Philosophy Now Forum

Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed Mar 01, 2023 11:00 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Mar 01, 2023 4:10 am

Sculptor wrote: ↑Tue Feb 28, 2023 1:32 pm
You should get a Motel room with VA.
Explore each other's FSKs.
It might stop you shitting on the Forum for a few days.

This only prove you are intellectually incompetent, a coward and deranged.
That is what you ALWAYS initiates when running out of arguments.

Tell that to your alter-ego skepdick

Oh boy. The dementia is in a critical phase...

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Feb 27, 2023 6:52 pm

tillingborn wrote: ↑Mon Feb 27, 2023 4:56 pm Can you tell me the difference between explaining ...and presenting an argument?

Sure. One works forward. One works backwards.

Presenting arguments is a philosophical ritual. You start with "true premises" and deduce conclusions. You follow the rules. You avoid logical fallacies and all other traditional crap.

Except it doesn't matter whether the premises are true. Dumb philosophers like the later Wittgenstein, Quine, Putman and Rorty all understand that language is a 'game' with made up rules. Philosophers who believe their premises are true, and that they can deduce further truth from them, I would concur really are dumb.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Feb 27, 2023 6:52 pmPresenting an explanations is what scientists do. You start with true conclusions and work your way back to some sufficient premises. You consruct some system; you make up the inference rules as you go along; you invent whatever you need to invent and then you use induction to generate the universe. You use this conceptual system to explain some obvious/observable phenomenon.

Kuhn and Feyerabend made it clear that science has different rules even within a given paradigm. So yes, that's one way of looking at it.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Feb 27, 2023 6:52 pmExplanations need not correspond to reality (however the fuck one determines correspondence). Explanations only need to make correct predictions.

I think you mean they only have to make useful predictions. As Feyerabend claimed, it is not for you to decide what other people find useful.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Feb 27, 2023 6:52 pm"This sentence is false" is the same sort of paradox as "This color is blue."; and it's the exact same problem as "The perception typing this sentence is (un?)mediated".

What useful prediction does any of that make? Maybe it matters in computer science, but I'm not a computer scientist, so why should I care?

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Feb 27, 2023 6:52 pmMy issue with dumb philsophers is that they call "bollocks" even for things that are way beyond their technical know-how. You simply lack the background knowledge necessary to make the leap.

Your technical know-how is just one more language game/paradigm I don't happen to speak. I call it bollocks because anyone who believes some language they do happen to speak is privileged is talking bollocks in the same way that the philosophers I agree are dumb talk bollocks.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Feb 27, 2023 6:52 pmSo not only is your bollocks... bollocks, now I also have to find a way convince you that you are in fact as stupid as I say you are. Without triggering you.

Will that take the form of an argument or an explanation? An argument would involve a philosophical ritual I presume is beneath you. An explanation would only be valid in "some system" you make up the rules for. Anyway, I wouldn't worry about triggering me. Not everyone is as easy to wind up as you.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Mar 01, 2023 5:03 am

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Feb 28, 2023 8:10 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Feb 28, 2023 9:31 am

If YOU believe "it is morally wrong to torture anyone" [and you don't have grounds for it] then you leave room for other humans to believe "it is morally wrong to torture anyone" even for pleasure.
In this case, you are complicit to the tortures of humans by humans.

1 Pointing out the downside of there being no moral facts - of morality being subjective - does nothing to establish the existence of moral facts. That's a fallacious argument from undesirable consequences.

Strawman and irrelevant to the points raised by me so far.
As I had explained a 'million' times,
Whatever I claimed as a fact must be conditioned to a specific FSK, for example scientific facts. My moral fact as conditioned to a moral FSK is equivalent to a scientific fact.

2 The claim that moral subjectivists have no grounds for their moral opinions is false. For example, I have carefully thought-out reasons for thinking that torturing anyone for any reason is morally wrong. The difference is that I rest my opinion on moral principles, rather than pretending that there are moral facts. Moral objectivism is egotism in action - a profoundly subjective phenomenon: 'there are moral facts, and I know what they are'.

Btw, what is your definition of morality?

• Opinion:
  -a view or judgement formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge. google
  -belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledge
  -a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter
  https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/opinion

In your case, the grounding of your moral opinions are based on your personal FSK which is obviously subjective.
Regardless that you claim yours are moral 'principles' they remained merely your personal thoughts, beliefs and judgments.

As I had argued, your position of holding on to moral opinions means that others will have opinions that are contrary to yours, i.e. 'it is morally right to torture humans'.
In that case your moral position leaves room for other humans to opine it is morally right to torture humans.
If 100 million of humans are tortured in various forms and degrees, it meant that this will continue and increase with increase in human population and as long as there are humans.

On the other hand, I argued there are verified and justified objective moral facts conditioned /grounded upon a moral FSK, i.e. in this case the 'ought-not-ness to torture humans'.
With this justified and grounded moral fact, human can use it as a guide /vision to strive* for ZERO human tortured and the reality will be a continual reducing trend of humans tortured on an annual basis.

*'Strive' means influencing to tuning and developing the related real neural correlates within the brain as a moral skill [competence] such that the individual[s] are naturally indifferent to torturing humans.

3 People have radically different opinions on important moral issues, such as abortion, capital punishment, eating animals, gender identity - and, as it happens, the use of torture in some circumstances. To understand and accept that people differ is not to endorse the actions of those we disagree with. That's a grotesque and offensive idea.

By definition, of course you would not endorse what is contrary to your mere opinions but your moral position in principle implied those in opposition are entitled to their opinions.
On that basis, your position, opinion and moral principle will enable /sustain the number of humans tortured at the current levels [appx. 100 million tortured in various forms is a possibility] and that number will increase correspondingly with increase in total human population.

Your moral opinion is ultimately and in reality, a grotesque and offensive idea.

1 What we call a fact is a feature of reality that is or was the case. And since that has nothing to do with knowledge, a fact is not 'conditioned to a specific framework and system of knowledge' - whatever that means. The very empirical evidence that you agree confers credibility on a discourse consists of such 'unconditioned' facts. If a fact exists merely within a discourse, it can't be evidence for the credibility of the discourse.

2 You seem to think people should not be entitled to their moral opinions. And that's a matter of opinion, which is subjective. As is your belief that humans should be neurologically manipulated to behave in certain ways.

3 Meanwhile, we await answers to the following questions:

Why should we avoid evil and promote good? And is it a fact that we should do so?

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Mar 02, 2023 5:17 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Mar 01, 2023 5:03 am

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Feb 28, 2023 8:10 pm 1 Pointing out the downside of there being no moral facts - of morality being subjective - does nothing to establish the existence of moral facts. That's a fallacious argument from undesirable consequences.

Strawman and irrelevant to the points raised by me so far.
As I had explained a 'million' times,
Whatever I claimed as a fact must be conditioned to a specific FSK, for example scientific facts. My moral fact as conditioned to a moral FSK is equivalent to a scientific fact.

1 What we call a fact is a feature of reality that is or was the case.
And since that has nothing to do with knowledge, a fact is not 'conditioned to a specific framework and system of knowledge' - whatever that means.
The very empirical evidence that you agree confers credibility on a discourse consists of such 'unconditioned' facts.
If a fact exists merely within a discourse, it can't be evidence for the credibility of the discourse.

Note I have raised this thread;
There are Two Senses of 'What is Fact'
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39587
You responded to the above in an off-topic manner and I explained subsequently, but you never follow up.
I suggest strongly you read the thread again to avoid the ad nauseam strawmaning.

As a reminder,
A FSK-Conditioned Fact is not merely a fact that is known and subsequently described.

A subject is a kind of state of affairs, the object is another type of state of affairs, the FSK is also a state-of-affairs.
A FSK-Conditioned Fact is a State-of-Affairs of realization that encompasses the subject and the object together, entangled, enacted and embodied.

As such, FSK-Conditioned Fact is a composite state-of-affairs comprising both state of affairs of object entangled with state of affairs of subject which culminated in a state of realization of its reality.

It is only upon this realization of the composite FSK-Conditioned Fact that the subject knows via its intellect the the FSK-Conditioned Fact and therefrom describes it.

As I had stated, the FSK-Conditioned Fact relates to three phases,
1. Entanglement & realization
2. Knowing
3. Describing

So the difference is,
your fact as state of affairs is merely confined to the state of affairs of the object or external things,
on the other hand, my FSK-Conditioned Fact state-of-affair comprised both the state of affair of the subject plus the state of affair of the object in entanglement with each other as one composite state of affair.

See the difference?
What say you?

2 You seem to think people should not be entitled to their moral opinions. And that's a matter of opinion, which is subjective.

Strawman again.
All humans are entitled to have opinions and must encourage to have opinions which is a starting point and essential to human knowledge.
Like it or not, all humans will naturally have opinions. This is an objective FSK-Conditioned Fact.

But the point is people should not be ideological and dogmatic with merely opinions.
If people recognized their opinions are merely opinions and not beliefs, thus not knowledge, plus keep their opinions to themselves, that is not a problem.
However if anyone were to adopt their opinions as beliefs in discussions with others, then they have to provide verification and justifications based on a credible FSK [Science being the most credible].
If you qualified your views as opinions, I would not give a damn to it, since it is merely your [Peter Holmes'] opinion.
The exception is if the opinion is from a recognized authority, even then it remained an opinion until verified and justified.

As is your belief that humans should be neurologically manipulated to behave in certain ways.

Strawman again. "Manipulated"???

My point is, we need to recognize there are natural inherent moral functions and potential within all humans as objective moral facts from the scientific FSK, then the moral FSK.
This objective moral function is represented by its physical neural correlates.
At present this moral function is already being activated within humanity, e.g. that is why the majority do not go about killing humans arbitrary as inhibited by neural inhibitors.
But this moral function is being activated very slowly, thus there are loads of evil acts being committed by a minority [if 10% is 800 million ] of humans.

What I had been proposing is that we have the ability and possibility to expedite the moral mechanisms to reduce evil acts to the least optimal minimal via FOOLPROOF self-development programs.
Why do you think this is impossible?

3 Meanwhile, we await answers to the following questions:
Why should we avoid evil and promote good?
And is it a fact that we should do so?

Strawman again.
I had never emphasized 'should'.

As I had stated, humanity need to recognize the moral FSK-Conditioned-Fact which is already embedded within ALL humans, albeit unfolding and activated slowly.
What I proposed is not a SHOULD of urgency or enforcement, but merely assisting the inherent natural moral potential to unfold accordingly and more expeditiously within a better environment.

Note how the average human IQ and knowledge competence had increased over the last 1000 years ago as facilitated by better conditions.

Based on the above, the expected results is the reducing trend in acts of evil thus enabling its related good based on the objective FSK-conditioned moral facts.

Note when I mentioned 'fact' it is always a FSK-Conditioned Fact [a composite state-of-affairs], but you are so blinded you always interpret my 'fact' as your independent fact in itself.

The portentous 'framework and system of knowledge' (FSK) invention seems to have taken over VA's reason and imagination. But what we're talking about is what we call knowledge. The 'framework and system' condition is supposed to imply a constructivist or model-dependent realist foundation. In other words, the term 'FSK' is an example of Moynihan's semantic infiltration.

VA's aim is to fix what we call facts firmly inside what we call knowledge; to fix what we call knowledge as a human construct or model; and therefore to fix morality as just another kind of constructed or modelled knowledge. Hence the fictional and question-begging 'morality FSK'. But the whole shebang a house of cards.

Being known is not a necessary condition for existence. And the existence of a thing is a fact - a feature of reality. So facts exist outside or before or independent from knowledge. The fact that humans can perceive, know and describe reality only in a human way is irrelevant.

VA's main premise is false, so the argument for moral objectivity is unsound. The end.

How much does your average rose weigh?

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Mar 03, 2023 9:22 am The portentous 'framework and system of knowledge' (FSK) invention seems to have taken over VA's reason and imagination. But what we're talking about is what we call knowledge. The 'framework and system' condition is supposed to imply a constructivist or model-dependent realist foundation. In other words, the term 'FSK' is an example of Moynihan's semantic infiltration.

VA's aim is to fix what we call facts firmly inside what we call knowledge; to fix what we call knowledge as a human construct or model; and therefore to fix morality as just another kind of constructed or modelled knowledge. Hence the fictional and question-begging 'morality FSK'. But the whole shebang a house of cards.

Being known is not a necessary condition for existence. And the existence of a thing is a fact - a feature of reality. So facts exist outside or before or independent from knowledge. The fact that humans can perceive, know and describe reality only in a human way is irrelevant.

VA's main premise is false, so the argument for moral objectivity is unsound. The end.

Strawman again.

You are making a fool of yourself by simply ignoring moral objectivity without any significant arguments to back your claim;
I would remind you;
62% Philosophers Surveyed Accept Moral Realism
viewtopic.php?p=557695#p557695

• Moral realism (also ethical realism) is the position that ethical sentences express propositions that refer to objective features of the world (that is, features independent of subjective opinion), some of which may be true to the extent that they report those features accurately.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_realism#:

Whilst majority view is definitely not conclusive; in this specific case relating to Moral Realism and objectivity, there are significant truths to the above which should not be brushed off without providing significant counter arguments.

What is I termed as FSK-Conditioned Fact is what a scientific-fact is, which is a fact that is conditioned upon a scientific FSK.
A scientific FSK is constructed and sustained by humans, subjects as scientists
Therefore a scientific-fact cannot be absolutely independent of the human scientists and peers who shared with consensus the truth of the scientific facts.

As I had demonstrated, your fact is a fact-in-itself i.e. absolutely independent by itself, as merely a thought-in-your-head is illusory, meaningless and non-sensical as I had argued in this thread.
PH's What is Fact is Illusory
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39577
As usual you are a coward to counter my above argument.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Mar 03, 2023 10:08 am

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Mar 03, 2023 9:22 am The portentous 'framework and system of knowledge' (FSK) invention seems to have taken over VA's reason and imagination. But what we're talking about is what we call knowledge. The 'framework and system' condition is supposed to imply a constructivist or model-dependent realist foundation. In other words, the term 'FSK' is an example of Moynihan's semantic infiltration.

VA's aim is to fix what we call facts firmly inside what we call knowledge; to fix what we call knowledge as a human construct or model; and therefore to fix morality as just another kind of constructed or modelled knowledge. Hence the fictional and question-begging 'morality FSK'. But the whole shebang a house of cards.

Being known is not a necessary condition for existence. And the existence of a thing is a fact - a feature of reality. So facts exist outside or before or independent from knowledge. The fact that humans can perceive, know and describe reality only in a human way is irrelevant.

VA's main premise is false, so the argument for moral objectivity is unsound. The end.

Strawman again.

You are making a fool of yourself by simply ignoring moral objectivity without any significant arguments to back your claim;
I would remind you;
62% Philosophers Surveyed Accept Moral Realism
viewtopic.php?p=557695#p557695

• Moral realism (also ethical realism) is the position that ethical sentences express propositions that refer to objective features of the world (that is, features independent of subjective opinion), some of which may be true to the extent that they report those features accurately.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_realism#:

Whilst majority view is definitely not conclusive; in this specific case relating to Moral Realism and objectivity, there are significant truths to the above which should not be brushed off without providing significant counter arguments.

What is I termed as FSK-Conditioned Fact is what a scientific-fact is, which is a fact that is conditioned upon a scientific FSK.
A scientific FSK is constructed and sustained by humans, subjects as scientists
Therefore a scientific-fact cannot be absolutely independent of the human scientists and peers who shared with consensus the truth of the scientific facts.

As I had demonstrated, your fact is a fact-in-itself i.e. absolutely independent by itself, as merely a thought-in-your-head is illusory, meaningless and non-sensical as I had argued in this thread.
PH's What is Fact is Illusory
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39577
As usual you are a coward to counter my above argument.

No. As I've demonstrated, above and 'a million times', the claim that what we call a fact exists only inside a descriptive context is patently false.

To construct a model of reality is not to construct reality. A description is not the described.

If nothing exists outside a model, of what is the model a model?

If there are no noumena, of what are phenomena phenomena?

If we humans construct reality, then we also construct our selves, including our capacity to construct models of reality - so reality is a model modelled by a model, a construction constructed by a construction. and so on, down the rabbit hole, or up our own arses.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Mar 03, 2023 10:58 am
No. As I've demonstrated, above and 'a million times', the claim that what we call a fact exists only inside a descriptive context is patently false.

To construct a model of reality is not to construct reality. A description is not the described.

Immaterial and irrelevant.

A description is not "the described" - it's true.
There are NO privileged descriptions of "the described" - it's also true.
There is NO way to resolve conflicting descriptions of "the described" - it's also true.

Of course facts are contextual! A fact is a sufficient description given a particular purpose.

For the purposes of chemistry it is a fact that water is H20.
For the purposes of quantum physics it is NOT a fact that water is H20.

For the purposes of furthering Israeli interests in the region Jerusalem is the capital of Israel.
For the purpose of furthering Palestinian interests in the region Jerusalem is NOT the capital of Israel.

Dumb. Fucking. Philosopher.

So. To repeat. For the hard of understanding.

To construct a model of reality is not to construct reality. A description is not the described. Saying something is so doesn't make it so. For example, saying water is H2O isn't what makes water H2O. Something else is needed - in this case, the actual chemical constitution of water, for which there's empirical evidence.

So. saying X is morally wrong isn't what could make X morally wrong. Something else would be needed - something for which there's actual empirical evidence. And - oh dear - there's no such fucking thing. And that's why morality isn't objective.

What sort of fucking retarded moron could think it is?

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Mar 03, 2023 9:38 pm Saying something is so doesn't make it so.

Fucking idiot!

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Mar 03, 2023 9:38 pm To construct a model of reality is not to construct reality.

So what makes reality ... reality? That's what we call it.
So what makes a model ... a model? That's what we call it.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Mar 03, 2023 9:38 pm A description is not the described.

So what makes a description... a description? That's what we call it.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Mar 03, 2023 9:38 pm For example, saying water is H2O isn't what makes water H2O.

So what makes water.... water? That's what we call it.
What makes Hydrogen...Hydrogen? That's what we call it.
What makes Oxygen...Oxygen? That's what we call it.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Mar 03, 2023 9:38 pm So. saying X is morally wrong isn't what could make X morally wrong

So, saying this color is red isn't what could make this color red?

Weird. I thought that's exactly how humans assign meaning to everything.

So what makes murder morally wrong? That's what we call it!

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Mar 03, 2023 9:38 pm What sort of fucking retarded moron could think it is?

You.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri May 06, 2022 11:11 am So the assertion 'snow is white' is true if what we call snow is what we call white. Notice the tautology? X is Y because we call X, 'Y'.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Mar 03, 2023 10:58 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Mar 03, 2023 10:08 am What is I termed as FSK-Conditioned Fact is what a scientific-fact is, which is a fact that is conditioned upon a scientific FSK.
A scientific FSK is constructed and sustained by humans, subjects as scientists
Therefore a scientific-fact cannot be absolutely independent of the human scientists and peers who shared with consensus the truth of the scientific facts.

As I had demonstrated, your fact is a fact-in-itself i.e. absolutely independent by itself, as merely a thought-in-your-head is illusory, meaningless and non-sensical as I had argued in this thread.
PH's What is Fact is Illusory
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39577
As usual you are a coward to counter my above argument.

No. As I've demonstrated, above and 'a million times', the claim that what we call a fact exists only inside a descriptive context is patently false.

Strawman again, the 'millionth +1 times'.
I NEVER claimed the above.

Read again what I wrote;
What is I termed as FSK-Conditioned Fact is what a scientific-fact is, which is a fact that is conditioned upon a scientific FSK.
A scientific FSK is constructed and sustained by humans, subjects as scientists
Therefore a scientific-fact cannot be absolutely independent of the human scientists and peers who shared with consensus the truth of the scientific facts.

To construct a model of reality is not to construct reality. A description is not the described.

Conventionally via the default dualism, yes, a description is not the described; a description is the described.

You are too narrow minded.
In a more refined perspective of reality, constructing a model is contributing to the construction of the reality [all there is] the constructor is part and parcel of.
The model was never there at t1 of reality, upon construction the model exists at t2 of reality, thus that is a fact that constructing a model of reality at t1 is contributing to the reconstruction of reality at t2.
The point is the modeller, the model cannot be independent from whatever the specific reality that is part of the whole of reality.

Note;
A FSK-Conditioned Fact as a Composite State-of-Affairs
1. Reality [all there is] is one undifferentiated State-of-Affair [FSK conditioned].
2. But to facilitate survival, humans are programmed to different this Whole State of Affair of Reality into [cruder] separate states-of-affairs, e.g. the modeler, the model, the modelled reality, etc.

Point 1 represent the most realistic of reality.
You are ignorant of 1 and insist the cruder separated states of affairs [your kind of facts] are the most realistic.

If nothing exists outside a model, of what is the model a model?

I agree, COMMON SENSE & CONVENTIONALLY, a model is used to represent what is modelled., i.e. the real car model of a Ferrari is not the real Ferrari.
But because, the real model car of a Ferrari, the modeler, the real Ferrari car are all intricately part and parcel of the whole reality, they cannot be absolutely independent of each other.

Thus my point, whatever is a fact [a feature of reality, state of affairs] cannot be independent from is specific FSK and the whole of reality or the totality of state-of-affairs.

If there are no noumena, of what are phenomena phenomena?

I have explained the concept of phenomena vs noumena to you many times, but as usual the point just cannot get through your thick skull.

Phenomenon = something that exists and can be seen, felt, tasted, etc.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictio ... phenomenon

The apple that you are holding [say now] which you can see, feel, taste, hear upon knocking it and described, is the phenomena-apple.
The existence of the real phenomena-apple can be confirmed by your common sense FSK or a shared-common-sense FSK with others.
But the common sense FSK is never reliable and credible.
The most credible and reliable FSK to verify and justify the most real phenomena-apple is the scientific FSK.
As such the most realistic phenomena apple has to be a scientific-FSK conditioned phenomena apple and that is the fact [FSK conditioned] of the apple.

The concept of the noumena-apple arise from logic and linguistic habitualized by dualism, not of reality.
According to Kant, the one who coined the term, the 'noumena' relates to an intelligible thing or object, i.e. it is merely an abstraction.
As such, the noumena-apple is merely an intelligible-apple not a real apple as conditioned by a FSK.

Kant in CPR wrote:The Concept of a Noumenon is thus a merely limiting Concept, the Function of which is to curb the pretensions of Sensibility; and it is therefore only of negative employment. B311
But nonetheless we are unable to comprehend how such Noumena can be Possible, and the domain that lies out beyond the sphere of Appearances is for us, Empty. A255

For Kant, the noumena is merely an intelligible object [a mental abstraction], i.e. impossible to be real. The mental idea or abstraction of a noumenal is driven by psychology, albeit has certain uses.
What is really real is only the phenomena, e.g. the phenomena-apple you can see, feel, taste, hear upon knocking it, eat, can be known and described.

If we humans construct reality, then we also construct our selves, including our capacity to construct models of reality - so reality is a model modelled by a model, a construction constructed by a construction. and so on, down the rabbit hole, or up our own arses.

Strawman again.
I never claimed "reality is a model modelled by a model."
Rather, whatever the reality [or fact] it must be conditioned to a specific FSK, of which the scientific FSK is the most credible and reliable.
The reality of a phenomenal-apple is that phenomenal-apple you the phenomena-apple you can see, feel, taste, hear upon knocking it, eat, can be known and described -that's all to it.

But driven by some psychological impulses and habits you speculate a noumenal-apple [your kind of fact-in-itself] i.e. merely an abstraction of an INTELLIGIBLE object which is illusory [not real], meaningless and nonsensical.
To insist the noumenal-apple you CANNOT see, feel, taste, hear, nor eat, is a self-delusion.

I have already explained to you, we humans [created by parents] are literally participating in constructing reality and creating our selves which are part and parcel of a FSK-conditioned-reality.
Yes, that include our capacity to construct models of FSK-conditioned-reality.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Mar 03, 2023 9:38 pm So. To repeat. For the hard of understanding.

To construct a model of reality is not to construct reality. A description is not the described. Saying something is so doesn't make it so.
For example, saying water is H2O isn't what makes water H2O. Something else is needed - in this case, the actual chemical constitution of water, for which there's empirical evidence.

That something else is the specific science-chemistry FSK to verify and justify the empirical evidences that 'water is H20'.
Without the science-chemistry FSK, there is no 'water is H20'.
'Water is H20' because the science-chemistry FSK said so, not your father said so.

All facts are conditioned upon a specific FSK.
A FSK is grounded upon human conditions.
'Water is H20' [a fact] is conditioned upon the science-chemistry FSK.
'Water is H20' is grounded upon human conditions.
As such, 'Water is H20' [a fact] cannot be independent of human conditions.

So. saying X is morally wrong isn't what could make X morally wrong. Something else would be needed - something for which there's actual empirical evidence. And - oh dear - there's no such fucking thing. And that's why morality isn't objective.

What sort of fucking retarded moron could think it is?

You are insulting yourself.

Morality-proper is not about 'rightness' and 'wrongness'.
I have already argued there can be objective moral facts [moral ought-ness and ought-not-ness] conditioned upon a moral-FSK which inputs are scientific facts based on empirical evidences [e.g. physical mirror neurons and others] from the credible scientific FSK.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Mar 04, 2023 5:50 am Morality-proper is not about 'rightness' and 'wrongness'.
I have already argued there can be objective moral facts [moral ought-ness and ought-not-ness] conditioned upon a moral-FSK which inputs are scientific facts based on empirical evidences [e.g. physical mirror neurons and others] from the credible scientific FSK.

VA never responds to me, but if anyone could ferry my question to him:

What is the significant difference between

oughtness ought-not-ness
and
rightness and wrongness.

And note: when he uses the first terms with ought, he uses them in relate to acts.
Such as the oughtness not to kill.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Mar 04, 2023 7:32 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Mar 04, 2023 5:50 am Morality-proper is not about 'rightness' and 'wrongness'.
I have already argued there can be objective moral facts [moral ought-ness and ought-not-ness] conditioned upon a moral-FSK which inputs are scientific facts based on empirical evidences [e.g. physical mirror neurons and others] from the credible scientific FSK.

VA never responds to me, but if anyone could ferry my question to him:

What is the significant difference between

oughtness ought-not-ness
and
rightness and wrongness.

There's no "significant difference".

The perpetual sleight of hand Peter Holmes engages in is between using "morality" as a collective noun for talking about both "right" and "wrong".

As well as using "morality" (without its counter-part "immorality) as synonymous for "right" (without its counter-part "wrong").

And then VA does the exact same thing. "Morality-proper" is the same thing as PH's "morality" (when used as collective noun).

They are both talking about a context/setting in which we express moral judgments. That is - they are agreeing. But because philosophy they have to play the stupid dance and disagree in words, even though they agree in behaviour.