FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Fri Mar 01, 2024 11:53 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Mar 01, 2024 9:17 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Fri Mar 01, 2024 9:11 am
So nothing is discovered at all?
Or nothing is constructed at all?
Is that not just you avoiding thinking about a problem you have....?
Yes, that is what it is.
I agree within common sense something can be constructed and discovered.
But we are not dealing with common sense in this case.
So, there is no need for me to use the term 'construct' nor discover in this case.
If need to, I could include the above within
Constructivism and there is no question of it being "discovered" within the philosophical context.
If humans are the "constructors" of reality in which they are part and parcel in, there is nothing to discover within this sense.
If you invent and construct X, would you still discover X?
But you seem to want to have rules about what can be constructed. In fact you seem to need rules about what can be constructed, that's what your weird FSK theory and your endless blather about science being the most credible is for, right?
Yes, all FSRKs imperatively must have their specific self-contained constitution, rules and every necessary conditions [explicitly or implicitly].
Since reality is FSRK-ed without exception, 'what can be constructed' must be FSRK-ed and thus must complied to rules.
One can use the term 'constructed' and 'discovered' within the common-sense-FSRK, the linguistic FSRK and others.
But, it is just that I do not find the terms 'constructed' and 'discovered' appropriate for this particular case discussed at present.
But you can't discover anything. You can't examine the world as it is and learn some direct incontrovertible factoid that makes the boundaries you recommend for what can be constructed and what is credible the actual true ones. You are constructing that stuff too.
I as an antirealist [Kantian] do not agree with the term 'world as it it' or world-in-itself that is mind-independent.
I like any scientist does, rely on the scientific FSRK in verifying and justifying empirical evidences based on observations, induction and inference in
realizing and
knowing what is a thing which is conditioned upon the human-based FSRK; there is no such thing as thing-in-itself that is pre-existing and awaiting discovery by humans - prove to me such a thing-in-itself exists as real?
As I had stated, one can rely on the Constructivism-FSRK to state what is verified and justified as real is 'constructed' via the human-based Scientific FSRK.
see:
What is Constructivism? Common Denominators
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40068
So there is no reason why your construction is better than a competing construct that somebody else constructs according to their own rationale. It's only from within your FSK bubble constructed by you for your own ends with no reference to anybody else that anything outside might appear inferior. To the rest of the world, you might look mad and lack credibility.
And that is why your prior choices about how to view objectivity trap you in a relativism that you can only escape by defying your own rules.
As Skepdic stated, I have been complying with rules all the way as expected from any FSRK.
It is not my personal FSRK that is constructing; that would be a first-person subjective view which is not credible and objective.
As I had claimed,
Whatever is reality, facts, truth, existence, knowledge, objective is conditioned or contingent upon an embodied human-based FSRK in a dynamic process of "construction".
The most credible and objective FSRK is the scientific FSRK which is the standard to compare all other FSRKs to determine which is superior [scientific FSRK] and those that are inferior [astrological, theological FSRK].
I have countered all your above points. QED.