Why the FSRK Basis of Reality?

[Iwannaplato]

Rorty ground reality on use. But for use to be effective, he had to rely in science which has to be FSRK-ed science, not a mind-independent driven science like that of Atla and other p-realists.

Too bad there is only one kind of science on the planet. Maybe you're talking about a parallel dimension where science depends on your FSRK.

I'd just like to add that he claims that if we ground reality on use, to be effective it can't be realist.
At the same time, he asserts that it was critical that organisms, up to and including humans, were realists. They wouldn't have survived otherwise.

That seems fairly useful and effective. If they had been antirealists, they would have died.

[Atla]

Rorty ground reality on use. But for use to be effective, he had to rely in science which has to be FSRK-ed science, not a mind-independent driven science like that of Atla and other p-realists.

Too bad there is only one kind of science on the planet. Maybe you're talking about a parallel dimension where science depends on your FSRK.

I'd just like to add that he claims that if we ground reality on use, to be effective it can't be realist.
At the same time, he asserts that it was critical that organisms, up to and including humans, were realists. They wouldn't have survived otherwise.

That seems fairly useful and effective. If they had been antirealists, they would have died.

Yes, the proper organism-proper properly uses the realism-improper for its proper survival-proper, in order to properly avoid death-proper.

[Age]

We have a dilemma [see below] with 'what is reality'; so we have to choose the more realistic option at the right time and conditions to optimize the well-being of individual[s] and humanity.

First there is no way humans can ever know what reality is by itself, i.e. a real thing-in-itself [if there is such a thing] that is absolutely independent of any human interactions.

All you are more or less saying and claiming here is that if humans did not exist, then 'they' could know what 'really exists'. Which is beyond absurdity. Humans exist. Therefore, they interact.
There is no way for a 'human' to not interact. Therefore, there can never ever be any 'human knowing' independent of human interaction.

You deny this?
Does anyone have any way to know or prove the existence of a real thing [or reality] independent of perception?

Do you have any way to know or prove what you claim here, and claim to be a real thing [or reality], independent of perception?

In fact can you know, or prove, absolutely any thing you say, write, and claim, independent of any human interaction or perception?

If one cannot show any way nor prove the existence of a real thing [or reality] independent of perception, then one are merely speculating which possibly could be a falsehood or illusion.

So, absolutely everything "veritas aequitas" claims, including the above here, is merely just speculating, which means that all and everything it claims could be a falsehood or illusion.

Which, obviously, no one could nor would deny, including even "veritas aequitas", "itself".

I raised a thread, re, the nearest 'real' star one see in the night sky based on its light having to travel millions of light year to reach oneself, is likely have exploded and non-existing in real time now.

Well this is obviously a Falsehood, and a proven Falsehood for centuries 'now', when this is being written.

The nearest so-called 'real' star to earth, after the sun itself, is only about 4.2 light years, and so the light from it, literally, only takes about 4.2 years to reach 'us', or "oneself" if one likes, and not millions of light years to reach 'us' as this one here claims. So, although, and obviously, the nearest 'real' star to 'us', besides the sun, could have exploded at the moment of 'now', when this is being written, or read, but that this has 'happened and occurred' is not necessarily 'likely', at all. And, especially so if 'we' are to use past happenings and occurrences to 'go by'.

Is the Nearest Star [not our Sun], Proxima Centauri Real?

Do you presume or believe it is not?

And, what do you even mean by 'real', exactly?

If it is an illusion, to you, the how do differiante between what is 'real' from what is an 'illusion' exactly?

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40154
The point is all humans has an inherent evolutionary default [instinct] to make such speculations necessarily to facilitate survival and various reasons.

So, 'the point' has more or less absolutely nothing at all do with what you have been talking about and writing here.

The problem arise within philosophy when philosophical realists adopt the mind-independent reality as an ideology, i.e. my way or the highway.

But you do not adopt the 'my way or the highway' attitude at all, do you "veritas aequitas".

On one hand, perception-itself alone cannot be reality because what is perceived is within the subjects' brain and mind.

Obviously, you would have to present and show where this 'perceived mind' is, exactly, which you claim is where 'perception - itself' is located and within. Are you able to do this for us here?

Yes, via common sense, perception is known to be independent of the-perceived [the thing]
BUT on the other hand,
with more refined thinking, there is no thing that exist in itself [the-perceived] that is absolutely independent of any human interactions; there is no way anyone can prove it realistically.

Just because one cannot, supposedly, prove some thing in no way means that 'that thing' exists in, and/or of, itself.

To claim, for example, that just because "veritas aequitas" cannot prove that the earth was existing here before "veritas aequitas" came to exist in absolutely no way at all means that the earth is or was not existing as a thing, in itself.

you appear to be so utterly blind, lost, and confused here "veritas aequitas".

We have a dilemma.
1. The thing [or reality] by-itself or in-itself that is absolutely independent of any human interactions is like a square-circle i.e. an impossibility to be real.

So, well to this one anyway, 'the thing', which is called and referred to as the 'earth', is an impossibility to be real, just like a so-called 'square-circle' is.

It would be more effective to give up this option of establishing reality where it matters.

'We' do not have absolutely any dilemma here, "veritas aequitas". Although you may well.

2. Thus, the most realistic option is for us to work from the basis of what we have on our "hands", i.e. perceptions, appearances, experiences and observations, and from there dig deeper into their root sources within human nature to understand their relation to reality.
That is where Kant introduced his Copernican Revolution.
This is a complex task because we have a 13.7-billion-years-history that is conditioned upon human nature to work with.

But, why only use and work from such a Truly narrowed and small perspective?

It is from the preferred mode 2 where the theme of intersubjectivity [FSRK basis] arise.
As such, reality is relative and must be qualified to the FSRK at the time or conditions.

But absolutely every thing is relative, to the observer. So, why say just 'reality is relative' here?

What is realized as reality is because so and so FSRK said so, of which the scientific FSRK is the most credible and objective.
The point is before we perceive, know and describe a thing, there are prior processes within human nature [intersubjectively] that enable the emergence and realization of reality.
One cannot ignore these processes. see next post.

Why?

This post shows and reveals enough about Truly twisted and distorted 'confirmation biases' already.

Why the FSR-FSK sense of reality is preferred is because it is a more realistic option within an inherent dilemma faced by humans.

The only, supposed, 'dilemma' here is the one existing solely in your own imaginations solely "veritas aequitas".

[Iwannaplato]

Yes, the proper organism-proper properly uses the realism-improper for its proper survival-proper, in order to properly avoid death-proper.

Yes, that which is critical for survival is not useful or effective as conditioned on the VAFSK, though it's improperly better than antirealism when it comes to use. Bad realism, bad, sit.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The point is that if you get too caught up in this world-doubt bullshit, you lose sight of basic reality - the thing that you are part of not a remote observer of. This has happened to you.

You are not even aware you are the confused one.

Note I stated,
Whatever is reality [basic, fundamental], existence, fact, truth, knowledge and objectivity is imperatively contingent upon an embodied, human-based FSRK of which the scientific FSRK is the most credible and objective.
This is why I used the term embodied and human-based since humans are intricately part and parcel of.

And I don't care because that is all junk. Reality is this, it is what is all around you, it is what you are a part of all the time.

I stated that above as how you view reality, so how can you say what I stated is junk.

You fool yourself that you are removed from it because you can't see it all at once, but that is a trick you play on yourself by overinterpretation of word games and a faulty view of the mind as representation of nature.

Its your strawman.
I had stated "humans are intricately part and parcel of reality", so I never claimed we are removed from reality.

Since humans are part and parcel of reality, 'what is reality' when cognized has to emerge and realized [via a FSR] before reality is perceived, known and described [via a FSK].

I presumed you are thinking the same a Peter in claiming 'what is fact' is a feature of reality that is absolutely independent of the human conditions, i.e. things and fact e.g. the moon pre-existed humans and will exists even if human are extinct, i.e. the moon exist regardless of humans.
This view is false if humans are part and parcel of reality.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Note I stated,
Whatever is reality [basic, fundamental], existence, fact, truth, knowledge and objectivity is imperatively contingent upon an embodied, human-based FSRK of which the scientific FSRK is the most credible and objective.

This sentence, which I think you use regularly, could be made more clear, and/or may have some category problems in it.

1) Whatever reality is or whatever is real might be clearer. In any case, they are more like standard English usage.
2) Facts, truth and knowledge, tend to refer to information/conclusions about reality. (fact, unfortunately, can be used in a couple of ways)
3) existence, reality tend to refer to things not information about things. Or everything. And again...whatever exists is more standard.
4) objectivity, to me, is an evaluation/conclusion about someone's or a group's approach to determining things.

So to me we have these three types of nouns, covering three different areas.

Yes, 2, 3, & 4 are separate types of nouns but they all are with reference to 1. i.e. reality and all the above are contingent upon their respective FSRK.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Rorty ground reality on use. But for use to be effective, he had to rely in science which has to be FSRK-ed science, not a mind-independent driven science like that of Atla and other p-realists.

Too bad there is only one kind of science on the planet. Maybe you're talking about a parallel dimension where science depends on your FSRK.

I'd just like to add that he claims that if we ground reality on use, to be effective it can't be realist.
At the same time, he asserts that it was critical that organisms, up to and including humans, were realists. They wouldn't have survived otherwise.

That seems fairly useful and effective. If they had been antirealists, they would have died.

Strawman again.

I have stated many times, a person can be both antirealist and realist as the same time but in different sense /contexts.

It is by default that it is natural and critical for all living things to be realists, i.e. empirical or general realists but not as the ideological philosophical realists.

For humans with self-awareness, higher intelligence and reflective skills, whilst they are general realists necessarily, they are ANTI-philosophical_realists [the fundamentalist dogmatic ideology].
To be ANTI-philosophical_realists is to survive with higher optimality with greater awareness of more serious threats to humanity.

Get it?

[FlashDangerpants]

You are not even aware you are the confused one.

Note I stated,
Whatever is reality [basic, fundamental], existence, fact, truth, knowledge and objectivity is imperatively contingent upon an embodied, human-based FSRK of which the scientific FSRK is the most credible and objective.
This is why I used the term embodied and human-based since humans are intricately part and parcel of.

And I don't care because that is all junk. Reality is this, it is what is all around you, it is what you are a part of all the time.

I stated that above as how you view reality, so how can you say what I stated is junk.

You fool yourself that you are removed from it because you can't see it all at once, but that is a trick you play on yourself by overinterpretation of word games and a faulty view of the mind as representation of nature.

Its your strawman.
I had stated "humans are intricately part and parcel of reality", so I never claimed we are removed from reality.

Since humans are part and parcel of reality, 'what is reality' when cognized has to emerge and realized [via a FSR] before reality is perceived, known and described [via a FSK].

I presumed you are thinking the same a Peter in claiming 'what is fact' is a feature of reality that is absolutely independent of the human conditions, i.e. things and fact e.g. the moon pre-existed humans and will exists even if human are extinct, i.e. the moon exist regardless of humans.
This view is false if humans are part and parcel of reality.

You put a whole layer of noumenal nonsense between us and reality in order to create the perception vs thing-in-itself gap that you then use to justify all the FSK and whatever this FSR rubbish is. That gap isn't there, it's imagined, you can't be outside reality taking a look at it through this perception thing if you are PART OF THAT REALITY.

The whole failing of Kant that you have borrowed is predicated on a faulty understanding of the mind as a mirror to nature which Kant derived without really thinking about it from Descartes. You didn't read Rorty as well as you think you did. You don't really read other people's ideas well in general though.

[Veritas Aequitas]

And I don't care because that is all junk. Reality is this, it is what is all around you, it is what you are a part of all the time.

I stated that above as how you view reality, so how can you say what I stated is junk.

You fool yourself that you are removed from it because you can't see it all at once, but that is a trick you play on yourself by overinterpretation of word games and a faulty view of the mind as representation of nature.

Its your strawman.
I had stated "humans are intricately part and parcel of reality", so I never claimed we are removed from reality.

Since humans are part and parcel of reality, 'what is reality' when cognized has to emerge and realized [via a FSR] before reality is perceived, known and described [via a FSK].

I presumed you are thinking the same a Peter in claiming 'what is fact' is a feature of reality that is absolutely independent of the human conditions, i.e. things and fact e.g. the moon pre-existed humans and will exists even if human are extinct, i.e. the moon exist regardless of humans.
This view is false if humans are part and parcel of reality.

You put a whole layer of noumenal nonsense between us and reality in order to create the perception vs thing-in-itself gap that you then use to justify all the FSK and whatever this FSR rubbish is. That gap isn't there, it's imagined, you can't be outside reality taking a look at it through this perception thing if you are PART OF THAT REALITY.

The whole failing of Kant that you have borrowed is predicated on a faulty understanding of the mind as a mirror to nature which Kant derived without really thinking about it from Descartes. You didn't read Rorty as well as you think you did. You don't really read other people's ideas well in general though.

Strawman again.

In introducing the 'noumena' Kant never intended the noumena to be really real and generating a real gap between the real justifiable phenomena and unjustifiable illusory noumena.

I quoted the whole chapter where Kant explained the noumena cannot be real in the positive sense:
Kant: Phenomena vs Noumena [B294-B310]
Kant: Phenomena vs Noumena [B306-B315]
viewtopic.php?t=40170

A philosophical realist [Peter, others and You?] claims there is a really real noumena [a fact that is a feature of reality] out there which is represented by the real justified phenomena.

You are hopelessly ignorant of Kant.
Kant NEVER claimed the mind mirrors nature.
Infact, Kant claimed what is Nature is a construction of the mind in some sense.

I have read Rorty and dug into his thoughts.
I don't think I have missed the main ideas of his thoughts.
In addition, I believe Rorty's view are very superficial compared to Kant's.
Seriously, tell me what did I miss with Rorty? I don't like to be branded ignorant on such issues.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The whole failing of Kant that you have borrowed is predicated on a faulty understanding of the mind as a mirror to nature which Kant derived without really thinking about it from Descartes. You didn't read Rorty as well as you think you did. You don't really read other people's ideas well in general though.

You accuse me of being ignorant of Rorty.

Note this thread I raised re Rorty
Rorty - No Mind-Independent Reality
viewtopic.php?t=32188
Where did I miss out on Rorty's stance?

You wrote somewhere you are not with Rorty's view but has similar views as those of Peter.
So what is your final stance?

Point if you are with Rorty, then you are an ANTI-philosophical_realist with your own antirealist stance.
If this is the case you cannot agree with Peter's what is fact is independent of the subject's opinions, beliefs and judgement which is fundamentally philosophical realism.

[FlashDangerpants]

The whole failing of Kant that you have borrowed is predicated on a faulty understanding of the mind as a mirror to nature which Kant derived without really thinking about it from Descartes. You didn't read Rorty as well as you think you did. You don't really read other people's ideas well in general though.

You accuse me of being ignorant of Rorty.

Note this thread I raised re Rorty
Rorty - No Mind-Independent Reality
viewtopic.php?t=32188
Where did I miss out on Rorty's stance?

You wrote somewhere you are not with Rorty's view but has similar views as those of Peter.
So what is your final stance?

Point if you are with Rorty, then you are an ANTI-philosophical_realist with your own antirealist stance.
If this is the case you cannot agree with Peter's what is fact is independent of the subject's opinions, beliefs and judgement which is fundamentally philosophical realism.

I've definitely told you this before. Nearly all philosophical books start with a description of a problem, and a description of the mistakes previous philosophers have made when thinking about this problem (sometimes creating new problems by making such mistakes). And then the next bit is about solving the problem. If you read philosophy books rather than just sorting them into folders and then telling yourself that's all you need to do because you are so special, then you would know this.

Rorty does the first bit very well. On the rest... not so much in my view. Your mileage may vary, if you ever actually just read in a meaningful sense.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The whole failing of Kant that you have borrowed is predicated on a faulty understanding of the mind as a mirror to nature which Kant derived without really thinking about it from Descartes. You didn't read Rorty as well as you think you did. You don't really read other people's ideas well in general though.

You accuse me of being ignorant of Rorty.

Note this thread I raised re Rorty
Rorty - No Mind-Independent Reality
viewtopic.php?t=32188
Where did I miss out on Rorty's stance?

You wrote somewhere you are not with Rorty's view but has similar views as those of Peter.
So what is your final stance?

Point if you are with Rorty, then you are an ANTI-philosophical_realist with your own antirealist stance.
If this is the case you cannot agree with Peter's what is fact is independent of the subject's opinions, beliefs and judgement which is fundamentally philosophical realism.

I've definitely told you this before. Nearly all philosophical books start with a description of a problem, and a description of the mistakes previous philosophers have made when thinking about this problem (sometimes creating new problems by making such mistakes). And then the next bit is about solving the problem.
If you read philosophy books rather than just sorting them into folders and then telling yourself that's all you need to do because you are so special, then you would know this.

Why do you need to lecture this point to any average person involved in philosophy?

Where have I missed on the above with Rorty's Mirror ..
"Nearly all philosophical books start with a description of a problem, and a description of the mistakes previous philosophers have made when thinking about this problem (sometimes creating new problems by making such mistakes)."

Rorty does the first bit very well. On the rest... not so much in my view. Your mileage may vary, if you ever actually just read in a meaningful sense.

I have understood Rorty's main theme and the problem he was trying to solve.
I have stated his approach is very superficial as compared to Kant and others. Nevertheless I like the point, as a post analytical philosophy Rorty pointed out to the stupidity [in claiming an illusory mind-independent reality] of the traditional [Anglo-American] analytical philosophers whose views are adopted by Peter and you[?].

[FlashDangerpants]

You accuse me of being ignorant of Rorty.

Note this thread I raised re Rorty
Rorty - No Mind-Independent Reality
viewtopic.php?t=32188
Where did I miss out on Rorty's stance?

You wrote somewhere you are not with Rorty's view but has similar views as those of Peter.
So what is your final stance?

Point if you are with Rorty, then you are an ANTI-philosophical_realist with your own antirealist stance.
If this is the case you cannot agree with Peter's what is fact is independent of the subject's opinions, beliefs and judgement which is fundamentally philosophical realism.

I've definitely told you this before. Nearly all philosophical books start with a description of a problem, and a description of the mistakes previous philosophers have made when thinking about this problem (sometimes creating new problems by making such mistakes). And then the next bit is about solving the problem.
If you read philosophy books rather than just sorting them into folders and then telling yourself that's all you need to do because you are so special, then you would know this.

Why do you need to lecture this point to any average person involved in philosophy?

Where have I missed on the above with Rorty's Mirror ..
"Nearly all philosophical books start with a description of a problem, and a description of the mistakes previous philosophers have made when thinking about this problem (sometimes creating new problems by making such mistakes)."

Rorty does the first bit very well. On the rest... not so much in my view. Your mileage may vary, if you ever actually just read in a meaningful sense.

I have understood Rorty's main theme and the problem he was trying to solve.
I have stated his approach is very superficial as compared to Kant and others. Nevertheless I like the point, as a post analytical philosophy Rorty pointed out to the stupidity [in claiming an illusory mind-independent reality] of the traditional [Anglo-American] analytical philosophers whose views are adopted by Peter and you[?].

I don't care. I've already told you that Rorty starts well but doesn't finish well. Look at Ch1, or better yet, look at the prologue. Look at the bit where he explains what the mirror of nature refers to. Don't look for references to Kant on his own, look for references to Descrates -> Kant with or without Locke in between.

That's really the only bit Rorty gets right as far as I am concerned. The bit where some theory of perception that stands between the human agent and reality is the source of the mistake that Kant ultimately makes to do with the noumenal and the phenomenal with all the problems that causes for later philosophy. The cause for that silly thing in the Russell book you used to reference where he is dealing with the sense-data of brownness and hardness and smoothness, but not the table... and then he wonders if there is any grounds to believe in the table at all, remember that?

But Rorty goes off the rails pretty quickly tbh. The description of the problem at the start of the book is a lot more useful than his efforts to resolve it. There is no mirror of nature problem if there is no nonsense about seeing reality from some external viewpoint. We are in reality, and the concept of 'real' is there to describe what we experience and are all part of. We don't need FSK things for that.

[Skepdick]

I don't care. I've already told you that Rorty starts well but doesn't finish well.

Rorty ends in saying [slightly paraphrased] "What we've been doing seems to be working. Keep doing more of that; unless you have better ideas."

Rorty simply re-affirmed the methodological status quo. You disagree with that finish.

Tell us all about your better methods then!

[Veritas Aequitas]

I've definitely told you this before. Nearly all philosophical books start with a description of a problem, and a description of the mistakes previous philosophers have made when thinking about this problem (sometimes creating new problems by making such mistakes). And then the next bit is about solving the problem.
If you read philosophy books rather than just sorting them into folders and then telling yourself that's all you need to do because you are so special, then you would know this.

Why do you need to lecture this point to any average person involved in philosophy?

Where have I missed on the above with Rorty's Mirror ..
"Nearly all philosophical books start with a description of a problem, and a description of the mistakes previous philosophers have made when thinking about this problem (sometimes creating new problems by making such mistakes)."

Rorty does the first bit very well. On the rest... not so much in my view. Your mileage may vary, if you ever actually just read in a meaningful sense.

I have understood Rorty's main theme and the problem he was trying to solve.
I have stated his approach is very superficial as compared to Kant and others. Nevertheless I like the point, as a post analytical philosophy Rorty pointed out to the stupidity [in claiming an illusory mind-independent reality] of the traditional [Anglo-American] analytical philosophers whose views are adopted by Peter and you[?].

I don't care. I've already told you that Rorty starts well but doesn't finish well. Look at Ch1, or better yet, look at the prologue. Look at the bit where he explains what the mirror of nature refers to. Don't look for references to Kant on his own, look for references to Descrates -> Kant with or without Locke in between.

OK, I agree with the above, "Rorty starts well but doesn't finish well".

That's really the only bit Rorty gets right as far as I am concerned. The bit where some theory of perception that stands between the human agent and reality is the source of the mistake that Kant ultimately makes to do with the noumenal and the phenomenal with all the problems that causes for later philosophy.
The cause for that silly thing in the Russell book you used to reference where he is dealing with the sense-data of brownness and hardness and smoothness, but not the table... and then he wonders if there is any grounds to believe in the table at all, remember that?

You misunderstood Kant re the above that Kant made the mistake with noumenal and the phenomenal.
Rorty's refutation of the 'mirroring thing' agree with Kant's antirealism.

Kant argued there is nothing real out there to mirror with.
However, Kant stated, it is very instinctual and natural [an evolutionary default]for the majority to do the mirroring of the phenomenal with the 'speculated' unreal noumenal.
While there is no issue with 'thinking' about the noumena, it is serious mistake to reify the noumenal as real, that would only result in an illusion.

But Rorty goes off the rails pretty quickly tbh. The description of the problem at the start of the book is a lot more useful than his efforts to resolve it. There is no mirror of nature problem if there is no nonsense about seeing reality from some external viewpoint. We are in reality, and the concept of 'real' is there to describe what we experience and are all part of. We don't need FSK things for that.

Rorty did not go off the real completely but his position is reasonable albeit not as thorough, systematic and complete as Kant's.

What Rorty proposed is 'don't give a fuck with mirroring some illusory mind-independent reality out there' just focus on what is useful which is the central core belief of pragmatists. This is the same basic attitude with the Pyrrhonian Skeptics.
In addition to the above Rorty focused on language.

If you don't need FSRKs how can you arrive with any degree of confidence at the final point of realization of what is really real.
That 'water is H20' cannot be picked from the air nor based on what your mother, father, wife, kids or kin said so.
That 'water is H20' only has authority when qualified to the embodied human-based science-chemistry FSRK with its implied constitution, rules, assumptions and all other necessary conditions with its closed self-contain framework and system.
This is a critical point, can you counter or refute this FSRK-ed fact.

You cannot insist Biden is the 46th President of the USA is real without qualifying [implied or explicit] it to the US Constitutions and its Laws which is a specific human-based political-legal-FSRK.

There is nothing you can claim as real [fact, truth, existence, knowledge, objectivity] without a reference to a specific human-based FSRK.

Can you counter the above?