What could make morality objective?

[Veritas Aequitas]

At most even with linguistic rules, you are merely using language to grapple with reality that is an ASSUMPTION which is an illusion.

OTOH, the anti-Philosophical-Realism [Kantian] start with real empirical evidences and based on a top-down approach merge human consciousness with the actual experience to realize an emergence of reality. There is no assumption here but merely basing on real empirical evidences couple with philosophical reasoning [specific FSK] to justify the realization - that is reality.
This is obviously objective and grounded on intersubjectivity.

The above principles is applicable to how to derive objective moral facts [from a credible Moral FSK] which is independent of the descriptions of such objective moral facts.

....
'Reality' has nothing to do with description or the 'truth'.
So what is that "reality" really-is that is Outside Language which is not linguistic.

Point is, there is no way you can realize or get to "what reality really-is".
The only way is that you have to ASSUME such a reality exists but is absolutely independent of the human conditions, i.e. Philosophical Realism.
When you ASSUME you are banking on a illusion.

What exactly is the reality-that-really-is to which we can have no access? And what evidence is there for its existence?

Why is the dog sleeping in front of my fire an illusion? And how can we have 'real empirical evidence' of an illusion?

This is mystical claptrap.

Your above question to answer a question is a very empty counter.
You did not realize you are the one who is entrapped in a mystical claptrap and being delusional as with all the Philosophical Realists.

At the conventional sense, the dog sleeping in from of my fire is a real empirical dog which I can interact with physically; if any one were to insist on sound verifications and justification my real empirical dog can be verified & justified at the most credible level within the scientific FSK
This view is "empirical realism" [philosophically] which is not absolutely independent of the human conditions.


OTOH, at the philosophical level of consideration, you will accept the scientific justification but you are not accepting 'empirical realism', rather you insist that your view is Philosophical Realism [PR], note;

Philosophical realism is usually not treated as a position of its own but as a stance towards other subject matters. Realism about a certain kind of thing (like numbers or morality) is the thesis that this kind of thing has mind-independent existence, i.e. that it is not just a mere appearance in the eye of the beholder.[1][2][3] This includes a number of positions within epistemology and metaphysics which express that a given thing instead exists independently of knowledge, thought, or understanding.[4]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

This is the basis where you rely on PR and insist on 'it is the case' or a 'matter of fact' which is not realistic at all where you have to rely on an ASSUMPTION which is the illusion.
Fact [philosophically] it is impossible for your assumption to exists nor be verified, justified nor concluded at all.

In my top-down approach I merely limited by Empirical Realism to what can be justified by empirical evidences with the most credible FSK, i.e. the scientific FSK reinforced with philosophical reasonings based on Transcendental Idealism.

It is also from the top-down approach that I can realize objective moral facts from MY proposed [credible] Moral FSK.

So I'll ask again,
PH: 'Reality' has nothing to do with description or the 'truth'.

So what is that "reality" really-is that "has to do with description or the 'truth'" is Outside Language and is not linguistic?
Don't throw me another question and I want sound justifications for your bottom-up claim.

[Peter Holmes]

At most even with linguistic rules, you are merely using language to grapple with reality that is an ASSUMPTION which is an illusion.

OTOH, the anti-Philosophical-Realism [Kantian] start with real empirical evidences and based on a top-down approach merge human consciousness with the actual experience to realize an emergence of reality. There is no assumption here but merely basing on real empirical evidences couple with philosophical reasoning [specific FSK] to justify the realization - that is reality.
This is obviously objective and grounded on intersubjectivity.

The above principles is applicable to how to derive objective moral facts [from a credible Moral FSK] which is independent of the descriptions of such objective moral facts.

....
'Reality' has nothing to do with description or the 'truth'.
So what is that "reality" really-is that is Outside Language which is not linguistic.

Point is, there is no way you can realize or get to "what reality really-is".
The only way is that you have to ASSUME such a reality exists but is absolutely independent of the human conditions, i.e. Philosophical Realism.
When you ASSUME you are banking on a illusion.

What exactly is the reality-that-really-is to which we can have no access? And what evidence is there for its existence?

Why is the dog sleeping in front of my fire an illusion? And how can we have 'real empirical evidence' of an illusion?

This is mystical claptrap.

Your above question to answer a question is a very empty counter.
You did not realize you are the one who is entrapped in a mystical claptrap and being delusional as with all the Philosophical Realists.

At the conventional sense, the dog sleeping in from of my fire is a real empirical dog which I can interact with physically; if any one were to insist on sound verifications and justification my real empirical dog can be verified & justified at the most credible level within the scientific FSK
This view is "empirical realism" [philosophically] which is not absolutely independent of the human conditions.


OTOH, at the philosophical level of consideration, you will accept the scientific justification but you are not accepting 'empirical realism', rather you insist that your view is Philosophical Realism [PR], note;

Philosophical realism is usually not treated as a position of its own but as a stance towards other subject matters. Realism about a certain kind of thing (like numbers or morality) is the thesis that this kind of thing has mind-independent existence, i.e. that it is not just a mere appearance in the eye of the beholder.[1][2][3] This includes a number of positions within epistemology and metaphysics which express that a given thing instead exists independently of knowledge, thought, or understanding.[4]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

This is the basis where you rely on PR and insist on 'it is the case' or a 'matter of fact' which is not realistic at all where you have to rely on an ASSUMPTION which is the illusion.
Fact [philosophically] it is impossible for your assumption to exists nor be verified, justified nor concluded at all.

In my top-down approach I merely limited by Empirical Realism to what can be justified by empirical evidences with the most credible FSK, i.e. the scientific FSK reinforced with philosophical reasonings based on Transcendental Idealism.

It is also from the top-down approach that I can realize objective moral facts from MY proposed [credible] Moral FSK.

So I'll ask again,
PH: 'Reality' has nothing to do with description or the 'truth'.

So what is that "reality" really-is that "has to do with description or the 'truth'" is Outside Language and is not linguistic?
Don't throw me another question and I want sound justifications for your bottom-up claim.

To repeat: what exactly is the reality-as-it-really-is to which we can have no access? What evidence is there for its existence? You have not answered those questions, and the burden of proof is yours. I merely reject your claim as unsupported. There's nothing top-down or bottom-up about this.

And, by the way, your appeal to empiricism - a defunct foundationalist theory of knowledge - doesn't help your case. And you seem unaware of empiricist skepticism, which is a necessary consequence of the claim that knowledge comes from experience.

[Skepdick]

And you seem unaware of empiricist skepticism, which is a necessary consequence of the claim that knowledge comes from experience.

Well where does it come from then?

How do you know you are reading this sentence right now?

Queue up the circular response: "I know because I am reading it."

[Veritas Aequitas]

To repeat: what exactly is the reality-as-it-really-is to which we can have no access? What evidence is there for its existence? You have not answered those questions, and the burden of proof is yours. I merely reject your claim as unsupported. There's nothing top-down or bottom-up about this.

And, by the way, your appeal to empiricism - a defunct foundationalist theory of knowledge - doesn't help your case. And you seem unaware of empiricist skepticism, which is a necessary consequence of the claim that knowledge comes from experience.

You forgot?? you are the one who made the claim there is a reality that is independent of language, linguistic and the description of that-reality. Note this post of yours;

What we call facts are just features of reality that are or were the case.
Outside language, reality is not linguistic - the existence and nature of things have nothing to do with language, and so nothing to do with descriptions or their truth.

What we call descriptions are contextual or perspectival. So truth-claims are always contextual or perspectival.

To say facts are contextual or perspectival is to mistake descriptions for the described, the map for the terrain, the model for the thing being modelled.
The fashionable but asinine claim that 'all models are wrong, but some are useful' comes from the same delusion.

Without (necessarily flexible) rules for linguistic practice, talk of any kind about anything is impossible. Expressing an objection to the rules is pissing in the wind. What can the objection mean?

In your above post you are implying the reality [in bold] that is
-beyond language and linguistic,
-existence and nature of things,
-the described,
-the terrain,
-the thing being modelled,
all of the above are supposed to be absolutely independent of the human conditions.

So I am asking you what is that-reality really-is that is beyond language & linguistic etc.

As mentioned if the above refer to empirical things verifiable and justifiable by science, I agree with that but only on the basis of Philosophical Empirical Realism.

OTOH, your claim to that is of Philosophical Realism which is unrealistic.

Empiricism?? that is a strawman.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism
Nah! I am not into that.
I have already stated my basis is that of Philosophical Empirical Realism reinforced with Philosophical Transcendental Idealism.

You familiar with this? "Turtles_all_the_way_down" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down

Note in the top-down approach we start with the empirical turtle downward till as far as the empirical evidence and philosophical reasoning can support our claim.

OTOH, your philosophical bottom-up approach assume a MOTHER-of-ALL-TURTLES at the bottom and work its way up which cannot be reconciled with evidenced-based empirical reality.

I'll ask again.
So what is that "reality" really-is that "has nothing to do with description or the 'truth'" is Outside Language and is not linguistic?
Don't throw me another question and I want sound justifications for your bottom-up claim.

[Peter Holmes]

To repeat: what exactly is the reality-as-it-really-is to which we can have no access? What evidence is there for its existence? You have not answered those questions, and the burden of proof is yours. I merely reject your claim as unsupported. There's nothing top-down or bottom-up about this.

And, by the way, your appeal to empiricism - a defunct foundationalist theory of knowledge - doesn't help your case. And you seem unaware of empiricist skepticism, which is a necessary consequence of the claim that knowledge comes from experience.

You forgot?? you are the one who made the claim there is a reality that is independent of language, linguistic and the description of that-reality. Note this post of yours;

What we call facts are just features of reality that are or were the case.
Outside language, reality is not linguistic - the existence and nature of things have nothing to do with language, and so nothing to do with descriptions or their truth.

What we call descriptions are contextual or perspectival. So truth-claims are always contextual or perspectival.

To say facts are contextual or perspectival is to mistake descriptions for the described, the map for the terrain, the model for the thing being modelled.
The fashionable but asinine claim that 'all models are wrong, but some are useful' comes from the same delusion.

Without (necessarily flexible) rules for linguistic practice, talk of any kind about anything is impossible. Expressing an objection to the rules is pissing in the wind. What can the objection mean?

In your above post you are implying the reality [in bold] that is
-beyond language and linguistic,
-existence and nature of things,
-the described,
-the terrain,
-the thing being modelled,
all of the above are supposed to be absolutely independent of the human conditions.

So I am asking you what is that-reality really-is that is beyond language & linguistic etc.

As mentioned if the above refer to empirical things verifiable and justifiable by science, I agree with that but only on the basis of Philosophical Empirical Realism.

OTOH, your claim to that is of Philosophical Realism which is unrealistic.

Empiricism?? that is a strawman.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism
Nah! I am not into that.
I have already stated my basis is that of Philosophical Empirical Realism reinforced with Philosophical Transcendental Idealism.

You familiar with this? "Turtles_all_the_way_down" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down

Note in the top-down approach we start with the empirical turtle downward till as far as the empirical evidence and philosophical reasoning can support our claim.

OTOH, your philosophical bottom-up approach assume a MOTHER-of-ALL-TURTLES at the bottom and work its way up which cannot be reconciled with evidenced-based empirical reality.

I'll ask again.
So what is that "reality" really-is that "has nothing to do with description or the 'truth'" is Outside Language and is not linguistic?
Don't throw me another question and I want sound justifications for your bottom-up claim.

To repeat: what exactly is the reality-as-it-really-is to which we can have no access? What evidence is there for its existence? You have not answered those questions, and the burden of proof is yours. I merely reject your claim as unsupported.

If, instead, you think there is no reality-as-it-really-is - there are no Kantian things-in-themselves - then why does knowing and describing things lead to infinite regress? If it's turtles all the way down, it's also turtles all the way up.

[Veritas Aequitas]

To repeat: what exactly is the reality-as-it-really-is to which we can have no access? What evidence is there for its existence? You have not answered those questions, and the burden of proof is yours. I merely reject your claim as unsupported. There's nothing top-down or bottom-up about this.

And, by the way, your appeal to empiricism - a defunct foundationalist theory of knowledge - doesn't help your case. And you seem unaware of empiricist skepticism, which is a necessary consequence of the claim that knowledge comes from experience.

You forgot?? you are the one who made the claim there is a reality that is independent of language, linguistic and the description of that-reality. Note this post of yours;

What we call facts are just features of reality that are or were the case.
Outside language, reality is not linguistic - the existence and nature of things have nothing to do with language, and so nothing to do with descriptions or their truth.

What we call descriptions are contextual or perspectival. So truth-claims are always contextual or perspectival.

To say facts are contextual or perspectival is to mistake descriptions for the described, the map for the terrain, the model for the thing being modelled.
The fashionable but asinine claim that 'all models are wrong, but some are useful' comes from the same delusion.

Without (necessarily flexible) rules for linguistic practice, talk of any kind about anything is impossible. Expressing an objection to the rules is pissing in the wind. What can the objection mean?

In your above post you are implying the reality [in bold] that is
-beyond language and linguistic,
-existence and nature of things,
-the described,
-the terrain,
-the thing being modelled,
all of the above are supposed to be absolutely independent of the human conditions.

So I am asking you what is that-reality really-is that is beyond language & linguistic etc.

As mentioned if the above refer to empirical things verifiable and justifiable by science, I agree with that but only on the basis of Philosophical Empirical Realism.

OTOH, your claim to that is of Philosophical Realism which is unrealistic.

Empiricism?? that is a strawman.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism
Nah! I am not into that.
I have already stated my basis is that of Philosophical Empirical Realism reinforced with Philosophical Transcendental Idealism.

You familiar with this? "Turtles_all_the_way_down" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down

Note in the top-down approach we start with the empirical turtle downward till as far as the empirical evidence and philosophical reasoning can support our claim.

OTOH, your philosophical bottom-up approach assume a MOTHER-of-ALL-TURTLES at the bottom and work its way up which cannot be reconciled with evidenced-based empirical reality.

I'll ask again.
So what is that "reality" really-is that "has nothing to do with description or the 'truth'" is Outside Language and is not linguistic?
Don't throw me another question and I want sound justifications for your bottom-up claim.

To repeat: what exactly is the reality-as-it-really-is to which we can have no access? What evidence is there for its existence? You have not answered those questions, and the burden of proof is yours. I merely reject your claim as unsupported.

You definitely have not read my post thoroughly.
Read it again.

I explained the onus is not on me but you.
You are the one who is claiming "there is a reality you don't access to" base on your Philosophical Realism stance, so you have to justify and 'prove' it, not me.

Read my post again and explain what you don't understand with it.

If, instead, you think there is no reality-as-it-really-is - there are no Kantian things-in-themselves - then why does knowing and describing things lead to infinite regress? If it's turtles all the way down, it's also turtles all the way up.

I hope you have the wisdom and intelligence to understand the points you raised above.

PH:then why does knowing and describing things lead to infinite regress?

What is critical here is the 'knowing' of things.
This 'knowing' must be based on the most credible FSK we have i.e. science plus the highest levels of philosophical reasoning, so it is not Empiricism [or Scientism]. In this case we are dealing with what is really real based on justified empirical evidences.
But the 'things' here is not absolutely external things but rather they are emergent[s].

Emergent[s] mean these external things emerged from the same 'soup' of reality [all there is] humans are intricately entangled with and part & parcel of.
As such reality - all there is - and things there in cannot be independent of the human conditions based on the principles of determinations since the Big Bang.
I believe this point is your 'bottle-neck' of knowledge, cognition and realization, you just don't have the cognitive capacity to cognize and understand this knowledge. Yet you are so arrogant with your archaic [kindergarten] knowledge of reality.

So 'knowing' of external things via the scientific FSK is one perspective but at a more refine perspective, we are spontaneously realizing the thing prior to knowing it.
This is why there is no Kantian Things-by-Themselves rather there are Things-emerging-with-ourselves.

It is very natural to dig down from whatever emerge to know deeper emergent[s], e.g. from physical solid things we want to know the deeper emergent constituents i.e. to molecules, atoms, nucleus, electron, quarks and particles.

But the caveat is we should stop to claim of real things that can only be verified and justified as scientific facts plus philosophical reasonings [re Russell's no-man's-land] and not driven by an impulse of infinite regress.
For example I can speculate of empirical possible human-like aliens in a planet 100 light years away in another galaxy. [the bold are all empirically possible] So it is a matter of producing the empirical possibilities for verification.

But your MOTHER-of-ALL-TURTLES is merely thought but not empirically possible. It is like speculating a square-circle, God, soul, and the likes.

Why all humans are inclined and the majority are active to cling to an infinite regress is due to a psychological issue driven by an inherent existential crisis. To ascertain the MOTHER-of-ALL-TURTLES [bottom-up] is like a very desperate addiction, lust and craving [albeit subliminal] for infinite regress to seek consonance.

What is the advantage or benefits if you can ascertain what is the MOTHER-of-ALL-TURTLES to seal the infinite regress with a finality.
The only benefit with the finality of an infinite regress is, you get a psychological comfort to soothe the inherent cognitive dissonance within.
This is what theists are resorting in forcing the end of the infinite regress with the illusory God.
You are doing the same with epistemology by resorting to Philosophical Realism.

If it's turtles all the way down, it's also turtles all the way up.
In this case you find there will always be a big reality GAP between turtles-down and turtle-up.
There is no way and it is impossible you can close this Gap due to the Equivocation Fallacy.

I'll ask again.
So what is that "reality" really-is that "has nothing to do with description or the 'truth'" is Outside Language and is not linguistic?
Don't throw me another question and I want sound justifications for your bottom-up claim.

[Peter Holmes]

Veritas Aequitas

Here's my diagnosis of our disagreement. My starting point is what could be called a methodological taxonomy. I think there are three separate and different things, which it's a mistake to muddle up, as follows.

1 Features of reality that are or were the case. (The branch of philosophy that deals with these is ontology.)

2 What we believe or know about these features of reality. (The branch of philosophy that deals with this is epistemology.)

3 What we say about features of reality, which (in classical logic) may be true or false, given the way we use the words of other signs involved, in context. (Logic deals with what can be said consistently, without contradiction, in context.)

But, seduced by some once-fashionable but tired post-modern canards, you reject the distinction between my #1 and #2 - between ontology and epistemology - and that's where you go wrong.

If reality-as-it-really-is (?) doesn't exist, and if what exists is only what we believe or know (within a credible FSK) exists, then three things follow.

i Our universe, its contents, and their properties exist only because we believe or know they exist - which is patent nonsense.

ii If we don't know or believe a thing exists, then it doesn't exist - which is patent nonsense.

iii The supposed credibility or reliability of an FSK rests on nothing but what we believe or know within the FSK - which is circular.

iv A supposed morality FSK has the same credibility or reliability as any other: none whatsoever.

I have no idea what reality-as-it-really-is really is. I think it's a post-Kantian delusion. So there's no point in asking me to explain what it is. I just think there are features of reality that are or were the case - which is what you deny - with the above absurd consequences.

I don't suppose you'll understand why this demolishes your argument, or even bother to think it through carefully. Hey ho.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Veritas Aequitas

Here's my diagnosis of our disagreement. My starting point is what could be called a methodological taxonomy. I think there are three separate and different things, which it's a mistake to muddle up, as follows.

1 Features of reality that are or were the case. (The branch of philosophy that deals with these is ontology.)

Commonly proposed categories [of Ontology] include substances, properties, relations, states of affairs and events. WIKI.
So it appear your reference to ontology is that of 'states of affairs'.

In your case, you have,
Features of reality [X] that are or were the case.
My question is, what is that X in the real sense that has features that were the case?
As I had stated you are merely assuming there is a pre-existing X that has features that were the case.

OTOH, my approach to ontology [empirical] is that is based on emergence which is verified and justified with empirical evidence with philosophical reasonings.
What you are totally blind is the concept of emergence.
Re Emergence, I don't assume a pre-existing X but rather ground my ontology on emergence with empirical evidences.

So I ask what is that real X in the real sense?

2 What we believe or know about these features of reality. (The branch of philosophy that deals with this is epistemology.)

My epistemology of reality [the emergence] is based on verification and justification of empirical evidence with philosophical reasonings.

OTOH your epistemology is grounded on an assume illusion of reality=X which you do not and cannot know directly at all.

3 What we say about features of reality, which (in classical logic) may be true or false, given the way we use the words of other signs involved, in context. (Logic deals with what can be said consistently, without contradiction, in context.)

Nah! logic is very limited.
In this case you are not dealing with reality itself [the particulars] but rather based on abstracted universals, i.e. common features of things rather than the particular things.
As such you are merely dealing with an illusion of things rather than the real specific particular things.

But, seduced by some once-fashionable but tired post-modern canards, you reject the distinction between my #1 and #2 - between ontology and epistemology - and that's where you go wrong.

In 1 I am dealing with reality as it is, i.e. what-can-be-evidenced-&-Justified is the reality in entanglement with the human conditions.
You are ignoring reality is all-there-is, where humans and things are intricately part and parcel of, i.e. EMERGENCE, i.e. reality emerges spontaneously with the human conditions.

In 1 you are making an ASSUMPTION there is a pre-existing reality which one can epistemologized on.

If reality-as-it-really-is (?) doesn't exist, and if what exists is only what we believe or know (within a credible FSK) exists, then three things follow.

i Our universe, its contents, and their properties exist only because we believe or know they exist - which is patent nonsense.

ii If we don't know or believe a thing exists, then it doesn't exist - which is patent nonsense.

iii The supposed credibility or reliability of an FSK rests on nothing but what we believe or know within the FSK - which is circular.

iv A supposed morality FSK has the same credibility or reliability as any other: none whatsoever.

I have no idea what reality-as-it-really-is really is. I think it's a post-Kantian delusion. So there's no point in asking me to explain what it is. I just think there are features of reality that are or were the case - which is what you deny - with the above absurd consequences.

I don't suppose you'll understand why this demolishes your argument, or even bother to think it through carefully. Hey ho.

i Our universe, its contents, and their properties exist only because we believe or know they exist - which is patent nonsense.
Nope, it is not because we believe or know they exists.

"Reality-as-it-really-is" is [exists] in interaction and entanglement with the human conditions, then we rely on the scientific FSK and epistemological FSK to confirm they exist.

For you, "reality-as-it-really-is" is absolutely independent of the human conditions, it does not interact and entangle with the human conditions.
If it does not interact and entangle with the human conditions, you can only guess and assume whatever it is, which you are doing at present.

ii If we don't know or believe a thing exists, then it doesn't exist - which is patent nonsense.
This is a strawman.

First things emerge with the human conditions in a spontaneous event, then we get to know it via science or epistemology.
Things do not pre-exist human existence, rather things spontaneously and simultaneously EMERGE with the human conditions.
This is what you are ignorant because you are stuck dogmatically with the default and inherent philosophical realism.

iii The supposed credibility or reliability of an FSK rests on nothing but what we believe or know within the FSK - which is circular.
The various FSKs are merely tools we use to verify and justify the reality of things spontaneously and simultaneously EMERGING with the human conditions.

iv A supposed morality FSK has the same credibility or reliability as any other: none whatsoever.
The Moral FSK is merely a tool we use to verify and justify the reality of objective moral things [events, relations] spontaneously and simultaneously EMERGING with the human conditions.

I have no idea what reality-as-it-really-is really is. I think it's a post-Kantian delusion. So there's no point in asking me to explain what it is. I just think there are features of reality that are or were the case - which is what you deny - with the above absurd consequences.

I don't suppose you'll understand why this demolishes your argument, or even bother to think it through carefully. Hey ho.

You have no idea what reality-as-it-really-is really is because you are trapped in a illusory world and thus is delusional with your independent ontological reality.

You are in a condition like the once majority Flat-Earthers [because it so OBVIOUS to them] who condemned the Round-Earthers.

Suggest you reflect on what I really meant by,
"reality of things [all of reality] exist spontaneously and simultaneously EMERGING with the human conditions."

Given your current state [grasping at straws to survive], I don't believe you are capable of cognizing and understanding the above.

[Peter Holmes]

[
In 1 I am dealing with reality as it is, i.e. what-can-be-evidenced-&-Justified is the reality in entanglement with the human conditions.
You are ignoring reality is [as?] all-there-is, where [which?] humans and things are intricately part and parcel of, i.e. EMERGENCE, i.e. reality emerges spontaneously with the human conditions.

So, at the big bang, our universe emerged spontaneously, 'with the human conditions', billions of years before there were humans in the universe.

What utter tripe.

[Veritas Aequitas]

[
In 1 I am dealing with reality as it is, i.e. what-can-be-evidenced-&-Justified is the reality in entanglement with the human conditions.
You are ignoring reality is [as?] all-there-is, where [which?] humans and things are intricately part and parcel of, i.e. EMERGENCE, i.e. reality emerges spontaneously with the human conditions.

So, at the big bang, our universe emerged spontaneously, 'with the human conditions', billions of years before there were humans in the universe.

What utter tripe.

Don't be that confident and arrogant with your 'tripe' since you are only insulting your intelligence and rationality by relying merely on common sense and the misleading default obvious [e.g. like the Flat-Earthers] or at best 'polished conjectures /opinions'.

Where did you [or we humanity] get the idea or concept of 'before' 'after' 'time' "the big bang", "our universe" "billions of years" and "humans" if there are no or without entanglement with the human conditions?

Do you believe for example, there is real independent one-instant-'Big-Bang' at t0?
Don't forget whatever is the best scientific truths is at best merely 'polished conjectures/ opinions.' Note these checkmate moves coming in your direction.

Note the above point has been seriously deliberated by Philosophical anti-realists [mine = Kantian] after concluding the opposing views ended up with illusions.

Note the argument re 'Did the Moon or Universe pre-exist humans' has very surprising answers from the obvious common sense cognition of the Philosophical Realists. [analogically the Flat-Earthers].
I have raised this as an OP before.

The Universe Predated Humans?
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=33493
Do you have a counter to the above?

[Peter Holmes]

[
In 1 I am dealing with reality as it is, i.e. what-can-be-evidenced-&-Justified is the reality in entanglement with the human conditions.
You are ignoring reality is [as?] all-there-is, where [which?] humans and things are intricately part and parcel of, i.e. EMERGENCE, i.e. reality emerges spontaneously with the human conditions.

So, at the big bang, our universe emerged spontaneously, 'with the human conditions', billions of years before there were humans in the universe.

What utter tripe.

Don't be that confident and arrogant with your 'tripe' since you are only insulting your intelligence and rationality by relying merely on common sense and the misleading default obvious [e.g. like the Flat-Earthers] or at best 'polished conjectures /opinions'.

Where did you [or we humanity] get the idea or concept of 'before' 'after' 'time' "the big bang", "our universe" "billions of years" and "humans" if there are no or without entanglement with the human conditions?

Do you believe for example, there is real independent one-instant-'Big-Bang' at t0?
Don't forget whatever is the best scientific truths is at best merely 'polished conjectures/ opinions.' Note these checkmate moves coming in your direction.

Note the above point has been seriously deliberated by Philosophical anti-realists [mine = Kantian] after concluding the opposing views ended up with illusions.

Note the argument re 'Did the Moon or Universe pre-exist humans' has very surprising answers from the obvious common sense cognition of the Philosophical Realists. [analogically the Flat-Earthers].
I have raised this as an OP before.

The Universe Predated Humans?
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=33493
Do you have a counter to the above?

Yes. Even if all that science can produce is 'polished opinions', they are opinions about something. And that something is what we call reality. The reason why natural science is our most credible or reliable inquiry method is that it gives us verfiable information about that reality.

(And, btw, natural science says absolutely nothing about moral rightness and wrongness, simply because those aren't features of the reality that science studies.)

What you are doing is projecting our (necessarily human) way of perceiving, 'knowing' - and therefore describing - reality onto reality itself. But such things as the big bang, and the chemical composition of water, have nothing to do with 'the human conditions' or our ways of describing those features of reality. That idea demonstrates a blindingly obvious and fundamental confusion.

[Veritas Aequitas]

So, at the big bang, our universe emerged spontaneously, 'with the human conditions', billions of years before there were humans in the universe.

What utter tripe.

Don't be that confident and arrogant with your 'tripe' since you are only insulting your intelligence and rationality by relying merely on common sense and the misleading default obvious [e.g. like the Flat-Earthers] or at best 'polished conjectures /opinions'.

Where did you [or we humanity] get the idea or concept of 'before' 'after' 'time' "the big bang", "our universe" "billions of years" and "humans" if there are no or without entanglement with the human conditions?

Do you believe for example, there is real independent one-instant-'Big-Bang' at t0?
Don't forget whatever is the best scientific truths is at best merely 'polished conjectures/ opinions.' Note these checkmate moves coming in your direction.

Note the above point has been seriously deliberated by Philosophical anti-realists [mine = Kantian] after concluding the opposing views ended up with illusions.

Note the argument re 'Did the Moon or Universe pre-exist humans' has very surprising answers from the obvious common sense cognition of the Philosophical Realists. [analogically the Flat-Earthers].
I have raised this as an OP before.

The Universe Predated Humans?
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=33493
Do you have a counter to the above?

Yes. Even if all that science can produce is 'polished opinions', they are opinions about something. And that something is what we call reality. The reason why natural science is our most credible or reliable inquiry method is that it gives us verfiable information about that reality.

That is why I have been asking you, what is that-something that we call reality?

Don't you realize that ever since rational philosophy emerged within human consciousness [since >2,000 to 10,000 years ago], the mainstream philosophers had failed to determine what that-something-called-Reality is.

This is what prompted the wiser Russell after very in depth rational exploration of what is reality, to exclaim the truth, i.e.
Russell: "Perhaps There is No Table At ALL?"
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=32814

Long before that Kant had already realized the futility of determining what that-something-called-Reality independent of human conditions, is. Thus he introduced his Copernican Revolution.

Hitherto it has been assumed that all our Knowledge must conform to Objects.
But all attempts to extend our Knowledge of Objects by establishing something in regard to them a priori, by means of Concepts, have, on this assumption, ended in Failure.
We must therefore make trial whether we may not have more success in the tasks of Metaphysics, if we suppose that Objects must conform to our Knowledge.

We should then be proceeding precisely on the lines of Copernicus' primary Hypothesis. 1
Failing of satisfactory progress of explaining the movements of the heavenly bodies on the supposition that they all revolved round the spectator, he tried whether he might not have better success if he made the spectator to revolve and the stars to remain at rest.

A similar experiment can be tried in Metaphysics, as regards the Intuition of Objects.

CPR B-xvi-ii

Long [>2000 years] before Kant, the Buddhists were already realizing the impossibility of establishing and determining what that-something-called-Reality is. They also hypothesis the pursuit of such an illusory that-something-called-Reality is due to human psychology and desperation.

Some of the ancients Greeks philosophers also realized this truth that there is NO such something-called-Reality which is absolutely independent of the human conditions.

Like I say, you are like the Flat-Earthers who just don't have the ability to understand the reality of a Round Earth like the Round-Earthers do.

(And, btw, natural science says absolutely nothing about moral rightness and wrongness, simply because those aren't features of the reality that science studies.)

I have already explained, the Moral FSK borrowed scientific facts to process and output objective moral principles. I have already explained that process but I believed it just passed tru you due to your incompetence to grasp the point.

What you are doing is projecting our (necessarily human) way of perceiving, 'knowing' - and therefore describing - reality onto reality itself. But such things as the big bang, and the chemical composition of water, have nothing to do with 'the human conditions' or our ways of describing those features of reality. That idea demonstrates a blindingly obvious and fundamental confusion.

The above is a strawman.
You are merely projecting and imposing your limited knowledge of reality onto what I intended to explain.
In this case, analogically and relatively you are like a kindergarten kid trying to teach Einstein on what is Physics about.

The way out to reconcile the above two opposing points is tracing the root cause to psychology & biology then only philosophy [metaphysics, ontology, epistemology].

[Peter Holmes]

Don't be that confident and arrogant with your 'tripe' since you are only insulting your intelligence and rationality by relying merely on common sense and the misleading default obvious [e.g. like the Flat-Earthers] or at best 'polished conjectures /opinions'.

Where did you [or we humanity] get the idea or concept of 'before' 'after' 'time' "the big bang", "our universe" "billions of years" and "humans" if there are no or without entanglement with the human conditions?

Do you believe for example, there is real independent one-instant-'Big-Bang' at t0?
Don't forget whatever is the best scientific truths is at best merely 'polished conjectures/ opinions.' Note these checkmate moves coming in your direction.

Note the above point has been seriously deliberated by Philosophical anti-realists [mine = Kantian] after concluding the opposing views ended up with illusions.

Note the argument re 'Did the Moon or Universe pre-exist humans' has very surprising answers from the obvious common sense cognition of the Philosophical Realists. [analogically the Flat-Earthers].
I have raised this as an OP before.

The Universe Predated Humans?
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=33493
Do you have a counter to the above?

Yes. Even if all that science can produce is 'polished opinions', they are opinions about something. And that something is what we call reality. The reason why natural science is our most credible or reliable inquiry method is that it gives us verfiable information about that reality.

That is why I have been asking you, what is that-something that we call reality?

Don't you realize that ever since rational philosophy emerged within human consciousness [since >2,000 to 10,000 years ago], the mainstream philosophers had failed to determine what that-something-called-Reality is.

This is what prompted the wiser Russell after very in depth rational exploration of what is reality, to exclaim the truth, i.e.
Russell: "Perhaps There is No Table At ALL?"
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=32814

Long before that Kant had already realized the futility of determining what that-something-called-Reality independent of human conditions, is. Thus he introduced his Copernican Revolution.

Hitherto it has been assumed that all our Knowledge must conform to Objects.
But all attempts to extend our Knowledge of Objects by establishing something in regard to them a priori, by means of Concepts, have, on this assumption, ended in Failure.
We must therefore make trial whether we may not have more success in the tasks of Metaphysics, if we suppose that Objects must conform to our Knowledge.

We should then be proceeding precisely on the lines of Copernicus' primary Hypothesis. 1
Failing of satisfactory progress of explaining the movements of the heavenly bodies on the supposition that they all revolved round the spectator, he tried whether he might not have better success if he made the spectator to revolve and the stars to remain at rest.

A similar experiment can be tried in Metaphysics, as regards the Intuition of Objects.

CPR B-xvi-ii

Long [>2000 years] before Kant, the Buddhists were already realizing the impossibility of establishing and determining what that-something-called-Reality is. They also hypothesis the pursuit of such an illusory that-something-called-Reality is due to human psychology and desperation.

Some of the ancients Greeks philosophers also realized this truth that there is NO such something-called-Reality which is absolutely independent of the human conditions.

Like I say, you are like the Flat-Earthers who just don't have the ability to understand the reality of a Round Earth like the Round-Earthers do.

(And, btw, natural science says absolutely nothing about moral rightness and wrongness, simply because those aren't features of the reality that science studies.)

I have already explained, the Moral FSK borrowed scientific facts to process and output objective moral principles. I have already explained that process but I believed it just passed tru you due to your incompetence to grasp the point.

What you are doing is projecting our (necessarily human) way of perceiving, 'knowing' - and therefore describing - reality onto reality itself. But such things as the big bang, and the chemical composition of water, have nothing to do with 'the human conditions' or our ways of describing those features of reality. That idea demonstrates a blindingly obvious and fundamental confusion.

The above is a strawman.
You are merely projecting and imposing your limited knowledge of reality onto what I intended to explain.
In this case, analogically and relatively you are like a kindergarten kid trying to teach Einstein on what is Physics about.

The way out to reconcile the above two opposing points is tracing the root cause to psychology & biology then only philosophy [metaphysics, ontology, epistemology].

No, the way out is to understand the following.

1 If there is no reality-as-it-really-is - if there are no things-in-themselves - then the claim that we cannot perceive, know or describe reality-as-it-really-is, or things-in-themselves, is redundant. It is to invent an impossibility, and then deny its possibility. Kant got it terribly wrong.

2 There is no way for a scientific (or factual) 'is' to entail a moral 'ought'. It just can't be done, without begging the question.

[Belinda]

Peter Holmes wrote:

1 Features of reality that are or were the case. (The branch of philosophy that deals with these is ontology.)

Philosophy: Ontology is the branch of metaphysics that deals with being.

"Features of reality" depend on the theory of being that is espoused.

[Peter Holmes]

Peter Holmes wrote:

1 Features of reality that are or were the case. (The branch of philosophy that deals with these is ontology.)

Philosophy: Ontology is the branch of metaphysics that deals with being.

"Features of reality" depend on the theory of being that is espoused.

Okay. But a so-called theory of being or existence can only be an explanation of how we do or could use the words being and existence, their cognates and related words. And there's nothing metaphysical about that explanation.