No Feature of Reality Needs Justification?

[Veritas Aequitas]

With reference to moral facts,

Pay attention.
The distance of the sun from the earth is a feature of reality.

To say that feature of reality needs justification is completely incoherent.

No feature of reality needs justification.

It just fucking IS or WAS the case.

So if a fact is a feature of reality, such as the distance of the sun from the earth, then it needs no justification.

What does need justification is a factual assertion, such as 'the sun is 93 million miles from earth'. That claim needs empirical evidence. And, like all truth-claims, it exists within a descriptive context - what you call an FSK.

I find Peter Holmes' claims above very weird.

How can the following statement be true if it is not justified;
"The distance of the sun from the earth is a feature of reality"
The terms "distance" "the sun" "the earth" "a feature of reality" themselves need empirical and philosophical justifications.

• Distance =
  1. the extent or amount of space between two things, points, lines, etc.
  2. the state or fact of being apart in space, as of one thing from another; remoteness.
  3. a linear extent of space:
  https://www.dictionary.com/browse/distance?s=t

Distance is a subset of space.
Space is a very contentious concept or idea within Philosophy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space
The contention is, is there an independent space-in-itself or is space conditioned by human conditions?
Unless you justify your conclusion of 'what is space' your statement,
"The distance of the sun from the earth is a feature of reality"
is groundless and illusory.

In addition the above statement is dependent on the terms 'sun' 'earth' which are objects.
The concept of 'objects' is also very contentious, i.e. there are no objects-in-themselves.

So the "a feature of reality" which is part of all-of-reality. Reality is another contentious issues as in Philosophical Realism versus Philosophical anti-Realism.

Due to the full range of contentious issues with your statement;
"The distance of the sun from the earth is a feature of reality"
it is groundless and illusory unless you can prove otherwise.

No feature of reality needs justification.
It just fucking IS or WAS the case.

Do you understand the philosophical issues surrounding the term "is".

'is" merely a copula that joined the subject with the predicate.

Example;
'the sun is93 million miles from earth'

the word 'is' is always meaningless without the subject and the predicate which must be justified in all cases.

In another sense, "is" is 'be' 'exist' or existence.
The philosophical contention is 'existence' is not a predicate.
For any object or predicate to be, it must be justified.

Therefore your point;
"No Feature of Reality Needs Justification"
is baseless.

Every feature of reality or fact must be justified before it is to be asserted,
not that every factual assertion must be justified.

[Peter Holmes]

Are the existence of the sun and the earth, and the physical distance between them, dependent on humans?

Are facts of the universe dependent on humans?

Utter codswallop.

[Impenitent]

man is the measure - Protagoras

-Imp

[Peter Holmes]

The things we measure don't conform to our ways of measuring them. Features of reality don't conform to the rules of logic.

[RCSaunders]

With reference to moral facts,

Pay attention.
The distance of the sun from the earth is a feature of reality.

To say that feature of reality needs justification is completely incoherent.

No feature of reality needs justification.

It just ... IS or WAS the case.

So if a fact is a feature of reality, such as the distance of the sun from the earth, then it needs no justification.

Peter is right. Reality is what it is, whether anyone knows what is or not.

Claims to knowledge about what is might need to be justified (if justified means identifying how one knows what is) but the facts themselves are just what they are.

Someone seems to be confusing epistemology (knowledge of what is) with ontology (what actually is). The significance of Peter's point is that reality is not contingent on anything else, particularly not on anyone's consciousness of it.

[RCSaunders]

The things we measure don't conform to our ways of measuring them. ...

If measurement is a useful method, it must conform to the actual nature of things, however.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Are the existence of the sun and the earth, and the physical distance between them, dependent on humans?

Are facts of the universe dependent on humans?

Utter codswallop.

Don't be too arrogant when you are so ignorant.

The existence of the sun and the earth are not dependent on humans in the sense they are created by humans.

What I had stated is the Philosophical Anti-realist position, i.e. all of reality including the sun and the earth emerged in interaction with the human conditions.
This stance is in opposition to Philosophical Realism which is unrealistist and untenable.

You are so ignorant of the serious contentious issue between Philosophical Realism versus Philosophical Anti-Realism.
Until you can convince Philosophical Realism is really real and tenable, your philosophical views re facts are groundless and illusory.

I have repeated this a '1000' times;

• 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.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

As such whatever is 'fact' cannot be absolutely unconditional from the human factors.

My position within Philosophical Anti-Realism is Empirical Realism, i.e. the sun and earth are in one perspective independent of the physical human being but from a meta-perspective, the sun and earth interacts with the human conditions.
Thus the sun and earth is independent of humans but inter-connected in a higher meta-sense.

Meanwhile you still have not prove you fact-in-itself which is absolutely unconditional and independent from the human conditions is real.

[Veritas Aequitas]

double posting

[Veritas Aequitas]

With reference to moral facts,

Pay attention.
The distance of the sun from the earth is a feature of reality.

To say that feature of reality needs justification is completely incoherent.

No feature of reality needs justification.

It just ... IS or WAS the case.

So if a fact is a feature of reality, such as the distance of the sun from the earth, then it needs no justification.

Peter is right. Reality is what it is, whether anyone knows what is or not.

Note Meno's Paradox,
How can you know what is when you do not know what it is in the first place?
https://faculty.washington.edu/smcohen/320/menopar.htm

The above statement is illusory without the accompanying verification of the related experience and the effective justification that 'what is' is real.

Claims to knowledge about what is might need to be justified (if justified means identifying how one knows what is) but the facts themselves are just what they are.

I stated your claim 'facts themselves are just what they are' is very stupid.
You just cannot claim 'they are' by merely making a statement 'they are'.
Else theists will insist 'God exists' as a fact, just as what it is.
Surely it is imperative the above claim must be supported by empirical and philosophical justifications.

As such a fact cannot standalone without the prior necessary justification.
Facts-by-themselves as 'just what they are' are merely illusions.

Someone seems to be confusing epistemology (knowledge of what is) with ontology (what actually is). The significance of Peter's point is that reality is not contingent on anything else, particularly not on anyone's consciousness of it.

Whatever is real must entails epistemology in complement with ontology and imperatively supported by justifications [empirically and philosophically].

[Veritas Aequitas]

The things we measure don't conform to our ways of measuring them. Features of reality don't conform to the rules of logic.

You are ignorant on this.

What Protagoras [490-420 BCE] meant was, reality is conditioned upon the human conditions. That is the basic Philosophical Anti-Realist stance in opposition to Philosophical Realism.

[Atla]

I'm starting to think that this version of anti-realism is a mental disorder. They cannot concieve that a world outside of human thinking can exist.

[Dontaskme]

I'm starting to think that this version of anti-realism is a mental disorder. They cannot concieve that a world outside of human thinking can exist.

What is a mental disorder is thinking and believing that one can know what another one is thinking or believing.

The world out there is a projection of our own personal thoughts about it, the world out there does exist, but not in the way thought thinks about it. We paint the world according to our personal world view self bias interpretation of it. The world out there is how we are and not how it actually is. We all do the same projection upon reality. And this has nothing to do with solipsism, simply because ONE MIND cannot possibly be conceived of, or experienced, nor can two minds ever meet.

The above comment is true nondualistic thinking.

[Atla]

I'm starting to think that this version of anti-realism is a mental disorder. They cannot concieve that a world outside of human thinking can exist.

What is a mental disorder is thinking and believing that one can know what another one is thinking or believing.

The world out there is a projection of our own personal thoughts about it, the world out there does exist, but not in the way thought thinks about it. We paint the world according to our personal world view self bias interpretation of it. The world out there is how we are and not how it actually is. We all do the same projection upon reality. And this has nothing to do with solipsism, simply because ONE MIND cannot possibly be conceived of, or experienced, nor can two minds ever meet.

The above comment is true nondualistic thinking.

No, the above comment is a word salad. I lost count how many times you failed to make sense or failed to be coherent.

[Dontaskme]

I'm starting to think that this version of anti-realism is a mental disorder. They cannot concieve that a world outside of human thinking can exist.

What is a mental disorder is thinking and believing that one can know what another one is thinking or believing.

The world out there is a projection of our own personal thoughts about it, the world out there does exist, but not in the way thought thinks about it. We paint the world according to our personal world view self bias interpretation of it. The world out there is how we are and not how it actually is. We all do the same projection upon reality. And this has nothing to do with solipsism, simply because ONE MIND cannot possibly be conceived of, or experienced, nor can two minds ever meet.

The above comment is true nondualistic thinking.

No, the above comment is a word salad. I lost count how many times you failed to make sense or failed to be coherent.

Well of course you are right in thinking that, it's your prerogative to think what you like about what you read.

You do have my sympathy though, for I feel the same about most of the things I read here at this forum as well. In the sense most of what I read here appears to me as just endless word salad, so I do know where you are coming from in that regard.

.

[Atla]

What is a mental disorder is thinking and believing that one can know what another one is thinking or believing.

The world out there is a projection of our own personal thoughts about it, the world out there does exist, but not in the way thought thinks about it. We paint the world according to our personal world view self bias interpretation of it. The world out there is how we are and not how it actually is. We all do the same projection upon reality. And this has nothing to do with solipsism, simply because ONE MIND cannot possibly be conceived of, or experienced, nor can two minds ever meet.

The above comment is true nondualistic thinking.

No, the above comment is a word salad. I lost count how many times you failed to make sense or failed to be coherent.

Well of course you are right in thinking that, it's your prerogative to think what you like about what you read.

You do have my sympathy though, for I feel the same about most of the things I read here at this forum as well. In the sense most of what I read here appears to me as just endless word salad, so I do know where you are coming from in that regard.

.

Except you've always been crazy, even the simple things people say are unintelligible to you. Don't need your sympathy.