Peter Holmes: What is Fact.

[odysseus]

Advocate wrote
The knower must have justified belief and that belief must be justified with a rational understanding of critical thinking.

Sure, but this stands analysis. What is it to be justified? This is a question that goes to actual experience, as when I acknowledge that there is a tree in my yard: I am standing here, the tree is over there, now how does that tree get into my mind? It's really, at first, that simple. And if you have an idea of how this works by all means share it. For me, I don't see it.

[odysseus]

Atla, wrote
There is no knower-known duality so there is no relationship.

Perhaps this is true, but start where everyday experience leaves off. There is a vase, here is my perceptual system. I know this vase in on the table, but in a philosophical analysis, what is this really about? What do you say about what is happening IN this unity that gives warrant to an analysis that affirms it is all just one?

Or are you saying "all is a unity" is just an intuition in no need of justification, is self justifying? Then you still need to say what this apparent manifold in experience is all about.

[Scott Mayers]

Peter Holmes,
In the post below you defined 'what is a fact'.

A fact is a state-of-affairs, or a description of a state-of-affairs, that is or was the case.

The above definition is merely linguistic and tell us nothing about what a fact-in-reality is.

Can you demonstrate what a fact-in-itself really is?

I am sure what is fact to you will lead to this, it has to be;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact

Therefrom to this;
There are Moral Facts
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29777

I'm guessing that "fact" relates etymologically to "ef-fect" ("of fact"). Given this possibility, the term may be thought of as meaning the result of some cause. This suffices.

Given you are seeking something that can help define morality, then you can argue that 'moral facts' are the "effective use of conditional rules we set to optimize comfort across/within some community". This then is a pragmatic way that I think might help in your intentional pursuit to demonstrate common morals AS 'effective'. (?)

[Atla]

Atla, wrote
There is no knower-known duality so there is no relationship.

Perhaps this is true, but start where everyday experience leaves off. There is a vase, here is my perceptual system. I know this vase in on the table, but in a philosophical analysis, what is this really about? What do you say about what is happening IN this unity that gives warrant to an analysis that affirms it is all just one?

Or are you saying "all is a unity" is just an intuition in no need of justification, is self justifying? Then you still need to say what this apparent manifold in experience is all about.

You bring up many issues at once. There are two major ones here:

1. A general issue: It's not really a unity, but simply non-separation. There is no known separation in the universe: there is no known separation between the noumenal vase, between the noumenal vibrations that travel from the vase to the human, between the noumenal human senses, between the phenomenal vase that appears in the human head ie. the 'known', and between the phenomenal subject ie. the 'knower'. Also, this appears to be fully confirmed by science, and no it's not intuitive, it's counter-intuitive.

2. A specific issue: Knower and known are one and the same very literally. Not 'perhaps'. There is just the process of knowing, so to speak. Most of the Western philosophers were confused fools who fell for the illusion of the separate self, and then made this separate self have relationship with separate 'objects'. Be it outside objects or phenomenal objects. But the self is also just a phenomenal happening. The knower is a bunch of thoughts etc. in the head, and the known is a bunch of thoughts etc. in the head, sometimes the same thoughts, you can't separate them like that.

So there can be nothing shocking about the relationship between knower and known, because there is no relationship at all, that could have ontological significance. There are only the relationships we make up, in our thinking. And as usual, there are probably major gender differences here as well.

So no, we don't (always) start where everyday experience leaves off, that's a faulty premise. Obviously.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Peter Holmes,
In the post below you defined 'what is a fact'.

A fact is a state-of-affairs, or a description of a state-of-affairs, that is or was the case.

The above definition is merely linguistic and tell us nothing about what a fact-in-reality is.

Can you demonstrate what a fact-in-itself really is?

I am sure what is fact to you will lead to this, it has to be;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact

Therefrom to this;
There are Moral Facts
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29777

I'm guessing that "fact" relates etymologically to "ef-fect" ("of fact"). Given this possibility, the term may be thought of as meaning the result of some cause. This suffices.

In a way that is correct.
What is fact is a thing [subset] of reality, which in a way can cause effects and effects are also facts which can cause other effects.
Facts are things [subsets] of reality, but they are not things-in-themselves.

Given you are seeking something that can help define morality, then you can argue that 'moral facts' are the "effective use of conditional rules we set to optimize comfort across/within some community". This then is a pragmatic way that I think might help in your intentional pursuit to demonstrate common morals AS 'effective'. (?)

Nope, morality is never about 'rules' that are enforceable upon individuals or group.
Morality is not deontological like those of the pseudo-morality of theists with divine commands from a God that are imposed on the individuals and threatened with hell if they do not comply.

Morality as I had stated is about what humans ought-to or ought-not-to behave such that their related moral actions activated spontaneously will optimize the well-being [moral and overall] of the individual and therefrom to humanity.

The moral oughts should be aligned with moral facts that are inherent within ALL humans.
If there are any moral decisions and judgments which are out of alignment with the standard, the deviation must be analyzed so that corrective actions can be taken.

This is why these moral facts must be factualized and explained so that they can be used as standards to guide moral actions that will optimize the moral well being of the individual and that of humanity.

[Scott Mayers]

Peter Holmes,
In the post below you defined 'what is a fact'.



The above definition is merely linguistic and tell us nothing about what a fact-in-reality is.

Can you demonstrate what a fact-in-itself really is?

I am sure what is fact to you will lead to this, it has to be;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact

Therefrom to this;
There are Moral Facts
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29777

I'm guessing that "fact" relates etymologically to "ef-fect" ("of fact"). Given this possibility, the term may be thought of as meaning the result of some cause. This suffices.

In a way that is correct.
What is fact is a thing [subset] of reality, which in a way can cause effects and effects are also facts which can cause other effects.
Facts are things [subsets] of reality, but they are not things-in-themselves.

Given you are seeking something that can help define morality, then you can argue that 'moral facts' are the "effective use of conditional rules we set to optimize comfort across/within some community". This then is a pragmatic way that I think might help in your intentional pursuit to demonstrate common morals AS 'effective'. (?)

Nope, morality is never about 'rules' that are enforceable upon individuals or group.
Morality is not deontological like those of the pseudo-morality of theists with divine commands from a God that are imposed on the individuals and threatened with hell if they do not comply.

Morality as I had stated is about what humans ought-to or ought-not-to behave such that their related moral actions activated spontaneously will optimize the well-being [moral and overall] of the individual and therefrom to humanity.

The moral oughts should be aligned with moral facts that are inherent within ALL humans.
If there are any moral decisions and judgments which are out of alignment with the standard, the deviation must be analyzed so that corrective actions can be taken.

This is why these moral facts must be factualized and explained so that they can be used as standards to guide moral actions that will optimize the moral well being of the individual and that of humanity.

Define "ought". It sounds like a French term that might have originally been something like, "thought" but they can't pronounce the 'th'.

Using the word 'ought' is like how one migh use a foreign term or expression to make the dull meaning, "should" seem undefinable in one's home language. What is the difference between "You shoulc do X" and "You ought to do X"?

You make distinctions against religion without a real difference. If one ''ought"(should) do something, what is the unit measure you use to scientifically determine this if it isn't merely an opinion of etiquette, like whether one 'ought' to face Mecca and prostrate themselves with a bow so many times a day?

[Veritas Aequitas]

I'm guessing that "fact" relates etymologically to "ef-fect" ("of fact"). Given this possibility, the term may be thought of as meaning the result of some cause. This suffices.

In a way that is correct.
What is fact is a thing [subset] of reality, which in a way can cause effects and effects are also facts which can cause other effects.
Facts are things [subsets] of reality, but they are not things-in-themselves.

Given you are seeking something that can help define morality, then you can argue that 'moral facts' are the "effective use of conditional rules we set to optimize comfort across/within some community". This then is a pragmatic way that I think might help in your intentional pursuit to demonstrate common morals AS 'effective'. (?)

Nope, morality is never about 'rules' that are enforceable upon individuals or group.
Morality is not deontological like those of the pseudo-morality of theists with divine commands from a God that are imposed on the individuals and threatened with hell if they do not comply.

Morality as I had stated is about what humans ought-to or ought-not-to behave such that their related moral actions activated spontaneously will optimize the well-being [moral and overall] of the individual and therefrom to humanity.

The moral oughts should be aligned with moral facts that are inherent within ALL humans.
If there are any moral decisions and judgments which are out of alignment with the standard, the deviation must be analyzed so that corrective actions can be taken.

This is why these moral facts must be factualized and explained so that they can be used as standards to guide moral actions that will optimize the moral well being of the individual and that of humanity.

Define "ought". It sounds like a French term that might have originally been something like, "thought" but they can't pronounce the 'th'.

Using the word 'ought' is like how one migh use a foreign term or expression to make the dull meaning, "should" seem undefinable in one's home language. What is the difference between "You shoulc do X" and "You ought to do X"?

You make distinctions against religion without a real difference. If one ''ought"(should) do something, what is the unit measure you use to scientifically determine this if it isn't merely an opinion of etiquette, like whether one 'ought' to face Mecca and prostrate themselves with a bow so many times a day?

What is fact is specific to its specific framework or paradigm.
In this case the "oughts" as moral facts are confined within the moral paradigm or framework

Note the meaning of 'ought';

• auxiliary verb
  (used to express duty or moral obligation):
  Every citizen ought to help.
  (used to express justice, moral rightness, or the like):
  He ought to be punished. You ought to be ashamed.
  (used to express propriety, appropriateness, etc.):
  You ought to be home early. We ought to bring her some flowers.
  (used to express probability or natural consequence):
  That ought to be our train now.
  noun
  duty or obligation.
  
  https://www.dictionary.com/browse/ought?s=t

Instead of duty or obligations,
it is noted from the above moral 'oughts' represent some actions that need to be carried out to meet certain defined moral objectives or standards.

As I had explained these objective and standards are the inherent moral facts that are verified and justified as Justified True Moral Beliefs which represent its referent in reality.
Since there are due processes of verification and justification within a Moral paradigm/framework similar to Science, such moral facts are independent of individuals' and groups' beliefs and opinion - thus objective.

Moral facts are something like scientific fact.
It is a biological fact, all humans are physically constructed to breathe, therefore all human 'ought' [actions imperative] to breathe, else they die. In a way, this is a biological ought and an ought of human nature.

Similarly there are 'oughts of human nature that are specific to morality [as defined above] i.e. dealt within the moral paradigm.

Note the definition of "paradigm" which is equivalent to the Moral Framework and System which I had posited.

• In science and philosophy, a paradigm (/ˈpærədaɪm/) is a distinct set of concepts or thought patterns, including theories, research methods, postulates, and standards for what constitutes legitimate contributions to a field.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradigm

[Scott Mayers]

In a way that is correct.
What is fact is a thing [subset] of reality, which in a way can cause effects and effects are also facts which can cause other effects.
Facts are things [subsets] of reality, but they are not things-in-themselves.


Nope, morality is never about 'rules' that are enforceable upon individuals or group.
Morality is not deontological like those of the pseudo-morality of theists with divine commands from a God that are imposed on the individuals and threatened with hell if they do not comply.

Morality as I had stated is about what humans ought-to or ought-not-to behave such that their related moral actions activated spontaneously will optimize the well-being [moral and overall] of the individual and therefrom to humanity.

The moral oughts should be aligned with moral facts that are inherent within ALL humans.
If there are any moral decisions and judgments which are out of alignment with the standard, the deviation must be analyzed so that corrective actions can be taken.

This is why these moral facts must be factualized and explained so that they can be used as standards to guide moral actions that will optimize the moral well being of the individual and that of humanity.

Define "ought". It sounds like a French term that might have originally been something like, "thought" but they can't pronounce the 'th'.

Using the word 'ought' is like how one migh use a foreign term or expression to make the dull meaning, "should" seem undefinable in one's home language. What is the difference between "You shoulc do X" and "You ought to do X"?

You make distinctions against religion without a real difference. If one ''ought"(should) do something, what is the unit measure you use to scientifically determine this if it isn't merely an opinion of etiquette, like whether one 'ought' to face Mecca and prostrate themselves with a bow so many times a day?

What is fact is specific to its specific framework or paradigm.
In this case the "oughts" as moral facts are confined within the moral paradigm or framework

Note the meaning of 'ought';

• auxiliary verb
  (used to express duty or moral obligation):
  Every citizen ought to help.
  (used to express justice, moral rightness, or the like):
  He ought to be punished. You ought to be ashamed.
  (used to express propriety, appropriateness, etc.):
  You ought to be home early. We ought to bring her some flowers.
  (used to express probability or natural consequence):
  That ought to be our train now.
  noun
  duty or obligation.
  
  https://www.dictionary.com/browse/ought?s=t

Instead of duty or obligations,
it is noted from the above moral 'oughts' represent some actions that need to be carried out to meet certain defined moral objectives or standards.

And I already asserted this to you before somewhere. That is, I asserted that you can use government as the place to define (and alter) "morality" in non-religious ways. They are CONDITIONS which increase the likelihood of comfort among people.

You also keep defining in a circular way. You cannot use the term 'moral' in a definition that you are using to define it. You asserted that morals are things you 'ought' to do. Then you define here that 'oughts' are actions needed to define morals. This is not a proper definition. Also, the above 'list' doesn't properly define your adjective. Or did you skip that and go to the examples? You correctly defined the noun but it leaves out the genus-species classification and properties that deliniate each member of 'oughts' from each other in a 'mutually exclusive' and 'exhaustive' way.

The form is:

X is a (general class) that has (specie properties) which differ from one another by (mutual exclusive distinction to other members of the same species).

Example: A dog is a (four legged mammal) that (barks). [cheap example and could be better defined using biological classifications]

As I had explained these objective and standards are the inherent moral facts that are verified and justified as Justified True Moral Beliefs which represent its referent in reality.
Since there are due processes of verification and justification within a Moral paradigm/framework similar to Science, such moral facts are independent of individuals' and groups' beliefs and opinion - thus objective.

Moral facts are something like scientific fact.
It is a biological fact, all humans are physically constructed to breathe, therefore all human 'ought' [actions imperative] to breathe, else they die. In a way, this is a biological ought and an ought of human nature.

The 'like' is a comparative or analogous addition that helps clarify what you mean after a formal defintion.

Your 'ought' here is actually 'should' which is non-compelling. You'd have to use something like MUST. But then that would expose your problem because if they 'must' breathe, it is necessary, as you intend, but shows that it would be a mere 'conditional':

IF (you are human), THEN (you must breathe).

But now compare this to some law one could make in politics:

If (you use your cell phone while driving), then (you will be fined $2000).


The law is more akin to what the religious morals do except the consequences are about what God might do, rather than the law.

If (you have sex with your neighbor's wife), then (you have sinned and will go to hell.)

Similarly there are 'oughts of human nature that are specific to morality [as defined above] i.e. dealt within the moral paradigm.

Note the definition of "paradigm" which is equivalent to the Moral Framework and System which I had posited.

• In science and philosophy, a paradigm (/ˈpærədaɪm/) is a distinct set of concepts or thought patterns, including theories, research methods, postulates, and standards for what constitutes legitimate contributions to a field.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradigm

A 'paradigm' is a whole distinct way of thinking and was defined as a ' distinct dimension (from 'digm' of thought derived by a culture within a particular era.) Example, "Newton's defined an era of "classical mechanics"; "Einstein initiated the paradigm of Relativity and quantum mechanics".

I'm not sure how you relate this other than that you might be thinking that you have a 'paradigm' of ethics theory that "removes the need to use religion as its foundation." I prefer to think of politics as the paradigm that might be appropriate to define a secular ethic, which includes any ethics department of some branch of educational instutite, business enterprise, and of course, legislative governments.

I'm trying to help you here, even if I disagree. I'd like to see you prove me wrong. But you need to define the details with absurd clarity or things become unclear and hard to prove to others. Have you attempted to read any Michael Shermer? He is one who would agree with you but may take a different route. Perhaps, if you haven't read anything from him, I recommend it as one that I am aware of like yourself? [Here is a lecture series of his and other similar thinkers: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AR-rMWsNxTA This is part one of three (?) called, "The Great Debate"]

[Veritas Aequitas]

And I already asserted this to you before somewhere. That is, I asserted that you can use government as the place to define (and alter) "morality" in non-religious ways. They are CONDITIONS which increase the likelihood of comfort among people.

I have argued strongly 'Morality' is independent of Politics [government].

You also keep defining in a circular way. You cannot use the term 'moral' in a definition that you are using to define it.
You asserted that morals are things you 'ought' to do.
Then you define here that 'oughts' are actions needed to define morals.
This is not a proper definition.
Also, the above 'list' doesn't properly define your adjective. Or did you skip that and go to the examples? You correctly defined the noun but it leaves out the genus-species classification and properties that deliniate each member of 'oughts' from each other in a 'mutually exclusive' and 'exhaustive' way.

The form is:

X is a (general class) that has (specie properties) which differ from one another by (mutual exclusive distinction to other members of the same species).

Example: A dog is a (four legged mammal) that (barks). [cheap example and could be better defined using biological classifications]

I don't see I am insisting 'oughts' are actions needed to define morals.

What I had done was;
I define 'Morality' as involving ought-to and ought-not-to actions.
Then I claim these ought-to and ought-not-to actions must be verified and justified empirically and philosophically as to be Justified True Moral Facts [JTMF].
These JTMF are to be used as standards and guides within a moral paradigm aka framework and system.
What I have presented is a model and a system of Morality.
I canNOT see where the above circular?

As I had explained these objective and standards are the inherent moral facts that are verified and justified as Justified True Moral Beliefs which represent its referent in reality.
Since there are due processes of verification and justification within a Moral paradigm/framework similar to Science, such moral facts are independent of individuals' and groups' beliefs and opinion - thus objective.

Moral facts are something like scientific fact.
It is a biological fact, all humans are physically constructed to breathe, therefore all human 'ought' [actions imperative] to breathe, else they die. In a way, this is a biological ought and an ought of human nature.

The 'like' is a comparative or analogous addition that helps clarify what you mean after a formal definition.

Your 'ought' here is actually 'should' which is non-compelling. You'd have to use something like MUST. But then that would expose your problem because if they 'must' breathe, it is necessary, as you intend, but shows that it would be a mere 'conditional':

IF (you are human), THEN (you must breathe).

But now compare this to some law one could make in politics:

If (you use your cell phone while driving), then (you will be fined $2000).


The law is more akin to what the religious morals do except the consequences are about what God might do, rather than the law.

If (you have sex with your neighbor's wife), then (you have sinned and will go to hell.)

As I had stated Morality is independent of Politics. Theistic commands are pseudo-morality.

Morality is very natural and confined to the individual's freewill and spontaneity.
All human are "programmed" with a drive to breathe and all normal humans will naturally breathe spontaneously and freely without the need for any external coercion.
Whilst not as obvious as the drive to breathe, morality is also an natural inherent drive which is represented by a neural algorithm. The difference is the moral potential in all human vary in degrees of activeness.

The objective of a moral framework and system is thus to trigger the natural moral drive so that is flows* naturally and spontaneously towards its various objectives.
* something like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_(psychology)

Similarly there are 'oughts of human nature that are specific to morality [as defined above] i.e. dealt within the moral paradigm.

Note the definition of "paradigm" which is equivalent to the Moral Framework and System which I had posited.

• In science and philosophy, a paradigm (/ˈpærədaɪm/) is a distinct set of concepts or thought patterns, including theories, research methods, postulates, and standards for what constitutes legitimate contributions to a field.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradigm

A 'paradigm' is a whole distinct way of thinking and was defined as a ' distinct dimension (from 'digm' of thought derived by a culture within a particular era.) Example, "Newton's defined an era of "classical mechanics"; "Einstein initiated the paradigm of Relativity and quantum mechanics".

I'm not sure how you relate this other than that you might be thinking that you have a 'paradigm' of ethics theory that "removes the need to use religion as its foundation." I prefer to think of politics as the paradigm that might be appropriate to define a secular ethic, which includes any ethics department of some branch of educational instutite, business enterprise, and of course, legislative governments.

I strongly insist Morality is independent of Politics [power of the people and most of the time - the few].
Morality is something that is self-governing.
Within natural morality, the individual is the legislature, the moral agent, the police, the prosecutor, the judge and the jury - all happening within his brain/mind and body.

Paradigm can be in a very wide sense and I using it in the narrower sense. What I have not done is to present the full perspective of what is the Morality & Ethics paradigm from my POV, which must be verified and justified empirically and philosophically.

I'm trying to help you here, even if I disagree. I'd like to see you prove me wrong. But you need to define the details with absurd clarity or things become unclear and hard to prove to others. Have you attempted to read any Michael Shermer? He is one who would agree with you but may take a different route. Perhaps, if you haven't read anything from him, I recommend it as one that I am aware of like yourself? [Here is a lecture series of his and other similar thinkers: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AR-rMWsNxTA This is part one of three (?) called, "The Great Debate"]

Appreciate your feedbacks and I had provided the relevant counters.
I have read Shermer's Moral Arc sometime ago where he is banking on Science which I am also doing the same thing but we are on different paths.

btw, do you have any comments on my definition of 'well being' here;
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=30983

[Belinda]

Veritas Aequitas, you claim morality is independent of politics. But you did not specify whose morality, or to what degree the morals of whoever are independent of politics.

There are powerful media industries, some of them in bed with , or instantiated by, politicians, for altering people's morals.Violence is not always physical violence like breaking bones. It can also be the slower Chinese torture of drip drip drip day after day until the individuals are alienated from hope and curiosity. Dark Satanic mills have changed in outward appearance perhaps gone rusty but still hold the labour force captive.

[Scott Mayers]

Veritas,

You still need a definition that is 'formal'. You cannot use "morality is about...." as a formal definition. That hints at what it may involve but needs something of the genus-specie type to be clear.

"Morality" is (the set of beliefs one or more people hold) that (describes what they believe should (or ought-to) do in light of given conditions and options.)

That is just one I made up now. The 'genus' would be the general class of things that something belongs to. The species would be the specific factors that differentiate between other things of the same general class.


With that kind of definition you can then expand upon what it entails with examples.

"For example, given that you overhear one of your best friends speak about robbing a bank [condition], what should you do?[consequent]."

Narrowing the options to these, if these were the only possible things you could do, which option is optimal?
(1) Do nothing and pretend you didn't hear.
(2) Call the police and let them know what you heard.
(3) Confront your friend to determine if what you heard was literally true.
(4) Blackmail her to share the wealth.

The topic is usually in the domain of Sociology, Psychology, or variations of the two, like "Interpersonal Relationships" or "Social Psychology". At least they all relate to the general class of 'sociology' and/or 'social studies' of some sort. This means that the subject itself is inexact and hard to be comparable to an exact science like physics or chemistry. But if you wanted to try that, then you might want to look into something like Artificial Intelligence and computing (since the act of decision making on the hard physical level may demonstrate how something purely logical can lead to some specific set of 'moral' constructs of behavior.)

I proposed to you "windows of development" before, something that to me DEFINES what we will interpret as 'good', 'comfortable' and 'pleasant' things. Those you want to avoid are their evaluative complements.

For example, see this article: Your Baby's Brain: Critical Window of Opportunity

Although that particular one may not directly discuss morals, it does discuss how a baby develops behaviors that get 'assigned' value.

Another idea to look up, but somewhat demonstrates why I would doubt morals have any universally specific consequences, might be "the Trolley thought experiments. See Trolley Problem. These may not be what you might agree to but could hint at how you could demonstrate how to narrow down problems to specific possible options that may hide something you could determine universally within them. Moral problems do tend to come up in these kinds of dilemmas.

I'm not sure that I can help much further at present because I too once thought that there had to be something universally and unequivocally 'virtuous' of behavior across any possible options. I'm not so hopeful now because I see it come down to 'politics' that have only conditional benefits AND drawbacks to every action because you cannot please everyone all the time without someone somewhere requiring to sacrifice their own comforts.

Is it 'right' to use a gun on someone who breaks into your house if you are not aware of who they are or whether they too have a gun or some other weapon?

You might say, yes. But then you discover that your neighbor's kid was shot by his parent when sneaking in at night through a window. For all we know this was a convenient set up that a homicidal parent planned for some reaso or another.

This is a complex subject area that has been discussed and debated through time. You need to look at those who ARE religious to see what reasoning they used to justify religious moral laws, like the Ten Commandments.

I hope this helps.??

[Advocate]

[quote=odysseus post_id=481303 time=1606163846 user_id=15698]
[quote] Advocate wrote
You misunderstand how language works. Every word has a meaning. There are no exceptions. Knowledge claims are simply that which continues to be the case when validated. We Know about the world that which evidence gives us Reason to believe. There is no transcendent definition of knowledge possible, nor would one be useful. Knowledge is justified belief, regardless of whether it fails later due to additional evidence not available now. My own philosophy is completely existential and completely transparent (or at least translucent until you understand which technical uses certain words require). There is no necessity of reading any of Hegel or Kierkegaard to develop a completely coherent existential philosophy including both metaphysics and epistemology, as is the way i have done it.[/quote]

But you have to go into it: Meaning? What is this? What does it mean to have a knowledge claim validated? That is, If I know P is true, what is this truth makes this relation between P and myself what we call truth? Transcendent definition of knowldge? I don't know where this comes from, but for me to call it transcendent is simply to discard the common 'material' or 'substance' and to give it a more descriptive designation. I refer to presence, which I am currently studying. The giveness of things that is freighted into discussion by language. I don't know what giveness is and I want to understand this. How do I have a misunderstanding?

Kierkegaard is extremely helpful, and Husserl and Fink are amazing! Levinas is an extension of these. And on on. The one thing reading gives you is an opening into philosophical disclosure you never thought of. Kierkegaard was simply a great thinking genius. Why not read what he has to say in The Concept of Anxiety? The you can say with confidence that it wasn't necessary; but then, you will certainly NOT being saying this. His thinking is powerful (forget, however, that, as Heidegger put it, K was a religious writer. After all, The world IS a religious place).

But on the other hand, do tell about this "completely coherent existential philosophy including both metaphysics and epistemology" of yours.
[/quote]

Validation is replication. If things keep happening the same way, that gives you predictive certainty, which is the purpose of all knowledge, wisdom, and understanding. To the extent we agree that things keep happening the same way, we call that reality.

The transcendent definition of knowledge is typically "justified true belief" which is literally impossible because the truth of the claim is what knowledge is a pointer toward. A claim is true if it continues to validate, which cannot be part of the initial contention. The transcendence is in referencing truth. The Truth is out there, and we can't know it. The part we can know, we can Only know by replication. Both science and logic worth that way.

I lost you with "giveness". Let me look that up... You mean malleability?

I don't rely upon the understandings of dead people, but on logical necessity. Every philosophical question has been independently derived and answered many times. It's not important where you get the ideas from at all. You'll go further in philosophy by concentrating on the ideas than on the people/history, IMO. It's one of the main reasons academic philosophy is stalled.

"Coherence" is one of a list of attributes i contend that the "best" world view/philosophy must meet. It's a separate discussion what other attributes there must be and etc. But as for meeting them, the test of the value of a thought is in whether there are exceptions - whether it's good Enough. My claim is that my answers (not solutions) are sufficient for All philosophical questions, and likewise that metaphysics and epistemology are inseparable. Are you interested in the attributes of the best philosophy or in examples of how they can be met?

[odysseus]

Atla wrote
1. A general issue: It's not really a unity, but simply non-separation. There is no known separation in the universe: there is no known separation between the noumenal vase, between the noumenal vibrations that travel from the vase to the human, between the noumenal human senses, between the phenomenal vase that appears in the human head ie. the 'known', and between the phenomenal subject ie. the 'knower'. Also, this appears to be fully confirmed by science, and no it's not intuitive, it's counter-intuitive.

You can't talk about noumena that way. The word was conceived to say that this is exactly what cannot be said. Confirmed by science? By definition, noumen(a) are not empirical, and science can say nothing about the matter. It is unspeakable.

2. A specific issue: Knower and known are one and the same very literally. Not 'perhaps'. There is just the process of knowing, so to speak. Most of the Western philosophers were confused fools who fell for the illusion of the separate self, and then made this separate self have relationship with separate 'objects'. Be it outside objects or phenomenal objects. But the self is also just a phenomenal happening. The knower is a bunch of thoughts etc. in the head, and the known is a bunch of thoughts etc. in the head, sometimes the same thoughts, you can't separate them like that.

This kind of talk issues from the assumption that all are one and the same. You have to explain this. If you say it is just intuitively coercive, then you would have to give an example of something that is intuitively coercive so that one can compare and see if the concept makes sense. If you say the unity is sui generis then you are probably not making sense. Here is an example of intuitive coercivity: causality. No choice; you can't even imagine something moving by itself.

So there can be nothing shocking about the relationship between knower and known, because there is no relationship at all, that could have ontological significance. There are only the relationships we make up, in our thinking. And as usual, there are probably major gender differences here as well.

So no, we don't (always) start where everyday experience leaves off, that's a faulty premise. Obviously.

It's a lovely thing to say. I do like your, err, off the wall approach to doing metaphysics. Alas, it goes no where: If it were true that there is no disunity at the level of basic questions of ontology, that things are essentially one, then you need to talk about this "one" and say how it is that the apparent manifold of what experience shows us is just illusion. Like I said earlier, Hindus talk like this, but their claims are revelatory, that is, grounded in a real discovery of the unity when the atman is confirmed to really be the Brahman in deep meditation. Of course, the Vedanta has something to say about levels of revelatory discovery. See Sir John Woodroffe in his World as Power.

"A faulty premise. Obviously." I would say this applies to the premise that all is one, which is given as an axiom not to be questioned. It's not that it's not true, but it is trivially stated. I might say, all weather is just molecular transaction. True! But the wind in my face is not reducible to this. If you were being tortured in a medieval dungeon, and I reduced it all to something else, like atomic energy release, or brain activity and C fibers firing, OR: it is all just one and since your horrible pain is just an illusion of singularity (for suffering is not everywhere, but is here, in this locality called you), it's not really happening at all.

You have a lot of explaining to do.

[Atla]

Forget the Brahman, and this 'all are one' talk. That general issue is only relevant to the nature of consciousness / the nature of being. It's not really relevant to the individual knower/known distinction.

You can't talk about noumena that way. The word was conceived to say that this is exactly what cannot be said. Confirmed by science? By definition, noumen(a) are not empirical, and science can say nothing about the matter. It is unspeakable.

Yeah I don't really understand Kant's usage. Then what is it called that is speakable, but not phenomena?

This kind of talk issues from the assumption that all are one and the same. You have to explain this. If you say it is just intuitively coercive, then you would have to give an example of something that is intuitively coercive so that one can compare and see if the concept makes sense. If you say the unity is sui generis then you are probably not making sense. Here is an example of intuitive coercivity: causality. No choice; you can't even imagine something moving by itself.

Non-separateness does not mean that all things are the same. There are differences, but no separations.

[odysseus]

Advocate wrote
Validation is replication. If things keep happening the same way, that gives you predictive certainty, which is the purpose of all knowledge, wisdom, and understanding. To the extent we agree that things keep happening the same way, we call that reality.

well, it gives you predicative near certainty, or for all intents and purposes certainty, but not apodictic certainty. But sure, that is what "we call" reality. Keep in mind that not too long ago they used to call this interpretative familiarity God and the world was Christendom. That is, dont' get too comfortable with what "we call" designates.

The transcendent definition of knowledge is typically "justified true belief" which is literally impossible because the truth of the claim is what knowledge is a pointer toward. A claim is true if it continues to validate, which cannot be part of the initial contention. The transcendence is in referencing truth. The Truth is out there, and we can't know it. The part we can know, we can Only know by replication. Both science and logic worth that way.

Why do you call it the "transcendent definition"? Anyway, if you say the "truth is out there" but not accessible, and all we can know is replication, you have something there: Replication, I surmise, is what memory dishes up when you have a familiar encounter in the world. The human personality Foucault once said, is History ventriloquizing. When we speak, think, where does this come from if not the modelled verbal behavior observed as a child? We simply internalized it, as did they, and this puts the sovereignty of the self into serious question.

I lost you with "giveness". Let me look that up... You mean malleability?

It is a tough issue to see for most. There is what we say about the world, what we think and understand and can put forward as an idea; then there is the actuality that presents itself. Consider the former being absent. The actuality steps forward into the space the understanding usually puts language. It sits there, undefined, without context to place it and pin it down. I think Buddhists, accomplished ones, see the world like this: the world free of the reductive power of language.

I don't rely upon the understandings of dead people, but on logical necessity. Every philosophical question has been independently derived and answered many times. It's not important where you get the ideas from at all. You'll go further in philosophy by concentrating on the ideas than on the people/history, IMO. It's one of the main reasons academic philosophy is stalled.

Dead people..dead people..Oh, you mean Kierkegaard. He is not a person anymore, but a source for interpreting the world. We just say Kierkegaard this and that, but what we really mean is his ideas. He as the source of his thinking is really just incidental. I bring his thinking up because his ideas are very interesting.
Academic philosophy knows Kierkegaard is dead, and their references to him are just a short hand for his ideas.

"Coherence" is one of a list of attributes i contend that the "best" world view/philosophy must meet. It's a separate discussion what other attributes there must be and etc. But as for meeting them, the test of the value of a thought is in whether there are exceptions - whether it's good Enough. My claim is that my answers (not solutions) are sufficient for All philosophical questions, and likewise that metaphysics and epistemology are inseparable. Are you interested in the attributes of the best philosophy or in examples of how they can be met?

Sufficient, are they. Do tell. Attributes of the best philosophy and how they can be met. Continue.