"The absurd stupidity of 'facts are contingent upon humans' comes from the stupidity of Kant's invention of noumena (things-in-themselves), ..."
It is the other way round, Kant "proved" PH alternative view of 'what is fact' is chasing and reifying an illusion.
Below is the explanation, why;
You are so ignorant you are drowning in the muck of ignorance, narrow, shallow and dogmatic thinking driven by an existence crisis grounded on an evolutionary default.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Jul 21, 2024 6:14 pm And anyway, bugger 'frameworks and systems', because what we're talking about are the practices and discourses that constitute physics, chemistry, biology, geology, history. and so on.
I have argued;
There are Two Senses of 'What is Fact'
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39587
1. Your philosophical realism sense which is grounded on an illusion
2. The FSERC empirical realism sense grounded on the empirical.
What constituted physics, chemistry, biology, geology, history are grounded on the empirical and empirical possible within their specific framework and system of Emergence, Realization of reality [a priori] and the subsequent perceiving, cognition and description [a posteriori] of that realized reality.
Since we are only humans and not aliens [non-human] there is no way we can know their realization of reality.And bugger the condition 'human-based', because it just means 'human', and it's false anyway. It'd be perfectly possibly for an alien (non-human) species to have practices and discourses to investigate and describe reality - which would no more be 'alien-based' than reality is 'human-based', just because we're humans.
Regardless of non-humans or not, there are only two senses of reality, i.e.
1. an absolute mind-independent reality which is grounded on an illusion.
2. The FSERC empirical realism sense grounded on the empirical.
If non-humans, an alien-mind-independent reality is also illusory thus an impossibility.
What we have realistically, is a FSERC empirical realism sense grounded on alien-minded empirical elements.
That is the wrong understanding of the situation.The absurd stupidity of 'facts are contingent upon humans' comes from the stupidity of Kant's invention of noumena (things-in-themselves), which, of course, don't exist, because they can't. And, because noumena can't exist, the only things that can exist are phenomena: things-as-the-appear-to-humans. Hence: 'facts are contingent upon humans'. The mad circle is complete.
Based on an evolutionary default, all humans are instinctualized to the concept of a mind-independent world which is critical for basic survival.
Therefore, Kant and all humans will instinctively recognized a mind-independent world relative to the common sense perspective.
However, philosophical realists like you clung to the above instincts as an absolutely mind-independent external world as an ideology dogmatically; this dogmatism of philosophical realism has raised a number of philosophical dilemma and thus hindering epistemological progress.
Kant challenged the above dogmatism of an absolutely mind-independent external world, to carve a way out to facilitate philosophical thinking and epistemology.
Kant "proved" the so-claimed absolute human/mind-independent reality that philosophical realists insist is absolutely real [it exists regardless of whether there are human or not] is they are reifying and chasing an illusion. Kant called this illusion the noumenal in contrast to the phenomenal.
Kant as an empirical realist accept there is a mind-independent world, but that is restricted a relative mind-independent world, NOT an absolutely mind-independent world.
Kant never claimed the only things that exist are the phenomena.
Rather, Kant's claim is conditional, i.e. since the noumenal is illusion, then whatever that exists as real [not illusory and false] is contingent upon the human conditions, i.e. empirically possible because that is the most tenable. This is why Kant introduced his Copernican Revolution as the most realistic and practical alternative.
This inference from only the empirically possible is reinforced with critical thinking and rationality. This is why Kant also called his epistemology Critical Realism.
Therefore, due to constraints, Kant proposed reality, facts, knowledge and objectivity must be contingent upon the human conditions and rationalized within a human-based framework and system encompassing only what is empirically possible.
On the other hand, the philosophical realists [e.g. PH] make a LEAP beyond the empirical world to insist there is an absolutely human/mind independent reality that exists regardless of whether there are humans or not.
As I had stated this LEAP is a psychological move driven by an evolutionary default rising from and existential crisis.
Philosophical realists who insist there are absolutely mind*-independent facts are reifying and chasing an illusion.
* human or non-human.
Discuss??
Views??