Philosophy Now Forum

CIN wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 5:29 pm Something is objective if it continues to be the case irrespective of whether anyone is thinking about it or has an opinion about it.

Why?

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 7:32 pm

CIN wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 5:29 pm Something is objective if it continues to be the case irrespective of whether anyone is thinking about it or has an opinion about it.

Why?

Because that is what being objective means in philosophy. If it's true that the earth is an oblate spheroid, even if everyone believes it's flat or no-one is thinking about it at all, then it is an objective truth that the earth is an oblate spheroid. And if slavery is wrong, even if everyone thinks it's right or no-one ever thinks about slavery, then slavery is objectively wrong.

I'm sure you know this, Skep, you can look up the philosophical definition of 'objective' as well as anyone else. I suspect you have some devious ulterior reason for your question. I wait with scarcely controllable eagerness to find out what it is.

Amusingly, Google AI offers the following definition of 'objective':
"Something is objective if it can be confirmed independently of a mind."
VA would probably like that definition, because it would entail that nothing is objective; we cannot confirm anything without using our minds.

CIN wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 11:24 pm

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 7:32 pm

CIN wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 5:29 pm Something is objective if it continues to be the case irrespective of whether anyone is thinking about it or has an opinion about it.

Why?

Because that is what being objective means in philosophy.

Does it continue to mean that if nobody is philosophising, thinking; or has an opinion about it?

CIN wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 11:24 pm If it's true that the earth is an oblate spheroid

What's an "oblate spheroid" without a humans to construct/invent such an abstraction?

CIN wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 11:24 pm even if everyone believes it's flat or no-one is thinking about it at all, then it is an objective truth that the earth is an oblate spheroid.

If everyone uses the word "flat" to refer to the shape of the Earth then that's what the word "flat" would mean.

Earth-shaped.

CIN wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 11:24 pm And if slavery is wrong, even if everyone thinks it's right or no-one ever thinks about slavery, then slavery is objectively wrong.

If nobody ever thinks of; or recognizes any event as slavery - then what's slavery?

CIN wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 11:24 pm I'm sure you know this, Skep, you can look up the philosophical definition of 'objective' as well as anyone else. I suspect you have some devious ulterior reason for your question. I wait with scarcely controllable eagerness to find out what it is.

See above.

None of your reasoning functions to the ends you intend it to function.

Unless you presuppose objective meaning.

This is the whole confusion of Western philosophy. You question the objectivity of moral norms, yet you grant yourself linguistic norms which are as good as objective.

Que?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 6:14 am My claim is;
whatever is fact, one cannot claim it is absolutely independent of the human conditions [human mind] which is the ideology of philosophical realism.

One can, as is evidenced by the fact that Peter Holmes does.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 6:14 amThe fact is the claim of philosophical realism has generated loads of philosophical dilemmas and problems throughout human history, and even to the extent of the genocide of humans [via evil religions grounded on philosophical realism]

Philosophical realism is not to blame for evil religions. The blame lies with the moral tenets of the religions, not with their ontological tenets. Philosophical realism, like all ontological theories, is morally neutral.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 6:14 amDue to the above unresolvable dilemmas, it would be more realistic and practical to claim [Kant's Copernican Revolution], i.e.
"what is fact" [reality, truth, knowledge, objectivity] is somehow part and parcel in interaction with the human conditions as contingent upon a human-based framework and system[FS], of which the scientific FS is the exemplar.

'Somehow?' If you are trying to sell us a theory, you are going to have to do better than that. In exactly what way is fact 'part and parcel in interaction with the human conditions'?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 6:14 amSince reality is somehow related to the human conditions, this leave room and possibility for reality of evil to be managed [fool proof] toward the good via the variation of the human conditions.

'Somehow' again. Stop being vague. How is reality related to the human conditions?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 6:14 amPhilosophical realism's mind independence cannot contribute effective to the good of humanity and reality because whatever is real is absolutely independent of them and thus outside the ambit of their control, thus they are eternally at the mercy of an independent reality.

It isn't the job of mind independence to 'contribute effective [sic] to the good of humanity'. If we are 'eternally at the mercy of an independent reality', then that is just the way things are. It's no good inventing a theory that would make it otherwise and then trying to make the world fit your theory; that's not how things work. Your philosophy appears to be the result of wishful thinking.

CIN wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 11:56 pm Your philosophy appears to be the result of wishful thinking.

That's how all normatives works.

The fact that different norms than the ones you are currently practicing could've been wished doesn't seem to trouble you.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 11:37 pm

CIN wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 11:24 pm

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 7:32 pm
Why?

Because that is what being objective means in philosophy.

Does it continue to mean that if nobody is philosophising, thinking; or has an opinion about it?

It means that when we use it. When we aren't using it, there is no word there to mean anything.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 11:37 pm

CIN wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 11:24 pm If it's true that the earth is an oblate spheroid

What's an "oblate spheroid" without a humans to construct/invent such an abstraction?

Exactly the same as it is with humans, but not identified as such by anyone.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 11:37 pm

CIN wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 11:24 pm even if everyone believes it's flat or no-one is thinking about it at all, then it is an objective truth that the earth is an oblate spheroid.

If everyone uses the word "flat" to refer to the shape of the Earth then that's what the word "flat" would mean.

Earth-shaped.

No, it would still mean 'flat', because the earth would not be the only thing that was flat.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 11:37 pm

CIN wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 11:24 pm And if slavery is wrong, even if everyone thinks it's right or no-one ever thinks about slavery, then slavery is objectively wrong.

If nobody ever thinks of; or recognizes any event as slavery - then what's slavery?

Same as the oblate spheroid; exactly as it is now, but not identified as such by anyone.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 11:37 pm

CIN wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 11:24 pm I'm sure you know this, Skep, you can look up the philosophical definition of 'objective' as well as anyone else. I suspect you have some devious ulterior reason for your question. I wait with scarcely controllable eagerness to find out what it is.

See above.

None of your reasoning functions to the ends you intend it to function.

Unless you presuppose objective meaning.

This is the whole confusion of Western philosophy. You question the objectivity of moral norms, yet you grant yourself linguistic norms which are as good as objective.

Que?

'As good as objective'? What's that when it's at home?

Throughout this post, you are systematically confusing the fact that we need language to talk about things with the theory that things are only there if we talk about them. I adhere to the first; there is no reason for me to agree to the second.

CIN wrote: ↑Tue Oct 01, 2024 12:31 am It means that when we use it. When we aren't using it, there is no word there to mean anything.

That's an error of misplaced agency. Meaning is a verb. Words don't mean - they have no agency. Humans mean.

Unintentional language is meaningless.

CIN wrote: ↑Tue Oct 01, 2024 12:31 am Exactly the same as it is with humans, but not identified as such by anyone.

How do humans identify oblate spheroids if nobody knows what that means? Go ahead and identify a grobmunf.

CIN wrote: ↑Tue Oct 01, 2024 12:31 am No, it would still mean 'flat', because the earth would not be the only thing that was flat.

Obviously. Anything shaped similarly to Earth would be "flat".

CIN wrote: ↑Tue Oct 01, 2024 12:31 am Same as the oblate spheroid; exactly as it is now, but not identified as such by anyone.

Ok... I think it's time you identified me a grobmunf.

CIN wrote: ↑Tue Oct 01, 2024 12:31 am Throughout this post, you are systematically confusing the fact that we need language to talk about things with the theory that things are only there if we talk about them. I adhere to the first; there is no reason for me to agree to the second.

Throughout your life you have failed to grasp that language is teleological; and "thing" is an abstraction you are projecting onto the world.

Humans assign meaning. To everything.

Not words.

CIN wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 11:56 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 6:14 am My claim is;
whatever is fact, one cannot claim it is absolutely independent of the human conditions [human mind] which is the ideology of philosophical realism.

One can, as is evidenced by the fact that Peter Holmes does.

Based on what you have posted, you believe in philosophical realism as well.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 6:14 amThe fact is the claim of philosophical realism has generated loads of philosophical dilemmas and problems throughout human history, and even to the extent of the genocide of humans [via evil religions grounded on philosophical realism]

Philosophical realism is not to blame for evil religions. The blame lies with the moral tenets of the religions, not with their ontological tenets. Philosophical realism, like all ontological theories, is morally neutral.

The ultimate philosophical ground of theism is philosophical realism, i.e.
there is an absolutely mind-independent God.
Many genocides has been committed in the name of God.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 6:14 amDue to the above unresolvable dilemmas, it would be more realistic and practical to claim [Kant's Copernican Revolution], i.e.
"what is fact" [reality, truth, knowledge, objectivity] is somehow part and parcel in interaction with the human conditions as contingent upon a human-based framework and system[FS], of which the scientific FS is the exemplar.

'Somehow?' If you are trying to sell us a theory, you are going to have to do better than that. In exactly what way is fact 'part and parcel in interaction with the human conditions'?

Evidently,
-reality is all-there-is,
-all there is include all humans or humanity
-humans are intricately part and parcel of reality, all there is.
-therefore reality is in interaction with the human conditions.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 6:14 amSince reality is somehow related to the human conditions, this leave room and possibility for reality of evil to be managed [fool proof] toward the good via the variation of the human conditions.

'Somehow' again. Stop being vague. How is reality related to the human conditions?

see above.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 6:14 amPhilosophical realism's mind independence cannot contribute effective to the good of humanity and reality because whatever is real is absolutely independent of them and thus outside the ambit of their control, thus they are eternally at the mercy of an independent reality.

It isn't the job of mind independence to 'contribute effective [sic] to the good of humanity'. If we are 'eternally at the mercy of an independent reality', then that is just the way things are. It's no good inventing a theory that would make it otherwise and then trying to make the world fit your theory; that's not how things work. Your philosophy appears to be the result of wishful thinking.

As stated before,

-philosophical realism [PR] claim reality is absolutely mind-independent, thus objective.
-PR elements of morality are not absolutely mind-independent, thus subjective or Moral Relativism.
-Moral Relativism means to each their own, the morality and ethics must be respected and tolerated.

Normative moral relativism holds that because nobody is right or wrong, everyone ought to tolerate the behavior of others even when large disagreements about morality exist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism

Meaning if a morality system permit genocide, normative moral relativism has to accept tolerate it.*

Therefore mind-independence triggering moral relativism do not contribute to the overall good of humanity.

*A person may denounce genocides but that is based on common sense, political and legal basis, but as a moral relativist he has no moral say on whether genocide is permissible or not.

CIN wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 11:24 pm Amusingly, Google AI offers the following definition of 'objective':
"Something is objective if it can be confirmed independently of a mind."
VA would probably like that definition, because it would entail that nothing is objective; we cannot confirm anything without using our minds.

I agree with that AI's definition.
You should ask AI to elaborate and give examples before condemning it.

"independently of a mind"
means something like scientific facts are objective because it relies on a collective-of-minds [subjects] i.e. the scientific framework and system [FS] and is thus confirmed independently of a* mind, e.g. one scientist's view or non-scientists view.
The scientific FS is the gold standard of credibility and objectivity of reality [as it is and knowledge of it].

So in that case, theological claims are objective because there is consensus within a theological framework - collective-of-theists???
Yes, by definition, theology claims based on a theological FS [not one person] are facts which are objective.
BUT .. it's degree of objectivity is 0.1 in contrast to the scientific FS as the gold standard if indexed at 100.

This is where the continuum basis is more effective in dealing with elements within reality as all-there-is.

All other claims of facts as objective can be rated against the scientific FS as the gold standard.
How to rate and ensure the rating itself is objective?
I have done that over many threads in this section.

* "a mind" would include a loose mob of minds.
What is objective is based on an organized collective-of-mind with a constitution [implied or otherwise] and shared-values.

CIN wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 5:29 pm

Age wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 9:58 am What makes any thing so-called 'objective'?

Is there a poster here who can, and will, answer this?

And, answer it 'objectively', and thus also 'irrefutably Correct'?

Let 'us' see just how much, or how little, these posters here really knew.

Something is objective if it continues to be the case irrespective of whether anyone is thinking about it or has an opinion about it.

So, is the agreement, previously made, that the murdering of those completely innocent children, previously, was wrong, 'objective', or not?

To me, it 'continues to be the case', (that is; those children continue to have been murdered), irrespective of whether I, or anyone else, is thinking about it, or has a so-called 'opinion' about it.

Just like 'water' 'continues to be the case', (that is; water continues to be wet), irrespective of whether I, or anyone else, is thinking about it, or has a so-called 'opinion' about it', right?

Also, and just out of curiosity, how do 'we' 'know' 'water is wet', or, 'those children were murdered', or that 'water is, still, wet', or 'those children are, still, murdered', if 'we' do not have an 'opinion' about 'them', 'now' or 'previously'?

Is it, still, wrong to abuse children, whether anyone is thinking about it or has an opinion about it?

Is 'abusing children' 'objective', if 'abusing children continues to be the case' irrespective of whether anyone is thinking about it or has an opinion about it?

Can 'water be not wet' if we have the opinion that 'water is not wet'?

Can 'abusing children be not wrong' if we have the opinion that 'abusing children is not wrong'?

So, is 'abusing children wrong' objective, or not, considering the fact that 'abusing children is wrong' 'continues to be the case' irrespective of whether anyone is thinking about it or has an opinion about it.

Or, do you, or others, believe that when you, or someone, has the opinion that 'abusing children is not wrong' stops, somehow, 'the case' that 'abusing children' IS Wrong?

'your definition' of and for the 'objective' word above here, does not seem to 'fit in', nor 'work', here.

CIN wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 11:24 pm

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 7:32 pm

CIN wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 5:29 pm Something is objective if it continues to be the case irrespective of whether anyone is thinking about it or has an opinion about it.

Why?

Because that is what being objective means in philosophy.

Here is another one who believes, absolutely, that 'its own definition' is the one and only one.

The 'objective' word, by the way, certainly does not mean what you say and claim it means, in 'philosophy'.

CIN wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 11:24 pm If it's true that the earth is an oblate spheroid, even if everyone believes it's flat or no-one is thinking about it at all, then it is an objective truth that the earth is an oblate spheroid.

But, how, exactly, is 'it' is 'known' to be what it is 'claimed' to be, if absolutely everyone thinks or believes otherwise, or if absolutely no one is even thinking about it?

CIN wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 11:24 pm And if slavery is wrong, even if everyone thinks it's right or no-one ever thinks about slavery, then slavery is objectively wrong.

It is this kind of definition for the 'objective' word, and/or 'this way' of 'looking at' and/or 'seeing' the 'objective' word, WHY these human beings were, still, disagreeing, bickering, and fighting and arguing, with each other, here.

So, according 'this one', and 'this logic' here, if absolutely every one thinks, believes, and/or even knows that slavery is wrong, if slavery is right, then slavery is, laughingly, objectively right.

I wonder if 'this one' can, now, 'see' and 'understand' how 'that definition' for the 'objective' word does not 'fit in', nor 'work', here, and how 'that logic' is faulty?

CIN wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 11:24 pm I'm sure you know this, Skep, you can look up the philosophical definition of 'objective' as well as anyone else. I suspect you have some devious ulterior reason for your question. I wait with scarcely controllable eagerness to find out what it is.

Amusingly, Google AI offers the following definition of 'objective':
"Something is objective if it can be confirmed independently of a mind."

LOL
LOL
LOL

And, how, exactly, do you human beings 'confirm' things, without 'those things' that you call 'minds', which you say, and believe, you all have?

CIN wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 11:24 pm VA would probably like that definition, because it would entail that nothing is objective; we cannot confirm anything without using our minds.

LOL

Can your "artificial intelligence" offer up any way that you human beings can confirm any thing, independently of 'a mind', which "artificial intelligence" is informing you that 'it' exists?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Oct 01, 2024 2:39 am

CIN wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 11:24 pm Amusingly, Google AI offers the following definition of 'objective':
"Something is objective if it can be confirmed independently of a mind."
VA would probably like that definition, because it would entail that nothing is objective; we cannot confirm anything without using our minds.

I agree with that AI's definition.
You should ask AI to elaborate and give examples before condemning it.

"independently of a mind"
means something like scientific facts are objective because it relies on a collective-of-minds [subjects] i.e. the scientific framework and system [FS] and is thus confirmed independently of a* mind, e.g. one scientist's view or non-scientists view.
The scientific FS is the gold standard of credibility and objectivity of reality [as it is and knowledge of it].

There are no 'scientific facts' that are 'objective', whereas 'other facts' are 'not objective'.

'a fact' is 'a fact' no matter how 'it' has come about. A fact that has come through some 'scientific method or approach is not more objective, nor does it 'carry more weight' than a fact that has come through just 'logical reasoning', for example.

A fact is a fact no matter what.

And, so-called 'objective Facts or objective Truths' come about and are found differently from so-called 'subjective facts or subjective truths'.

Now, what makes any thing 'objective' is 'that', which cannot be refuted by absolutely any one, and this all comes down to 'thought', itself, obviously.

What 'it' is that absolutely every one can agree with, and accept, is what makes any and all things, objectively True.

And, how 'this' is 'objectively True' is because absolutely every one can agree with this, and accept this.

Obviously 'that' what every one can agree with, and accept, cannot be refuted. For the very simple Fact that there is no one left to be able to disagree, nor not accept.

And, for those of you here who want to 'try to' use the 'ad populum fallacy' in regards to what I am saying and claiming here, then allow me to remind you that it has absolutely nothing at all to do with what I am, actually, saying, and claiming, here.

CIN wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 11:24 pm So in that case, theological claims are objective because there is consensus within a theological framework - collective-of-theists???
Yes, by definition, theology claims based on a theological FS [not one person] are facts which are objective.
BUT .. it's degree of objectivity is 0.1 in contrast to the scientific FS as the gold standard if indexed at 100.

This is where the continuum basis is more effective in dealing with elements within reality as all-there-is.

All other claims of facts as objective can be rated against the scientific FS as the gold standard.
How to rate and ensure the rating itself is objective?
I have done that over many threads in this section.

* "a mind" would include a loose mob of minds.
What is objective is based on an organized collective-of-mind with a constitution [implied or otherwise] and shared-values.

So, once again, to "veritas aequitas" when people believed that the earth was in the center of the Universe, then this is 'objective', and thus 'objectively true' as well. Which is, obviously, absolutely False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect.

CIN wrote: ↑Sat Sep 28, 2024 10:42 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Wed Sep 25, 2024 12:12 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Sep 25, 2024 4:22 am

And that something else can therefore never be resolved either. What was the point?

One version of the point is probably that realism and antirealism just aren't important positions. That we don't need an explanation of why the world presents itself to us as it does in order to reason within the world that has represented itself. And surely most importantly, that there is no possible reason to need to discuss whether the world is really really entirely truly real in order to discuss ethics.

Thank you, Flash. You have hit the nail on the head. In ethics, we have to take the real existence of other people as axiomatic, or there will be no subject matter to discuss. And if other people, why not animals, and the rest of the physical world?

All of these metaphysical speculations are irrelevant to the study of ethics, and they shouldn't be in this part of the forum at all. I think they were introduced here by VA, and others have been unwise enough to indulge him by answering him here.

I tend to think the whole question is sort of nonsense even when capable philosophers discuss it in the relevant context.

You won't get VA off this track though because he has committed everything to his notion that if we can reduce objectivity to nothing more than consensus, then anything that gains consensus is objective, and that anything thus rendered objective must be fact. Everything else must, and always will, fall down that hole, himself included.

It might count as doing him a favour to require a ceasefire on all the generalised antirealism in the ethics forum and simply permit moral realism and antirealism within it. I would recommend that everyone give that a go. But he has himself entirely convinced that all philosophy reduces without loss to nothing but a discussion of realism and antirealism, and I don't think he has the ability to internalise anybody else's perspectives, so I predict zero success.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Tue Oct 01, 2024 2:23 pm

CIN wrote: ↑Sat Sep 28, 2024 10:42 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Wed Sep 25, 2024 12:12 pm
One version of the point is probably that realism and antirealism just aren't important positions. That we don't need an explanation of why the world presents itself to us as it does in order to reason within the world that has represented itself. And surely most importantly, that there is no possible reason to need to discuss whether the world is really really entirely truly real in order to discuss ethics.

Thank you, Flash. You have hit the nail on the head. In ethics, we have to take the real existence of other people as axiomatic, or there will be no subject matter to discuss. And if other people, why not animals, and the rest of the physical world?

All of these metaphysical speculations are irrelevant to the study of ethics, and they shouldn't be in this part of the forum at all. I think they were introduced here by VA, and others have been unwise enough to indulge him by answering him here.

I tend to think the whole question is sort of nonsense even when capable philosophers discuss it in the relevant context.

I think there is a real question there, but I think it is futile to address it. I can't prove that the world around me is real, but I don't see any evidence that it isn't, so I no longer bother to think about it. I suppose if science showed us that reality literally makes no sense, that would be a different matter, but I think all science has done is show that the world is surprising, which isn't the same thing.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Tue Oct 01, 2024 2:23 pm You won't get VA off this track though because he has committed everything to his notion that if we can reduce objectivity to nothing more than consensus, then anything that gains consensus is objective, and that anything thus rendered objective must be fact. Everything else must, and always will, fall down that hole, himself included.

It might count as doing him a favour to require a ceasefire on all the generalised antirealism in the ethics forum and simply permit moral realism and antirealism within it. I would recommend that everyone give that a go. But he has himself entirely convinced that all philosophy reduces without loss to nothing but a discussion of realism and antirealism, and I don't think he has the ability to internalise anybody else's perspectives, so I predict zero success.

Copy that. The trouble, though, is that views we strongly disagree with are catnip to people like us. I prefer not to talk to people like VA, but in a forum where there is no minimum standard of philosophical competence, who else are you going to talk to?

CIN wrote: ↑Tue Oct 01, 2024 5:16 pm I suppose if science showed us that reality literally makes no sense, that would be a different matter, but I think all science has done is show that the world is surprising, which isn't the same thing.

You do not realize you are the ignorant and incompetent one.

As a human being I agree with what you believe fundamentally, e.g. mind-independent external world, but I don't grasp it as an dogmatic ideology like you do.
This mind-independence of reality of the external world is only relative and arise out of an evolutionary default. This is a very primal and primitive belief.

Those who are philosophical competent has removed the shackles of absolute mind-independence and move on with this belief of mind-independence as only relative.

The Buddhists and Greeks [Protagoras, Heraclitus] had adopted reality as contingent upon the human conditions where necessary to advance philosophical knowledge and wisdom.

You are stuck inside a tall dark silo of ignorance yet not aware of it.

Science had already shown us reality is its more refined perspective is non-sense, e.g. as with Quantum Physics:


Note this
Here at 54:37
https://youtu.be/ISdBAf-ysI0?t=3268

Professor Jim Al-Khalili stated,
"In some strange sense, it really does suggest the moon doesn't exists when we are not looking. It truly defies common sense."

However, Jim Al-Khalili being entrapped with his primal and primitive instinct could not let go and he admitted he find it hard to move into the more advance paradigm [in the later part of the video.]

Btw, I am hoping you or anyone should respond to my posts [if anyone wish to, that's is up to them], my primary aim is to post it for my selfish interests in refreshing whatever knowledge I have gathered.