PH's views as usual are narrow, shallow, dogmatic and based on ignorance of reality.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Feb 05, 2024 9:26 am Pending evidence for the existence of so-called abstract or non-physical things, belief that they exist is irrational.
First,
There are Two Senses of Reality [& existence]
viewtopic.php?t=40265
i.e.
1. Human-based FSRK sense of existence and reality.
2. The philosophical realism, mind-independence sense of existence and reality.
I have demonstrated the philosophical realism, mind-independence sense of existence and reality [relied upon by PH] is grounded on an illusion and thus delusional, and so, in the most refined sense is irrational.
The Human-based FSRK give a more reasonable and practical sense of existence and reality with varying degrees of credibility, objectivity and rationality.
At present, the most credible, objective and rational FSRK is the scientific FSRK used as a standard from all other FSRK.
Generally, physical things verified via the scientific FSRKs has the highest degrees of objectivity and rationality.
However, there are abstract things from the social sciences, e.g. psychological things are considered rational and has utilities, albeit is degree of objectivity cannot be as high as those of the natural sciences.
There are many other abstract things that are considered rational which has high utility values, e.g. from the human-based FSRKs like mathematical, social constructs, economics, legal, financials, etc.
Note for example currencies and share prices from the economics FSRK which has reasonable high objectivity and rationality in contrast to the human-based scientific FSRK as the standard.
On the other extreme of the continuum, there are those who claimed for the existence of highly abstract things, e.g. god in theism, ghosts, spirits, various pseudo-scientific claims. Whilst they are backed by specific human-based FSRKs, their degrees of rationality could be negligible, thus irrational relative to the rationality of the scientific FSRK.
Btw, even with the highest rational mode of science, the things are dealt on an abstract universal basis not in relation to a particular thing.
Biologists will study a universal-rat not that-specific-thing [animal].
PH's views as usual are narrow, shallow, dogmatic and based on ignorance of reality.
If PH were to improve his philosophical knowledge, he should present his point in a more wider, deeper and less ideological perspective.
Discuss??
Views??
eta: "?" in OP title to avoid confusion