Conde Lucanor wrote: ↑Sun Jul 11, 2021 6:17 pm
You don't have time to waste on this issue and yet you will devote a whole new thread to discuss it? Talk about coherency there.
I meant wasting time going in circles with your very limited dogmatic stance.
The new thread is to get other views.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Jul 11, 2021 7:34 am
- Absolute: [Google-Oxford]
2. viewed or existing independently and not in relation to other things; not relative or comparative.
"absolute moral standards"
PHILOSOPHY
a value or principle which is regarded as universally valid or which may be viewed without relation to other things.
"good and evil are presented as absolutes"
To differentiate the earlier absolute [relative] thus it is appropriate to identify the latter [as defined above] as absolutely-absolute .
What is wrong with that?
There's no big issue with the possible meanings of absolute and relative, the problem is your made up bundle of the two terms in an oxymoron. If we gave any legitimacy to this nonsense, we should also allow a space to the obvious missing concept: the "relatively relative". Actually this seems to capture more accurately your position.
I highlighted the addition meanings and senses of 'absolute'.
Thus to be more specific, the term absolutely absolute is not an issue.
Note "
relative" =
considered in relation or in proportion to something else.
So what is wrong relative-absolute where such an absolute is relative to something, while absolutely absolute means not related to anything at all.
"Relatively relative" can represent meta-relativity of relations.
Show me where the above are wrong?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Jul 11, 2021 7:34 am
Conde Lucanor wrote: ↑Sun Jul 11, 2021 1:46 am
You condition the real to humans, but when asked if humans are real, you deny it. So for you the conditions for something to be real is based on something unreal, and so nothing ends up being real. And you call this a form a realism. Nonsense.
I have stated many times. I do not deny 'humans are real'. Show me the evidence?
The evidence is your own statements saying that humans are only real within a perspective, not different than something is real for someone hallucinating, but not actually real at the end of the day.
Strawman again.
I never state humans are not actually real at the end of the day.
Yes, humans are only really-real within the 'empirical + philosophical' perspective. This is undeniable.
It is the theists and traditional metaphysicists who would claim humans are really-real to the extent of a spirit or soul-in-itself that survives physical death. Are you insisting on such a claim that humans are really real to that extent?
The question of what is really-real is a another sort of dream and we could be dreaming all the time. Note the example of the "Dreaming of a Butterfly."
It is the same with hallucination, where both are with reference to
the mechanics and process of cognition of humans.
However within the same continuum of mechanics and processes, what is really-real must be verified and justified empirically and philosophy which must be applied to humans claimed to be real.
Dreams and hallucinations of 'real' humans in the psychiatric kind do not quality in this case as really-real.
Your thinking in this case is too entangled and messed up.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Jul 11, 2021 7:34 am
To me, humans are real within the empirical.
"Empirical" points at experience. A hallucination is also empirical, is something the subject experience as real, so you cannot make any distinction between reality and hallucination. Humans are real for you in the same sense that things are real for someone taking LSD.
Note as above what is really-real must be verified and justified empirically and philosophy which must be applied to humans claimed to be real.
As such 'hallucinated real humans' from someone taking LSD cannot qualify as really-real in the conventional and scientific sense.
Note, your thinking in this case is too entangled and messed up.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Jul 11, 2021 7:34 am
Point is you don't have the capacity to comprehend the more finer aspects of reality except by merely clinging to a dogmatic common or vulgar view.
More or less the same point of everyone spreading nonsensical views and clinging to a somewhat mystical, esoteric, dogmatism. As if their absurd doctrines had more value because they sound absurd.
There is a lot of difference in this case with esoteric claims.
What I am claiming is based on solid and more sophisticated "empirical + philosophical" verification and justifications. I am saying your thinking is not sufficiently wide and deep, thus your inability to understand and expressed [not necessary agree with] my intended views.
Actually, what you are claiming, i.e. critical [philosophical] realism is esoteric.
While we agree on the empirical claims of reality, you are making
an additional speculation [philosophically] that there is a person-in-itself which is independent in a way and there are things-in-themselves that are independent of the human conditions.
It is a majority view, but in essence it literally nonsense, i.e. absolute independent and has no direct connection to the senses [& experience] at all.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Jul 11, 2021 7:34 am
Where did I deny the reality of my self?
You got it wrong!
My self is conditioned to my own inherent human conditions, not to some independent something else.
So you say you're conditioned to yourself. Aren't human conditions dependent of your own framework? I rest my case.
What happened to your logical thinking?
I am human.
If human conditions are dependent on my own framework, then my [as human] framework cannot be independent from human conditions.
Btw, I don't want to use the term 'dependent' which can mislead.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Jul 11, 2021 7:34 am
Where did I place human conditions outside reality.
Right here: "As per definition of 'reality' it is relative upon something, either me or the human conditions, so it is a relative reality. "
That is your definition not mine. Such a definition is only from the vulgar and common sense.
Note my argument which I have repeated many times, but you deliberately ignored.
- 1. Reality is ALL-THERE-IS.
2. ALL-THERE-IS covers all human conditions.
3. Human conditions [part and parcel of reality -2] cannot be independent of reality.
Don't blackout and ignore the above again.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Jul 11, 2021 7:34 am
I'd define reality as 'all there is' so the person, humans conditions are all part and parcel of reality, thus cannot be outside it.
See how now you have to change your own definitions to escape the problematic logic you had used. First reality was inside and dependent of a human framework, now the human framework is inside an absolute reality that stands all by itself. And you'll keep moving from one stance to the other in good old sophistic fashion.
What change?
I have been using that definition since and before I joined this forum.
I mentioned the term "dependent" can be very misleading especially to your kind.
My main and commonly stated point is, Reality, i.e. all-there-is cannot be absolute independent of the human framework [conditions].
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Jul 11, 2021 7:34 am
I only use the term dependent superficially.
The proper term I often used re conditioned is mutual entanglement and emergent and the focus on the empirical and not assuming and digging for any
first cause which is illusory.
Keep correcting yourself, you might reach the point of seeing the light at the end of the tunnel you're in.
The point is your thinking is very shallow and narrow.
That is why I have been using some 'superficial' terms for you to keep up.
It is just like teaching the physical world to a Grade school kid, the school syllabus cannot simply jump into the topic of Quantum Physic, but merely start by talking about solid macro objects initially to suit the kid's level, then progress from there.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Jul 11, 2021 7:34 am
the central point is I am part and parcel of reality which is ALL-There-IS.
You condition reality to your experience, so other than your own experience, what evidence you have of something else?
I have stated many times, what is reality is leveraged on the empirical and
philosophical verification and justifications. [note 'philosophical' is the critical element here]
While we agree with the empirical [vulnerable to errors] & scientific knowledge merely "polished conjectures", that is not enough so we need to reinforce it with critical philosophy.
But your critical realism is not sufficiently 'critical' to the essence of critical philosophy.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Jul 11, 2021 7:34 am
There are many views as to what is objectivity.
My take on objectivity is related to scientific objectivity, i.e. independent of individual's opinion and beliefs.
Ah, really? You deny the scientific objectivity of the Moon existing prior to humans, since you claim is ultimately conditioned by human frameworks, that is, a set of opinions and beliefs.
The mention of "individual's opinion" is laughable, as you have not been able to give any coherency to the idea of a human individual, which would require being an entity independent of yourself. While you demand that the existence of the Moon independent of humans be proved, you cannot prove yourself the existence of humans outside your own experience, nor that any universal principle or truth applies to them. All you have, using your own words, is your own ideas.
Strawman again. This is so common from you.
I don't deny scientific objectivity but qualify that it is not absolutely absolute.
Re the idea of human individual, it is your thinking that is in a mess.
I had opened a separate thread to discuss and get to the bottom the issue and to expose the mess you are in with this topic.
A Kantian Person is NEVER a Thing-in-Itself
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=33164
Whenever I think there is a mess, I open a new thread to clear it, but you have ignored it but prefer to dig into the dumpster here.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Jul 11, 2021 7:34 am
Scientific objectivity whilst is independent of individuals' opinion and belief is ULTIMATELY not independent of the human conditions, i.e. the scientific framework which is grounded on human conditions.
Read again all that contradicting nonsense. Aren't human opinions part of the human conditions? How is it that scientific objectivity is independent of them, while at the same time dependent of them?
Again you are ignorant on this due to shallow and narrow thinking.
Is my writing not clear in the above?
I have explained this point a 1000 times including here and elsewhere.
Note for example.
Einstein would have an opinion then a belief upon the self verification of his theory on relativity.
When he presented his papers to the scientific community [peers and relevant experts, journals], is tested and verified by empirical evidences, and his proposed theory is accepted, the theory is regarded as a Scientific [Physics] theory for all.
It is thus independent of Einstein and opinions of other individuals.
But the theory is still conditioned by the Scientific Community [collective of humans] which in essence is leveraged on human conditions.
So while it is independent of the individuals opinions and belief it is not independent of the collective of humans.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Jul 11, 2021 7:34 am
What is scientific objectivity is intersubjectivity based on intersubjective consensus.
How can you prove intersubjectivity?
Intersubjective [re scientific objectivity] is equivalent to the intersubjective consensus of scientific peers [human subjects].
You need to research more on this?
Is the present USD Dollar objective? Yes, it definitely is, but it is not grounded on the objectivity of ant physical Gold equivalent [as in the past]. Rather it is objective but grounded on the subject trust, faith and consensus of human subjects in the USA and around the world, i.e. intersubjective consensus.
Get it?
There are other such examples.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Jul 11, 2021 7:34 am
Suggest you research into Eastern Philosophy re the mechanics of the Yin-Yang Philosophy.
Awgh!! No, thanks, I pass. Enough idealist nonsense already.
That is where you are ignorant.
You are relying on hearsays without doing in depth research.
But I am doubtful you will grasp the essence of it due to your dogmatic narrow and shallow thinking.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Jul 11, 2021 7:34 amConde Lucanor wrote: ↑Sun Jul 11, 2021 1:46 am
So what, according to you, we DO have direct contact with? Obviously, something not based on speculation. Note the importance of the pronoun "we" in whatever your answer is.
"We"?? not me and other anti-realists of the likes.
Yes, you are seeking to contact with whatever is supposed, i.e. a speculation and presupposition thus ending with confirmation bias.
You admitted you are never in contact with it but merely inferred based on common sense, science, etc.
But unfortunately the most credible basis for your claim, i.e. Science is merely based on 'polished conjectures'.
Again, will you dare to answer the question: what, according to you, we DO have direct contact with?
Not too sure what you mean here? I try ..
You as a critical realist claimed when you saw and experienced a tree external to your body and mind, that 'tree-in-itself' exists
absolutely independent of your mind and body.
As such, according to me, you do not have "direct" contact with that tree-in-itself.
What you are doing is merely inferring from the best knowledge [common or scientific] you have that there is a tree-in-itself that is existing absolutely independent of your mind and body.
But scientific knowledge is merely polished conjectures thus not absolute knowledge.
So your supposedly tree-in-itself is merely a speculation.
To INSIST - philosophically - there is an independent tree-in-itself is a delusion.
This is a sort of relative "necessary" unavoidable psychological aberration the majority is infected with which must be corrected by critical philosophy.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Jul 11, 2021 7:34 amConde Lucanor wrote: ↑Sun Jul 11, 2021 1:46 am
In that case, you lost the challenge of the OP: things can exist in your own experience, and outside of it. You can only deny it by claiming what you say you did not claim.
Note the above, reality is ALL-THERE-IS.
Whatever is sensed as external is ultimately still conditioned to the human conditions.
You're avoiding the issue. You said you had not claimed that "things only exist in your own experience, not outside of it". If you did not claim that, you're only left with the opposite claim: things can exist in your own experience, and outside of it. That refutes the challenge of your OP.
You are confused and don't understand.
Note my syllogistic argument re reality as ALL-there-is.
As such there is no reality-in-itself that is independent of the human conditions.
The OP require proof if the claim is otherwise.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Jul 11, 2021 7:34 amConde Lucanor wrote: ↑Sun Jul 11, 2021 1:46 am
According to you, the act of verifying and justifying empirically, is ultimately encompassed by an overarching self-referential framework, with no underlying external reality that connects with objects inside this framework. Things come into being only inside the framework. That makes the absence of empirical verification and justification irrelevant to make a distinction between hallucination and reality.
You are entrapped by the use of the inherent habitualized container metaphor. That is why you are stuck with the linguistic duality of either inside or outside and nothing else.
So when you start with such an inherent metaphor you are staring a strawman.
Note my point with emergence, not with nor from anything independent of myself since I am part and parcel of reality -which is ALL there is.
Isn't the word "inherent" a "habitualized container metaphor"?
If I say "according to you, the act of verifying and justifying empirically, is ultimately inherent to a self-referential framework", does that change anything for you?
"Inherent" in this case is with reference to human nature.
I was referring to your,
"Things come into being only
inside the framework."
which imply "inside" if not "outside".
When I used the term 'emergent' that is with no reference to inside or outside, it just 'is" and what-is is subject to verification and justification empirically and philosophically. [note critical philosophy].
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Jul 11, 2021 7:34 am
I am part and parcel with reality -ALL there is, there is no need for speculation on this matter.
Prove it.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Jul 11, 2021 7:34 am
Where did I "assumed framework for placing your arguments."
Note the case of scientific knowledge, they emerge out of a scientific framework and system comprising a community of scientists who are humans.
How can you be certain that there's an actual community of scientists and you're not hallucinating about their existence?
Note my explanation re the continuum of hallucination, dreams, reality and the need for
verification and justification empirically and philosophically. [note critical philosophy] to realize what is really-real from the unreal.
Note if you don't strive to get out of your silo, you will forever present strawman[s] and miss the point.