Rorty - No Mind-Independent Reality

[FlashDangerpants]

My reading is this,
if you don't have any thing to do with mind-independent reality, then you are an anti-philosophical realist.

Your reading is inadequate.

For philosophical sake why you explain your position more precisely instead of hiding behind something others could not understand adequately.

I have no interest in ANY question about mind independent reality. I have told you this enough times over enough years that I consider it a misunderstanding to to take the question seriously at all.


Learn to read and undestand other people's words please. This is getting to be an emergency for you.

[Skepdick]

Learn to read and undestand other people's words please. This is getting to be an emergency for you.

At what point in your life could we expect you to start practicing this exact skill you demand from others?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Your reading is inadequate.

For philosophical sake why you explain your position more precisely instead of hiding behind something others could not understand adequately.

I have no interest in ANY question about mind independent reality. I have told you this enough times over enough years that I consider it a misunderstanding to to take the question seriously at all.

Learn to read and undestand other people's words please. This is getting to be an emergency for you.

The point is most people can be fickle or change their mind upon new evidences and arguments.

You appear to have change your mind from your postings, e.g. your 'discovery' of the world-as-it-is [ a mind-independent world-in-itself] which imply it is mind-independence.
That is why I need to confirm your latest position.
So how can you explain the apparent contradiction in your above beliefs?

OK, if you do not have interests in ANY question about mind independent reality, does it imply you have interest in "ANY question about mind independent reality" or that is related to the human mind.

Since p-realists insist on the existence of a mind-independent reality, to the extent that the moon pre-existed human mind and regardless of human-mind, then, you are an antirealist [?] who do not have any interests in the concept of mind-dependent reality.

If you are an antirealist, what type? Kantian, Berkeley, Dummet's, etc.?

You position is very confusing.
So can you clarify the above differences re your philosophical position to establish your grounds?

[FlashDangerpants]

For philosophical sake why you explain your position more precisely instead of hiding behind something others could not understand adequately.

I have no interest in ANY question about mind independent reality. I have told you this enough times over enough years that I consider it a misunderstanding to to take the question seriously at all.

Learn to read and undestand other people's words please. This is getting to be an emergency for you.

The point is most people can be fickle or change their mind upon new evidences and arguments.

You appear to have change your mind from your postings, e.g. your 'discovery' of the world-as-it-is [ a mind-independent world-in-itself] which imply it is mind-independence.
That is why I need to confirm your latest position.
So how can you explain the apparent contradiction in your above beliefs?

OK, if you do not have interests in ANY question about mind independent reality, does it imply you have interest in "ANY question about mind independent reality" or that is related to the human mind.

Since p-realists insist on the existence of a mind-independent reality, to the extent that the moon pre-existed human mind and regardless of human-mind, then, you are an antirealist [?] who do not have any interests in the concept of mind-dependent reality.

If you are an antirealist, what type? Kantian, Berkeley, Dummet's, etc.?

You position is very confusing.
So can you clarify the above differences re your philosophical position to establish your grounds?

OMG, please .... please .... just read what people write.

I consider it a misunderstanding to to take the question seriously at all.

Look around you, that is reality. That is what the concepts of reality is for, that is the referent of the expression. You are not outside of reality viewing it from a even-more-real location, you are right there as part of the stuff you see when you look around and part of the stuff you touch and part of the smell also.

The mistaken impression that there is a noumenal world and a phenomenal one and you have some sort of access to one but are removed from the other is a misunderstanding about minds and language that Kant unthinkingly inherited from Descartes but ought to have rejected.



I have expressed every one of those thoughts multiple times for you this week. You never read what other people write though.

[Belinda]

I have no interest in ANY question about mind independent reality. I have told you this enough times over enough years that I consider it a misunderstanding to to take the question seriously at all.

Learn to read and undestand other people's words please. This is getting to be an emergency for you.

The point is most people can be fickle or change their mind upon new evidences and arguments.

You appear to have change your mind from your postings, e.g. your 'discovery' of the world-as-it-is [ a mind-independent world-in-itself] which imply it is mind-independence.
That is why I need to confirm your latest position.
So how can you explain the apparent contradiction in your above beliefs?

OK, if you do not have interests in ANY question about mind independent reality, does it imply you have interest in "ANY question about mind independent reality" or that is related to the human mind.

Since p-realists insist on the existence of a mind-independent reality, to the extent that the moon pre-existed human mind and regardless of human-mind, then, you are an antirealist [?] who do not have any interests in the concept of mind-dependent reality.

If you are an antirealist, what type? Kantian, Berkeley, Dummet's, etc.?

You position is very confusing.
So can you clarify the above differences re your philosophical position to establish your grounds?

OMG, please .... please .... just read what people write.

I consider it a misunderstanding to to take the question seriously at all.

Look around you, that is reality. That is what the concepts of reality is for, that is the referent of the expression. You are not outside of reality viewing it from a even-more-real location, you are right there as part of the stuff you see when you look around and part of the stuff you touch and part of the smell also.

The mistaken impression that there is a noumenal world and a phenomenal one and you have some sort of access to one but are removed from the other is a misunderstanding about minds and language that Kant unthinkingly inherited from Descartes but ought to have rejected.



I have expressed every one of those thoughts multiple times for you this week. You never read what other people write though.

There are no noumena/such things /events don't exist. However , to adopt Descartes' reasoning without his conclusion, minds themselves are dependent on how existence is framed by language. The one persistent event that overrides every objection is not mind, but experience.

I wonder if the notion of a noumenal reality came to Kant due to belief about a deity that created reality. If so then Kant was deeply deterministic to the effect that control is the prerogative of the pancreator.

We experience existence as creatures of time and memory mediated through language. (Rorty) If there is no noumenal existence then we are the creators of reality. As creators of reality we know we are fallible creators with no end point in view . Experience , but not the experiencer , is all we can be sure of.

[Veritas Aequitas]

OMG, please .... please .... just read what people write.

I consider it a misunderstanding to to take the question seriously at all.

This is a VERY complicated issue and both of us are standing across a chasm.
Thus there is a possibility that you missed out what I intended to express, and I could also missed out what you want to say.
In this case, repetition is necessary.
I am trying hard to understand what you are trying to say. The default is the onus is on the communicator to make it as easy as possible for the communicatee to understand the message.

Look around you, that is reality. That is what the concepts of reality is for, that is the referent of the expression. You are not outside of reality viewing it from a even-more-real location, you are right there as part of the stuff you see when you look around and part of the stuff you touch and part of the smell also.

I agree with the above.See my thread:
Humans are Intricately Part & Parcel of Reality (Mar 13, 2023)
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39751

The mistaken impression that there is a noumenal world and a phenomenal one and you have some sort of access to one but are removed from the other is a misunderstanding about minds and language that Kant unthinkingly inherited from Descartes but ought to have rejected.

You are wrong on this.
To Kant, the noumenal is something like using "Santa Claus" as the answer to the child, asking where the gifts he received during Christmas comes from. So the parent generated the most appropriate [optimal] answer "Santa Claus did it". But the parent knows Santa Claus is unreal and an illusion.

It is the same with p-realists asking where the phenomena come from?
Kant answered, it is from the noumena [just like Santa Claus] which is an illusion just like Santa Claus.

Kant kept the idea of a noumena which is an illusion because it is useful illusion for his other projects.
In the later part, Kant transposed the noumena [illusory] into the thing-in-itself which is still a useful illusion.

I have posted the above explanation before;
Now, I can say;
please .... please .... just read what people write.

It is critical you understand [not necessary agree with] my points above.

What is your counter to my above points.
There is also a very great depth to the above points.

I have expressed every one of those thoughts multiple times for you this week. You never read what other people write though.

I am making the same accusation of you.
As stated above, this is a VERY complicated issue and both of us are standing across a chasm.
So we need to trash it out patiently.

[Veritas Aequitas]

There are no noumena/such things /events don't exist. However , to adopt Descartes' reasoning without his conclusion, minds themselves are dependent on how existence is framed by language. The one persistent event that overrides every objection is not mind, but experience.

I wonder if the notion of a noumenal reality came to Kant due to belief about a deity that created reality. If so then Kant was deeply deterministic to the effect that control is the prerogative of the pancreator.

We experience existence as creatures of time and memory mediated through language. (Rorty) If there is no noumenal existence then we are the creators of reality. As creators of reality we know we are fallible creators with no end point in view . Experience , but not the experiencer , is all we can be sure of.

Note my response to FDP above.

The noumenal for Kant is just like the real 'Santa Claus' [an illusion] to children as told by their parents.

[Belinda]

There are no noumena/such things /events don't exist. However , to adopt Descartes' reasoning without his conclusion, minds themselves are dependent on how existence is framed by language. The one persistent event that overrides every objection is not mind, but experience.

I wonder if the notion of a noumenal reality came to Kant due to belief about a deity that created reality. If so then Kant was deeply deterministic to the effect that control is the prerogative of the pancreator.

We experience existence as creatures of time and memory mediated through language. (Rorty) If there is no noumenal existence then we are the creators of reality. As creators of reality we know we are fallible creators with no end point in view . Experience , but not the experiencer , is all we can be sure of.

Note my response to FDP above.

The noumenal for Kant is just like the real 'Santa Claus' [an illusion] to children as told by their parents.

I re-read your post that you directed me to. Things in themselves don't exist and we know this
because we use the method of doubt.
It is true that Sana Claus is a place holder notion ; in the cases of Santa Claus, and things-in -themselves, we need to have a handle on what it is that we are disputing the reality of.

[FlashDangerpants]

OMG, please .... please .... just read what people write.

I consider it a misunderstanding to to take the question seriously at all.

This is a VERY complicated issue and both of us are standing across a chasm.
Thus there is a possibility that you missed out what I intended to express, and I could also missed out what you want to say.
In this case, repetition is necessary.
I am trying hard to understand what you are trying to say. The default is the onus is on the communicator to make it as easy as possible for the communicatee to understand the message.

This is your first genuine effort to actually respond to my words instead of to something you make up as an alternative. Although you are about to call me a p-realist showing that there is clearly a lot of work for you still to do. But look at how badly I had to manipulate you in order to get this result. Then sort it out.

The only reason I ever directed you at Rorty in the first palce is because the first chapter of that book is damn easy to read and understand. But let's be real, I don't care about the realism/antirealism debate because it is meaningless. You can try to fool yourself that you are too sophisticated to believe in reality if that's what oyu are in the mood for, but nothing changes because of that attitude, nor could it. The realism debate is nothing but a dispute over how to describe the same thing, and that thing will be the same irrespective of your pointless debate.

If you shoose to say that it is unreal but we are bound in all ways to act and believe as if it were real, there are no implications that differ from just saying it is real and was real all along.

If you try to extrapolate from this barren and pointless debate about reality into some meningful conclusion relevant to something we believe or do (such as morality, or even science) ... if you try toargue that we should do something different in science or in our customs and behaviour just because you are persuaded by the definition of reality that says it's all unreal, then that is a problem of you overinterpreting what is actually not an important or fertile debate.

This is why I write stuff like I consider it a misunderstanding to to take the question seriously at all.

Look around you, that is reality. That is what the concepts of reality is for, that is the referent of the expression. You are not outside of reality viewing it from a even-more-real location, you are right there as part of the stuff you see when you look around and part of the stuff you touch and part of the smell also.

I agree with the above.See my thread:
Humans are Intricately Part & Parcel of Reality (Mar 13, 2023)
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39751

The fact that you are in that thread arguing against realism on behalf of antirealism shows that you either are not following me here, or that you don't agree in the way that you claim to.

When I say that you are part of reality and your socks are also part of reality, and all the stuff you see is also part of reality, and that this is what the concept of reality is for.... I am not granting you any privileged position there, you are neither more nor less real than your socks. Your argument in that thread definitely doesn't agree with me, and that is a large part of why I find the whole debate so silly.

The mistaken impression that there is a noumenal world and a phenomenal one and you have some sort of access to one but are removed from the other is a misunderstanding about minds and language that Kant unthinkingly inherited from Descartes but ought to have rejected.

You are wrong on this.
To Kant, the noumenal is something like using "Santa Claus" as the answer to the child, asking where the gifts he received during Christmas comes from. So the parent generated the most appropriate [optimal] answer "Santa Claus did it". But the parent knows Santa Claus is unreal and an illusion.

It is the same with p-realists asking where the phenomena come from?
Kant answered, it is from the noumena [just like Santa Claus] which is an illusion just like Santa Claus.

Kant kept the idea of a noumena which is an illusion because it is useful illusion for his other projects.
In the later part, Kant transposed the noumena [illusory] into the thing-in-itself which is still a useful illusion.

No. The idea of the noumena vs the thing-in-itself is exactly what I am saying is a mistake. It's exactly what Rorty is saying is a mistake also. I don't care if you don't really believe in it and imagine you can pass it off as a children's story about a horrific fairy that eats teeth, you've not been behaving like somebody who gets that it isn't meaningful.

Whether you think it is true or not is not really important if it isn't meaningful.

I have posted the above explanation before;
Now, I can say;
please .... please .... just read what people write.

It is critical you understand [not necessary agree with] my points above.

What is your counter to my above points.
There is also a very great depth to the above points.

I have expressed every one of those thoughts multiple times for you this week. You never read what other people write though.

I am making the same accusation of you.
As stated above, this is a VERY complicated issue and both of us are standing across a chasm.
So we need to trash it out patiently.

Sorry, I still don't see anyting new or important in there. Other than you seem to be more open to the noumenal/phenomenal divide being bullshit than I expected. But I'm seeing little evidence you are ready to make the next step there.


My actual real point has always been that you are welcome to have your endless debate about whether reality would look like it was really-really-reallreality or some almost-but-actually-sham-reality if we held an impossible view of reality from outside reality. But the debate itself is nonsensical on Wittgensteinian grounds (I only ever referenced Rorty because it's easier to read, I don't care much about him).

However even if you reject my Wittgensteinian position, there is nowhere to take it. You can't redefine our understanding of knowledge with this windbag debate. And with that you cannot suddenly change morality into a science or any of the other wildly overoptimistic moves you try to make.

[Veritas Aequitas]

OMG, please .... please .... just read what people write.

I consider it a misunderstanding to to take the question seriously at all.

This is a VERY complicated issue and both of us are standing across a chasm.
Thus there is a possibility that you missed out what I intended to express, and I could also missed out what you want to say.
In this case, repetition is necessary.
I am trying hard to understand what you are trying to say. The default is the onus is on the communicator to make it as easy as possible for the communicatee to understand the message.

This is your first genuine effort to actually respond to my words instead of to something you make up as an alternative. Although you are about to call me a p-realist showing that there is clearly a lot of work for you still to do. But look at how badly I had to manipulate you in order to get this result. Then sort it out.

That is immature condescending and also patronizing.
It could be the other way round.

The only reason I ever directed you at Rorty in the first palce is because the first chapter of that book is damn easy to read and understand. But let's be real, I don't care about the realism/antirealism debate because it is meaningless. You can try to fool yourself that you are too sophisticated to believe in reality if that's what oyu are in the mood for, but nothing changes because of that attitude, nor could it. The realism debate is nothing but a dispute over how to describe the same thing, and that thing will be the same irrespective of your pointless debate.

If you shoose to say that it is unreal but we are bound in all ways to act and believe as if it were real, there are no implications that differ from just saying it is real and was real all along.

If you try to extrapolate from this barren and pointless debate about reality into some meningful conclusion relevant to something we believe or do (such as morality, or even science) ... if you try toargue that we should do something different in science or in our customs and behaviour just because you are persuaded by the definition of reality that says it's all unreal, then that is a problem of you overinterpreting what is actually not an important or fertile debate.

This is why I write stuff like I consider it a misunderstanding to to take the question seriously at all.

Do you realize the realist vs antirealist debate has been ongoing since philosophy first emerged [10,000 years ago -Vedas]?
So you just cannot ignore it nor will it go away as long as there are humans.
I have explained those who are dogmatic on p-realism had induced evil and violent acts, e.g. religious evils and hindered humanity's progress.
P-realism can be studied from the evolutionary, neuroscience, genetics, psychological perspective to find solutions to prevent its related evil acts. I am not saying antirealists are saints, but two wrongs do not make one right.
Your moral skepticism is a hinder to moral progress.

Look around you, that is reality. That is what the concepts of reality is for, that is the referent of the expression. You are not outside of reality viewing it from a even-more-real location, you are right there as part of the stuff you see when you look around and part of the stuff you touch and part of the smell also.

I agree with the above.See my thread:
Humans are Intricately Part & Parcel of Reality (Mar 13, 2023)
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39751

The fact that you are in that thread arguing against realism on behalf of antirealism shows that you either are not following me here, or that you don't agree in the way that you claim to. [/quote]
Actually I am trying to understand what is your actual philosophical stance.
You should be responsible to make your stance as clear as possible by referring to the known philosophical stances at present.

I have declared my philosophical stance are inclined toward Kantianism [not totally] Buddhism, FSRK-ed science [not scientific realism], Hegel's dialectical approach [not his Absolute] and others.

When I say that you are part of reality and your socks are also part of reality, and all the stuff you see is also part of reality, and that this is what the concept of reality is for.... I am not granting you any privileged position there, you are neither more nor less real than your socks. Your argument in that thread definitely doesn't agree with me, and that is a large part of why I find the whole debate so silly.

I have to guess your position because you are too cryptic with it.
I guess your philosophical stance is within analytic philosophy [anglo-American].
If my guess is wrong, Why not explain more precisely what is your philosophical stance.

The mistaken impression that there is a noumenal world and a phenomenal one and you have some sort of access to one but are removed from the other is a misunderstanding about minds and language that Kant unthinkingly inherited from Descartes but ought to have rejected.

You are wrong on this.
To Kant, the noumenal is something like using "Santa Claus" as the answer to the child, asking where the gifts he received during Christmas comes from. So the parent generated the most appropriate [optimal] answer "Santa Claus did it". But the parent knows Santa Claus is unreal and an illusion.

It is the same with p-realists asking where the phenomena come from?
Kant answered, it is from the noumena [just like Santa Claus] which is an illusion just like Santa Claus.

Kant kept the idea of a noumena which is an illusion because it is useful illusion for his other projects.
In the later part, Kant transposed the noumena [illusory] into the thing-in-itself which is still a useful illusion.

No. The idea of the noumena vs the thing-in-itself is exactly what I am saying is a mistake. It's exactly what Rorty is saying is a mistake also. I don't care if you don't really believe in it and imagine you can pass it off as a children's story about a horrific fairy that eats teeth, you've not been behaving like somebody who gets that it isn't meaningful.

Whether you think it is true or not is not really important if it isn't meaningful.

You got it wrong.
It is phenomena vs nuomena aka thing-in-itself.
It is only a mistake if one insist the nuomena aka thing-in-itself is a really real thing which is hypostatizing and reifying.
It is a mistake to insist there is noumenal moon that exists regardless of humans in the absolute sense.

I have posted the above explanation before;
Now, I can say;
please .... please .... just read what people write.

It is critical you understand [not necessary agree with] my points above.

What is your counter to my above points.
There is also a very great depth to the above points.

I have expressed every one of those thoughts multiple times for you this week. You never read what other people write though.

I am making the same accusation of you.
As stated above, this is a VERY complicated issue and both of us are standing across a chasm.
So we need to trash it out patiently.

Sorry, I still don't see anyting new or important in there. Other than you seem to be more open to the noumenal/phenomenal divide being bullshit than I expected. But I'm seeing little evidence you are ready to make the next step there.

What next step? where can you go further especially when your philosophical database is so shallow and narrow.

My actual real point has always been that you are welcome to have your endless debate about whether reality would look like it was really-really-reall reality or some almost-but-actually-sham-reality if we held an impossible view of reality from outside reality. But the debate itself is nonsensical on Wittgensteinian grounds (I only ever referenced Rorty because it's easier to read, I don't care much about him).

However even if you reject my Wittgensteinian position, there is nowhere to take it. You can't redefine our understanding of knowledge with this windbag debate. And with that you cannot suddenly change morality into a science or any of the other wildly overoptimistic moves you try to make.

Which Wittgenstein's position are you talking about, the early- later- or the very-later Wittgenstein.
Can I guess your strongest stance one of the above Wittgenstein stance?
I can't see Wittgenstein's overriding stance, i.e. the very-later Wittgenstein's stance is that solid to explain reality. If so, how.

My philosophical stance is Kantian and others which I can summarize as;
Whatever is real, exists, factual, true, knowledge, objective are conditioned upon an embodied human-based FSRC.

The science FSRC and morality FSRC are independent of each other whilst can complementary. The task is to establish the moral FSRC to be as close to the objectivity of the science FSRC.

[FlashDangerpants]

This is a VERY complicated issue and both of us are standing across a chasm.
Thus there is a possibility that you missed out what I intended to express, and I could also missed out what you want to say.
In this case, repetition is necessary.
I am trying hard to understand what you are trying to say. The default is the onus is on the communicator to make it as easy as possible for the communicatee to understand the message.

This is your first genuine effort to actually respond to my words instead of to something you make up as an alternative. Although you are about to call me a p-realist showing that there is clearly a lot of work for you still to do. But look at how badly I had to manipulate you in order to get this result. Then sort it out.

That is immature condescending and also patronizing.
It could be the other way round.

The only reason I ever directed you at Rorty in the first palce is because the first chapter of that book is damn easy to read and understand. But let's be real, I don't care about the realism/antirealism debate because it is meaningless. You can try to fool yourself that you are too sophisticated to believe in reality if that's what oyu are in the mood for, but nothing changes because of that attitude, nor could it. The realism debate is nothing but a dispute over how to describe the same thing, and that thing will be the same irrespective of your pointless debate.

If you shoose to say that it is unreal but we are bound in all ways to act and believe as if it were real, there are no implications that differ from just saying it is real and was real all along.

If you try to extrapolate from this barren and pointless debate about reality into some meningful conclusion relevant to something we believe or do (such as morality, or even science) ... if you try toargue that we should do something different in science or in our customs and behaviour just because you are persuaded by the definition of reality that says it's all unreal, then that is a problem of you overinterpreting what is actually not an important or fertile debate.

This is why I write stuff like I consider it a misunderstanding to to take the question seriously at all.

Do you realize the realist vs antirealist debate has been ongoing since philosophy first emerged [10,000 years ago -Vedas]?
So you just cannot ignore it nor will it go away as long as there are humans.
I have explained those who are dogmatic on p-realism had induced evil and violent acts, e.g. religious evils and hindered humanity's progress.
P-realism can be studied from the evolutionary, neuroscience, genetics, psychological perspective to find solutions to prevent its related evil acts. I am not saying antirealists are saints, but two wrongs do not make one right.
Your moral skepticism is a hinder to moral progress.

So overblown and foolish. If I tell you my position is that the whole question is a misunderstanding that needn't be taken seriously, that is a perfectly sensible position. People have argued about which religion is best for 10,000 years as well, that's also a silly question, I am not obliged to become a Zoroastrian and take part in that silly debate. You asinine belief that that the realism problem has moral importance is exasperating.

All of this indicates that you think you can just refuse me permission to hold the philosophical position that I do. And that is just dumb.

I agree with the above.See my thread:
Humans are Intricately Part & Parcel of Reality (Mar 13, 2023)
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39751

The fact that you are in that thread arguing against realism on behalf of antirealism shows that you either are not following me here, or that you don't agree in the way that you claim to.

Actually I am trying to understand what is your actual philosophical stance.
You should be responsible to make your stance as clear as possible by referring to the known philosophical stances at present.

I have declared my philosophical stance are inclined toward Kantianism [not totally] Buddhism, FSRK-ed science [not scientific realism], Hegel's dialectical approach [not his Absolute] and others.

When I say that you are part of reality and your socks are also part of reality, and all the stuff you see is also part of reality, and that this is what the concept of reality is for.... I am not granting you any privileged position there, you are neither more nor less real than your socks. Your argument in that thread definitely doesn't agree with me, and that is a large part of why I find the whole debate so silly.

I have to guess your position because you are too cryptic with it.
I guess your philosophical stance is within analytic philosophy [anglo-American].
If my guess is wrong, Why not explain more precisely what is your philosophical stance.

My stance is not cryptic. I have been making it clear, but you think you can overrule me. You don't need to place me within a hiearchy of FSK things, that sorting game you insist on doesn't really matter, it is a psychological crutch for you and has zero importance to the world around you.

The whole debate really is nonsense. Reality is what you see when you look around and that is what the concept is for. You are exactly as real -- no more, no less -- than the things you see when you look around. You have no outsider position to look at reality from. You are fooling yourself that you can meaningfully talk of something being more real than reality is (look around you... that thing right there is reality in case you have forgotten). That reality you see around you is paradigm, imagined alternate realities are fictions.

All this stuff is the start of the chain of errors that Rorty warns against, running from Descartes who did the doubting that the real world is reality, through Locke who insterted extra nonsense about perception that separates us further from "reality", inviting additional solipsisms or Berkeleyan idealism, through to Kant, who does nothing to fix that divide itself, instead trying to magic away just the problems that Locke and Descartes created.

So quit "guessing" and just read my words.

You are wrong on this.
To Kant, the noumenal is something like using "Santa Claus" as the answer to the child, asking where the gifts he received during Christmas comes from. So the parent generated the most appropriate [optimal] answer "Santa Claus did it". But the parent knows Santa Claus is unreal and an illusion.

It is the same with p-realists asking where the phenomena come from?
Kant answered, it is from the noumena [just like Santa Claus] which is an illusion just like Santa Claus.

Kant kept the idea of a noumena which is an illusion because it is useful illusion for his other projects.
In the later part, Kant transposed the noumena [illusory] into the thing-in-itself which is still a useful illusion.

No. The idea of the noumena vs the thing-in-itself is exactly what I am saying is a mistake. It's exactly what Rorty is saying is a mistake also. I don't care if you don't really believe in it and imagine you can pass it off as a children's story about a horrific fairy that eats teeth, you've not been behaving like somebody who gets that it isn't meaningful.

Whether you think it is true or not is not really important if it isn't meaningful.

You got it wrong.
It is phenomena vs nuomena aka thing-in-itself.
It is only a mistake if one insist the nuomena aka thing-in-itself is a really real thing which is hypostatizing and reifying.
It is a mistake to insist there is noumenal moon that exists regardless of humans in the absolute sense.

Good spot, my bad. But corrected for the phenomena mistake the point I made still stands and your counter misses the mark. Firstly you dragged me into this thread to chastise me about Rorty, I have "updated your database about the meaning in Rorty" unless you have paids specatularly little attention today. So the point stands just for that reason. But it happens to be the main thing I agree with Rorty over and that is that he and I agree that Kant got this thing wrong.

If you are still making use of the distinction between noumenal and phenomenal (and you refer back to that stuff so often that obviously you are) you are making the same mistake as Kant. Kudos for being so very very accurate in the making of the mistake. You might well be the very very best at making Kant's exact mistake, and maybe you are correct in asserting that everyone else misunderstands how to do this mistake correctly. But it reamins a mistake.

I have posted the above explanation before;
Now, I can say;
please .... please .... just read what people write.

It is critical you understand [not necessary agree with] my points above.

What is your counter to my above points.
There is also a very great depth to the above points.


I am making the same accusation of you.
As stated above, this is a VERY complicated issue and both of us are standing across a chasm.
So we need to trash it out patiently.

Sorry, I still don't see anyting new or important in there. Other than you seem to be more open to the noumenal/phenomenal divide being bullshit than I expected. But I'm seeing little evidence you are ready to make the next step there.

What next step? where can you go further especially when your philosophical database is so shallow and narrow.

My actual real point has always been that you are welcome to have your endless debate about whether reality would look like it was really-really-reall reality or some almost-but-actually-sham-reality if we held an impossible view of reality from outside reality. But the debate itself is nonsensical on Wittgensteinian grounds (I only ever referenced Rorty because it's easier to read, I don't care much about him).

However even if you reject my Wittgensteinian position, there is nowhere to take it. You can't redefine our understanding of knowledge with this windbag debate. And with that you cannot suddenly change morality into a science or any of the other wildly overoptimistic moves you try to make.

Which Wittgenstein's position are you talking about, the early- later- or the very-later Wittgenstein.
Can I guess your strongest stance one of the above Wittgenstein stance?
I can't see Wittgenstein's overriding stance, i.e. the very-later Wittgenstein's stance is that solid to explain reality. If so, how.

My philosophical stance is Kantian and others which I can summarize as;
Whatever is real, exists, factual, true, knowledge, objective are conditioned upon an embodied human-based FSRC.

The science FSRC and morality FSRC are independent of each other whilst can complementary. The task is to establish the moral FSRC to be as close to the objectivity of the science FSRC.

I can't work out what you are writing there to be honest, but you can put away the obsessive sorting games again, your obsession with dividing Wittgenstein into 3 eras does nothing here, you haven't read the books and the positions are too subtle for you to wrangle with that rigid little mind of yours. Also, I didn't accidentally write Wittgensteinian grounds, I was referrencing a type of argument not a quote. But sure, if you've read Wittgenstein, go ahead and give us your best guess.

Your philosophical stance is an accretion of tempporary arguments that you used to try and win a bunch of unrelated debates and now you are encrusted with self-contradictory bullshit. That's how you ended up doing general antirealism in support of moral realism, which is just never going to work.

I don't even want to know why you've mutated FSK into FSRC now.

[Belinda]

Learn to read and undestand other people's words please. This is getting to be an emergency for you.

At what point in your life could we expect you to start practicing this exact skill you demand from others?

If everybody used basic jargon of academic philosophy then understanding others who are using the jargon would be a lot simpler.
Academic philosophy has a jargon the basics of which can be learned in a month or a week of reading when steered by a competent teacher who knows the usual ropes that always include the method of doubt. **To understand the basic jargon of academic philosophy also requires the student to have a measure of creative imagination.

**Socrates, and Descartes ,are the classic explainers of the method of doubt.

[Skepdick]

If everybody used basic jargon of academic philosophy then understanding others who are using the jargon would be a lot simpler.
Academic philosophy has a jargon the basics of which can be learned in a month or a week of reading when steered by a competent teacher who knows the usual ropes that always include the method of doubt. **To understand the basic jargon of academic philosophy also requires the student to have a measure of creative imagination.

**Socrates, and Descartes ,are the classic explainers of the method of doubt.

I don't believe this is actually true. There's nothing special or particularly useful about philosophy's jargon. All the learning comes from iterating on the the hermeneutic loop. All the magic is in the jargon-generating and jargon-unpacking process.

When humans spend enough time thinking or interacting with a problem-domain they develop the language needed to talk about it.
The catch22 of all jargon is that it's incredibly expressive for those in the in-group and absolutely meaningless to those in the out-group.

The question then becomes one of learning the old jargon; or inventing your own on as-needed basis. Most people opt in for the latter option. It's a lower upfront cost.

[Belinda]

If everybody used basic jargon of academic philosophy then understanding others who are using the jargon would be a lot simpler.
Academic philosophy has a jargon the basics of which can be learned in a month or a week of reading when steered by a competent teacher who knows the usual ropes that always include the method of doubt. **To understand the basic jargon of academic philosophy also requires the student to have a measure of creative imagination.

**Socrates, and Descartes ,are the classic explainers of the method of doubt.

I don't believe this is actually true. There's nothing special or particularly useful about philosophy's jargon. All the learning comes from iterating on the the hermeneutic loop. All the magic is in the jargon-generating and jargon-unpacking process.

When humans spend enough time thinking or interacting with a problem-domain they develop the language needed to talk about it.
The catch22 of all jargon is that it's incredibly expressive for those in the in-group and absolutely meaningless to those in the out-group.

The question then becomes one of learning the old jargon; or inventing your own on as-needed basis. Most people opt in for the latter option. It's a lower upfront cost.

When you live in a free society where there is also a strong enough trend towards social mobility there is nothing to stop you trying to join a higher status group. Learning the jargon with imagination and comprehension is an early move to do so. Only when you are as famous and talented as Socrates or Descartes can you invent and promote a jargon that will catch on.

[Harbal]

There's nothing special or particularly useful about philosophy's jargon.

I completely agree; in fact, plain English is often far more effective, as you clearly demonstrate here:

All the learning comes from iterating on the hermeneutic loop.