was illustrate you're hidebound.What I did there
No worries: I got the same condition.
'nuff said.
was illustrate you're hidebound.What I did there
The above is based on ignorance.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sat Jun 25, 2022 8:53 amNo amount of non-moral observations could lead inductively to a moral conclusion - a 'general principle'.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jun 25, 2022 3:40 amTrying to be deceptive again?Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Jun 24, 2022 10:56 am We can't get from non-moral premises to a moral conclusion by induction either. And if you're thinking of probabilistic induction - how do we calculate the probability that, say, slavery is morally wrong? Ridiculous!
Nope where do you get the notion I am talking about probabilistic induction to the extreme of computing probabilities for every conclusion.
Note 'Induction'
Science is based on inductive reasoning, do scientists ever calculate the probability of 'water is H20'.Inductive reasoning is a method of reasoning in which a body of observations is considered to derive a general principle.[1]
It consists of making broad generalizations based on specific observations.[2]
Inductive reasoning is distinct from deductive reasoning.
If the premises are correct, the conclusion of a deductive argument is certain; in contrast, the truth of the conclusion of an inductive argument is probable, based upon the evidence given.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning
As I had stated, my proposed moral FSK will take in inputs from and has equivalent credibility of the scientific FSK.
Putting 'slavery' aside,
I have argued there is an 'ought-not_ness of killing humans' which is a potentiality within the inherent moral potential represented by the neural network of physical neurons in the brain as a matter of fact.
This is the objective moral fact when processed within a credible moral FSK.
The same principle as above is applicable to slavery, rapes, violence, crimes and other evil acts against other humans.
The question of right or wrong is irrelevant in my case.
Your banking of 'the question of right or wrong' is based on your limited view of 'what is morality.'
Note I have argued here,Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sat Jun 25, 2022 1:29 pm Moral objectivists have absolutely nothing to justify their claim that there are moral facts - that moral assertions have factual truth-value.
Hence the spurious arguments we've seen here, such as the argument that arguments don't matter, and that anyway factual truth-value isn't what we say it is.
It's pathetic.
The above is a good point.Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat Jun 25, 2022 1:31 pmI gave you my justification.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sat Jun 25, 2022 1:29 pm Moral objectivists have absolutely nothing to justify their claim that there are moral facts - that moral assertions have factual truth-value.
Hence the spurious arguments we've seen here, such as the argument that arguments don't matter, and that anyway factual truth-value isn't what we say it is.
It's pathetic.
Because roses are blue and violets are bitter.
But if you aren't happy with that I'll add to it that today is Friday and my wine is delicious.
I can keep going but I think this shall suffice for now.
Therefore murder is wrong.
The argument is spurious, but the conclusion is correct. So the argument doesn't matter. Q.E.D
Much like Ignaz Semmelweis had no good argument for why washing hands saves lives. The conclusion was correct - the argument came about few decades later when germ theory came about. And he sure faced a lot of ostracism and persecution for being right without having an argument.
What's pathetic is that even you can't present an argument, yet somehow you agree with the conclusion.
As I had argued what is factual to you is ultimately 'fartuous' and fatuous and such has no grounds to judge the statement of others are not factual especially on verified objective moral facts which are of equivalence to scientific facts.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Jun 26, 2022 7:10 am True premise: A factual assertion can be true, even if the argument leading to it is spurious, or there's no argument at all.
Non sequitur conclusion: Therefore, a moral assertion can be true, even if the argument leading to it spurious, or there's no argument at all.
If a moral conclusion is supposed to follow from a non-moral premise or premises, then the validity and soundness of the argument does matter. And a non-moral premise or premises can't entail a moral conclusion. The end.
It's possible to explain or justify a moral opinion without insisting that the moral opinion is a fact, with which there can therefore be no rational disagreement. We do it all the fucking time. Witness: abortion in the US, atm. It's the fuckers who think their moral opinion is a fact who are imposing that opinion, at terrible cost, on their fellow citizens. The disease of moral objectivism at work.
This is far from the first time where Vagina Armpit has expressed a local positivist stance.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Jun 26, 2022 6:34 am The main problem with PH and this OP is the definition of what is 'morality', 'objectivity' and 'facts' are groundless without verification and justification. PH reliance is merely based on the limited deductive reasonings [half truths anyway] where GIGO is a possibility.
For some reason you keep mistaking his stance for a positivism. Even though he doesn't dismiss private information; and he recognises the ability to prove negatives (which dismantles all positivism).FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sun Jun 26, 2022 9:29 am This is far from the first time where Vagina Armpit has expressed a local positivist stance.
Question: What is my philsophical foundation? Answer: In philosophy, as in any other field of enquiry, I believe in the imporatnce of evidence and sound argument. You claim there are 'verified objective moral facts which are of equivalence to scientific facts', for which you've produced neither evidence nor sound argument.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Jun 26, 2022 8:10 amAs I had argued what is factual to you is ultimately 'fartuous' and fatuous and such has no grounds to judge the statement of others are not factual especially on verified objective moral facts which are of equivalence to scientific facts.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Jun 26, 2022 7:10 am True premise: A factual assertion can be true, even if the argument leading to it is spurious, or there's no argument at all.
Non sequitur conclusion: Therefore, a moral assertion can be true, even if the argument leading to it spurious, or there's no argument at all.
If a moral conclusion is supposed to follow from a non-moral premise or premises, then the validity and soundness of the argument does matter. And a non-moral premise or premises can't entail a moral conclusion. The end.
It's possible to explain or justify a moral opinion without insisting that the moral opinion is a fact, with which there can therefore be no rational disagreement. We do it all the fucking time. Witness: abortion in the US, atm. It's the fuckers who think their moral opinion is a fact who are imposing that opinion, at terrible cost, on their fellow citizens. The disease of moral objectivism at work.
Note my challenge to you;
PH: What is Your Philosophical Foundation?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=35095
You have no answers to the above and cowardly ignored and avoided the challenge.
You are lying.
Which 'fuckers' in the world are claiming their opinions on "abortion is wrong" are objective moral facts?
Those who claimed "abortion is wrong" insist so because they interpret their God [actually illusory] said it is wrong. They have to agree completely, else they will go to hell.
If they claimed this is a moral issue, that is an equivocation because anything moral to do with theism based on the threat of hell is not morality-proper.
Even if you can show anyone claim 'abortion is wrong' is an objective fact, that is fatuous if they are merely expressing it arbitrarily without reference to any credible moral FSK.
If these 'fuckers' enacted 'abortion is illegal' that is politics and not morality-proper.
Whoever want to claim 'X is an objective moral fact' must verify and justify the claim within a credible moral FSK with credibility of equivalence to the scientific FSK.
Even then, whatever is verified as an objective moral fact must not be imposed on individual[s] but rather act as a guide to facilitate internal moral competency and progress.
My philosophical foundation is that of philosophical anti-realism with emphasis of Kantian philosophy with the basic of Eastern philosophy? As such my philosophical groundings of reality are linked to the essence of the above philosophies.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Jun 26, 2022 6:41 pmQuestion: What is my philosophical foundation?Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Jun 26, 2022 8:10 amAs I had argued what is factual to you is ultimately 'fartuous' and fatuous and such has no grounds to judge the statement of others are not factual especially on verified objective moral facts which are of equivalence to scientific facts.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Jun 26, 2022 7:10 am True premise: A factual assertion can be true, even if the argument leading to it is spurious, or there's no argument at all.
Non sequitur conclusion: Therefore, a moral assertion can be true, even if the argument leading to it spurious, or there's no argument at all.
If a moral conclusion is supposed to follow from a non-moral premise or premises, then the validity and soundness of the argument does matter. And a non-moral premise or premises can't entail a moral conclusion. The end.
It's possible to explain or justify a moral opinion without insisting that the moral opinion is a fact, with which there can therefore be no rational disagreement. We do it all the fucking time. Witness: abortion in the US, atm. It's the fuckers who think their moral opinion is a fact who are imposing that opinion, at terrible cost, on their fellow citizens. The disease of moral objectivism at work.
Note my challenge to you;
PH: What is Your Philosophical Foundation?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=35095
You have no answers to the above and cowardly ignored and avoided the challenge.
You are lying.
Which 'fuckers' in the world are claiming their opinions on "abortion is wrong" are objective moral facts?
Those who claimed "abortion is wrong" insist so because they interpret their God [actually illusory] said it is wrong. They have to agree completely, else they will go to hell.
If they claimed this is a moral issue, that is an equivocation because anything moral to do with theism based on the threat of hell is not morality-proper.
Even if you can show anyone claim 'abortion is wrong' is an objective fact, that is fatuous if they are merely expressing it arbitrarily without reference to any credible moral FSK.
If these 'fuckers' enacted 'abortion is illegal' that is politics and not morality-proper.
Whoever want to claim 'X is an objective moral fact' must verify and justify the claim within a credible moral FSK with credibility of equivalence to the scientific FSK.
Even then, whatever is verified as an objective moral fact must not be imposed on individual[s] but rather act as a guide to facilitate internal moral competency and progress.
Answer: In philosophy, as in any other field of enquiry, I believe in the importance of evidence and sound argument.
It is very childish to make the above noises against someone [with sound arguments as above] when he does not agree with you. You are the one who is ignorant with shallow, narrow and dogmatic thinking.You claim there are 'verified objective moral facts which are of equivalence to scientific facts', for which you've produced neither evidence nor sound argument.
I and others have falsified your claims and refuted your arguments at enormous length, to no avail against your monumental stupidity.
I've long taken to ignoring or even forgiving your offensive abuse, and the vulnerability and inadequacy it demonstrates. It's like handling a child, in the hope that it'll start to grow up and become rationally skeptical and self-critical. But some of us never do.
Have a look at these three related statements, and see if you agree with them. There's no need to reply. Please just take time to think about them.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jun 27, 2022 4:36 amMy philosophical foundation is that of philosophical anti-realism with emphasis of Kantian philosophy with the basic of Eastern philosophy? As such my philosophical groundings of reality are linked to the essence of the above philosophies.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Jun 26, 2022 6:41 pmQuestion: What is my philosophical foundation?Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Jun 26, 2022 8:10 am
As I had argued what is factual to you is ultimately 'fartuous' and fatuous and such has no grounds to judge the statement of others are not factual especially on verified objective moral facts which are of equivalence to scientific facts.
Note my challenge to you;
PH: What is Your Philosophical Foundation?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=35095
You have no answers to the above and cowardly ignored and avoided the challenge.
You are lying.
Which 'fuckers' in the world are claiming their opinions on "abortion is wrong" are objective moral facts?
Those who claimed "abortion is wrong" insist so because they interpret their God [actually illusory] said it is wrong. They have to agree completely, else they will go to hell.
If they claimed this is a moral issue, that is an equivocation because anything moral to do with theism based on the threat of hell is not morality-proper.
Even if you can show anyone claim 'abortion is wrong' is an objective fact, that is fatuous if they are merely expressing it arbitrarily without reference to any credible moral FSK.
If these 'fuckers' enacted 'abortion is illegal' that is politics and not morality-proper.
Whoever want to claim 'X is an objective moral fact' must verify and justify the claim within a credible moral FSK with credibility of equivalence to the scientific FSK.
Even then, whatever is verified as an objective moral fact must not be imposed on individual[s] but rather act as a guide to facilitate internal moral competency and progress.
Answer: In philosophy, as in any other field of enquiry, I believe in the importance of evidence and sound argument.
Since your views are opposed to mine, your philosophical foundation are likely to be philosophical realism [if not explain which] and from your post re 'fact' is linked to analytic philosophy of some kind [if not explain which]. There is a wide variety of philosophies within analytic philosophy, e.g. Hume, Moore, Russell, Carnap, Frege, early-Wittgenstein, etc. representing sense data, independent external world, logical atomism, logical positivism, ideal language, ordinary language, etc. - all of which had been pounded to the ground.
However it seem you are merely picking pieces from here and there from the analytic philosophers without knowing what sort of grounds you are standing on.
As for evidence and sound argument, that is common in all rational philosophies from both Philosophical Realism and Philosophical Anti-Realism.
Btw, your emphasis [note] was never on 'evidence' in most of your posts but rather your emphasis was on arguments, propositions and words.
Now that you mentioned 'evidence' I presume you have to refer to observations and empirical evidence, surely not otherwise?
You also mentioned "as in any other field of enquiry" which has to pertain to a Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK] or reality [FSR].
In terms of FSK, surely you are not denying the scientific FSK or FSR [the best of its knowledge relative to others] is the most reliable, credible or trustworthy?
The scientific FSK generate scientific facts [independent of individuals' opinions and beliefs] which are obviously conditioned upon its FSK which is human-made and sustain by humans.
As such fact is entangled with reality which is entangled with the human conditions.
Therefore the general principle is;
All facts are conditioned upon its specific FSK or FSR.
Therefore, there cannot be unconditional facts.
The conclusion of unconditional facts is a counter to your claim 'facts' are independent of the human conditions [i.e. Metaphysical /Philosophical Realism] or whatever.
It is very childish to make the above noises against someone [with sound arguments as above] when he does not agree with you. You are the one who is ignorant with shallow, narrow and dogmatic thinking.You claim there are 'verified objective moral facts which are of equivalence to scientific facts', for which you've produced neither evidence nor sound argument.
I and others have falsified your claims and refuted your arguments at enormous length, to no avail against your monumental stupidity.
I've long taken to ignoring or even forgiving your offensive abuse, and the vulnerability and inadequacy it demonstrates. It's like handling a child, in the hope that it'll start to grow up and become rationally skeptical and self-critical. But some of us never do.
As proven above,
The general principle is;
All facts are conditioned upon its specific FSK or FSR.
Therefore, there cannot be unconditional facts.
As such in principle,
There are moral facts as conditioned upon the moral FSK or FSR.
Moral facts are not unconditional facts and thus must always be qualified to the moral FSK.
The first thing is to get the principle as above right.
You cannot deny above, if not where is your counter to my argument above?
The second is,
'I have claimed there are 'verified and justified objective moral facts which are of equivalence to scientific facts', and conditioned upon a credible moral FSK.
I admit I have not presented a detailed moral FSK and justify its credibility nor I have produced in detail the verified and justified objective moral facts. This will be a complex task BUT I have already provided clues to what is a credible moral FSK and what are objective moral facts [that are physical and of a matter of fact] from the FSK.
The main point is the 'expected' agreement on the Principle i.e.
All facts are conditioned upon its specific FSK or FSR.
Therefore, there cannot be unconditional facts.
There are moral facts as conditioned upon the moral FSK or FSR.
Moral facts are not unconditional facts and thus must always be qualified to the moral FSK.
You are so arrogant with your ignorance of the deeper perspectives of entangled-reality.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Jun 27, 2022 5:52 amHave a look at these three related statements, and see if you agree with them. There's no need to reply. Please just take time to think about them.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jun 27, 2022 4:36 amMy philosophical foundation is that of philosophical anti-realism with emphasis of Kantian philosophy with the basic of Eastern philosophy? As such my philosophical groundings of reality are linked to the essence of the above philosophies.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Jun 26, 2022 6:41 pm Question: What is my philosophical foundation?
Answer: In philosophy, as in any other field of enquiry, I believe in the importance of evidence and sound argument.
Since your views are opposed to mine, your philosophical foundation are likely to be philosophical realism [if not explain which] and from your post re 'fact' is linked to analytic philosophy of some kind [if not explain which]. There is a wide variety of philosophies within analytic philosophy, e.g. Hume, Moore, Russell, Carnap, Frege, early-Wittgenstein, etc. representing sense data, independent external world, logical atomism, logical positivism, ideal language, ordinary language, etc. - all of which had been pounded to the ground.
However it seem you are merely picking pieces from here and there from the analytic philosophers without knowing what sort of grounds you are standing on.
As for evidence and sound argument, that is common in all rational philosophies from both Philosophical Realism and Philosophical Anti-Realism.
Btw, your emphasis [note] was never on 'evidence' in most of your posts but rather your emphasis was on arguments, propositions and words.
Now that you mentioned 'evidence' I presume you have to refer to observations and empirical evidence, surely not otherwise?
You also mentioned "as in any other field of enquiry" which has to pertain to a Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK] or reality [FSR].
In terms of FSK, surely you are not denying the scientific FSK or FSR [the best of its knowledge relative to others] is the most reliable, credible or trustworthy?
The scientific FSK generate scientific facts [independent of individuals' opinions and beliefs] which are obviously conditioned upon its FSK which is human-made and sustain by humans.
As such fact is entangled with reality which is entangled with the human conditions.
Therefore the general principle is;
All facts are conditioned upon its specific FSK or FSR.
Therefore, there cannot be unconditional facts.
The conclusion of unconditional facts is a counter to your claim 'facts' are independent of the human conditions [i.e. Metaphysical /Philosophical Realism] or whatever.
It is very childish to make the above noises against someone [with sound arguments as above] when he does not agree with you. You are the one who is ignorant with shallow, narrow and dogmatic thinking.You claim there are 'verified objective moral facts which are of equivalence to scientific facts', for which you've produced neither evidence nor sound argument.
I and others have falsified your claims and refuted your arguments at enormous length, to no avail against your monumental stupidity.
I've long taken to ignoring or even forgiving your offensive abuse, and the vulnerability and inadequacy it demonstrates. It's like handling a child, in the hope that it'll start to grow up and become rationally skeptical and self-critical. But some of us never do.
As proven above,
The general principle is;
All facts are conditioned upon its specific FSK or FSR.
Therefore, there cannot be unconditional facts.
As such in principle,
There are moral facts as conditioned upon the moral FSK or FSR.
Moral facts are not unconditional facts and thus must always be qualified to the moral FSK.
The first thing is to get the principle as above right.
You cannot deny above, if not where is your counter to my argument above?
The second is,
'I have claimed there are 'verified and justified objective moral facts which are of equivalence to scientific facts', and conditioned upon a credible moral FSK.
I admit I have not presented a detailed moral FSK and justify its credibility nor I have produced in detail the verified and justified objective moral facts. This will be a complex task BUT I have already provided clues to what is a credible moral FSK and what are objective moral facts [that are physical and of a matter of fact] from the FSK.
The main point is the 'expected' agreement on the Principle i.e.
All facts are conditioned upon its specific FSK or FSR.
Therefore, there cannot be unconditional facts.
There are moral facts as conditioned upon the moral FSK or FSR.
Moral facts are not unconditional facts and thus must always be qualified to the moral FSK.
1 We've invented different ways to describe what we call reality. But we didn't invent the reality that we describe.
2 Every truth-claim exists in a descriptive context. But it's not the descriptive context that makes it true.
3 To verify a claim, we have to check it against what we call reality. That gives us the evidence to justify confidence in its truth..
No, have another go at thinking about these statements:Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jun 27, 2022 6:24 amYou are so arrogant with your ignorance of the deeper perspectives of entangled-reality.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Jun 27, 2022 5:52 amHave a look at these three related statements, and see if you agree with them. There's no need to reply. Please just take time to think about them.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jun 27, 2022 4:36 am
My philosophical foundation is that of philosophical anti-realism with emphasis of Kantian philosophy with the basic of Eastern philosophy? As such my philosophical groundings of reality are linked to the essence of the above philosophies.
Since your views are opposed to mine, your philosophical foundation are likely to be philosophical realism [if not explain which] and from your post re 'fact' is linked to analytic philosophy of some kind [if not explain which]. There is a wide variety of philosophies within analytic philosophy, e.g. Hume, Moore, Russell, Carnap, Frege, early-Wittgenstein, etc. representing sense data, independent external world, logical atomism, logical positivism, ideal language, ordinary language, etc. - all of which had been pounded to the ground.
However it seem you are merely picking pieces from here and there from the analytic philosophers without knowing what sort of grounds you are standing on.
As for evidence and sound argument, that is common in all rational philosophies from both Philosophical Realism and Philosophical Anti-Realism.
Btw, your emphasis [note] was never on 'evidence' in most of your posts but rather your emphasis was on arguments, propositions and words.
Now that you mentioned 'evidence' I presume you have to refer to observations and empirical evidence, surely not otherwise?
You also mentioned "as in any other field of enquiry" which has to pertain to a Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK] or reality [FSR].
In terms of FSK, surely you are not denying the scientific FSK or FSR [the best of its knowledge relative to others] is the most reliable, credible or trustworthy?
The scientific FSK generate scientific facts [independent of individuals' opinions and beliefs] which are obviously conditioned upon its FSK which is human-made and sustain by humans.
As such fact is entangled with reality which is entangled with the human conditions.
Therefore the general principle is;
All facts are conditioned upon its specific FSK or FSR.
Therefore, there cannot be unconditional facts.
The conclusion of unconditional facts is a counter to your claim 'facts' are independent of the human conditions [i.e. Metaphysical /Philosophical Realism] or whatever.
It is very childish to make the above noises against someone [with sound arguments as above] when he does not agree with you. You are the one who is ignorant with shallow, narrow and dogmatic thinking.
As proven above,
The general principle is;
All facts are conditioned upon its specific FSK or FSR.
Therefore, there cannot be unconditional facts.
As such in principle,
There are moral facts as conditioned upon the moral FSK or FSR.
Moral facts are not unconditional facts and thus must always be qualified to the moral FSK.
The first thing is to get the principle as above right.
You cannot deny above, if not where is your counter to my argument above?
The second is,
'I have claimed there are 'verified and justified objective moral facts which are of equivalence to scientific facts', and conditioned upon a credible moral FSK.
I admit I have not presented a detailed moral FSK and justify its credibility nor I have produced in detail the verified and justified objective moral facts. This will be a complex task BUT I have already provided clues to what is a credible moral FSK and what are objective moral facts [that are physical and of a matter of fact] from the FSK.
The main point is the 'expected' agreement on the Principle i.e.
All facts are conditioned upon its specific FSK or FSR.
Therefore, there cannot be unconditional facts.
There are moral facts as conditioned upon the moral FSK or FSR.
Moral facts are not unconditional facts and thus must always be qualified to the moral FSK.
1 We've invented different ways to describe what we call reality. But we didn't invent the reality that we describe.
2 Every truth-claim exists in a descriptive context. But it's not the descriptive context that makes it true.
3 To verify a claim, we have to check it against what we call reality. That gives us the evidence to justify confidence in its truth..
As I wrote in another post you are stuck with kindergartenish philosophy of ' crude objective reality', and unable see the difference in the following;
If you are stuck with crude objective reality, then your question 1-3 will make sense [relatively] in that it we have invented different ways to describe "objective reality".
- 1. Newtonian Physics rely on crude objective reality but it still has its use relative to its qualified conditions.
2. Then we have Einstein's revelation of some degree of subjectivity 'the observers' effect' which is much more sophisticated than Newtonian objective reality, thus intersubjectivity.
3. At present we have QM with a higher degree of intersubjective reality with a greater degree of human entanglement.
But when we proceed to realize reality within 2 and 3, the descriptions of reality by humans themselves are part and parcel of a new emergence reality.
From t0, the moment I, you or others type a letter or whatever actions are taken there is instantly a new reality i.e. reality-t1 which is different t0 and so on.
Do you deny there is new-reality-t1 that is different from the previous reality t0 where you and I and others are entangled in?
Many greater thinkers of the past and present have introduced the above of an emergence entangled reality, e.g.'
Humans are the Co-Creator of Reality They are In
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=32476
So in a more refined perspective of reality which is more realistic, there is no independent objective reality where we invent different ways to describe it.
Your thinking in 1-3 above is very kindergartenish.
You may counter, what about the moon that existed before there were humans?
In this case there in an element of 'human' hindsight, thus it is still human entangled.
The point is the refined perspective of a human entangled reality has greater potential utilities to mankind's progress than the crude independent objective reality perspective.
Btw, do you have any counters to my following challenge?
What is the grounding to your philosophy on this issue?
The main point is the 'expected' agreement on the Principle i.e.
All facts are conditioned upon its specific FSK or FSR.
Therefore, there cannot be unconditional facts.
There are moral facts as conditioned upon the moral FSK or FSR.
Moral facts are not unconditional facts and thus must always be qualified to the moral FSK.
When I ask a serious question, what you often do is to run into your tortoise shell of independent objective reality which we invent ways to describe, and spews kindergartenish question as a counter.
It would be more intellectually honest to answer my question before you throw another one.
Btw, in your groping around for support you may have wandered into Ordinary Language Philosophy with your ordinary use of the term 'fact' but note,
The Demise of Ordinary Language Philosophy: Grice
viewtopic.php?f=21&t=35143
So now we know what his end game was with that thread where he said he could take down Wittgenstein.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jun 27, 2022 6:24 am Btw, in your groping around for support you may have wandered into Ordinary Language Philosophy with your ordinary use of the term 'fact' but note,
The Demise of Ordinary Language Philosophy: Grice
viewtopic.php?f=21&t=35143