What is a Fact-In-Itself?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Here is another perspective to what is a fact-in-itself that is independent of the human conditions.
The thing 'fact-in-itself' is synonymous with fact-by-itself, thing-in-itself, the noumenon which are attributed to things that are absolutely independent of the human conditions, i.e. the exist even if there are no humans.

But it is impossible for an independent fact-in-itself to exists as real.

This is just complete nonsense. What's the case isn't determined by consensus, aside from the consensus being determined by that.

You think it is nonsense because you are ignorant, and as I had stated is influenced by the bastardized philosophies of the logical positivists and classical analytic philosophers.

What is intersubjective consensus is on the reality and objectivity of an ASSUMED 'what is the case', feature of reality, state of affairs, the fact-in-itself and the likes.
There is no way to and it is a fallacy to claim what is ASSUMED is really real.
To simply reify what is 'ASSUMED' as real is delusional.

What we are most certain is the total experiences we experienced which can be confirmed empirically and reinforced philosophically.

To ensure what is experienced is really real the most effective means is to verify and justified the experienced empirically and philosophically upon a credible framework and system of reality [FSR, FSK], e.g. the scientific FSK.
All FSKs are interdependent with the human conditions.
Therein the specific FSK we give names to specific pattern of experiences of reality in parallel to the ASSUMED reality, i.e. that is the case, the fact-in-itself, and the likes.

Therefore what is most real is that total experience we have.
To be confidence of what we deemed as most real, this is confirmed by verifying and justifying the experienced-reality empirically and philosophically upon a credible framework and system of reality [FSR, FSK], e.g. the scientific FSK.
Thus what is really real can only be a qualified reality which is co-shared based on intersubjective consensus upon a credible FSK, thus objective, i.e. independent of any individual's beliefs or opinion.

There is no way one can reify and claim what is ASSUMED as the really real that it independent of the human conditions, i.e. as an independent fact-in-itself or fact-by-itself.

Views.

[Atla]

What is intersubjective consensus is on the reality and objectivity of an ASSUMED 'what is the case', feature of reality, state of affairs, the fact-in-itself and the likes.
There is no way to and it is a fallacy to claim what is ASSUMED is really real.
To simply reify what is 'ASSUMED' as real is delusional.

In English and in this context, 'fact' refers to what actually exists, not what is assumed to exist. 'Fact' points beyond intersubjective consensus. You are an idiot VA.

[Skepdick]

In English and in this context, 'fact' refers to what actually exists, not what is assumed to exist. 'Fact' points beyond intersubjective consensus.

At least Kant fixed this slightly no? He showed that it's not possible to escape our subjectivity.

But if it's not possible to escape subjectivity, then collectively we can't escape inter-subjectivity. So who the hell is pointing "beyond" the limits of our perception and how?!?

You are an idiot VA.

Pots and kettles....

[Atla]

In English and in this context, 'fact' refers to what actually exists, not what is assumed to exist. 'Fact' points beyond intersubjective consensus.

At least Kant fixed this slightly no? He showed that it's not possible to escape our subjectivity.

But if it's not possible to escape subjectivity, then collectively we can't escape inter-subjectivity. So who the hell is pointing "beyond" the limits of our perception and how?!?

You are an idiot VA.

Pots and kettles....

Word salad. In such a short comment you are confusing/misunderstanding like 3 different things. I don't know why you even try anymore to learn to think like humans.

[Skepdick]

Word salad.

Yes, it was - that's what I am trying to help you with.

In such a short comment you are confusing/misunderstanding like 3 different things. I don't know why you even try anymore to learn to think like humans.

Yep... Lets address my "confusion" then.

If facts point beyond intersubjective consensus, and humans can't escape subjectivity then how do humans acquire "facts"?

[Atla]

Word salad.

Yes, it was - that's what I am trying to help you with.

In such a short comment you are confusing/misunderstanding like 3 different things. I don't know why you even try anymore to learn to think like humans.

Yep... Lets address my "confusion" then.

If facts point beyond intersubjective consensus, and humans can't escape subjectivity then how do humans acquire "facts"?

No. In order to ever talk to people, you need to first rewire your brain. Why don't you get to trying to do that, instead of bullshitting around here?

[Skepdick]

No. In order to ever talk to people, you need to first rewire your brain. Why don't you get to trying to do that, instead of bullshitting around here?

Done! Brain rewired.

Now...

If facts point beyond intersubjective consensus, and humans can't escape subjectivity then how do humans acquire "facts"?

[Atla]

No. In order to ever talk to people, you need to first rewire your brain. Why don't you get to trying to do that, instead of bullshitting around here?

Done! Brain rewired.

Now...

If facts point beyond intersubjective consensus, and humans can't escape subjectivity then how do humans acquire "facts"?

Not done so fast. You need to delve into neuroscience and cognitive therapy etc. and if it's possible you can fix yourself in a few years.

[Skepdick]

Not done so fast. You need to delve into neuroscience and cognitive therapy etc. and if it's possible you can fix yourself in a few years.

You've been delving into all that stuff for decades. Why can't you put two coherent thoughts together?

If facts point beyond intersubjective consensus, and humans can't escape subjectivity then how do humans acquire "facts"?

[Atla]

Not done so fast. You need to delve into neuroscience and cognitive therapy etc. and if it's possible you can fix yourself in a few years.

You've been delving into all that stuff for decades. Why can't you put two coherent thoughts together?

If facts point beyond intersubjective consensus, and humans can't escape subjectivity then how do humans acquire "facts"?

Again. Your question is a word salad. It confuses/misunderstands like 3 different things. You can't even hold a short conversation about the weather without talking nonsense.

[Skepdick]

Again. Your question is a word salad. It confuses/misunderstands like 3 different things. You can't even hold a short conversation about the weather without talking nonsense.

Have you considered that you may actually have Aspergers? You constantly accuse people of misunderstanding you. You are incapable of seeing things from other perspectives, you continuously reject responsibility for your own words.

Perhaps it's a cry for help?

[Atla]

Again. Your question is a word salad. It confuses/misunderstands like 3 different things. You can't even hold a short conversation about the weather without talking nonsense.

Have you considered that you may actually have Aspergers? You constantly accuse people of misunderstanding you. You are incapable of seeing things from other perspectives, you continuously reject responsibility for your own words.

Perhaps it's a cry for help?

Nice projection, however, knowledgeable people tend to understand me perfectly.

[Skepdick]

Nice projection, however, knowledgeable people tend to understand me perfectly.

Oh. OK. Care to point me at a knowledgeable person who you think can decipher this?

In English and in this context, 'fact' refers to what actually exists, not what is assumed to exist. 'Fact' points beyond intersubjective consensus.

At least Kant fixed this slightly no? He showed that it's not possible to escape our subjectivity.

[Atla]

Nice projection, however, knowledgeable people tend to understand me perfectly.

Oh. OK. Care to point me at a knowledgeable person who you think can decipher this?

In English and in this context, 'fact' refers to what actually exists, not what is assumed to exist. 'Fact' points beyond intersubjective consensus.

At least Kant fixed this slightly no? He showed that it's not possible to escape our subjectivity.

It's in pretty plain English, not much to decipher. If your brain can properly process things like references and the abstract, that is. And context. And subjective vs intersubjective etc.

[Skepdick]

It's in pretty plain English, not much to decipher. If your brain can properly process things like references and the abstract, that is. And context. And subjective vs intersubjective etc.

Sure. So which knowledgeable people understood your plain English?

Invite them into the conversation so we can hear them out.

I hope they aren't just your imaginary friends.