Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue May 30, 2023 8:30 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue May 30, 2023 2:13 am
The claim 'the assertion "snow is white" is true because real snow really is white' is very obviously circular or tautological. There's no correspondence whatsoever between the assertion "snow is white" and the feature of reality that it asserts.
Yes, the statement is circular.
But what is that '
feature of reality' that is asserted?
You stated outside words and meanings, that-is-asserted is meaningless.
Thus whatever is real to you is meaningless.
This is nonsense.
Show and demonstrate to me your real '
feature of reality' that is asserted?
On the other hand for me,
what is real, facts, truths, knowledge and objectivity are conditioned upon a specific human based FSR[
Reality] and FSK.
The FSK and FSK are not merely
perceiving, knowing and describing but there are the prior processes of
emergence and realization conditioned upon the 13.7 billions years of deterministic forces since the Big Bang.
The most reliable and credible FSK at present is the Scientific FSK.
I wonder why you keep demanding evidence for the existence of real things, such as snow. Try banging your head on the table you're sitting at now. Or try walking out into fast-moving traffic and feel what its like to be hit by a non-existent car - a car that exists only because there are humans that observe it. You could try not observing it.
Have you never seen or experienced snow? Did it not exist before humans turned up? Will it not exist when humans have disappeared? You know damn well the answers to these questions - but you just can't admit it.
You claim that what is fact, the supposed snow is independent of the human conditions.
Now you are talking about seeing and experienced snow; seeing and experiencing snow mean that it cannot be independent of the human conditions.
We humans realize and experience snow via various FSKs.
Generally, 'what is snow' to most is based on the common sense FSK.
But common sense do not guarantee 'realness' due to the possibilities of mistaken_ness & illusions, e.g. seeing a mirage in a desert, seeing a bent stick between water and air, seeing a snake when it is a piece of rope, and many other possible illusions and misinterpretations.
To avoid being mistaken as in the common sense FSK, humans evolved and adapt with more and more reliable human-based FSKs culminating in the human-based scientific FSK being the most credible and reliable at present.
But the emergence and realization of facts perceived, known and described are conditioned upon human-based FSK [with 13.7 billion years of conditions], thus cannot be independent of the human conditions as you are claiming.
So, explain and demonstrate to me your real facts that are independent of the human conditions?
As for correspondence - a name no more corresponds with what it names than an arrow corresponds with its target. And, to pursue the analogy, an arrow doesn't designate, define or delimit its own target.
Correspondence is a two-way relationship, but there is no relationship at all between a name and what we name with it. For example, we use the word dog to talk about the things we call dogs. But there's nothing canine about the word dog, or the word canine.
In what way does the word dog mirror or represent the things we call dogs?
So, drop this correspondence charge; recognise the complete separation and difference between the way things are and what we believe, know and say about them. (Being known isn't a necessary condition for being a fact; and the description is not the described.)
When you insist on
"the complete separation and difference between
1. the way things are and
2. what we believe, know and say about them.
surely, there is an implied correspondence and mirroring between 1 and 2.
Put aside words, [in your case] rather focus on,
1. experience and perception of the independent thing, and
2. the independent thing out there.
surely, there is an implied correspondence and mirroring between 1 and 2,
otherwise, the dog you experienced and perceived could be actually a wolf or even hyena out there.
Your claim that there are no 'things-as-they-are', outside or beyond what humans perceive, know and describe, is patently ridiculous. And, as it happens, it's arguably a radical misinterpretation of Kant.
Nope, according to Kant, that is what you [& philosophical realists] are claiming, i.e. the fact [the thing], a feature of reality is just-is, being-so, that is the case and it is independent of the human conditions. In this case, the fact or thing must as they are by themselves independent of the human conditions.
How can you deny that?
That is what you are claiming, i.e.
you claimed facts exist by themselves independent of the human conditions,
moral elements are dependent on the human condition,
therefore there are no moral facts,
thus, morality cannot be objective.