Philosophy Now Forum

Posted: **Wed Jan 06, 2021 8:19 am**

I notice the issue I have with the moral-facts-deniers [MFDs] and that we keep talking pass each other is due to the MFDs do not understand [not necessary agree with] my premises, e.g. the terms facts [feature of reality] and fact-in-itself.

Here is an example where I am trying to get my point through;

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Jan 06, 2021 8:08 am
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Jan 05, 2021 11:33 am That what we call a fact exists within a descriptive context is trivially true and inconsequential, because its existence doesn't depend on the descriptive context.

For example, that water is H2O doesn't depend on the 'chemistry FSK' - and the claim that it does is ridiculous. A description doesn't make the thing being described exist. It just does or doesn't exist.
I have already stated there is a difference between the fact-that-is-described from the description of that fact.
Yes I agree the description do not make the thing being described exists.

Even verifying and justifying a fact do not make fact exists but merely representing as close as possible that-which-in-the-fact.

But note, in an ULTIMATE perspective, there is no fact-in-itself, i.e. the fact [feature of reality] do not exists by itself independently of human conditions and the rest of reality, since ALL are part and parcel of all-there-is, i.e. reality.

What I have stated whatever that exists, i.e. the fact or feature-of-reality do not exists independent of the human conditions.
Don't confuse not-independent as opposite of "dependent" in this case.
Not-independent means the object exists as part and parcel with humans, i.e. entangles with humans and the Universe.

It is not the case that objects/things [the fact or feature-of-reality] are dependent of each other, but rather they spontaneously emerge as that-which-exists to be described by humans with descriptive statements.

[A] You need to understand [not necessary agree with] the above point, else, you will always straw-man my points.

Does any one get my point?
If so, can you paraphrase your understanding of my point, so I can explain if not in alignment with my views.

In the general, the above contentious view is that of
the Philosophical Realism versus Philosophical Anti-Realism.

Views?

Posted: **Wed Jan 06, 2021 8:34 am**

Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Jan 06, 2021 8:11 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Jan 06, 2021 8:08 am I have already stated there is a difference between the fact-that-is-described from the description of that fact.
This distinction is utterly pointless.

If there's a difference between the fact and its description, why don't you just capture the difference in the description of the fact?

It depends on the perspective and context of the issue.

Within the common sense and convectional perspective, the fact can be equivalent to the description of the fact.
Thus within the common sense perspective there is normally consensus 'the apple on the table is red' merely based on the description of the apple [of it shape, color, textures, material properties, etc.].

However within the scientific perspective where what is concluded and described is not the ASSUMED real objective thing [the fact - feature of reality].
Example a drop of water, scientifically is H20 is real enough, but to be really real, it is represented by X number of H20 molecules and so on if we dig deeper scientifically.

It is the same with moral facts where there is a difference between the moral fact that is described from the description of the moral fact or the effects of the moral facts.

Thus the difference between the fact-that-is-described from the description of that fact is critical when they are deliberate in more refined philosophical perspectives.

Posted: **Wed Jan 06, 2021 8:53 am**

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Jan 06, 2021 8:34 am It depends on the perspective and context of the issue.

It does depend, but I can't think of a context/perspective in which the distinction is important.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Jan 06, 2021 8:34 am Within the common sense and convectional perspective, the fact can be equivalent to the description of the fact.
Thus within the common sense perspective there is normally consensus 'the apple on the table is red' merely based on the description of the apple [of it shape, color, textures, material properties, etc.].

And even if the apple wasn't red, because our visual systems are collectively malfunctioning in the exact same way - it doesn't matter.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Jan 06, 2021 8:34 am However within the scientific perspective where what is concluded and described is not the ASSUMED real objective thing [the fact - feature of reality].
Example a drop of water, scientifically is H20 is real enough, but to be really real, it is represented by X number of H20 molecules and so on if we dig deeper scientifically.

Yes. Layers of abstraction.

You can view a drop of water as a collection of H20 molecules (the chemistry perspective).
You can view a drop of water as a collection of Hydrogen and Oxygen atoms interacting (the classical physics perspective)
You can view a drop of water as a system of interacting quarks, leptons and bosons (the quantum physics perspective)

I am sure in a few hundred years from now there will be a more fundamental description of water in a language with higher fidelity than quantum physics.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Jan 06, 2021 8:34 am It is the same with moral facts where there is a difference between the moral fact that is described from the description of the moral fact or the effects of the moral facts.

I don't see the sameness that you see.

In the scientific perspective our understanding of the mechanics of a drop of water change, but it remains a drop of water.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Jan 06, 2021 8:34 am Thus the difference between the fact-that-is-described from the description of that fact is critical when they are deliberate in more refined philosophical perspectives.

I don't see the criticality.

Philosophy Now Forum

Reality and Facts Emerged Spontaneously

Reality and Facts Emerged Spontaneously

Re: Reality and Facts Emerged Spontaneously

Re: Reality and Facts Emerged Spontaneously