Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon May 06, 2024 12:38 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon May 06, 2024 9:47 am
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon May 06, 2024 6:06 am
I say that what we call a fact is a feature of reality that is or was the case, regardless of opinion. And I say that's why we value facts and objectivity.
You say that such facts are illusions, because humans 'construct' reality - the facts of reality. To put it simply: what we call a fact is a human construct.
But now, go very slowly here.
If a fact is a human construct,
then the fact that a fact is a human construct is
also a human construct.
I agree up to this point.
It based on Kant's Copernican Revolution, the association with the human conditions is inevitable.
Note we have gone through this before.
To put it another way. If humans construct reality, then there can be no perspective or vantage point from which to observe that humans construct reality.
Yes, there is no independent vantage point to observe that human construct reality, i.e. a human is not God and cannot have an absolutely independent perspective.
The vantage point of view is a
shared-platform intersubjectively on the basis of a Framework and System of Emergence, Realization of Reality and Cognition.
Look again at your contradiction here.
1 There is no perspective or vantage point from which to observe that humans construct reality.
2 There is a perspective or vantage point from which to observe that humans construct reality: the human intersubjectively shared platform, etc.
Intersubjectivity is subjectivity. So your appeal to intersubjectivity doesn't work. In other words, the claim 'humans intersubjectively construct reality' just adds a redundancy to the claim 'humans construct reality'.
Strawman as usual;
You seem to have some cognitive deficit in understanding [not agree with] my views.
Should be;
- 1 There is no absolutely-independent perspective or vantage point from which to observe that humans construct reality.
2 There is a relative-independent perspective or vantage point from which to observe that humans construct reality: the human intersubjectively shared platform, etc.
And anyway, this remains a realist claim - a claim about the way things are. So your 'intersubjective' anti-realism remains fundamentally contradictory: 'it's a fact that humans intersubjectively construct reality'.
Basically an antirealist claim cannot be a realist claim.
You are making a strawman out your ignorance.
But wait. Anti-realism is the claim that it's a 'fact' that humans construct reality - that it's a feature of reality that just is the case, regardless of opinion.
When anti-realism depends on the collective share-consensus of a group of humans within a Framework and System, it is independent and regardless of the opinion of any individuals or a loose group of individuals.
As above, this distinction between individual and collective opinion is ineffectual.
Are you saying;
'this distinction between individual judgment and collective opinion [scientific community judgment] is ineffectual.
I have explained that the 'theory of general relativity' is, is not because Einstein [individual] said so, but rather it is the science-physics Framework and System [collective of subjects] said so.
For example, objective scientific facts [anti-realism] are independent and regardless of the opinions and belief of any individual scientists but it is not absolutely independent of the organized collective of subjects or human scientists.
But - such a thing - such a fact - is supposed to be an illusion.
It is only an illusion when realists claimed that facts are
absolutely independent of the human conditions.
Antirealists claim objective facts are independent of a subject or group of loose subjects and not absolutely independent of the human conditions because supposedly 'independent' objective facts in one perspective are not ultimately independent of the collective of subjects.
Thus in this case, objectivity is inter
subjectivity.
Whatever is objective reality, there is no escape from the elements of the subjects, i.e. the collective-of-subjects.
Conclusion? Anti-realism rests on flatly contradictory premises. And that's a fact.
It appear to be contradictory, but antirealism's is relative independence while that of the realist is based on absolute independence which is not tenable.
Dependence on intersubjective opinion is not relative independence from opinion. How can it be? And you're back to the part of the story that
is independent - reality itself.
You are claiming absolute independence of things existing out there, i.e. they exist regardless of humans.
Relative independence mean, the apple on the tree is within common sense independent from you, but that independence is subsumed within the human conditions, thus it is of relative independence, not absolutely independent regardless of humans.
Now, instead of mindlessly repeating that my 'what is fact' is an illusion - and instead of mindlessly giving a link to your silly argument - have a long, slow think about what I've said. Please.
PS To put it another way. If reality is a human construct, then humans are also a human construct. And the human construction of reality is also a human construct. So there is no bottom or stopping point. If my 'what is fact' is an illusion, then all is illusion.
Now, instead of mindlessly repeating that my 'what is fact' is contradictory - and instead of mindlessly giving shallow argument - have a long, slow think about what I've said. Please.
There is no issue of a bottomless pit for me.
And that's precisely because you don't recognise that your argument spirals down into the pit.
My focus is on the empirical which is human-based, I don't dig down to search for that things that is independent and regardless of humans. So, there is no bottomless pit.
You are the one who do not recognize your 'independent' thing regardless of humans is illusory and do not exists as real [empirically and philosophically].
What I start with is based on empirical observations of what is spontaneously experienced and the cognition and knowing of it is based on the collective-shared knowledge.
Thus what-is-knowledge is based on as far as the evidence can support reinforced with critical thinking and wisdom.
I don't need to speculate and assume there is something illusory beyond the empirical to be discovered.
As ever, your appeal to empiricism demolishes your anti-realism. Knowledge comes from experience
of reality - not experience of an intersubjective human construct.
Re FSERC, knowledge comes from the experience of reality that emerges spontaneously inevitably and is realized within the human self.
It is antirealism because humans cannot extricate themselves from a reality in which they are part and parcel of.
I have argued, the ideology of realism [mind-independence] is driven by an evolutionary default of a necessary instinct of externalness. You are ignorant of this or deliberately shut yourself from this fact.
Btw, at present I am reading the book 'Against Facts' by Arianna Betti who argued your concept of what is fact is a sham.
[quote
'Against Facts' by Arianna Betti.
]
https://www.amazon.com/Against-Facts-Pr ... 0262029219
An argument that the major metaphysical theories of facts give us no good reason to accept facts in our catalog of the world.
In this book Arianna Betti argues that we have no good reason to accept facts in our catalog of the world, at least as they are described by the two major metaphysical theories of facts. She claims that neither of these theories is tenableneither the theory according to which facts are special structured building blocks of reality nor the theory according to which facts are whatever is named by certain expressions of the form the fact that such and such. There is reality, and there are entities in reality that we are able to name, but, Betti contends, among these entities there are no facts.
Nuff said. Deep incomprehension. Of what do reality and its 'entities' (revealing obfuscation) consist?
I have read the preface and part of the intro.
At present just take note, there are alternative views to your 'what is fact' which I have argued is an illusion and sham from Analytic Philosophy. Preferably if you can read this as an alternative view to your linguistic ideology.
I have also argued Analyticism is already half-dead at present, you are clinging to very archaic ideology, i.e. related to the linguistic FSK.
I will present more details after I have read and understand the book.
Drawing on metaphysics, the philosophy of language, and linguistics, Betti examines the main arguments in favor of and against facts of the two major sorts, which she distinguishes as compositional and propositional, giving special attention to methodological presuppositions. She criticizes compositional facts (facts as special structured building blocks of reality) and the central argument for them, Armstrong's truthmaker argument. She then criticizes propositional facts (facts as whatever is named in the fact that statements) and what she calls the argument from nominal reference, which draws on Quine's criterion of ontological commitment. Betti argues that metaphysicians should stop worrying about facts, and philosophers in general should stop arguing for or against entities on the basis of how we use language.
Mistaking what we say for the way things are. But, of course, 'There is reality and there are entities in reality'. Realism by definition.
Countering without fully understanding the book is meaningless.
As I had stated, my mentioned of Betti is just to show [for the present only] there are alternative views of the majority Analyticism 'what is fact'.
Generally, what Betti argued is Analyticism 'what is fact' is only valid within its closed language-game re the linguistic-turn with its specific rules and definitions.
The Analyticism's 'what is fact' is illusory and cannot be really real within a reality-FSK like the scientific FSREC.
I will present more detail in the other thread later.
