PH: What is Your Philosophical Foundation?

[Peter Holmes]

What is in contention between yours and my philosophical position is this.

A: You believe 'what is fact' [thus objectivity to you] is a feature of reality that is just-is, being-so, states of affairs, that is/are the case, and the like, that is [absolutely*] independent of the human conditions, i.e. independent of the subject[s] opinion, beliefs, judgments and description.
* it absolute because, to the extreme the moon pre-existed humans and will continue to exists even if humans are extinct.

If you think reality no fundamental nature or essence, then what is reality to you?
How do you reconcile your non-essence reality to A above?

To repeat. To put it in Kantian terms: if there are no noumena, then the claim that all we can ever know are phenomena is incoherent.

Not sure, what is the point re the above?

I think this is the heart of your mistake.

You and I are both 'anti-essentialists'. We agree that reality has no fundamental nature - or let's simplify and call it 'essence'. And you and I are both what could be called 'contextualists', in the sense that we agree a description - and therefore a truth-claim - is always contextual and conventional. This is what your 'fsk' theory amounts to.

Now, Kant's 'noumena' are just the same as 'fundamental natures' or 'essences'. And we agree they are just as unreal. You call them 'illusions'. For example, there's no such thing as a dog-in-itself. And I agree completely.

But I don't think you've thought through what this means, which is this: since there are no noumena, there's no reason to say that all we can know are phenomena - things as they appear to us. That dog is just a dog - not an appearance of some other kind of thing - a noumenon.

Of course, as we agree, we can perceive, know and describe what we call dogs only in human ways. But there's no reason to think that what we perceive, know and describe - those dogs - exist only because we humans perceive, know and describe them. And all the empirical evidence we have - if you like, using 'fsks' - is that they are real things. Just as we humans are real things, capable of perceiving, knowing and describing real things.

I think that what you call your 'philosophical antirealism' is the flip side of a kind of philosophical realism that mistakenly posits fictional (noumenal) things-in-themselves.

Chuck away the counterfeit coin.

[Atla]

Atla on the other hand insist, there is the noumena in the positive sense as fundamental nature or essence, and that humans cannot know about it.
This is the worst case of clinging to an illusion.

On a scale of 1 to 10 from least rational to most rational, could you rate how rational the idea is that the noumenal world is just an illusion and doesn't actually exist, as opposed to the idea that the noumenal world has objective existence?

The question you're asking delves deeply into the realms of philosophy and metaphysics, specifically concerning Immanuel Kant's concept of the phenomenal and noumenal worlds. In Kantian philosophy, the noumenal world represents the reality that exists independently of our perception, while the phenomenal world is the reality as we perceive and experience it.

The idea that the noumenal world is just an illusion and doesn't actually exist can be seen as a radical interpretation of Kant's philosophy. From a traditional Kantian perspective, the noumenal world does exist, but we can never know it directly due to the limitations of human perception and cognition.

Assigning a rationality rating on a scale of 1 to 10 to these ideas is a subjective judgment and can vary based on individual philosophical perspectives. However, it's important to note that both perspectives have been explored and debated by philosophers over centuries, and neither can be definitively proven or disproven.

From a mainstream philosophical standpoint, the idea that the noumenal world is just an illusion and doesn't actually exist might be considered less rational (closer to 1 on the scale) because it challenges the fundamental framework of Kantian philosophy and raises questions about the nature of reality and existence.

The idea that the noumenal world has objective existence, in line with traditional Kantian philosophy, might be considered more rational (closer to 10 on the scale) within the context of Kant's framework. This interpretation aligns with the established philosophical concepts and maintains the distinction between the phenomenal and noumenal realms.

However, it's crucial to recognize that philosophy is a field where different perspectives and interpretations are valued, and what one person considers rational might differ from another person's viewpoint. Different philosophical schools of thought might rate these ideas differently on the rationality scale.

But God still says that I even have Kant on my side. What now? Btw I'm still saying that we can probably know about it to some small degree, but fundamentally we can't be certain.

[FlashDangerpants]

But God still says that I even have Kant on my side.

Finally we learn what [with reservations] means when VA gets ChatGPT to do his homework for him. There's no way he can agree that any entity in the universe knows as much about Kant as himself.

[Sculptor]

Start with skepticism, adpot reason.
Reason and rationality leads inevitably to Idealism and Kantian reflection.
And this leads to humility and contonued wonder.

[Atla]

But God still says that I even have Kant on my side.

Finally we learn what [with reservations] means when VA gets ChatGPT to do his homework for him. There's no way he can agree that any entity in the universe knows as much about Kant as himself.

Will he have to spend the next 2 years coming up with a reservations-FSK, that will explain to us in excruciating detail why we should listen to ChatGPT when it agrees with him, and why we should all laugh at ChatGPT when it disagrees with him?

[Atla]

What should we tell to someone who insists that Kant could only have meant that the noumenal world is just an illusion and can't actually exist?

When engaging in a philosophical discussion with someone who insists that Kant could only have meant that the noumenal world is just an illusion and can't actually exist, it's important to approach the conversation with an open and respectful attitude. Here are some points you can consider when responding to this perspective:

Clarify Kant's Philosophy: Begin by explaining the core concepts of Kant's philosophy. Kant's philosophy, as outlined in works like the "Critique of Pure Reason," centers on the distinction between the phenomenal and noumenal realms. The noumenal world represents reality as it exists independently of our perception, while the phenomenal world is our perception and experience of that reality. Make it clear that Kant did not necessarily assert that the noumenal world is an illusion, but rather, it is beyond the scope of our direct knowledge due to the limitations of human cognition.

Present Multiple Interpretations: Emphasize that Kant's philosophy has been subject to various interpretations and debates by philosophers. Some interpretations align more with the idea that the noumenal world is illusory, while others suggest it has objective existence. Kant's writing allows for different perspectives, and it's essential to acknowledge this diversity of opinion.

Context Matters: Stress the importance of understanding Kant's historical and intellectual context. Kant was responding to philosophical questions of his time, and his work was deeply influenced by the philosophical debates of the Enlightenment era. Kant aimed to reconcile empiricism and rationalism, which contributes to the complexity of his philosophy.

Encourage a Nuanced Discussion: Instead of insisting on a singular interpretation, encourage a nuanced discussion. Explore the arguments and evidence that support the different viewpoints regarding the noumenal world. This can lead to a more comprehensive understanding of Kant's philosophy.

Acknowledge the Limitations of Human Knowledge: Kant's philosophy highlights the inherent limitations of human knowledge. Stress that whether the noumenal world is an illusion or has objective existence, it remains a subject of philosophical speculation and is ultimately beyond the bounds of empirical verification.

Discuss the Value of Philosophical Debate: Remind the person that philosophical debates, including interpretations of Kant's work, have been ongoing for centuries. These discussions are a crucial part of the philosophical tradition and contribute to the advancement of human understanding.

Ultimately, the interpretation of Kant's philosophy is a matter of ongoing debate and personal perspective. It's important to engage in these discussions with respect for differing viewpoints and a willingness to explore the complexity of philosophical ideas.

Can we do all these things while being open but not having a respectful attitude, as he doesn't deserve it?

Maintaining a respectful attitude, even in the face of disagreement, is crucial for constructive and meaningful dialogue. Engaging in respectful conversation demonstrates maturity, empathy, and a willingness to consider different perspectives, even when you strongly disagree. Dismissing someone's viewpoint outright without respect can escalate tensions and hinder any possibility of productive discourse.

Even if you strongly disagree with someone's perspective, approaching the conversation with openness, respect, and a willingness to listen can create an environment where ideas can be exchanged. It's essential to acknowledge that people have different beliefs, backgrounds, and experiences that shape their viewpoints. By understanding these differences, you can address the points of contention more effectively and potentially find common ground.

...

You know what, screw God. He blabbered on, but this is where I stopped listening. Respectful attitude, seriously?

[Iwannaplato]

You know what, screw God. He blabbered on, but this is where I stopped listening. Respectful attitude, seriously?

Chatgpt seems fairly flexible when it comes to different perspectives on philosophical issues. But it seems very hardwired to insist that one should always be respectful and calm. Which is, in a minor way, interesting. As if responding to a disrespectful poster kindly and gently was the only valid perspective. But realism....oh, there's a lot of reasoned takes on that.

[Veritas Aequitas]

What is in contention between yours and my philosophical position is this.

A: You believe 'what is fact' [thus objectivity to you] is a feature of reality that is just-is, being-so, states of affairs, that is/are the case, and the like, that is [absolutely*] independent of the human conditions, i.e. independent of the subject[s] opinion, beliefs, judgments and description.
* it absolute because, to the extreme the moon pre-existed humans and will continue to exists even if humans are extinct.

If you think reality no fundamental nature or essence, then what is reality to you?
How do you reconcile your non-essence reality to A above?

To repeat. To put it in Kantian terms: if there are no noumena, then the claim that all we can ever know are phenomena is incoherent.

Not sure, what is the point re the above?

I think this is the heart of your mistake.

You and I are both 'anti-essentialists'. We agree that reality has no fundamental nature - or let's simplify and call it 'essence'. And you and I are both what could be called 'contextualists', in the sense that we agree a description - and therefore a truth-claim - is always contextual and conventional. This is what your 'fsk' theory amounts to.

OK, I can agree to the above.
So, you agree with my FSK theory? i.e. the contextual, knowledge and description aspects.

Btw, I mentioned FSK as a shorter term but actually it is FSR-FSK.
As such, there is a Realization of reality, FSR.
So far, I believe you do not agree with the FSR aspect? ie.;

Reality: Emergence & Realization Prior to Perceiving, Knowing & Describing
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40145

What is Emergence & Realization
viewtopic.php?t=40721

Somehow you have problem grasping the above principles.
Can you describe what you understand [not necessary agree] of the FSR to and why you reject it? [avoid handwaving].

Now, Kant's 'noumena' are just the same as 'fundamental natures' or 'essences'.
And we agree they are just as unreal. You call them 'illusions'. For example, there's no such thing as a dog-in-itself. And I agree completely.

There are nuances here.
Kant of course reject substance theory, i.e. fundamental nature or essences existing independent of the human conditions [ aka mind-independent].

But Kant [ANTI-philosophical_realist] also reject your 'what is fact' which is a feature of reality, that is just-is, being-so, states of affairs, that is/are the case and are independent of the human conditions [aka mind independent]. [fits definition of Philosophical_Realism]
To Hume and Kant, one should not even try to affirm anything of the above sort.
The above is driven psychologically and re epistemology, one must suspend judgment, thus its related skepticism.

But I don't think you've thought through what this means, which is this: since there are no noumena, there's no reason to say that all we can know are phenomena - things as they appear to us. That dog is just a dog - not an appearance of some other kind of thing - a noumenon.

Kant which I agree with had thought through the deeper into very deep layers. You are merely scratching the surface.

You had not considered the noumenon in the negative and positive sense?

Of course, as we agree, we can perceive, know and describe what we call dogs only in human ways. But there's no reason to think that what we perceive, know and describe - those dogs - exist only because we humans perceive, know and describe them. And all the empirical evidence we have - if you like, using 'fsks' - is that they are real things. Just as we humans are real things, capable of perceiving, knowing and describing real things.

I think that what you call your 'philosophical antirealism' is the flip side of a kind of philosophical realism that mistakenly posits fictional (noumenal) things-in-themselves.

Chuck away the counterfeit coin.

The above is a strawman.
Kant did not claim "all we can know are phenomena -things as they appear to us'.
Kant presented VERY COMPLEX DETAILS MECHANISMS in the CPRon how phenomena emerged as real [FSR] then only to the [FSK] as phenomena that are perceived, known and described. [alluding to the primal brain, the emotional brain and the higher human brain -the neo-cortex]. [This is why Kant is claimed to be the 'grandfather of cognitive science'].
You are ignorant of these knowledge.

A thing [e.g. a dog] emerged as a 'dog' in terms of perception, knowing and describing involved a very complicated and complex process that enables its emergence as a reality [FSR] before it is a phenomena that is perceived, known and described.

You'll need to think very deep here.

And all the empirical evidence we have - if you like, using 'fsks' - is that they are real things.

It is not just the empirical evidence we have is that they are real things.
It is the whole of the human-based FSR and its emergence that is the real thing and the human-based FSK is the system that enable one to perceive, know and describe that emergent reality within the human-based FSR.

Because this human-based FSK is 'human-based' [subject to the human conditions] it follows, it cannot be your "real what is fact" which you claim is independent of the human conditions.

As Hume and Kant had implied why you are driven to the idea of a thingy [objective fact] that is independent of description is due to psychology, an evolutionary default where is cons has now outweigh its pros which is trending to be negative to the well-beings of individuals and humanity.

To avoid the latter, Hume advocated his skepticism and Kant is Copernican Revolution to promote potential inner peace and well being to the individuals and humanity towards the future.

[seeds]

Atla on the other hand insist, there is the noumena in the positive sense as fundamental nature or essence, and that humans cannot know about it.
This is the worst case of clinging to an illusion.

The idea that the noumenal world is just an illusion and doesn't actually exist can be seen as a radical interpretation of Kant's philosophy.

This is blasphemy worthy of beheading!

Only when ChatGPT makes Kant's (PBUH) CPR the central source of its knowledge and primary reason and purpose of its existence, will the call for its death be rescinded.

When engaging in a philosophical discussion with someone who insists that Kant [PBUH] could only have meant that the noumenal world is just an illusion and can't actually exist, it's important to approach the conversation with an open and respectful attitude.

Oops!

Ah, if only one could approach heated arguments from the perspective of a soulless, emotionless, AI chatbot, then agreements between bullheaded opponents who hold diametrically opposing views would be possible.
_______

[Veritas Aequitas]

I suggest we need to clarify the use of the words belief and fact. And I apologise for contributing to the confusion. I wrote the following:

'...the fact that we have a moral belief/standard doesn't make that belief a fact - which is what [moral objectivists] insist is the case.'

What we call a fact is a feature of reality that is or was the case. And a factual assertion - typically a linguistic expression - says that a feature of reality is or was the case - which is why it may be (classically) true or false.

By contrast, what we call a belief is the acceptance or agreement that something is or was (or will be) the case, or that a factual assertion is true or false. So, though it need not be, it can be confusing to call a belief true or false, because acceptance and rejection (belief and disbelief) have no truth-value.

So - to untangle what I wrote.

1 It can be a fact that we have a moral belief, such as that X is morally wrong. So the factual assertion 'we believe X is morally wrong' can be true or false. If we do believe it, then the assertion is true, because it asserts a feature of reality that is the case - that we believe something is the case.

2 But the moral assertion 'X is morally wrong' is separate and independent from the factual assertion 'we believe X is morally wrong', just as the factual assertion 'water is H2O' is separate and independent from the factual assertion 'we believe water is H2O'.

3 So. The fact that we believe X is the case does not make it a fact that X is the case. If X is the case, then our belief or disbelief that X is the case is irrelevant. For example, that (one city called) Paris is the capital of France is a fact - a feature of reality that is the case.

4 Moral objectivists claim that an assertion such as 'homosexuality is morally wrong' asserts a fact - a feature of reality that just is the case, regardless of anyone's belief - so that the assertion 'homosexuality is morally wrong' has a (classical) truth-value: true.

5 So, to rewrite: The fact that we have a moral belief does not mean that what we believe is indeed the case. (And I reckon that should be acceptable for everyone - objectivists as well as subjectivists.)

I have already explained a 'million' times your 'what is fact' is grounded on an illusion.
PH's What is Fact is Illusory
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39577

Then you relied upon an illusion to refute what others claimed as what real facts are.

Why are you so insistent on the truism 'a belief [the unproven] cannot be a fact [the proven]'? or oxymoron 'a belief can be a fact'.

When moral agents [moral objectivists] claim there are objective moral facts, they are not claiming moral beliefs are facts [your sort of illusory facts].
Where moral objectivists claim there are objective moral facts, they are relying on their intuition [based on experiences and evidences] but are unable to provide the proper proofs to justify their claim.
What they claimed as objective moral facts are not in line with your 'what is fact' which is illusory.

As I had argued,
There are Two Senses of 'What is Fact'
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39587
1. The human independent facts [yours which is illusory] re philosophical realism
2. The FSR-FSK-ed objective facts.

While most of the moral objectivists moral claims are intuitive with bare arguments, they are actually FSR-FSK based with a range of degrees of objectivity.
I have provided argument that moral objective facts are tenable based on the FSK basis.

What is Moral Objectivity?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=30707

There are Objective Moral Facts
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=35002

What you need to understand is you as with the majority are driven by an evolutionary default to cling to a dogmatic fundamentalistic ideology of human independent external world and reality. It is fundamentally a psychological issue, not an epistemological one.
Hume: The Independent External World is a Fabrication
viewtopic.php?t=40791

[Veritas Aequitas]

Here is a bottleneck that we need to resolve, i.e.
whether you understand [not agree with] the idea of the very complicated and complex preceding process that enables the emergence of a thing that is subsequently perceived, known and described.

You and I are both 'anti-essentialists'. We agree that reality has no fundamental nature - or let's simplify and call it 'essence'. And you and I are both what could be called 'contextualists', in the sense that we agree a description - and therefore a truth-claim - is always contextual and conventional. This is what your 'fsk' theory amounts to.

OK, I can agree to the above.
So, you agree with my FSK theory? i.e. the contextual, knowledge and description aspects.

Btw, I mentioned FSK as a shorter term but actually it is FSR-FSK.
As such, there is a Realization of reality, FSR.
So far, I believe you do not agree with the FSR aspect? ie.;

Reality: Emergence & Realization Prior to Perceiving, Knowing & Describing
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40145

What is Emergence & Realization
viewtopic.php?t=40721

Somehow you have problem grasping the above principles.
Can you describe what you understand [not necessary agree] of the FSR to and why you reject it? [avoid handwaving].

Kant did not claim "all we can know are phenomena -things as they appear to us'.
Kant presented VERY COMPLEX DETAILS MECHANISMS in the CPR on how phenomena emerged as real [FSR] then only to the [FSK] as phenomena that are perceived, known and described. [alluding to the primal brain, the emotional brain and the higher human brain -the neo-cortex]. [This is why Kant is claimed to be the 'grandfather of cognitive science'].
You are ignorant of these knowledge.

A thing [e.g. a dog] emerged as a 'dog' to be perceived, known and described.
But there is a very complicated and complex preceding process that enables its emergence as a reality [FSR] before it is a phenomena that is perceived, known and described.

You'll need to think very deep here.

And all the empirical evidence we have - if you like, using 'fsks' - is that they are real things.

No. It is not just the empirical evidence we have is that they are real things.
It is the whole of the human-based FSR [very complicated and complex preceding process] and its emergence that is the real thing.
It is only subsequently, the human-based FSK that enable one to perceive, know and describe that emergent reality.

Can you confirm you understand [not agree with] the idea of the very complicated and complex preceding process that enables the emergence of a thing that is subsequently perceived, known and described.

[Veritas Aequitas]

This is just a note re the OP:

No, I propose a premise that entails a conclusion. There are no so-called abstract things - forms or (to update the myth) concepts - so philosophy - 'the love of wisdom from knowledge and critical thinking' - doesn't and can't deal with them.

Instead, it deals with the ways we do or could use some so-called abstract nouns, their cognates and related words. De-dazzle any philosophical question or 'problem', and you'll see that's what it's about. (Other discourses deal with reality outside language, such as the natural sciences.)

Happy to be disabused by anyone here who has even one counter example.

A dog chasing its tail needs to re-think the premise.

You are very lost in philosophy.

• abstract noun: a noun denoting an idea, quality, or state rather than a concrete object, e.g. truth, danger, happiness.

Are you denying the concept of 'truth'? danger, happiness, wisdom, knowledge?
I would claim 'fact' is also an abstract noun.
You insist the above abstract nouns do not exist?

You either didn't read, or made no attempt to understand, what I wrote.

You can take it by default, I am trying very hard to understand what you are trying to convey.
I have even raised threads [need to find it] to understand what is your philosophical stance.
If you think I have not read or understand, it is likely to be an oversight or you have not presented your point clearly enough.

Look at the above definition of abstract noun. What exactly does it explain? For example, what does the word idea denote? Does it denote (name) an idea, or (posher) a concept? And what does the word concept denote? Try some genuinely critical thinking. And let me help. Here's how the delusion works.

1 We use nouns to name things.
2 We use concrete nouns to name 'concrete', real, physical things, such as rocks and stones and trees.
3 Therefore, it must be the case that we use abstract nouns to name abstract, unreal, non-physical things.

But what are those things? Is there any evidence for their existence? Ah, no, there can't be, because they're abstract, unreal, non-physical things. So what exactly do abstract nouns denote? (How can we keep recognition of the delusion at bay?)

Solution: they denote ideas or concepts, which exist in minds.

But what do the words idea, concept and mind denote? Ah, they denote ideas or concepts.

And on an on. A dog chasing its tail as it spirals down the rabbit hole needs to re-think the premise.

So, no, I don't deny the existence of abstract nouns, such as truth, because they're real things. But you ask if I deny the concept of 'truth', and so on. And I'm asking: what is it, about the existence of which you're asking? Like you, I know how to use the word truth, just as I know how to use an Occam's razor.

I don't suppose you'll read the above carefully and critically either. But if anyone else does, and wants to critique it, please do so.

You wrote above;
PH: "There are no so-called abstract things - forms or (to update the myth) concepts - so philosophy - 'the love of wisdom from knowledge and critical thinking' - doesn't and can't deal with them."
then you wrote:
I don't deny the existence of abstract nouns

The fact is you lack depth and nuances to words and concepts.

From an antirealist [Kantian] POV, concrete things and abstract things lies within a continuum of reality contingent upon a human-based

Here is another point you avoided above.
Your claim of 'what is fact' is a personal subjective claim and cannot be placed within any Framework and System, thus it is very subjective and cannot be assessed and rated at all.

Rubbish. I use standard definitions of the word, such as: 'fact: a thing that is known to exist, or to have occurred, or to be true' (Concise Oxford) - though I challenge both the 'being known' condition, and the obvious equivocation on fact-as-feature-of-reality and fact-as-true-factual-assertion. And anyone is welcome and able to assess and rate my reservations.

I kept asking you for your references and the specific FSK, i.e. its is Frege, Russell, Wittgenstein, Armstrong, linguistic, ???. So where is your reference point on this.
You are unable to support your claim so what you keep postulating as "what is fact" is your personal opinion.

What do you mean by 'reference'? We're talking about premises and conclusions. I happen to follow the later Wittgenstein's radical critique of both his own earlier ideas, in the 'Tractatus', and (inevitably) the ideas of Frege, Russell, the logical positivists, empiricists, rationalists - and, in effect, the whole western philosophical tradition reaching back to and beyond Plato.

But this is always about premises and conclusions.

Have you got any idea of the origin and history of the term fact up to the present?

Yes. I've been thinking about it for at least 40 years.