'That-What' [Fact] Before It is Called 'Water'?

Should you think about your duty, or about the consequences of your actions? Or should you concentrate on becoming a good person?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: 'That-What' [Fact] Before It is Called 'Water'?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Fri Mar 24, 2023 9:14 am So the writer(s) that VA quotes are promoting a crudely limited use of the word fact, forgetting its primary use, and asserting only its linguistic use: 'a thing that is known to be true'. They then mistake true linguistic expressions - true factual assertions - for the features of reality that they assert, and proceed to deny that those things exist. Hence the absurd claim that factual language is what constitutes facts.

In different ways, this fashionable mind-warp has been deranging philosophy for many decades now. And VA and sidekick dick-for-brains keep plugging it. The irony that to deny the existence of what we call facts is to deny the existence of moral facts - thus demolishing the case for moral objectivity - is patently obvious.
You define 'fact' as discrete feature of reality, state of affairs, that is the case or just-is.
What Johnson [which I quoted] is arguing is that there is no such 'fact' in the real sense as defined above.
In addition, you stated these facts are absolutely independent of the human conditions, i.e. from opinions, beliefs and judgments.

As I had argued, whatever is fact is conditioned upon a specific human-based-FSK.
At most what you deemed as 'facts' are linguistic facts within a linguistic FSK.
The most you can be assured they are facts are merely based on words, use of words as meaning [this approach is refuted].
What you assumed what-the-words-refer to, i.e. that "feature of reality" does not exist as real; it is an illusory noumenon, empty, nothing, meaningless and non-sensical.
And this is false. The existence and nature of water has nothing to do with linguistic description.
And VA's appeal to the credibility of scientific descriptions, because of the empirical evidence for their truth, exposes the silliness of saying that facts exist only within a descriptive context. Evidence of things (facts) that don't exist outside a description is not evidence for the truth of those descriptions. How can it be?
Strawman again.
I have NEVER asserted "facts exist only within a descriptive context".

I have always stated, facts entangle with the human conditions, emerge and realized from within a FSK, thereafter it is known and described.
Note the knowing and description come after the emergence and realization which is based on our direct entanglement and experiences.

This is how we have scientific facts, legal facts, astronomical facts; the scientific FSK is the most credible and reliable.

Now, if you are switching to a different definition from your above to a dictionary meaning;
"Fact: a thing that is known to exist, to have occurred"
this definition is meaningless if it is not predicated upon a FSK.
If it is predicated upon a FSK, then it cannot be independent of the human conditions.
Thus, a fact is conditioned upon a human-based FSK [collective - objective].
A moral FSK enabling moral facts is possible.
Therefore, morality is objective.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3731
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: 'That-What' [Fact] Before It is Called 'Water'?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Here's another VA triumph.

P1 Human beings are real things.
P2 The universe consists of real things.
C Therefore, humans are 'entangled with' the universe; and facts are 'entangled with' humans.
Skepdick
Posts: 14364
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: 'That-What' [Fact] Before It is Called 'Water'?

Post by Skepdick »

Peter Holmes wrote: Mon Mar 27, 2023 7:53 am Here's another VA triumph.

P1 Human beings are real things.
P2 The universe consists of real things.
C Therefore, humans are 'entangled with' the universe; and facts are 'entangled with' humans.
I mean - it's true 🤷‍♂️

What's the value of a fact that no human can comprehend?
Skepdick
Posts: 14364
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: 'That-What' [Fact] Before It is Called 'Water'?

Post by Skepdick »

Harbal wrote: Sun Mar 26, 2023 9:29 am Nobody else on this forum seems to mention FSKs
Well, yeah! That's precisely the part they keep quiet about, even though they pre-suppose it.
Harbal wrote: Sun Mar 26, 2023 9:29 am You must think it gives credibility to what would otherwise sound like a load of rubbish. Well it doesn't; that's all I'm saying.
So what is it that gives credibility to Peter "Dumb Cunt" Holmes saying things like... "My body is physical". Well, the FSK/vocabulary/theory of Physicalism, of course.

And if he had said "My body is material" instead, then he'd be appealing to the FSK/vocabulary/theory of materialism instead.

FSK (as VA defines it).
Vocabulary (as Rorty defines it)
Metaphysical theory (as Philosophers define it).

No difference.
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 9558
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: 'That-What' [Fact] Before It is Called 'Water'?

Post by Harbal »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Mar 27, 2023 2:53 am
The use of FSK is critical to ensure one take into account the exact perspective, [context, paradigm, and the like], one is relying upon to express one's meaning of terms, knowledge and reality.
Following the correct rules of English grammar is also critical when you are trying to communicate your thoughts in your posts, but you don't need to end every sentence with an account of which rules you used to construct it. Similarly, every conclusion you come to does not need to be appended with a declaration that it was arrived at in accordance with this, that, or the other FSK. A bad argument is still a bad argument no matter how many FSKs you used to construct it.
You are making yourself very stupid
How dare you!? :shock:

I have a good mind to have you taken out and horse whipped, you charlatan. :evil:
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 9558
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: 'That-What' [Fact] Before It is Called 'Water'?

Post by Harbal »

Skepdick wrote: Mon Mar 27, 2023 9:07 am
Harbal wrote: Sun Mar 26, 2023 9:29 am Nobody else on this forum seems to mention FSKs
Well, yeah! That's precisely the part they keep quiet about, even though they pre-suppose it.
Harbal wrote: Sun Mar 26, 2023 9:29 am You must think it gives credibility to what would otherwise sound like a load of rubbish. Well it doesn't; that's all I'm saying.
So what is it that gives credibility to Peter "Dumb Cunt" Holmes saying things like... "My body is physical". Well, the FSK/vocabulary/theory of Physicalism, of course.

And if he had said "My body is material" instead, then he'd be appealing to the FSK/vocabulary/theory of materialism instead.

FSK (as VA defines it).
Vocabulary (as Rorty defines it)
Metaphysical theory (as Philosophers define it).

No difference.
I'm sorry, but I don't have time for this. :|
Skepdick
Posts: 14364
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: 'That-What' [Fact] Before It is Called 'Water'?

Post by Skepdick »

Harbal wrote: Mon Mar 27, 2023 9:37 am
Skepdick wrote: Mon Mar 27, 2023 9:07 am
Harbal wrote: Sun Mar 26, 2023 9:29 am Nobody else on this forum seems to mention FSKs
Well, yeah! That's precisely the part they keep quiet about, even though they pre-suppose it.
Harbal wrote: Sun Mar 26, 2023 9:29 am You must think it gives credibility to what would otherwise sound like a load of rubbish. Well it doesn't; that's all I'm saying.
So what is it that gives credibility to Peter "Dumb Cunt" Holmes saying things like... "My body is physical". Well, the FSK/vocabulary/theory of Physicalism, of course.

And if he had said "My body is material" instead, then he'd be appealing to the FSK/vocabulary/theory of materialism instead.

FSK (as VA defines it).
Vocabulary (as Rorty defines it)
Metaphysical theory (as Philosophers define it).

No difference.
I'm sorry, but I don't have time for this. :|
Such a confused person you are.

You wasted time telling me you don't have time.

People who "don't have time for this" normally just shut up about it.
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 9558
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: 'That-What' [Fact] Before It is Called 'Water'?

Post by Harbal »

Skepdick wrote: Mon Mar 27, 2023 9:39 am
Harbal wrote: Mon Mar 27, 2023 9:37 am
I'm sorry, but I don't have time for this. :|

People who "don't have time for this" normally just shut up about it.
Very well, I will say no more.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: 'That-What' [Fact] Before It is Called 'Water'?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Harbal wrote: Mon Mar 27, 2023 9:33 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Mar 27, 2023 2:53 am
The use of FSK is critical to ensure one take into account the exact perspective, [context, paradigm, and the like], one is relying upon to express one's meaning of terms, knowledge and reality.
Following the correct rules of English grammar is also critical when you are trying to communicate your thoughts in your posts, but you don't need to end every sentence with an account of which rules you used to construct it. Similarly, every conclusion you come to does not need to be appended with a declaration that it was arrived at in accordance with this, that, or the other FSK. A bad argument is still a bad argument no matter how many FSKs you used to construct it.
We are in a philosophical forum not a language forum.

In philosophy, one need to be as clear as possible and doubly-clear where necessary as in this case of referencing to 'FSK' to ensure we do not talk pass each other.

It is obvious a bad argument is a bad argument.
If you think my argument is a bad argument, show me which argument are you referring to?
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: 'That-What' [Fact] Before It is Called 'Water'?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Mon Mar 27, 2023 7:53 am Here's another VA triumph.

P1 Human beings are real things.
P2 The universe consists of real things.
C Therefore, humans are 'entangled with' the universe; and facts are 'entangled with' humans.
Your above is a strawman.
Your idea of 'fact' is illusory, nothing, empty, meaningless and nonsensical, thus is different from my use of 'fact' i.e. FSK-human-based-fact.

It is a FSK-based-fact that humans are intricately part and parcel [aka entangled with] of reality which is all-there-is.
Literally it mean, reality cannot be absolutely independent of the human conditions.
What is wrong with this argument?
Post Reply