PH's Fact: The Cat is On the Mat

[Veritas Aequitas]

PH relies on is 'what is fact' to deny Morality is Objective.
PH defines fact as 'a feature of reality that is the case, a state of affairs, just-is'.
This is supposed to be a compositional fact.
This definition might seem intuitive, it overlooks a critical challenge: the nature of the composition itself.
Arianna Betti argued a compositional fact is redundant as it invokes a "unity problem" and thus should be rejected in epistemology.

Take the fact "the cat is on the mat".
This fact contain the constituent parts "cat" "mat" and 'on".
What makes these elements a fact rather than just a random collection of words?

The question is what binds these constituent parts together in a relation to form a unified fact, i.e. a state of affairs, a statement about reality?

Concept of Mereological Sum = a simply a collection of parts without any inherent unity. The above fact "the cat is on the mat" seems to be more than just a mereological sum of its components.

Problem?
If a fact is simply a combination of components, what makes it a fact rather than just a collection of unrelated elements?

What is it about that description ["the cat is on the mat"] that gives it the status of a fact? Why isn't it just a description without any truth value?"

Point is,
the so called fact [as claimed by PH] by itself is merely a collection of unrelated elements.


What gives meaning to a collection of words is the grounds, i.e. that is is contingent upon a specific human-based FSERC, of which the scientific FSERC is the most credible and objective.
E.g. The cat on the mat is true because the science-biology, science-physics FSERC said so.

Simply stating PH's unqualified fact 'the cat is on the mat' without qualifying it to any FSERC is meaningless.

As such,
what is fact is that which is contingent upon a human based FSERC of which the scientific FSERC is the gold standard of credibility and objectivity.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes:

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes:

[Iwannaplato]

After years and yet another post that doesn't seem to be aware of the difference between facts referring to assertions and facts referring to things in the world. One may, of course, have many different positions on whether ontologically there are two different things referred to in those two categories and what is referred to, but here we have yet another disastrously worded OP that will cause the same communication problems and issues that literally dozens of other OPs by VA have created, some even focused on the same philosopher.

The least we could hope for when thread after thread is started on precisely the same topic, is that there would, after all this practice in starting threads and posting on facts, that the person doing this could manage to avoid wording things so people don't immediately talk past each other.

[Veritas Aequitas]

After years and yet another post that doesn't seem to be aware of the difference between facts referring to assertions and facts referring to things in the world. One may, of course, have many different positions on whether ontologically there are two different things referred to in those two categories and what is referred to, but here we have yet another disastrously worded OP that will cause the same communication problems and issues that literally dozens of other OPs by VA have created, some even focused on the same philosopher.

The least we could hope for when thread after thread is started on precisely the same topic, is that there would, after all this practice in starting threads and posting on facts, that the person doing this could manage to avoid wording things so people don't immediately talk past each other.

Instead of contributing anything substantial all you do is engaging in petty remarks and gossiping.
So far, what topics have you raised for discussion?
I have raised OPs on a wide range of topics and if there are 'repetitions' that is none of your bloody business - shut up when you are not the moderator.

[Iwannaplato]

The cat's on the mat, and that's a fact
dr. seuss say don't subtract
the cat or the mat when we ain't 'round to react.

dr. seuss he also say we.....can
if we get good results then there's the plan.
He pragmatic, he dah man.

It's phenomenal, we get to choose.
Oh, the places you'll go if you stop your boohoos
Noumena just means, here's the good news

[FlashDangerpants]

I thought Betti was saying that all concepts of fact fail. Has VA decided that actually she supports his kfc version of facts now?

[Iwannaplato]

I thought Betti was saying that all concepts of fact fail. Has VA decided that actually she supports his kfc version of facts now?

No, they don't agree. She's a pragmatist and believes different conceptions can be useful in different contexts. This may well put her at odds with PH also. So, she's a temporary ally and temporary appeal to authority, with there being unknown consequences down the line for VA and his myriad of assertions in his ad hoc unitegrated clumps of philosophy. The enemy of my enemy need not be one's friend. One hopes reincarnation is the case for the long learning curve ahead.

[FlashDangerpants]

I thought Betti was saying that all concepts of fact fail. Has VA decided that actually she supports his kfc version of facts now?

No, they don't agree. She's a pragmatist and believes different conceptions can be useful in different contexts. This may well put her at odds with PH also. So, she's a temporary ally and temporary appeal to authority, with there being unknown consequences down the line for VA and his myriad of assertions in his ad hoc unitegrated clumps of philosophy. The enemy of my enemy need not be one's friend. One hopes reincarnation is the case for the long learning curve ahead.

Is that why he's suddenly talking about mereology, is her whole unity deal just a mereological grounding problem? If so, Pete is going to dismiss that as a trivial word game. But I can't imagine a way in which his KFC-buckets are mereological simples when weighted against something like the truth conditions for a descriptive proposition about the world being complexes.

Oh well, VA was never a school, always a freak show. Weirdly though, an approach to grounding is probably my nesxt move in my epic series to create the most realest-and-properest-morality-reality-proper-KFC. I can't make it as mad as one that VA would do, but I'll see if I canmadden it up a bit now I know there's competition there.

[Peter Holmes]

I thought Betti was saying that all concepts of fact fail. Has VA decided that actually she supports his kfc version of facts now?

No, they don't agree. She's a pragmatist and believes different conceptions can be useful in different contexts. This may well put her at odds with PH also. So, she's a temporary ally and temporary appeal to authority, with there being unknown consequences down the line for VA and his myriad of assertions in his ad hoc unitegrated clumps of philosophy. The enemy of my enemy need not be one's friend. One hopes reincarnation is the case for the long learning curve ahead.

Is that why he's suddenly talking about mereology, is her whole unity deal just a mereological grounding problem? If so, Pete is going to dismiss that as a trivial word game. But I can't imagine a way in which his KFC-buckets are mereological simples when weighted against something like the truth conditions for a descriptive proposition about the world being complexes.

Oh well, VA was never a school, always a freak show. Weirdly though, an approach to grounding is probably my nesxt move in my epic series to create the most realest-and-properest-morality-reality-proper-KFC. I can't make it as mad as one that VA would do, but I'll see if I canmadden it up a bit now I know there's competition there.

Thanks, Flash. I've been thinking about this introduction of mereology - the supposed problem of the relationship between parts and wholes - as leverage against the case for what we call facts and objectivity.

A factual description - and therefore a truth-claim - is always contextual and conventional. And this is true of assertions about what constitutes a whole and its parts, which are about what we call identity.

The delusion that identity is, as it were, an ontological category - so that we can't step in the same river twice - so that a dog or a brain is an ever-changing process - Heraclitean flux at work? - for which the words 'dog' and 'brain' are shorthands - comes from the delusion that a description may not be contextual and conventional.

To be fair, Bishop Butler's joke - 'a thing is what it is and not another thing' - is a right wind-up.

We're talking language games. And. as IWP points out, mistaking those for the way things are is the root problem I've been banging on about.

[Veritas Aequitas]

No, they don't agree. She's a pragmatist and believes different conceptions can be useful in different contexts. This may well put her at odds with PH also. So, she's a temporary ally and temporary appeal to authority, with there being unknown consequences down the line for VA and his myriad of assertions in his ad hoc unitegrated clumps of philosophy. The enemy of my enemy need not be one's friend. One hopes reincarnation is the case for the long learning curve ahead.

Is that why he's suddenly talking about mereology, is her whole unity deal just a mereological grounding problem? If so, Pete is going to dismiss that as a trivial word game. But I can't imagine a way in which his KFC-buckets are mereological simples when weighted against something like the truth conditions for a descriptive proposition about the world being complexes.

Oh well, VA was never a school, always a freak show. Weirdly though, an approach to grounding is probably my next move in my epic series to create the most realest-and-properest-morality-reality-proper-KFC. I can't make it as mad as one that VA would do, but I'll see if I canmadden it up a bit now I know there's competition there.

Thanks, Flash. I've been thinking about this introduction of mereology - the supposed problem of the relationship between parts and wholes - as leverage against the case for what we call facts and objectivity.

Note: Betti is only countering against Composition Fact [that is the case, state of affairs, just-is] which is your kind of fact. Betti is also against proposition facts as truthmakers which she did not detail in her book.
Betti is not against all facts, e.g. FSERC based fact, like scientific, legal, economics facts and so on.

From AI:

In conclusion, while Betti Ariana's work has implications for the realism-anti-realism debate, her primary concern is to challenge the concept of compositional facts. Her position might be closer to a form of anti-realism or constructivism, but this is open to interpretation.

With reference to 'the cat is on the mat' which you would recognize a "fact" [your definition as a feature of reality that is the case] how do you justify it is not merely a bundle of the terms 'cat', 'on' 'mat'. On what basis you take that fact as a single-fact as a whole-being?

A factual description - and therefore a truth-claim - is always contextual and conventional. And this is true of assertions about what constitutes a whole and its parts, which are about what we call identity.

It is obvious a factual description is always contextual and conventional, i.e. my FSK or FSC.

But you claim there is the-fact-itself that is described.
The description-of-the-fact is not the fact-itself [that feature of reality that is the case].

You also claimed your what-is-fact is absolutely independent of the human conditions [opinions, beliefs, judgement, description] i.e. that fact [e.g. the moon in the sky] exist regardless of whether humans exist or not.

The delusion that identity is, as it were, an ontological category - so that we can't step in the same river twice - so that a dog or a brain is a an ever-changing process - Heraclitean flux at work? - for which the words 'dog' and 'brain' are shorthands - comes from the delusion that a description may not be contextual and conventional.

To be fair, Bishop Butler's joke - 'a thing is what it is and not another thing' - is a right wind-up.

As stated above, it is obvious a factual description is always contextual and conventional, i.e. my FSK or FSC.
What you cannot grasp is "a factual description is always contextual and conventional, i.e. my FSK or FSC" describing "an emergence that is realize as real within the human conditions", i.e. my FSER.

We're talking language games. And, as IWP points out, mistaking those for the way things are is the root problem I've been banging on about.

That is a strawman; a wrong interpretation of my interpretation.
You are barking up the wrong tree; banging on the wrong door.

I understand W's language game which is my FSK or FSC which is always contextual and perspectival upon the human conditions.
In his "On Certainty" W did account that a language-games is played on a certain grounds, e.g. W discussed the concept of hinges and riverbeds; I believe this is similar to my emergence and realization of reality; analogy is like identifying the bubbles emerging from a gas filled ground or field.

The point is you are arguing your case based on very blur grounds to yourself - merely on your first-person opinions, beliefs and judgment; I believe your arguments has no grounds at all but rather are grounded on an illusion.
PH's What is Fact is Illusory
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39577
You have not provided a convincing argument for you case, provided no references with some kind of authority - I am still waiting.

[FlashDangerpants]

I understand W's language game which is my FSK

The posturing and confusion is so sad

[Iwannaplato]

I understand W's language game which is my FSK

The posturing and confusion is so sad

and the later W was neither realist nor antirealist. So, if his language games are is FSK - wow, identity! - that leaves VA outside the realist/antirealist debate.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I understand W's language game which is my FSK

The posturing and confusion is so sad

Question to AI:
I raised the above [re a long chat with AI on the essentials of W's Language Games] because when I presented the above principles underlying the 'Language Games' of Wittgenstein, I got the following response:

Me: I understand Wittgenstein's language game which is my Framework and System of Knowledge.

Interlocutor: The posturing and confusion is so sad

How can I respond to my interlocutor?

Here is AI's [wR] response;

Responding to Your Interlocutor

Understanding the Dismissive Response

Your interlocutor's response seems to indicate a dismissal of your perspective, possibly due to:

Misunderstanding: They may not fully comprehend your application of Wittgenstein's language games to your framework of knowledge.
Disagreement: They might fundamentally disagree with your interpretation of Wittgenstein or the role of language games in knowledge acquisition.
Personal Bias: There could be personal or emotional factors influencing their reaction.

Possible Responses
Given the limited information about the context of the conversation, here are some potential responses:

1. Clarification and Elaboration
Reiterate your key points: Clearly explain your understanding of language games and how they relate to your framework of knowledge.
Provide examples: Illustrate your points with concrete examples to make your argument more accessible.
Invite dialogue: Encourage your interlocutor to share their perspective and engage in a constructive discussion.
Example: “I appreciate your feedback. To clarify, I see language games as the rules and structures that govern how we use language to create meaning and knowledge. My framework builds on this idea by exploring how these games shape our understanding of the world. I'm curious to hear your thoughts on this approach.”

2. Question Their Perspective
Seek clarification: Ask your interlocutor to elaborate on their reasons for describing your statement as "posturing and confusion."
Challenge assumptions: Gently question any underlying assumptions that might be influencing their response.
Example: “Could you elaborate on what you mean by ‘posturing and confusion’? I’m interested in understanding your perspective better.”

3. Disengage
If the conversation is becoming unproductive or hostile, it might be best to disengage.

Acknowledge disagreement: Politely acknowledge the difference in perspectives.
End the conversation: Gracefully conclude the conversation without escalating the situation.
Example: “It seems we have different interpretations of Wittgenstein’s work. I appreciate your perspective, but I believe we are approaching this from different angles. Perhaps we can revisit this topic at a later time.”

Remember: The goal is to foster understanding and respectful dialogue. Choose the response that best aligns with your communication style and the overall context of the conversation.

Obviously I have "Disengaged" on any serious discussion long ago.

Wittgenstein Language Games is a FSK
viewtopic.php?t=42706&sid=1d8df36f73593 ... cfe0a65589

[FlashDangerpants]

Obviously I have "Disengaged" on any serious discussion long ago.

The posturing and confusion is still so sad