Philosophy Now Forum

Philosophical Realists like PH (& likes) claimed that reality, things, facts, truths, objectivity are absolutely independent of the human conditions, aka mind-independent.
Because all moral elements are subjective [mind-related] there are no moral facts thus morality cannot be objective. This claim has no credibility because all the terms used by philosophical realists to deny moral facts are grounded on meaningless circular terms.

All these terms are circular and question begging that do not represent reality realistically.
For example, what is fact is reality, what is reality is fact and so on with the following terms that explain each other without any realistic predicate.

• Reality: the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them. the state or quality of having existence or substance: the actual state of things, or the facts involved in such a state:
  
  Real: actually existing as a thing or occurring in fact; actual not imagined or supposed: true; not merely ostensible, nominal, or apparent: having objective existence;
  
  Fact: thing that is known or proved to be true: something that is known to have happened or to exist, especially something for which “proof” exists: something that has actual existence: a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true: an event or thing known to have happened or existed · 2. a truth verifiable from experience or observation: Knowledge or information based on real occurrences: Analytic: a feature of reality that is just-is, being-so, that is the case, states of affairs.
  
  Actual: existing in fact; real: 'true', 'real' and 'the thing in itself': existing in fact or reality: existing in act or fact; real: real and not merely possible or imagined : existing in fact:
  
  Actuality: thing that is known or proved to be true: the state of existing in reality: existing conditions or facts: something that is actual; FACT, REALITY: actual existence; reality. an actual condition or circumstance; fact:
  
  True: in accordance with fact or reality: not false, fictional, or illusory; factual or factually accurate; conforming with reality: being in accordance with the actual state of affairs; conformable to an essential reality;
  
  Exist: have objective reality or being; to be, or to be real: to have actual being; be: to be; have existence; have being or reality: Existence is the state of being real or participating in reality;
  
  Objective: (of a person or their judgement) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts: based on real facts and not influenced by personal beliefs or feelings: expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations:

Because of the above circularity, the philosophical realist sense of absolute mind-independent reality and things is not realistic.

What is more realistic is when the above are conditioned upon a specific human based FSR [realization] and FSK [knowledge], i.e. predicated upon a human-based Framework & System or Model.
Because it is human-based [mind, brain and body], whatever that FOLLOW logically cannot be absolute mind-independent at all.

As I had argued there are two sense of reality [also fact, objectivity, truth, knowledge],
Two Senses of Reality
viewtopic.php?t=40265
i.e.

• 1. The human-based FSR-FSK-ed sense of reality [scientific-FSK - the Standard]
  
  2. The philosophical realism mind-independent sense of reality.

A philosophical realist [analytic] definition of fact is a feature of reality that is just-is, being-so, that is the case, states of affairs that is absolutely mind-independent.
The philosophical realism based of an absolute mind-independent is not realistic and it is driven by psychology [evolutionary] rather than philosophy.

Another accusation is, the philosophical realists' [analytic & Ordinary Language Philosophy] reality, facts and things are merely linguistic constructs made of words thus empty.

The ANTI-philosophical_realist version of what is fact is;
Fact[/b]: thing that is [reallized &] known or proved [as conditioned with a FSR-FSK-ed] to be true: something that is known to have happened or to exist, especially something for which “proof” exists. Logically the conclusions that followed cannot be absolutely mind-independent.

The human-based FSR-FSK-ed sense of reality [scientific-FSK as the Standard] is the more realistic version of reality, objectivity, truth, existence, knowledge, facts and actuality.

Discuss? Views??

Notes: KIV

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Sep 03, 2023 5:29 am Philosophical Realists like PH (& likes) claimed that reality, things, facts, truths, objectivity are absolutely independent of the human conditions, aka mind-independent.
Because all moral elements are subjective [mind-related] there are no moral facts thus morality cannot be objective. This claim has no credibility because all the terms used by philosophical realists to deny moral facts are grounded on meaningless circular terms.

All these terms are circular and question begging that do not represent reality realistically.
For example, what is fact is reality, what is reality is fact and so on with the following terms that explain each other without any realistic predicate.

• Reality: the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them. the state or quality of having existence or substance: the actual state of things, or the facts involved in such a state:
  
  Real: actually existing as a thing or occurring in fact; actual not imagined or supposed: true; not merely ostensible, nominal, or apparent: having objective existence;
  
  Fact: thing that is known or proved to be true: something that is known to have happened or to exist, especially something for which “proof” exists: something that has actual existence: a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true: an event or thing known to have happened or existed · 2. a truth verifiable from experience or observation: Knowledge or information based on real occurrences: Analytic: a feature of reality that is just-is, being-so, that is the case, states of affairs.
  
  Actual: existing in fact; real: 'true', 'real' and 'the thing in itself': existing in fact or reality: existing in act or fact; real: real and not merely possible or imagined : existing in fact:
  
  Actuality: thing that is known or proved to be true: the state of existing in reality: existing conditions or facts: something that is actual; FACT, REALITY: actual existence; reality. an actual condition or circumstance; fact:
  
  True: in accordance with fact or reality: not false, fictional, or illusory; factual or factually accurate; conforming with reality: being in accordance with the actual state of affairs; conformable to an essential reality;
  
  Exist: have objective reality or being; to be, or to be real: to have actual being; be: to be; have existence; have being or reality: Existence is the state of being real or participating in reality;
  
  Objective: (of a person or their judgement) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts: based on real facts and not influenced by personal beliefs or feelings: expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations:

Because of the above circularity, the philosophical realist sense of absolute mind-independent reality and things is not realistic.

What is more realistic is when the above are conditioned upon a specific human based FSR [realization] and FSK [knowledge], i.e. predicated upon a human-based Framework & System or Model.
Because it is human-based [mind, brain and body], whatever that FOLLOW logically cannot be absolute mind-independent at all.

As I had argued there are two sense of reality [also fact, objectivity, truth, knowledge],
Two Senses of Reality
viewtopic.php?t=40265
i.e.

• 1. The human-based FSR-FSK-ed sense of reality [scientific-FSK - the Standard]
  
  2. The philosophical realism mind-independent sense of reality.

A philosophical realist [analytic] definition of fact is a feature of reality that is just-is, being-so, that is the case, states of affairs that is absolutely mind-independent.
The philosophical realism based of an absolute mind-independent is not realistic and it is driven by psychology [evolutionary] rather than philosophy.

Another accusation is, the philosophical realists' [analytic & Ordinary Language Philosophy] reality, facts and things are merely linguistic constructs made of words thus empty.

The ANTI-philosophical_realist version of what is fact is;
Fact[/b]: thing that is [reallized &] known or proved [as conditioned with a FSR-FSK-ed] to be true: something that is known to have happened or to exist, especially something for which “proof” exists. Logically the conclusions that followed cannot be absolutely mind-independent.

The human-based FSR-FSK-ed sense of reality [scientific-FSK as the Standard] is the more realistic version of reality, objectivity, truth, existence, knowledge, facts and actuality.

Discuss? Views??

Your philosophy is equally circular. Except we have all the reason to think that there is a mind-independent reality, so your philosophy is the baseless one, not realism.

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Sep 03, 2023 6:04 am Your philosophy is equally circular. Except we have all the reason to think that there is a mind-independent reality, so your philosophy is the baseless one, not realism.

Handwaving again?
Baseless? How so??

The human-based FSR-FSK basis of reality take it that whatever is realized, experienced, perceived, touched, smell, see, hear & taste as verified & justified via empirical-rational processes is the real thing, i.e. conditioned upon the human conditions.

Your basis of an absolute mind-independent reality is that is beyond the empirical-rational in la la land which cannot be known, verified and justified but merely exists as just-is or being-so.
The terms you use to describe your reality is circular, baseless and illusory.
This is driven by your desperation to soothe the uneasy psychology arising from an evolutionary default.

If otherwise, prove your positive noumenon [that which exist beyond the empirical-rational] is really real?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Sep 03, 2023 7:37 am

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Sep 03, 2023 6:04 am Your philosophy is equally circular. Except we have all the reason to think that there is a mind-independent reality, so your philosophy is the baseless one, not realism.

Handwaving again?
Baseless? How so??

The human-based FSR-FSK basis of reality take it that whatever is realized, experienced, perceived, touched, smell, see, hear & taste as verified & justified via empirical-rational processes is the real thing, i.e. conditioned upon the human conditions.

Your basis of an absolute mind-independent reality is that is beyond the empirical-rational in la la land which cannot be known, verified and justified but merely exists as just-is or being-so.
The terms you use to describe your reality is circular, baseless and illusory.
This is driven by your desperation to soothe the uneasy psychology arising from an evolutionary default.

If otherwise, prove your positive noumenon [that which exist beyond the empirical-rational] is really real?

You are mentally retarded to think the mind-independent reality has to be beyond the "empirical-rational". I don't think anyone claimed that here.
You are also mentally retarded to think that the "empirical-rational" has to be limited to mind-dependence.

Kant is rolling in his grave. If you had the ability to think, you wouldn't keep conflating various forms of independence.

Time to say that there is no hope for you?

You think everyone here has been arguing for a magical reality beyond our real world?

What the fuck is wrong with you?

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Sep 03, 2023 6:04 am Your philosophy is equally circular.

I think "equally" is putting it a bit strong, VA typed the word "circular" but he didn't draw any circle. It's therefore quite likely he doesn't know how.

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Sep 03, 2023 9:43 am You are mentally retarded to think the mind-independent reality has to be beyond the "empirical-rational".

I'm not sure why you are accepting that as a term. What does it mean?
It's used in management - and business/organizational language is happily clumpy and unclear.
But otherwise, what the hell does it refer to.
I see a general strategy of adding adjectives like 'absolute' or 'hardcore' and here 'rational' just to hedge bets. Maybe they'll make a decent argument that there is something beyond the empirical, but I'll add on 'rational' connect them with a dash, and that'll give them more hoops to jump through. Like taking insurance out on a stock investment.

I mean, the empirical is increasing. We experience things that couldn't be experienced earlier. This fits with there being already existent things we haven't experience yet. But it doesn't demonstrate that they already existed. But it's a good fit and could be argued to be more parsimonious than the alternative.

But toss in rational and who knows what the criteria are.

Does this mean there must be something noumenal that is not experienced now and not rational? Whatever that would mean.
It seems like a category error. Things aren't rational, people and arguments can be.

Hey, look we found something new, something never before experienced and you can see meteor strikes on the surface with meteor strikes inside other cratars and a third level of these cratars inside others. It sure seems like it was existant and affected by things backwards in time before we discovered it.

"Oh, but it's rational. I said nothing exists beyond the rational-empirical."

Ooh, clever.

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Sep 03, 2023 6:04 am Your philosophy is equally circular. Except we have all the reason to think that there is a mind-independent reality, so your philosophy is the baseless one, not realism.

And where does this "mind-independent reality" get you?

There's objective fatcs.
There's subjective values.

And then?

Should we value facts more than we value values; or should we value values more than we value facts?

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Sep 03, 2023 2:16 pm I'm not sure why you are accepting that as a term. What does it mean?
It's used in management - and business/organizational language is happily clumpy and unclear.
But otherwise, what the hell does it refer to.
I see a general strategy of adding adjectives like 'absolute' or 'hardcore' and here 'rational' just to hedge bets. Maybe they'll make a decent argument that there is something beyond the empirical, but I'll add on 'rational' connect them with a dash, and that'll give them more hoops to jump through. Like taking insurance out on a stock investment.

I mean, the empirical is increasing. We experience things that couldn't be experienced earlier. This fits with there being already existent things we haven't experience yet. But it doesn't demonstrate that they already existed. But it's a good fit and could be argued to be more parsimonious than the alternative.

But toss in rational and who knows what the criteria are.

Does this mean there must be something noumenal that is not experienced now and not rational? Whatever that would mean.
It seems like a category error. Things aren't rational, people and arguments can be.

Hey, look we found something new, something never before experienced and you can see meteor strikes on the surface with meteor strikes inside other cratars and a third level of these cratars inside others. It sure seems like it was existant and affected by things backwards in time before we discovered it.

"Oh, but it's rational. I said nothing exists beyond the rational-empirical."

Ooh, clever.

If you want to understand my debates these last few weeks with VA (which I'm doing 90% for curiosity and amusement), here it is, the hyperbole will be a bit long. I think I figured out that what he's talking about has nothing to do with your very reasonable guess of what he's talking about.

I imagine that VA lives somewhere on a remote South-East Asian island. For the first 40 or so years of his life, he knew nothing of the world. He was some fanatic theist who collected sea shells on the shore or something. He also seems to have schizoid personality disorder, so the lack of a normal amount of contact with humanity was perfectly fine for him. He's a bit like a person from another planet.

He also had some Vedanta and Buddhism background. Then through some miracle, he somehow got access to the internet. Went to forums to brag about how smart he is, and got utterly destroyed by Westerners.

Then he spent like 5 years reading Kant, planning to get back at them.

Except now his entire understanding of the Western world is through the lens of the autistic philosopher Kant's CPR.

VA is living in the late 18th century. His understanding of English words, philosophical concepts, state of philosophy, science, anything related, is from the late 18th century.

So looks like before Kant, continental European philosophy had two big camps, rationalists and empiricists. Rationalists back then had little to nothing to do with what rationalism means to day, and empiricists back then had little to nothing to do with what empiricism means today.

So basically, it looks like, the rationalists were the guys who held that our understanding of reality is made from our inherent thinking that is present even without any external input. And the empiricists were the guys who held that our understanding of reality is made from the external, sensory input, perceptions.

Then Kant unified these two idiotic approaches, that was his Copernican revolution, and looks like that's what VA means by empirical-rational.

But this is ancient history to us. According to this, EVERYONE today in the West who isn't completely out of touch, is an empirical-rational thinker. Empirical-rational synthesis, became part of our thinking centuries ago, to the point where it is today considered self evident, common sense, obvious. It's just how we think, so we don't even notice it anymore.

So then even the words "empirical" and "rational" lost their original meanings, because we simply left behind those two views, for this third new one.

Ok so far so good. But now comes the remarkable (and hilarous/baffling/scary) thing: VA thinks it's still the late 18th century.

Kant has just published his book to a dumb, pathetic, ignorant audience of gnats. We Westerners are absolutely dumbfounded by this new approach that we should shomehow unify our inherent thinking with external perceptions. This is inconceivable, unheard of, none of us understands it, but VA is here to beat it into our heads.

So looks like, for like 4-5 years, VA thought that everyone on this forum has been arguing for some kind of magical la-la-bullshit outside the empirical-rational world, because we didn't agree with whetever he was saying.

He thinks that all this time, all we've been doing was argue for fairy-dust.

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Sep 03, 2023 4:06 pm Then Kant unified these two idiotic approaches, that was his Copernican revolution, and looks like that's what VA means by empirical-rational.

That makes some sense, but then...that's even worse than I thought. Both rationalists and empiricists can be realists. And given how broad those two categories are, expecting you to prove there is something that wouldn't fall into the combined category is meaningless. Realists believe in things that fall into those categories. And pretty much anything imaginable could be categorized in one of them and so goal post shifting is like built-in obselescence.

But this is ancient history to us. According to this, EVERYONE today in the West who isn't completely out of touch, is an empirical-rational thinker. Empirical-rational synthesis, became part of our thinking centuries ago, to the point where it is today considered self evident, common sense, obvious. It's just how we think, so we don't even notice it anymore.

I dunno about that. I think some empiricists think you can manage without rationalism. I don't think they're correct, but that's neither here nor there.

So then even the words "empirical" and "rational" lost their original meanings, because we simply left behind those two views, for this third new one.

Ok so far so good. But now comes the remarkable (and hilarous/baffling/scary) thing: VA thinks it's still the late 18th century.

Kant has just published his book to a dumb, pathetic, ignorant audience of gnats. We Westerners are absolutely dumbfounded by this new approach that we should shomehow unify our inherent thinking with external perceptions. This is inconceivable, unheard of, none of us understands it, but VA is here to beat it into our heads.

So looks like, for like 4-5 years, VA thought that everyone on this forum has been arguing for some kind of magical la-la-bullshit outside the empirical-rational world, because we didn't agree with whetever he was saying.

He thinks that all this time, all we've been doing is arguing for fairy-dust.

OK, well, it all sounds possible.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Sep 03, 2023 8:34 pm That makes some sense, but then...that's even worse than I thought. Both rationalists and empiricists can be realists. And given how broad those two categories are, expecting you to prove there is something that wouldn't fall into the combined category is meaningless. Realists believe in things that fall into those categories. And pretty much anything imaginable could be categorized in one of them and so goal post shifting is like built-in obselescence.

Kant synthetized from them, but I think he got rid of what he considered to be excesses. Some possibilities from the original rationalism and some possibilities from the original empiricism didn't make the cut.

But still, Kantian philosophy is compatible both with some forms of realism and some forms of anti-realism, I think VA's Kantian anti-realist claim never made a lick of sense.

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Sep 03, 2023 9:06 pm

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Sep 03, 2023 8:34 pm That makes some sense, but then...that's even worse than I thought. Both rationalists and empiricists can be realists. And given how broad those two categories are, expecting you to prove there is something that wouldn't fall into the combined category is meaningless. Realists believe in things that fall into those categories. And pretty much anything imaginable could be categorized in one of them and so goal post shifting is like built-in obselescence.

Kant synthetized from them, but I think he got rid of what he considered to be excesses. Some possibilities from the original rationalism and some possibilities from the original empiricism didn't make the cut.

But still, Kantian philosophy is compatible both with some forms of realism and some forms of anti-realism, I think VA's Kantian anti-realist claim never made a lick of sense.

I have stated many times, Kant is both a Transcendental Idealist while at the same time an Empirical Realist.

• "The Transcendental Idealist, on the other hand, may be an Empirical Realist ..
  CPR A369"

Why the fuss with 'empirical-rational'?
When I merely used the term 'empirical' [i.e. to imply not mind-independent] I am accused as being an empiricist when I am not, thus I use the term 'empirical-rational' to prevent me being accused as an empiricist.

The term "empirical-rational" implies I am applying the optimality of the best of empirical and the highest level critical thinking.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Sep 04, 2023 2:08 am I have stated many times, Kant is both a Transcendental Idealist while at the same time an Empirical Realist.

• "The Transcendental Idealist, on the other hand, may be an Empirical Realist ..
  CPR A369"

Why the fuss with 'empirical-rational'?
When I merely used the term 'empirical' [i.e. to imply not mind-independent] I am accused as being an empiricist when I am not, thus I use the term 'empirical-rational' to prevent me being accused as an empiricist.

The term "empirical-rational" implies I am applying the optimality of the best of empirical and the highest level critical thinking.

See, he thinks that people will accuse him of being a 17-18th century empiricist. That is indeed something important to avoid.

'empirical' [i.e. to imply not mind-independent]

ChatGPT:

In summary, pre-Kantian empiricists had differing views on the nature of mind-independence. Locke believed in a mind-independent external world, Berkeley denied its existence, and Hume raised epistemological questions about our knowledge of the external world without necessarily denying its existence outright. Immanuel Kant later addressed these issues in his own philosophy, attempting to reconcile empiricism and rationalism.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Sep 03, 2023 8:34 pm Both rationalists and empiricists can be realists. And given how broad those two categories...

Are we still in the paradigm of categories and categorization? People who live in the information age moved past the notion that categories are ontologically stable or significant.

Categorization/classification is what your head does. This is machine learning 101 stuff, and the essential part of any category is the rule which determines membership vs non-membership - the relationship between the two being negation.

And negation is super-dooper boring in classical logic.

Negate X and you get non-X.
Negate non-X and you get X again.

I negate the negation of your negation of my negation of your negation of my negation of your negation.

It's all circular.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Sep 04, 2023 2:08 am Why the fuss with 'empirical-rational'?
When I merely used the term 'empirical' [i.e. to imply not mind-independent] I am accused as being an empiricist when I am not, thus I use the term 'empirical-rational' to prevent me being accused as an empiricist.

The context here is you asking him to demonstrate that there is something real that is beyond the empirical-rational.

The term "empirical-rational" implies I am applying the optimality of the best of empirical and the highest level critical thinking.

This is what you say you mean by the term. So, you were asking him to demonstrate that something is real that is beyond the best of the empirical and the highest level of critical thinking.

It's a bit like asking someone to make a strong argument that is neither rational nor based on solid empirical evidence.

Again, you asked for something that was beyond this category. It's a kind of set up.

It's also a category confusion. Things are non-rational.