PH's Fact: The Cat is On the Mat

[Atla]

[re a long chat with AI on ...]

We all know what that means

[Iwannaplato]

[re a long chat with AI on ...]

We all know what that means

Is it sexual?

[Atla]

[re a long chat with AI on ...]

We all know what that means

Is it sexual?

For him, I fear it might be..

[bahman]

PH relies on is 'what is fact' to deny Morality is Objective.
PH defines fact as 'a feature of reality that is the case, a state of affairs, just-is'.
This is supposed to be a compositional fact.
This definition might seem intuitive, it overlooks a critical challenge: the nature of the composition itself.
Arianna Betti argued a compositional fact is redundant as it invokes a "unity problem" and thus should be rejected in epistemology.

Take the fact "the cat is on the mat".
This fact contain the constituent parts "cat" "mat" and 'on".
What makes these elements a fact rather than just a random collection of words?

The question is what binds these constituent parts together in a relation to form a unified fact, i.e. a state of affairs, a statement about reality?

Concept of Mereological Sum = a simply a collection of parts without any inherent unity. The above fact "the cat is on the mat" seems to be more than just a mereological sum of its components.

Problem?
If a fact is simply a combination of components, what makes it a fact rather than just a collection of unrelated elements?

What is it about that description ["the cat is on the mat"] that gives it the status of a fact? Why isn't it just a description without any truth value?"

Point is,
the so called fact [as claimed by PH] by itself is merely a collection of unrelated elements.


What gives meaning to a collection of words is the grounds, i.e. that is is contingent upon a specific human-based FSERC, of which the scientific FSERC is the most credible and objective.
E.g. The cat on the mat is true because the science-biology, science-physics FSERC said so.

Simply stating PH's unqualified fact 'the cat is on the mat' without qualifying it to any FSERC is meaningless.

As such,
what is fact is that which is contingent upon a human based FSERC of which the scientific FSERC is the gold standard of credibility and objectivity.

Do you know how we understand a sentence which is a collection of words!? This to me is related to philosophy of mind. What does this have to do with Ethical Theory?

[Veritas Aequitas]

PH relies on is 'what is fact' to deny Morality is Objective.
PH defines fact as 'a feature of reality that is the case, a state of affairs, just-is'.
This is supposed to be a compositional fact.
This definition might seem intuitive, it overlooks a critical challenge: the nature of the composition itself.
Arianna Betti argued a compositional fact is redundant as it invokes a "unity problem" and thus should be rejected in epistemology.

.............

Do you know how we understand a sentence which is a collection of words!? This to me is related to philosophy of mind. What does this have to do with Ethical Theory?

Read the reason in first para of the OP.

[bahman]

PH relies on is 'what is fact' to deny Morality is Objective.
PH defines fact as 'a feature of reality that is the case, a state of affairs, just-is'.
This is supposed to be a compositional fact.
This definition might seem intuitive, it overlooks a critical challenge: the nature of the composition itself.
Arianna Betti argued a compositional fact is redundant as it invokes a "unity problem" and thus should be rejected in epistemology.

.............

Do you know how we understand a sentence which is a collection of words!? This to me is related to philosophy of mind. What does this have to do with Ethical Theory?

Read the reason in first para of the OP.

You didn't explain anything.