Wittgenstein?Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Apr 13, 2023 1:43 pm Ostension is not the primitive, primary and uncomplicated method for teaching the use of signs - precisely because nomenclaturist, representationalist or correspondence or maker/bearer theories of truth are mistaken. And if you're intellectually constipated with one of those theories, a dose of later Wittgenstein can usually loosen your brain-bowels. Assuming you have a brain.
Note Wittgenstein went through 3 phases, i.e.
- 1. Early-Wittgenstein -Tractatus
2. Later-Wittgenstein - Philosophical Investigation
3. Late -Wittgenstein - On Certainty
However, his "On Certainty" [late Wittgenstein] is closer to reality.
1939 Proof of the External World is grounded on Philosophical Realism, i.e. the same Philosophical Realism of mind-independence or human-conditions independence that you rely upon to define your [PH-Fact] 'what is fact', i.e. existing in the external world being independent of the human-conditions [aka modern mind].https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Certainty
The genesis of On Certainty was Wittgenstein's "long interest" in two famous papers by G. E. Moore, his
1939 Proof of the External World and
earlier Defence of Common Sense (1925).[2]
Wittgenstein thought the latter was Moore's "best article", but despite that he did not think Moore's 'proof' of external reality decisive.
Moore's proof is in response of Kant's challenge that the external world is illusory in one sense;
On the CPR, Kant challenged Philosophical Realists to prove their claim of the absolute existence of the external world.It seems to me that, so far from its being true, as Kant declares to be his opinion,
that there is only one possible proof of the existence of things outside of us,
namely the one which he has given, I can now give a large number of different
proofs, each of which is a perfectly rigorous proof; and that at many other times
I have been in a position to give many others. I can prove now, for instance,
that two human hands exist. How? By holding up my two hands, and saying, as
I make a certain gesture with the right hand, ‘Here is one hand’, and adding, as
I make a certain gesture with the left, ‘and here is another’. And if, by doing
this, I have proved ipso facto the existence of external things, you will all see
that I can also do it now in numbers of other ways: there is no need to multiply
examples.
https://rintintin.colorado.edu/~vancecd ... Moore1.pdf
This is what I have been challenging PH to prove conclusively the absoluteness of the existence of the external world [his definition of what is fact] is really real.Kant in CPR wrote:However harmless Idealism may be considered in respect of the essential aims of Metaphysics (though, in fact, it is not thus harmless),
it still remains SCANDAL to Philosophy and to Human Reason-in-General that the Existence of Things outside us (from which we derive the whole Material of Knowledge, even for our Inner Sense) must be accepted merely on Faith,
and that if anyone thinks good to doubt their Existence, we are unable to counter his doubts by any satisfactory proof.
CPR Preface B54
So far, he had not even attempt to do so but arrogantly insisting on his claim of 'what is fact' as absolutely independent of the human conditions. [modern mind].
In his 'On Certainty' Wittgenstein indirectly support Kant's idea that there is no thing-in-itself or fact-in-itself but rather whatever is a fact is leveraged on a FSK [river beds and hinges].
As such, even with Wittgenstein [late] the concept of a FSK prevails as in Kant's view and my human-based moral FSK, thus objective moral facts, so Morality is Objective [qualified] ultimately.
