Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed May 31, 2023 10:46 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed May 31, 2023 10:43 am
Exist: have objective reality or being.
'Exist' is a verb and naturally extended to 'existence' - noun.
I am not interested in the semantics aspects at all, other than listing down what they actually mean in the above.
Thus the most effective basis to deal with exist and existence is the following;
What is real & exist, as facts, truths, knowledge, and objectivity is conditioned upon a specific human based FSK.
How else?
When you see a goat, you need to invoke [or reference] the science-biology-FSK [verify, repeat testing, justify,] to ensure you are seeing a real objective goat and not an illusion.
Aaaand onto the merry-go-round again!
using 3 metaphysical words (objective, reality, being) to define 1 metaphysical word.
Let me get you a shovel. You seem determined to stay in the metaphysical cave.
So what if it's an illusion? It's a bloody persistent illusion! It's still eating grandma's roses!
It is only an illusion for those who are
philosophical realists in insisting the real goat is existing as a mind-independent thing out there without any qualification to the human conditions [mind] and the human-based FSKs.
There is no way for a philosophical realists to nail down what is exactly the real mind-independent goat, since 'what is the real goat' is in constant flux with so many variations of what is really real.
For an anti-philosophical-realist [Kantian] there is no illusory goat at all.
Yes, the goat is still eating grandma' roses, but what that real goat "
is" must be qualified to a
human-based FSK [like modal dependent realism] e.g.
1. Human Based Common sense FSK.
In this case, the goat is real but qualified to the common sense FSK. It is likely, grandma will shoo the goat away or build a fence around her roses. As such, this common sense FSK as an evolutionary default, has its own utilities.
This is acceptable as long as grandma do not adopts such a sense of reality as an ideological "
ism" like the realists dogmatically clinging on to Philosophical Realism.
2. Science-biological FSK.
This is a more detailed reality of what a goat is in accordance to what as biologist would see the real goat as within his science-biological FSK. This real goat within the science-biological FSK has its own utilities.
3. Science-QM-Chemistry-biological FSK.
Within this human-based FSK, we cognize the goat as a cluster of particles, sometimes actualized as waves. In term of reality, surely this sense is obviously more realistic than the two FSKs above. It will be much more realistic when we can track every particles/waves in every nano-seconds and its location is space.
It is not illusory because we are qualifying it against a human-based FSK or Hawking's model-dependent-realism.
However, there would not be much utilities in cognizing the whole goat within this sense of reality but perhaps useful if we cognize the brain of the goat and every living brain in more detail re the particles activities within the synapse and it relation to the whole brain.
An anti-philosophical-realist [Kantian] will wear the above hat 1, 2 or 3 depending on situation to gain the most optimal utility out of it.
It would be very stupid to wear hat 3 dogmatically if one were to keep standing on a railway track when there is a train coming towards him. Instead, he will wear hat 1 and jump off the track ASAP.
The 'goat' is only an illusion when Philosophical Realists insist that goat exists as a mind-independent reality, i.e. not conditioned within a human based FSK.
This is the point I am driving at when I request Peter Holmes to show me what is his fact as a feature of reality which is just-is, being-so, that is the case, a state of affairs that is independent of the human conditions [human mind].
If he ever apply reflective & critical thinking as in this OP, he will realize his 'what is fact' is an illusion.