What is Fact is Intersubjective

[FlashDangerpants]

So are moral facts constructed by this process or discovered by it?

It is not that simple in my case with morality, there are a lot of nuances to it.

First, the usual,
my principle is all facts, knowledge, reality, truths and objectivity are conditioned or contingent upon an embodied human-based FSRK.

In this case, moral facts emerged and are realized within a FSR and perceived, known and described via a FSK which has near equivalence objectivity to that of the scientific FSRK.

What emerged, is realized, perceive, known and described is incorporated into the Moral FSRK as an ideal moral standard as a guide to facilitate moral progress within humanity.

In addition, since there is no mind-independent objective, what we have a continual improvement of the moral standard via the feedback of the FSK [t1] onto the FSR [t2] of a self-reference basis within a spiral [not a circle].

In the case, the moral standard as a guide whilst consistent over a long time could change with circumstances thus not absolute and fixed eternally.

There is no need for me to use the term 'construct' nor discover in this case.
It need to, I could include the above within Constructivism and there is no question of it being discovered within the philosophical context.

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.

[Veritas Aequitas]

So are moral facts constructed by this process or discovered by it?

It is not that simple in my case with morality, there are a lot of nuances to it.

First, the usual,
my principle is all facts, knowledge, reality, truths and objectivity are conditioned or contingent upon an embodied human-based FSRK.

In this case, moral facts emerged and are realized within a FSR and perceived, known and described via a FSK which has near equivalence objectivity to that of the scientific FSRK.

What emerged, is realized, perceive, known and described is incorporated into the Moral FSRK as an ideal moral standard as a guide to facilitate moral progress within humanity.

In addition, since there is no mind-independent objective, what we have a continual improvement of the moral standard via the feedback of the FSK [t1] onto the FSR [t2] of a self-reference basis within a spiral [not a circle].

In the case, the moral standard as a guide whilst consistent over a long time could change with circumstances thus not absolute and fixed eternally.

There is no need for me to use the term 'construct' nor discover in this case.
It need to, I could include the above within Constructivism and there is no question of it being discovered within the philosophical context.

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?

[FlashDangerpants]

It is not that simple in my case with morality, there are a lot of nuances to it.

First, the usual,
my principle is all facts, knowledge, reality, truths and objectivity are conditioned or contingent upon an embodied human-based FSRK.

In this case, moral facts emerged and are realized within a FSR and perceived, known and described via a FSK which has near equivalence objectivity to that of the scientific FSRK.

What emerged, is realized, perceive, known and described is incorporated into the Moral FSRK as an ideal moral standard as a guide to facilitate moral progress within humanity.

In addition, since there is no mind-independent objective, what we have a continual improvement of the moral standard via the feedback of the FSK [t1] onto the FSR [t2] of a self-reference basis within a spiral [not a circle].

In the case, the moral standard as a guide whilst consistent over a long time could change with circumstances thus not absolute and fixed eternally.

There is no need for me to use the term 'construct' nor discover in this case.
It need to, I could include the above within Constructivism and there is no question of it being discovered within the philosophical context.

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?

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.

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.

[Skepdick]

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.

You keep insisting he's defying his own rules.
He keeps insisting that he is following them.

Idiot philosophers are idiots.

no course of action could be determined by a rule, because every course of action can be made out to accord with the rule.

[Veritas Aequitas]

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.

[FlashDangerpants]

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.

Your linguitstic squeamishness is all very well, but also not important at all. The words arent' the point, it is the function. You give yourself the ability to determine, set or alter every piece of information that stands in your way.... so the function of being discovered as fact is not available to you... that comes at the cost that the information you put out there is irreversibly untrusted because you gave yourself an FSK shaped pass to make shit up as you go along to suit your FSK.

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?

I reject the question, it is nonsense to ask for proof a world exists, you are part of the world, reality is this stuff all around you and that includes yourself. So the world is what you are looking at when you look around you, and the way the world is, is just the way that it is.

The phrase "world as it is" is not actually weighed down with all the metaphysical baggage you mistakenly heap upon it. There is the world, it is the way it is. If we look at the world as it is, we will find that water is usually wet.

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

I am not saying Constructivism cannot be done properly, but I am saying it is not done properly by you. Your constructivism is blatantly just an excuse for you to make up any old shit on the fly and tell yourself that because you imitate scientific language as you go, it must be nearly the same as science. You've made an eniterly unholy mess of the whole thing and you are the only person who can't see that.

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.

Do you remember about 5 years ago when I comnpared all this stuff you are doing to a child playing in a sandpit where he can set all the rules? This is why I made that comparison. It was a long time ago, it is a shame you are still in there. The whole FSK thing is just a sandpit full of cat turds.

It is not my personal FSRK that is constructing; that would be a first-person subjective view which is not credible and objective.

It is only you, there is nobody else in there with you. It has nefver been objective and just getting more people to agree with you isn't what makes something objective anyway. And you have never had any credibility, you only ever had "confidence" that one day people would take you seriously. That confidence is misplaced. And it is definitely a personal FSK.

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.

You haven't countered anything in years. What you did there was describe the contents of an FSK thing that only you have ever bought into, and that will die one day when you do. Your terms for setting 'credibility' using made up numbers and the longest lists the world has ever seen are just silly.

[Atla]

As Skepdic stated

Bwahahahaha

We'll also need a recommendation letter from Age and a nod from the Hedgehog (if he's still alive) and you'll be unstoppable.

[Veritas Aequitas]

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?

I reject the question, it is nonsense to ask for proof a world exists, you are part of the world, reality is this stuff all around you and that includes yourself. So the world is what you are looking at when you look around you, and the way the world is, is just the way that it is.

The phrase "world as it is" is not actually weighed down with all the metaphysical baggage you mistakenly heap upon it. There is the world, it is the way it is. If we look at the world as it is, we will find that water is usually wet.

please .... please .... just read what people write.

You deny your world-as-it-is is not the world-in-itself. But from your posting that is not the case, but it is implied your world-as-it-is is the same world-in-itself. Take this as a note for the present.

Instead "water is usually wet" [common sense FSRK]
it would be more precise to state 'Water is H20" [science-chemistry-FSRK].
Do you know, is another more refined science-chemistry FSRK,
"Water is Not H20"
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39844
I have already argued [many times] there is no way you can make the above statement without reference to an implicit or explicit FSRK [the contingent Framework and System].

There is no world-as-it-is without it being contingent to a FSK.

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

I am not saying Constructivism cannot be done properly, but I am saying it is not done properly by you. Your constructivism is blatantly just an excuse for you to make up any old shit on the fly and tell yourself that because you imitate scientific language as you go, it must be nearly the same as science. You've made an eniterly unholy mess of the whole thing and you are the only person who can't see that.

The above is merely you complain.
Do you even understand "Constructivism" and Radical Constructivism within the universe which we are intricately part and parcel of grounded on a 13.7 billion years history?

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.

Do you remember about 5 years ago when I comnpared all this stuff you are doing to a child playing in a sandpit where he can set all the rules? This is why I made that comparison. It was a long time ago, it is a shame you are still in there. The whole FSK thing is just a sandpit full of cat turds.

Again you have not justified why the FSK thing is irrational.
AI [omniscient within the internet] agree with my presentation of a FSRK.
It is possible AI can made mistake, but not likely on this.

ChatGPT wrote:
Yes, the term "A Framework and System of Knowledge" is a meaningful and valid phrase to describe the structured organization and interrelatedness of knowledge in a particular field or discipline, such as science. It acknowledges that knowledge is not just a collection of isolated facts, but is rather an interconnected system of ideas and concepts that can be organized and studied within a framework or structure.

Using this phrase to describe scientific knowledge implies that there is a systematic process by which scientific facts are discovered, verified, and integrated into a broader understanding of the natural world. This can include concepts such as scientific method, peer review, and consensus-building within the scientific community.

Overall, while the specific phrase "A Framework and System of Knowledge" may not be commonly used, it accurately reflects the way that knowledge is organized and understood within many academic fields.

It is not my personal FSRK that is constructing; that would be a first-person subjective view which is not credible and objective.

It is only you, there is nobody else in there with you. It has nefver been objective and just getting more people to agree with you isn't what makes something objective anyway. And you have never had any credibility, you only ever had "confidence" that one day people would take you seriously. That confidence is misplaced. And it is definitely a personal FSK.

See ChatGpt's view [above] on what is a FSK.

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.

You haven't countered anything in years. What you did there was describe the contents of an FSK thing that only you have ever bought into, and that will die one day when you do. Your terms for setting 'credibility' using made up numbers and the longest lists the world has ever seen are just silly.

See ChatGpt's view [above] on what is a FSK.

The day the FSR dies, science will die as well.

Your defense mechanism is very strong, thus your hardcore resistance to the concept of a FSK which no rational person would reject.
Pause, suspend judgment and thinking again re the tenability of the FSK which is implicit in all fields of knowledge.