Philosophy Now Forum

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue May 31, 2022 9:04 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue May 31, 2022 4:56 am

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon May 30, 2022 10:26 am 1 Here is your non sequitur fallacy.

Premise: We necessarily perceive, know and describe what we call reality in a human way.
Conclusion: Therefore, reality - the existence and nature of things - is 'entangled with the human conditions'; and we can never know what reality really is.

Your above is a strawman and I have never argued in the above manner.
You're the real beggar!

Your "what we call reality in a human way" is exactly the same as the geocentrists claim of what we [geocentrists] call reality in a human way.
It is also the same with theists claiming 'what they call god given reality in a human way'.

You are begging the question that reality exists are real in a human way without providing any justifications that there is such a real reality as yours.

Your "what we call reality in a human way" also a give-away that imply there is some sort of human dependence or entanglement in some way.

Your argument can be presented in another way which is acceptable, i.e.;

• Premise 1: We necessarily perceive, know and describe what we call reality in a human way.
  Premise 2: Human way means entangled with humans.
  Conclusion: Therefore, reality - the existence and nature of things - is 'entangled with the human conditions'; and we can never know 'what reality really is' without any human entanglement.

Point is there is no absolute independent reality-in-itself or reality-by-itself and no reality is an "island-by-itself".
Reality is always entangled with the human conditions in some ways.

What is really real is the reality that emerges with the human conditions within the human FSK and realized as facts [non-realists] within other specific FSK.

Kant had already called for a shift in paradigm of understanding what is reality with his Copernican Revolution; unfortunately his call was too advance for his time.

Why you are the beggar of your supposed independent reality is because you and all humans are necessarily hardwired for that via evolution. But such a view of independent reality is only optimal for the past but not the future.
We have to shift paradigm to understand reality as it is, i.e. entangled with the human conditions to face impending future global and galactic threats to humanity.

2 You misunderstand the aim of metaphysics, which is precisely to describe reality as it really is - 'the fundamental nature of reality'. And given this, you should oppose metaphysical realism just as much as you oppose physical realism.

Yes, metaphysics is to be critical and understand reality as it really is, which is entangled with the human conditions.

What you are thinking of "reality as it really is" is based on some ancient evolutionary impulse which was necessary and optimal for the evolutionary past: but towards the future there is a gradual turning to what is really realistic. i.e. reality as it really is is entangled with the human conditions.

For 3.5 billion years since our single-celled ancestors to the current phase of evolution it was necessary for humans to view reality "outward" as independent from the human conditions and it is still necessary in some ways, e.g. Newtonian Physics and the likes.
But to deal with future global and galactical threats humanity need to gravitate to the more realistic view of reality, i.e. reality as entangled with the human conditions.
I have discussed the pros of this view that is outweighing the past views.

3 To repeat, 'a credible moral framework and system of knowledge' is your own question-begging invention. It's a chateau de sable que les vagues vont detruire.

Strawman.

I have argued the most credible facts are the scientific facts from the scientific FSK [also the mathematical FSK] based on acceptable criteria.
My proposed moral FSK that enables the emergence of moral facts will be of near equivalence to the scientific FSK.
My moral FSK as credible is valid in principle and I agree I will have to justify this near-equivalence.

Note I have mentioned this a 000s times already, my moral facts are not based on individuals or groups opinions or beliefs on moral issues,
but rather they are moral facts emerging from the moral FSK are based on a matter-of-fact of moral potentiality as justified by science and are represented by physical neural correlates in the brain and body.

• P1 Cockroaches necessarily perceive {know and describe what they call] reality in a cockroach-way.
  P2 Cockroach-way means entangled with cockroaches.
  C Therefore, reality - the existence and nature of things - is 'entangled with the cockroach conditions'; and cockroaches can never know 'what reality really is' without any cockroach entanglement.

P1 is true, and P2 merely restates it, adding the vague metaphor of 'entanglement'. Entanglement of what with what? Perception with that-which-is-perceived? But then, what is it that's perceived? Erm. Error. Reboot.

But the conclusion makes two different claims:

1 Reality - the existence and nature of things - is entangled with the cockroach conditions. This means: reality is as cockroaches perceive it.

Question: Are humans living in the reality as cockroaches perceive it? (If not, then this claim is false.)

2 Cockroaches can never know 'what reality really is' without any cockroach entanglement. This means: cockroaches can know reality only as they perceive it.

Questions: What is the 'reality-as-it-really-is' that cockroaches can never know? Is it something that could exist, but happens not to?

Dig deep, VA. Try really really really hard.