Philosophy Now Forum

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Jun 14, 2022 3:46 am

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Jun 13, 2022 11:49 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jun 13, 2022 10:10 am
You often claim without qualifications "there are facts of reality".
Therefrom you claim there are description of the facts of reality.
There is no issue with 'description' which is not contentious here.

The point is when you do not qualify your 'reality' and "facts of reality" it implies you are referring to a reality-in-itself or reality-by-itself supporting your claim that such a reality exists even if there are no human beings entangling with it.
To you this reality-in-itself is absolutely real.
I do not agree there is such an absolute real reality-in-itself, thus from my perspective your so-called real reality is unreal-reality, i.e. an illusion.

I claim, there is only a real reality-by-FSK, with degrees of credibility and reliability of which the scientific FSK is most reliable.

The difference is whenever I claim "what is fact" it is always qualified to a FSK,
OTOH, you are just claiming there are 'facts of reality' without any qualification at all.
You are not a God to claim that your 'facts of reality' is the absolute answer.

So as long as you don't qualify your 'what is fact' it is implied to be absolutely independent without qualification to anything, i.e. it is an absolute reality-in-itself which is an impossibility.

Actually your 'what is fact' is conditioned to your personal FSK and that of the linguistic FSK which was improvised from that of the defunct logical positivists. But somehow you are unable to grasp and accept this truth of your real condition.

The problem with you is selective attention disorder, i.e. you just cannot see that 500 pound gorilla even when it is right in front of you!
see this;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJG698U2Mvo&t=19s

Please answer these questions with yes or no.

1. Do you think that, before humans appeared, what we call reality did not exist?

2. Do you think that, after humans have disappeared, what we call reality will not exist?

3. Do you think that, if there were no humans, what we call reality would not exist?

Note I highlighted 'think' [i.e. a human act] in all the above questions.
As such the answers that follow [logically] are inevitably conditioned upon and entangled with 'human thinking' either it is mine or yours. So a basic human-FS-Reality [FSR] is involved.

Thus my answer [in this serious philosophical context] to 3 [cover 1 & 2] would be,
-if there were no humans, a human-entangled-reality would not emerge for consideration of its existence. [A]

In your case, your 'what we call reality' implied an unqualified reality-in-itself that is absolutely independent of the human conditions and entanglement.
Base on this, your answer would be 'YES' to all the above questions.

But this 'YES' especially to an absolute independent reality is an impossibility because you had already qualified it without knowing that when you state 'what we call' where 'we' implied the embedment of some human conditions to your 'reality'.
In addition, before and after are time-based where 'time' is interdependent with the human conditions and is not absolutely independent and so is 'space'.

If we are discussing the issue above within the common sense, conventional sense, Newtonian & Einsteinian's perspective and the likes, yes, I will agree 'what-we-call' reality do exists if there are no humans.

BUT in a higher and serious levels of philosophical discussion then my answers is in A above which take some effort to deliberate above the common sense, conventional sense, Newtonian & Einsteinian's paradigm.

Btw, this is not ME who is providing such an answer, but Kant and other anti-realisms of the likes will provide the same answers in counter to Philosophical/Metaphysical Realism which hold the same absolutely independent reality view as yours.

The above answer A is not simply a theoretical claim but has implications in religion, theism, quantum physics, morality and [others] which has produced positive results for the well being of humanity.

To be serious and where relevant, I suggest you don't simply present the term 'reality' in an unqualified way as if you own it.
Rather than 'what we call reality' you should qualify 'what I call reality' if you want to use "we" then indicate who are the 'we'.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Jun 14, 2022 6:29 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Jun 14, 2022 3:46 am To be serious and where relevant, I suggest you don't simply present the term 'reality' in an unqualified way as if you own it.
Rather than 'what we call reality' you should qualify 'what I call reality' if you want to use "we" then indicate who are the 'we'.

Progress. You agree that what we/you normally or conventionally call reality exists independently from human beings - that it existed before we turned up and will exist after we're gone. That'll do for now. I'll come back to your reservation later.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Tue Jun 14, 2022 8:51 am

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Jun 14, 2022 6:29 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Jun 14, 2022 3:46 am To be serious and where relevant, I suggest you don't simply present the term 'reality' in an unqualified way as if you own it.
Rather than 'what we call reality' you should qualify 'what I call reality' if you want to use "we" then indicate who are the 'we'.

Progress. You agree that what we/you normally or conventionally call reality exists independently from human beings - that it existed before we turned up and will exist after we're gone. That'll do for now. I'll come back to your reservation later.

If his highness must be appeased with some special way of saying "reality" to highlight that it is in accord with what everyone means when they use that word... then perhaps little lord VA will need to apply the same restriction to his weird misusings of certain words including (but not restricted to) "fact", "objective", "morality", and of course "scientist".

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Jun 14, 2022 11:42 am Meanwhile, the fact that a non-moral premise can't entail a moral conclusion demolishes the case for moral objectivity - the existence of moral facts. The end. Or is it..?

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Jun 14, 2022 2:02 pm

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Jun 14, 2022 11:42 am Meanwhile, the fact that a non-moral premise can't entail a moral conclusion demolishes the case for moral objectivity - the existence of moral facts. The end. Or is it..?

He's ignoring me, but I am hoping it appears in the posts of others for him.
My recent approach has been around parsimony/occam's razor.
His approach to justifying moral facts has often included mirror neurons and that if we develop the functions of this we end up treating each other better, as opposed to creating moral rules. He sees the existence of the mirror neurons as axioms, it seems, in deducing what are true, objective moral facts for humans.

So, I throw the OR at him. Can we explain the effects of mirror neurons on behavior without introducing the entity 'moral facts'? Yes, we can.
Does this explanation describe all the real effects and 'objects' science has determined are real? Yes, we can.
Does the addition of the entity 'moral facts' explain something that science has determined is real, that the explanation without 'moral facts' cannot? No, it doesn't. (I am being redundant just to obviously hit all sides)
Can we test for the existence of moral facts and find something in addition to mirror neurons, behavior, reported feelings of identification? No, not so far. There is no research discovering the existence of something not covered in the model of neurons and behavior and psychological assessment of feeling identification with others.

So, the OR and ontological parsimony (which is followed as rule in scientific conclusions) would argue strongly against the introduction of 'moral facts' whose existence have not been discovered (measured, say) nor are they necessary to explain everything that we do know exists.

And LOL; if one wants to introduce their existence as a felt sense that some things are immoral, say, we can easily label this, as he does things he does not believe in, psychological derivatives and point to anxiety as the cause of the concept of moral facts, but not their existence.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Jun 14, 2022 11:42 am The end. Or is it..?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Aug 03, 2018 8:35 am Kant's Framework and System of Morality and Ethics the model is like the Science Model with its dual Pure [Moral] and Applied [Ethics] aspects....

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Tue Jun 14, 2022 2:51 pm

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Jun 14, 2022 11:42 am The end. Or is it..?

Only one thing has happened really in over 400 pages of this thread. That thing is the descent of VA's whole FSK thing, which started out so innocently with stuff like this

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Aug 03, 2018 8:35 am Kant's Framework and System of Morality and Ethics the model is like the Science Model with its dual Pure [Moral] and Applied [Ethics] aspects....

But ended up as a complete flustercluck where the imbecile is incapable, without an FSK that is credibly similar to that of science(?), to establish whether or not there is a nose somewhere on his face.

All of that decay originated with this unintentionally poisonous thread.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Jun 14, 2022 2:35 pm Fair enough, given the assumption that moral facts are things that could exist and therefore could have a role in the argument. Then it could well be reasonable to apply 'OR and ontological parsimony' to exclude them. But what sort of 'entity' would we be excluding?

My point is that they aren't things that could exist but happen not to - that the very expression 'moral fact' is incoherent, or a 'conceptual oxymoron', or a category error, or a grammatical misattribution.

But your last point is neat! I've long maintained that belief in moral objectivism against all reasoning is a matter of faith in the absence of evidence, which has psychological causes and explanations. Nick Carraway at the end of Gatsby: wanting the world to be in uniform?

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Jun 14, 2022 8:00 pm

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Jun 14, 2022 2:35 pm Fair enough, given the assumption that moral facts are things that could exist and therefore could have a role in the argument. Then it could well be reasonable to apply 'OR and ontological parsimony' to exclude them. But what sort of 'entity' would we be excluding?

I don't know. That would be up to VA to decide.

My point is that they aren't things that could exist but happen not to - that the very expression 'moral fact' is incoherent, or a 'conceptual oxymoron', or a category error, or a grammatical misattribution.

Sure, I think a good case can be made that way. I am trying to sidestep that argument. I think a weakness in VA's positions is that he uses science when it suits him, but this causes him problems when it doesn't. According to him science is the best FSK. Well he needs to explain why it isn't the right one for moral facts, given that it is the best. He hasn't talked about the OR, at least as far as I've noticed, but it is implicit in his criticisms of the theists' beliefs in the entity God. He needs to explain why scientists - who provide the bulk of the facts in his arguments in favor of moral facts, shouldn't then indicate the FSK to resolve/determine the issue.

But your last point is neat! I've long maintained that belief in moral objectivism against all reasoning is a matter of faith in the absence of evidence, which has psychological causes and explanations. Nick Carraway at the end of Gatsby: wanting the world to be in uniform?

I think some minds manage to compartmentalize. I do not mean theists or even moral objectivists in general. I mean, minds like VA's. They literally don't know what the left hand is doing. They contradict themselves by shifting criteria and rules from situation to situation.

I find this fascinating. I've recently had a two year run in with a narcissist who I was (at least seemingly) close to, then not. The issues are quite different, with this person much more situational and who gets the blame and who was victimized and what the criteria are for judging things and so on. I have been just amazed by the holes in memory, the applying of certain criteria to me and others but not to himself, the contradictions, even during very short periods of conversation or emails and so on. And I think this person is actually not aware of a significant chunk of their shenanigans. I think they are aware that they hide details of stories and gussy them up with different people. But I do believe he thinks he was a victim, while actually causing a great deal of frustration and suffering. He even called in all sorts of organizations to try to get justice and punishment for our organization. But none listened precisely because there was a 'paper' trail for much of this and the contradictions, lies and distortions were there to be seen. And still this person thinks his official version is the case. Or perhaps I have trouble believing she could be so conniving.

Anyway, it reminds me of VA but on the philosophical issue/position/abstract plane. So, the idea is to press the contradicting explanations toward each other. To mirror back the contraditions. I have little optimism it will be effective, but it's nice exercise. And given the things that Flashdangerpants has found out about VA's claims about himself, perhaps narcissism is also at work here.

Atla wrote: ↑Tue Jun 14, 2022 8:26 pm

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Jun 14, 2022 8:00 pm

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Jun 14, 2022 2:35 pm Fair enough, given the assumption that moral facts are things that could exist and therefore could have a role in the argument. Then it could well be reasonable to apply 'OR and ontological parsimony' to exclude them. But what sort of 'entity' would we be excluding?

I don't know. That would be up to VA to decide.

My point is that they aren't things that could exist but happen not to - that the very expression 'moral fact' is incoherent, or a 'conceptual oxymoron', or a category error, or a grammatical misattribution.

Sure, I think a good case can be made that way. I am trying to sidestep that argument. I think a weakness in VA's positions is that he uses science when it suits him, but this causes him problems when it doesn't. According to him science is the best FSK. Well he needs to explain why it isn't the right one for moral facts, given that it is the best. He hasn't talked about the OR, at least as far as I've noticed, but it is implicit in his criticisms of the theists' beliefs in the entity God. He needs to explain why scientists - who provide the bulk of the facts in his arguments in favor of moral facts, shouldn't then indicate the FSK to resolve/determine the issue.

But your last point is neat! I've long maintained that belief in moral objectivism against all reasoning is a matter of faith in the absence of evidence, which has psychological causes and explanations. Nick Carraway at the end of Gatsby: wanting the world to be in uniform?

I think some minds manage to compartmentalize. I do not mean theists or even moral objectivists in general. I mean, minds like VA's. They literally don't know what the left hand is doing. They contradict themselves by shifting criteria and rules from situation to situation.

I find this fascinating. I've recently had a two year run in with a narcissist who I was (at least seemingly) close to, then not. The issues are quite different, with this person much more situational and who gets the blame and who was victimized and what the criteria are for judging things and so on. I have been just amazed by the holes in memory, the applying of certain criteria to me and others but not to himself, the contradictions, even during very short periods of conversation or emails and so on. And I think this person is actually not aware of a significant chunk of their shenanigans. I think they are aware that they hide details of stories and gussy them up with different people. But I do believe he thinks he was a victim, while actually causing a great deal of frustration and suffering. He even called in all sorts of organizations to try to get justice and punishment for our organization. But none listened precisely because there was a 'paper' trail for much of this and the contradictions, lies and distortions were there to be seen. And still this person thinks his official version is the case. Or perhaps I have trouble believing she could be so conniving.

Anyway, it reminds me of VA but on the philosophical issue/position/abstract plane. So, the idea is to press the contradicting explanations toward each other. To mirror back the contraditions. I have little optimism it will be effective, but it's nice exercise. And given the things that Flashdangerpants has found out about VA's claims about himself, perhaps narcissism is also at work here.

It's a bit sad, but those human-like entities such as clinical NPDs, are maybe the best refutations for objective morality. Those entities simply have no conscience, completely amoral.

Unless God himself appears in the sky and rearranges the stars and somehow demonstrates that some things are indeed objectively moral and some things aren't, objective morality seems to be a pretty lost cause.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Jun 14, 2022 8:38 pm Thanks, but I maintain that even then morality would not be objective. A non-moral premise can't entail a moral conclusion. And since nothing can be objectively morally right or wrong, nothing can be demonstrated to be objectively morally right or wrong, even by a god.

Atla wrote: ↑Tue Jun 14, 2022 8:42 pm

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Jun 14, 2022 8:38 pm Thanks, but I maintain that even then morality would not be objective. A non-moral premise can't entail a moral conclusion. And since nothing can be objectively morally right or wrong, nothing can be demonstrated to be objectively morally right or wrong, even by a god.

How do you know your premises are non-moral? What if the entire universe is moral somehow?

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Jun 14, 2022 9:00 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Tue Jun 14, 2022 8:42 pm

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Jun 14, 2022 8:38 pm Thanks, but I maintain that even then morality would not be objective. A non-moral premise can't entail a moral conclusion. And since nothing can be objectively morally right or wrong, nothing can be demonstrated to be objectively morally right or wrong, even by a god.

How do you know your premises are non-moral? What if the entire universe is moral somehow?

A moral assertion is one that says something is morally right or wrong, good or bad - or that we should or shouldn't do something because it's morally right or wrong, and so on. An assertion that doesn't say one of those things is non-moral. For example, the assertion 'the entire universe is moral' is non-moral.

And since nothing can be objectively morally right or wrong

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Jun 14, 2022 9:00 pm A moral assertion is one that says something is morally right or wrong, good or bad - or that we should or shouldn't do something because it's morally right or wrong, and so on. An assertion that doesn't say one of those things is non-moral. For example, the assertion 'the entire universe is moral' is non-moral.

• Morality (from Latin moralitas 'manner, character, proper behavior') is the differentiation of intentions, decisions and actions between those that are distinguished as proper (right) and those that are improper (wrong).[1]
  Morality can be
  • a body of standards or
    principles derived from a code of conduct from a particular philosophy, religion or culture, or
    it can derive from a standard that a person believes should be universal.[2]
  Morality may also be specifically synonymous with "goodness" or "rightness".
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality

• Though other animals may not possess what humans may perceive as moral behavior, all social animals have had to modify or restrain their behaviors for group living to be worthwhile.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution ... _sociality
  
  Morality is not just something that people learn, argues Yale psychologist Paul Bloom: It is something we are all born with.
  https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... of-babies/