what and where is a "chemical compositions" ? Show me one.

Almost as if the abstract concept of a "chemical composition" is part of the framing or something.

[Veritas Aequitas]

double posting

[Veritas Aequitas]

There you go again, it is dishonest to critique Kant and be so arrogant when you have not read Kant's CPR thoroughly to understand it [not necessary agree].

Kant demonstrated things-in-themselves do not exist as real, i.e. they are illusory.

What things exactly was he demonstrating don't exist? What kind of things are the things-in-themselves that may or may not exist? Kant was the master furkler down the rabbit hole.

Whatever you want to condemn about Kant or any other philosophers, you need to justify it, especially when Kant is regular polled as one the greatest Western philosopher of all time. Otherwise you are merely making noises and exposing yourself as stupid.

Kant demonstrated whatever is term a "thing" that thing cannot exists independent by itself or in-itself.
Whatever is a 'thing' always exists conditionally, e.g. to a specific Framework and System related to the human conditions and other conditions, be it knowledge or otherwise.

The table you are looking at in front of you is a 'thing'.
Prove to me that table exists as a table-in-itself unconditionally?

It is you who insist facts-in-themselves exist and are real, so the onus is on you to prove they are exists as real unconditionally.
So my challenge remains .. prove to me facts-in-themselves exist as real.

1 A thing can exist only 'as real'. So you're asking for proof of the existence of 'facts-in-themselves'.
2 A fact-in-itself is just a fact. So you're asking for proof of the existence of facts.
3 A fact is a thing that is known to exist, to have occurred, or to be true. So you're asking for proof of the existence of things that are known to exist, to have occurred, or to be true.
4 You claim that there are moral facts. Why are you asking for proof of the existence of facts?

PH: 1. A thing can exist only 'as real'.
If a theist insist God as thing exists are real, in your case you would not ask the theists to prove God-in-itself exists?

PH: 2 A fact-in-itself is just a fact. So you're asking for proof of the existence of facts.
3 A fact is a thing that is known to exist, to have occurred, or to be true. So you're asking for proof of the existence of things that are known to exist, to have occurred, or to be true.

"A fact-in-itself is just a fact" is merely a statement.

How come you are still so ignorant despite the 1000 times I have repeated this;

• A fact is an occurrence in the real world.[1] The usual test for a statement of fact is verifiability—that is whether it can be demonstrated to correspond to experience. Standard reference works are often used to check facts. Scientific facts are verified by repeatable careful observation or measurement by experiments or other means.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact

Whatever that is claimed as fact must be verified and justified as true.

Note the typical definition of fact from a dictionary;
fact = a thing that is known or proved to be true.

The dictionary definition do not jive with philosophy.
What is critical with 'what is fact' is the verification and justification process that make it known and proven to be true.

4 You claim that there are moral facts. Why are you asking for proof of the existence of facts?
Btw, you are one who is asking me to prove there are moral facts.

If you insist on your linguistic rule you should accept my claim, there are moral facts because they are facts.

I am not as dumb as you.
I claimed there are moral facts and these claims must be verified and justified empirically and philosophically. I have already provided the justifications there are moral facts -moral claims that are duly justified to be true morally.

You are wrong and stupid in insisting "there is no truth EXCEPT linguistic truth."
What about the very obvious scientific truths?
Are you insisting they don't exist?

Try thinking about it very hard. A feature of reality is not a linguistic expression. For example, the chemical composition of water is not a piece of language. So it can't be true or false. It can't be a 'truth' of any kind. The only things that can be have truth-value - can be true or false - are factual assertions (linguistic expressions) such as 'water is H2O'.

Truth is an attribute only of some linguistic expressions. And because we can describe reality in many different ways, there can be true chemical assertions, true physical assertions, true historical assertions, true psychological assertions, and so on. They're all factual assertions - linguistic expressions. So what you call a scientific truth is a true scientific assertion - a scientific linguistic expression that is true.

You got it wrong.
Your insistence that only linguistic expression can have truth-value is confined to rules of the linguistic framework which is very limited.

Whatever the linguistic expression of truths and facts, they must be preceded with verification and justification, based empirically and philosophically.

In addition, there are many types of truths and facts; they are all conditioned upon their respective Framework and System of Knowledge.

There's nothing linguistic about those things, so nothing that can be true or false. But to repeat, there are three things:
1. features of reality that are or were the case:
2. what we believe and know about them; and
3. what we say about them which, classically, may be true or false.

How can you say anything about them until we have done 2 i.e. establish what we believe and what we know about them.

I assert there is no way for 2 except to rely upon specific framework and system of knowledge.

So what? Our argument isn't about what we believe and know about features of reality. It's about whether there are moral features of reality at all - moral things that are or were the case. And that's what moral realists and objectivists have failed to demonstrate so far.

Our argument is ontological - dealing with the first of the three things: features of reality that are or were the case. Your epistemological fuss is irrelevant. That we have to use what you call an FSK to know about or understand a feature of reality is irrelevant if there's no feature of reality to know or understand in the first place. And talking about them (the third thing) is a separate matter - where truth and falsehood come in.

You got it wrong due to a high level of ignorance and shallow thinking.

Can you prove there is a 'feature of reality' preceding a FSK?
This is the thing-in-itself that we are talking about.
I threw in Meno's Paradox, do you understand the dilemma involved.

Btw, a FSK is not something that is superficially constructed in the present but comprised of a hierarchy of phases.
The grounding of any FSK stretch back evolutionary to the time the first replicator gene emerged out of the primordial soup.

As I had stated, there is no pre-existing reality out there waiting for humans to discover.
What you are ignorant is the contentious issue of Philosophical Realism versus Philosophical Anti-Realism I have brought up many times.

You keep ignoring FSKs but merely stuck with linguistic truths.
Btw, linguistic truths are conditioned upon the linguistic FSKs.

It is therefore very stupid [philosophically] to insist there are no truths except linguistic truths.

Note Quine's critique of linguistic / analytic truths:

Like other analytic philosophers before him, Quine accepted the definition of "analytic" as "true in virtue of meaning alone". Unlike them, however, he concluded that ultimately the definition was circular.
In other words, Quine accepted that analytic statements are those that are true by definition, then argued that the notion of truth by definition was unsatisfactory.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willard_V ... istinction

Quine's 'to be is to be the value of a bound variable in a quantification' (probably to paraphrase) demonstrates the myth of propositions at its malicious work. His work on analyticity doesn't even relate to what we're arguing about: the existence of a moral reality and so moral facts.

Quine point is your claim "a fact is a fact because it is a fact" i.e. it is true by its meaning is circular and superficial that has no solid philosophical values.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Try thinking about it very hard. A feature of reality is not a linguistic expression. For example, the chemical composition of water is not a piece of language.

Uhhh, what and where is a "chemical compositions" ? Show me one.

Almost as if the abstract concept of a "chemical composition" is part of the framing or something.

Agree with "Framing"; it is an interesting article.

As I had mentioned there is a great depth to the Framework and System of Knowledge with many layers within a hierachy.

In social theory, framing is a schema of interpretation, a collection of anecdotes and stereotypes, that individuals rely on to understand and respond to events.[2] In other words, people build a series of mental "filters" through biological and cultural influences.
They then use these filters to make sense of the world. The choices they then make are influenced by their creation of a frame.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framing_(social_sciences)

Note 'biological';
A FSK is not something that is superficially constructed in the present but comprised of a hierarchy of phases.
The grounding of any FSK stretch back evolutionary & biologically to the time the first replicating genes emerged out of the primordial soup.