FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Jun 13, 2020 4:34 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jun 13, 2020 6:06 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Fri Jun 12, 2020 7:47 pm
I explained my position on the subject quite adequately in the other topics where I explicitly told you this topic is not important.
And I also don't need a lecture in effective debate from somebody who never manages to make their premises support their conclusion. This thread being a case in point....
Your claim proceedes from:
P1 "all philosophies are said to fall into one of two primary categories"
And then progresses through:
P2 "whichever philosophical stance one take, it is reducible to either Realism [Philosophical] or Idealism"
To a conclusion...
C1"Thus to debate effectively one must be able to reduce one's "form" of philosophy to its "substance" else it would be mess to tangle with merely the varied "forms" and not dealing with its roots the substance."
What is critical is P1.
Note I provided a link to support my premises P1, i.e.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism#Overview
I gave some indication as to what is 'materialism' and is parallel to Philosophical Realism
"Materialism" is Philosophical Materialism aka Philosophical Realism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism
In addition, I have also highlighted idealism, the contrast to Philosophical Realism.
As usual, I cannot and don't want to waste time on too much details.
If you have a broad knowledge of Philosophy you will definite understand what I intend to present [Principle of Charity].
If you are in the know, what you need to do is to throw in a spanner to my argument and show which school of philosophy cannot fit into the above dichotomy?
Fine, the FlashDanger school of philosophy is agnostic on this subject because the questions involved are based on misunderstandings of concepts, and actually everything works just fine whether you choose to conceptualise the universe in materialist or idealist terms.
If you an agnostic, by default you belong to the anti-realist school.
If you are an anti-realist, there is no way you can ground your 'fact is fact' thus never a value or evaluative.
That is because the 'referent' [term imply Philosophical Realism] of your fact has to be independent of your description of it and independent of yourself. That is essentially Philosophical Realism.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jun 13, 2020 6:06 am
You have a distinctly faulty premise in this case, merely being descriptively assigned to one of two categories doesn't make something reducible to that category. Cats fall into two categories: those that purr, and those that growl. Simba the Lion cannot be reduce to his growl, and my cat Mister GreasyButtsex does not reduce to his purr.
Your above is rhetorical.
The dichotomy between Philosophical Realism and Philosophical
ANTI-Realism is very distinct and self-explanatory.
This is like theism and atheism, so it is either or but it is at the utmost fundamental level.
As I stated, show me one school of philosophy that does not belong the either one or the other.
The dichotomy between cats that growl and cats that purr is very real. The belief that one is important and the other not important has no bearing on my point. Merely belonging to a category does not entail reduction to that category.
The above is not a good analogy.
I note all cats [species] purr ["happy"] and growl ["angry"], it is just a matter of degrees.
If done, this can be verified from fMRI imagings of the cats [species] activities in relation to the parts of the brain that are activated for purring and growling.
Biggest Cat That Purrs And Meows
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXhfZRE08ko
You occupy many categories as a living breathing human being, to keep this conversation polite I will pretend that "philosopher" is one of them. But you cannot be reduced to your philosophy, you have important other categories to exist in such as 'rabid hater of a specific religion'.
I can't very well reduce you your islamaphobia and reduce you to your philosophy, those are contradictory reductions. I mean if all of your philosophising is merely footnotes to your vendetta against Islam, then I guess that specific contradiction is resolved, in which case some other category to which you belong still won't be.
All human actions are reducible the inherent program to survive.
My philosophy [all divisions of it] is reduced to philosophical anti-realism.
To resort to the term 'Islamophobia' indicate your low level of philosophical reasoning and integrity drawn by the mob thinking.
There is genuine RATIONAL fears and threat from the core ideology of Islam and the commands of Allah which will influence a
critical quantum of evil prone Muslims to commit terrible evil acts upon non-believers, as such, Islamophobia is an oxymoron.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jun 13, 2020 6:06 am
And you have an arguably faulty one as well, the grouping into idealist and materialist schools is only really relevant when materialism and idealism are relevant. But they don't matter all that much to me, and many others don't care either, you get the same world where action precedes reaction and so on either way, so it's not really something that everyone has to obsess over.
It is not the point of whether it is materialism or idealism, but the main point here is,
does the essence of the said philosophy entails the claim
the '
given object' is independent and not entangled with the human conditions.
A bigger question would be what does that claim actually mean? It is not a question I can be bothered doing with you though.
This is so fundamental and your ignoring of it is due to ignorance.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jun 13, 2020 6:06 am
Note Kant's [Anti-realist] Challenge to the prove the existence of the external world which was taken up by GE Moore [Philosophical Realist] which was not a successful attempt.
Proof of an External World
G. E. Moore
1. In the preface to the second edition of Kant's Critique of Pure Reason some words occur, which, in Professor Kemp Smith's translation, are rendered as follows:
- It still remains a scandal to philosophy. . . that the existence of things outside of us. . . must be accepted merely on faith, and that, if anyone thinks good to doubt their existence, we are unable to counter his doubts by any satisfactory proof.1
2. It seems clear from these words that Kant thought it a matter of some importance to give a proof of "the existence of things outside of us" or perhaps rather (for it seems to me possible that the force of the German words is better rendered in this way) of "the existence of the things outside of us"; for had he not thought it important that a proof should be given, he would scarcely have called it a "scandal" that no proof had been given. And it seems clear also that he thought that the giving of such a proof was a task which fell properly within the province of philosophy; for, if it did not, the fact that no proof had been given could not possibly be a scandal to philosophy.
http://web.csulb.edu/~cwallis/382/readi ... Proof.html
Moore's Argument From Wiki;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Here_is_one_hand
Yeah. Well see Wittgenstein for a better solution.
I have read the later-Wittgenstein 'On Certainty' quite thoroughly some time ago [need to refresh].
What I noted is the later-Wittgenstein was not the analytic philosopher he was in his earlier years.
I understood, the later-Wittgenstein would not agree a fact is an independent fact by itself propped by language only, but it is related and entangled with the human conditions. You dispute that, show me why?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jun 13, 2020 6:06 am
But the worst thing here, is that your conclusion is unsupported by its premises yet again. If your premises had been good enough to demonstrate that a reduction to two schools were possible, that alone wouldn't justify any assumption that it was required, or that it was useful. Some wishy washy nonsense about roots won't do that for you.
I can't be taking lectures in what philosophy is all about from somebody whose work is as shoddy as yours.
The contention is merely P1 which sufficient but I had explained above why it is not presented in details.
The dichotomy is critical to expose your fact as fact is ultimately illusory and limited to one or two perspectives, as you claimed it is ONLY from the common language perspective.
To
ground your 'fact' on "common language" is laughable.
To express
your argument about fact,
you have to use the word fact, and if
you can't use the shared meaning of that word as understood by
your audience,
you are expressing a non-shared meaning, which invalidates
your utterances.
You are expressing ideas that can only be meaningfully understood if they are false.
"You" keep asserting but what you have forgotten and overlooked is the 'asserter's' role in all the above.
It is a fact, "You" are part and parcel of reality.
There is no two realities, i.e. 'you' and 'the external world'.
Thus in the
ultimate sense* you cannot separate and disentangle the facts, words representing the fact, the referent of the fact into two realities.
Your problem is you are unable to shift to the paradigm of the ultimate sense of reality.
Why? It is because of the existential crisis that always that compelled and habitualized you to look outwards by default to the external world for food, security, warnings of threat to facilitate survival.
