What could make morality objective?

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

Peter Holmes
Posts: 3710
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Feb 02, 2023 7:11 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Feb 01, 2023 1:01 pm Questions for VA - and any other PhD-level quantum physicists following this discussion.

1 Is quantum indeterminacy a fact - a feature of reality - or merely a product of human cognition - itself a product of quantum indeterminacy?
Whatever is fact is conditioned upon a specific FSK.
QM is conditioned upon the QM-Scientific FSK.
Therefore QM theories are scientific facts and truths.
2 Who or what observes the observer effect? Who or what is it that stands above the quantum fray? Is it perhaps the mythical subject, or the equally mythical mind - or, perhaps, Berkeley's omni-god?
If you understand how science works you would never raise the above question.
If you understood my questions, you'd understand how useless your answers are - how completely they miss the point.
3 How can we get from quantum mechanics to the fact that X is morally right (good)/wrong (bad, evil)? What valid and sound arguments get us from the one to the other?
What is morality is the avoiding of evil to enable good.
The inherent biological fact of 'ought-not-ness-to-kill-humans [to avoid evil] is an objective moral fact within the moral FSK.
This objective physical biological-moral fact is grounded upon the physical brain, neurons, algorithms, DNA, atoms and quarks.
What grounds quarks as objective is the QM FSK.
That is how we link objective moral facts within the moral FSK to QM via the QM FSK.
You can keep repeating this nonsense as infinitum, and it will still be nonsense. Your invented 'morality FSK' is a question-begging fiction. In reality, it can be nothing more than a code with moral premises, derived from the premise that it's right to avoid evil to enable good, which you kid yourself is not a moral premise, but rather some kind of fact. It's laughable.

Thus if there is no QM FSK and QM facts, then my whole moral FSK falls apart, e.g. if a mind independent God or mind-independent things [your stance] are brought into the picture.
On the contrary, there can be moral facts only if there are indeed facts - features of reality that are or were the case, independent from opinion. Your reasoning is so twisted that you want to establish moral objectivity on the denial of objectivity. Lol.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3710
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Feb 02, 2023 9:01 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Feb 01, 2023 1:01 pm Questions for VA - and any other PhD-level quantum physicists following this discussion.

1 Is quantum indeterminacy a fact - a feature of reality - or merely a product of human cognition - itself a product of quantum indeterminacy?
It is considered a facet of reality not dependent on human cognition.....but!!!!!
There is the many worlds hypothesis. Some physicists are bothered by indeterminism and one solution to maintain a global determinism is if there is a kind of multiverse. So, any collapse of the wave function in a specific universe will be probablisitic, but in the sum total of universes it returns to determinism. So, there's an asterisk around indeterminism. But if you follow the research, the results are not dependant on cognition in terms of statistics.
Quite. My questions were really aimed at VA's misunderstanding of quantum mechanics: if humans create or invent the moon (reality), then we also create or invent ourselves - so that then reality is a creation of a creation. I haven't come across a quantum interpretation with that conclusion - but is there one?
2 Who or what observes the observer effect? Who or what is it that stands above the quantum fray? Is it perhaps the mythical subject, or the equally mythical mind - or, perhaps, Berkeley's omni-god?
I couldn't understand this question.
As above - explanations come to an end - even quantum mechanical ones. And as the man said, doubt can exist only against a background of certainty.
3 How can we get from quantum mechanics to the fact that X is morally right (good)/wrong (bad, evil)? What valid and sound arguments get us from the one to the other?
I don't see how one can.
Agreed. Of course. VA has no idea, so all we get is an incantation of banalities about scientific knowledge - and the 'morality FSK' rabbit out of the hat that's just - there. The simple logical fact that non-moral premises (such as scientific ones) can't entail moral conclusions is beyond VA's comprehension.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Skepdick »

Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Feb 02, 2023 6:30 pm The simple logical fact that non-moral premises (such as scientific ones) can't entail moral conclusions is beyond VA's comprehension.
The simple fact is that logic and deductive reasoning is a red herring.

What determines the "factuality", "morality" or "truthfulness" of logical premises?
Belinda
Posts: 8030
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Belinda »

Skepdick wrote: Thu Feb 02, 2023 2:51 pm
Belinda wrote: Thu Feb 02, 2023 2:44 pm Existence itself is inclusive of making first class citizen in computer language. Existence itself is synonymous with experience.
An ontologist would disagree.

Even after you cease to experience existence continues.

So existence is a first class citizen, but experience is temporal within existence.

But, of course, if you bow to the ontologist at this point they have indeed succeeded in their onto-theological game. They have appointed themselves as The Voice of Ontology. The Voice of God.
There is existential difference between perception on the one hand and computing on the other. Machines are set in their ways by definition: perceivers make their own futures from the raw material of possibibility.
It's no game. Perceivers create reality.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Skepdick »

Belinda wrote: Thu Feb 02, 2023 8:28 pm There is existential difference between perception on the one hand and computing on the other. Machines are set in their ways by definition: perceivers make their own futures from the raw material of possibibility.
It's no game. Perceivers create reality.
Computation is just thinking about thinking. It's part of the perceptual aparatus.

In so far as "reality" being a concept/linguistic/non-ontological construct - sure.

Perceivers created it. As with everything else we talk about.
Belinda
Posts: 8030
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Belinda »

Skepdick wrote: Thu Feb 02, 2023 8:33 pm
Belinda wrote: Thu Feb 02, 2023 8:28 pm There is existential difference between perception on the one hand and computing on the other. Machines are set in their ways by definition: perceivers make their own futures from the raw material of possibibility.
It's no game. Perceivers create reality.
Computation is just thinking about thinking. It's part of the perceptual aparatus.

In so far as "reality" being a concept/linguistic/non-ontological construct - sure.

Perceivers created it. As with everything else we talk about.
Then to exist is to be perceived . Okay? What perceivers actually do is they experience and nothing but experience. If "objective" means apart from or transcending experience then there is no possibility that morality is objective.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Skepdick »

Belinda wrote: Thu Feb 02, 2023 8:46 pm Then to exist is to be perceived . Okay? What perceivers actually do is they experience and nothing but experience.
I would've thought perceivers perceive, otherwise you could just call them experiencers.

But again. This stuff isn't really helpful because we are talking about connotation, not denotation.

Is perceiving experiencing?
Is experiencing perceiving?

Do they denote one and the same phenomenon but differ in connotation?
Belinda wrote: Thu Feb 02, 2023 8:46 pm If "objective" means apart from or transcending experience then there is no possibility that morality is objective.
"Objective" means whataever we decide it to mean.

We make up the meaning of eveerything.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6591
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Iwannaplato »

Skepdick wrote: Thu Feb 02, 2023 4:54 pm Well, at least one of us got value out of the conversation...
I'm sure you'll find a way to mirror that.
Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Feb 02, 2023 3:52 pm if I write words, I am explicit in my vocabulary, in all cases yes. If I am silent, well there's no vocabulary. It's the only way I can avoid being explicit: by not communicating. Once I do, I've been explicit, if using a word is explicit.
Obviously, but your choice of words is no less peculiar. You require justification without offering none...
Um. There you go again. I never required justification. Nor did I, as you earlier said, demand justification.
Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Feb 02, 2023 3:52 pm
About the most unproductive thing you could do is ask for my general use of a term I am not currently using.
Again, I was responding to your use of it
That's not true. I was responding to yours.
That you were responding to my using the term does not preclude my responding to your use of the term. Those are not mutually exclusive. And when you used the term, in that sentence, I asked you a number of questions about that sentence. At least a couple of times you denied using it in our discussion. But you did use it in our discussion and not simply asking me about my use of the term, but in a sentence which seemed like a general rule you had. And, yes, I found that sentence interesting and asked you questions about it. I did later explain what I meant by the term. Not sure why this keeps coming up. But that's ok. I'm no longer interested in the topic. Just a gut reaction.
Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Feb 02, 2023 3:52 pm
Self-expression requires no justification.
in a discussion with me. In a discussion with me you made a statement about justification. And a generalization. In the negative yes, but it piqued my interest and I asked questions. You already answered some. You don't have to say more for my sake.
The first use of "justification" was your use...
I've have already stated that that was the case. I am not sure why you are telling me something I have already acknowledged. But that's ok.
Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Feb 02, 2023 2:17 pm I just went for a polite tying off the end of that train of thought. I guess I had hoped it would somehow be related to your use of the term
I just gave your definitionback to you :lol: :lol: :lol:
Yes, I already said that I noticed that. And you have already said this before. Without the lols, I think.

This last post was not interesting to me. You repeat things here you've already said here, one a couple of times in this post. Things I have already acknowledged. And then this recurring requiring justification/demanding justification which just ain't the case. I've lost interest. It seems you got some satisfaction (the lols). But, yeah, that might not be valuable to you.

Lot's of expressive statements here and in the previous posts between us. I mean, yes, all of the statements. Of course.

And we know what that entails.

See you around in here. I'm done on this one.
Belinda
Posts: 8030
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Belinda »

Skepdick wrote: Thu Feb 02, 2023 8:50 pm
Belinda wrote: Thu Feb 02, 2023 8:46 pm Then to exist is to be perceived . Okay? What perceivers actually do is they experience and nothing but experience.
I would've thought perceivers perceive, otherwise you could just call them experiencers.

But again. This stuff isn't really helpful because we are talking about connotation, not denotation.

Is perceiving experiencing?
Is experiencing perceiving?

Do they denote one and the same phenomenon but differ in connotation?
Belinda wrote: Thu Feb 02, 2023 8:46 pm If "objective" means apart from or transcending experience then there is no possibility that morality is objective.
"Objective" means whataever we decide it to mean.

We make up the meaning of eveerything.
Perceiving has a slightly more passive nuance than experiencing which usually connotes action. We must use language despite its fluid nature. In order to proceed with a discussion we can accept temporary working denotations.
I proposed a working denotation of 'objective' for use in the present discussion. and included relevant terms to establish working parameters.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12231
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Feb 02, 2023 6:11 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Feb 02, 2023 7:11 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Feb 01, 2023 1:01 pm Questions for VA - and any other PhD-level quantum physicists following this discussion.

1 Is quantum indeterminacy a fact - a feature of reality - or merely a product of human cognition - itself a product of quantum indeterminacy?
Whatever is fact is conditioned upon a specific FSK.
QM is conditioned upon the QM-Scientific FSK.
Therefore QM theories are scientific facts and truths.
2 Who or what observes the observer effect? Who or what is it that stands above the quantum fray? Is it perhaps the mythical subject, or the equally mythical mind - or, perhaps, Berkeley's omni-god?
If you understand how science works you would never raise the above question.
If you understood my questions, you'd understand how useless your answers are - how completely they miss the point.
3 How can we get from quantum mechanics to the fact that X is morally right (good)/wrong (bad, evil)? What valid and sound arguments get us from the one to the other?
What is morality is the avoiding of evil to enable good.
The inherent biological fact of 'ought-not-ness-to-kill-humans [to avoid evil] is an objective moral fact within the moral FSK.
This objective physical biological-moral fact is grounded upon the physical brain, neurons, algorithms, DNA, atoms and quarks.
What grounds quarks as objective is the QM FSK.
That is how we link objective moral facts within the moral FSK to QM via the QM FSK.
You can keep repeating this nonsense as infinitum, and it will still be nonsense. Your invented 'morality FSK' is a question-begging fiction. In reality, it can be nothing more than a code with moral premises, derived from the premise that it's right to avoid evil to enable good, which you kid yourself is not a moral premise, but rather some kind of fact. It's laughable.

Thus if there is no QM FSK and QM facts, then my whole moral FSK falls apart, e.g. if a mind independent God or mind-independent things [your stance] are brought into the picture.
On the contrary, there can be moral facts only if there are indeed facts - features of reality that are or were the case, independent from opinion. Your reasoning is so twisted that you want to establish moral objectivity on the denial of objectivity. Lol.
You are still stuck in your narrow and very tall silo of your dogmatic ideology.

You still have not answered my question I've have asked you a "1000" times.
Do you agree scientific facts, truths and knowledge from the scientific FSK exists as real?

Your
"only if there are indeed facts - features of reality that are or were the case, independent from opinion."
is merely a linguistic fact from your linguistic FSK.
"This sentence contains words." accurately describes a linguistic fact,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact
Note what is generally accepted as a fact:
A fact is a datum about one or more aspects of a circumstance, which, if accepted as true and proven true, allows a logical conclusion to be reached on a true–false evaluation. Standard reference works are often used to check facts.
Scientific facts are verified by repeatable careful observation or measurement by experiments or other means.

For example,
"This sentence contains words." accurately describes a linguistic fact, and
"The sun is a star" accurately describes an astronomical fact. Further,
"Abraham Lincoln was the 16th President of the United States" and "Abraham Lincoln was assassinated" both accurately describe historical facts.
Generally speaking, facts are independent of belief and of knowledge and opinion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact
All the above facts are derived from their respective FSK.

Similarly an objective moral fact is derived from a credible moral FSK which major inputs are scientific facts from the scientific FSK.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12231
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Feb 02, 2023 6:30 pm My questions were really aimed at VA's misunderstanding of quantum mechanics: if humans create or invent the moon (reality), then we also create or invent ourselves - so that then reality is a creation of a creation. I haven't come across a quantum interpretation with that conclusion - but is there one?
Strawman again!
Who is talking about 'create' or invent the moon [reality].
The proper term is "emergence" from the convergence of things within the human self.

If the Nobel Prize for Physics supports the idea 'the moon does not exists if no one is cognizing it' that counters even Einstein, then that means you are stupid to counter it.

Agreed. Of course. VA has no idea, so all we get is an incantation of banalities about scientific knowledge - and the 'morality FSK' rabbit out of the hat that's just - there. The simple logical fact that non-moral premises (such as scientific ones) can't entail moral conclusions is beyond VA's comprehension.
Again your are very ignorant and stuck with a bankrupt ideology that is against the concept of morality.

I have already stated, I agree any subjective feelings, thoughts or belief of morality by an individual or group cannot be fact, especially when without grounding to scientific facts and a credible moral FSK
In addition any claims of "objectively moral facts" from a God or based on Platonic ideals are not facts.

What I have claimed as objective moral facts has nothing to do with the above.
What I claimed as objective moral facts are grounded on scientific facts and considered within a credible moral FSK.
The simple logical fact that non-moral premises (such as scientific ones) can't entail moral conclusions is beyond VA's comprehension.
You are the one with a very think skull with little matter inside.

You are really ignorant;
I have already given you examples of how scientific facts supports non-scientific facts via their specific FSKs.
For example,
Physics-scientific facts enable astronomical facts via an astronomy FSK.
Biology-scientific facts enable sexual facts via an sex-related-FSK.
Biology-scientific facts enable agricultural facts via an agricultural-FSK.
Chemistry-scientific facts enable plastic facts via a plastic-FSK.
Chemistry-scientific facts enable perfume facts via a perfume-FSK.
Bio-Chemistry facts enable pharmaceutical facts via an pharmacy FSK.
Bio-Chemistry facts enable medical facts via a medical FSK.
as so on .......

So, why can't
Biology-scientific facts enable moral facts via a moral FSK?

As I had stated your views are very narrow, shallow and stuck within a dogmatic ideology that are similar [not exactly] to those of the Logical Positivists and hardcore Analytics philosophers of the present.
The sight of the term 'objective moral fact' makes you go berserk.

In the meantime there is a potential of greater evils towards the future; this warrant critical attention to expedite moral progress to facilitate the well-being, welfare and flourishing of humanity which can only be expedited when grounded on objective moral facts.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12231
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Belinda wrote: Thu Feb 02, 2023 8:46 pm Then to exist is to be perceived . Okay? What perceivers actually do is they experience and nothing but experience. If "objective" means apart from or transcending experience then there is no possibility that morality is objective.
Note there are Two Senses of "Objective" within philosophy;
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39326

1. Objectivity in the Philosophical Realism Sense
2. Objectivity in the FSK [e.g. scientific] Sense

In both cases, they refer to 'independence from subjective personal opinions, beliefs and judgement.

1. Objectivity in the Philosophical Realism Sense
i. Philosophical realists like Peter Holmes & gang believe that are things-in-themselves [mind independent things] that are independent of the human subject. They insist the moon pre-existed human beings and the moon [if not destroyed] will exist even if humans are extinct.
ii. Philosophical realists like the theists, believe there is a mind-independent God.
iii. There are philosophical realists who are the Platonists who believe there are mind independent ideals and universals out there.

The above are illusory and obviously there is no way one can claim morality is objective based on the above views.

2. Objectivity in the FSK [e.g. scientific] Sense
In this case whatever is reality, fact, truth is conditioned upon the specific FSK, where the scientific [also mathematics] FSK as evident is the most reliable at present.
These FSK-ed facts are objective because they are conditioned upon the 'collective subjective beliefs' of members within the specific FSK and thus are independent of any individual's opinion, beliefs or judgments [objective as defined].

Thus when moral claims are conditioned upon a reliable /credible moral FSK they are objective moral facts.
Critically, All moral claims must first be scientific facts [from the scientific FSK] before they can be objective moral facts via the moral FSK; this dependence on the scientific FSK give moral facts a reasonable degree of credibility.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3710
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

For continuity, I'm reposting here a comment on yet another of VA's OPs.

Here's the Oxford Concise definition of the word fact: a thing that is known to to exist, to have occurred, or to be true.

And this clearly shows that we use the word fact in two completely different ways. A thing that is known to exist or to have occurred obviously has no truth-value; it just is or was the case. But a thing that is known to be true, in this context, can only be a factual assertion - typically a linguistic expression: X is/was the case.

The point is that these different uses of the word fact allow for equivocation, which VA relies on in his argument for moral objectivity - the existence of moral facts.

It's true that we can describe something in limitless different ways. And it's true that a description - a truth-claim - exists in a descriptive context. There's no such thing as a context-free description/truth-claim. So in this way a linguistic fact - a true factual assertion - depends on a descriptive context.

But VA forgets the other use of the word fact, to mean 'a thing that is known to exist [or] to have occurred' - which (outside language) obviously isn't a linguistic expression with a truth-value. I call this kind of fact 'a feature of reality that is or was the case, independent from opinion'.

(I maintain that the condition 'is known' doesn't affect the nature of this kind of fact - and that in practice, when we talk about facts, the condition is irrelevant. But that is a controversial matter.)

So here's the equivocation: 'a fact can exist only within a descriptive context' - what VA calls a framework and system of knowledge. This is true, if the word fact means 'linguistic fact'. But if it means 'feature of reality that is or was the case', then it's false - and completely misleading - as VA's 'theory' demonstrates.

Point is, if there are moral facts-as-features-of-reality, then they exist demonstrably in reality, as do all other facts. The claim 'there are moral assertions, so there are moral facts' is an absurd non sequitur. It's like saying 'there are astrological assertions, so there are astrological facts'.

I should add that, from incomprehension or pig-headedness, VA will ignore this explanation, and make little or no attempt to rebut it. I live without hope.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Skepdick »

Peter Holmes wrote: Fri Feb 03, 2023 9:07 am For continuity, I'm reposting here a comment on yet another of VA's OPs.

Here's the Oxford Concise definition of the word fact: a thing that is known to to exist, to have occurred, or to be true.

And this clearly shows that we use the word fact in two completely different ways. A thing that is known to exist or to have occurred obviously has no truth-value; it just is or was the case. But a thing that is known to be true, in this context, can only be a factual assertion - typically a linguistic expression: X is/was the case.

The point is that these different uses of the word fact allow for equivocation, which VA relies on in his argument for moral objectivity - the existence of moral facts.

It's true that we can describe something in limitless different ways. And it's true that a description - a truth-claim - exists in a descriptive context. There's no such thing as a context-free description/truth-claim. So in this way a linguistic fact - a true factual assertion - depends on a descriptive context.

But VA forgets the other use of the word fact, to mean 'a thing that is known to exist [or] to have occurred' - which (outside language) obviously isn't a linguistic expression with a truth-value. I call this kind of fact 'a feature of reality that is or was the case, independent from opinion'.

(I maintain that the condition 'is known' doesn't affect the nature of this kind of fact - and that in practice, when we talk about facts, the condition is irrelevant. But that is a controversial matter.)

So here's the equivocation: 'a fact can exist only within a descriptive context' - what VA calls a framework and system of knowledge. This is true, if the word fact means 'linguistic fact'. But if it means 'feature of reality that is or was the case', then it's false - and completely misleading - as VA's 'theory' demonstrates.

Point is, if there are moral facts-as-features-of-reality, then they exist demonstrably in reality, as do all other facts. The claim 'there are moral assertions, so there are moral facts' is an absurd non sequitur. It's like saying 'there are astrological assertions, so there are astrological facts'.

I should add that, from incomprehension or pig-headedness, VA will ignore this explanation, and make little or no attempt to rebut it. I live without hope.
You appear to have a brain dysfunction no different to that of VA.

From the very definition you are quoting "fact: a thing that is known... to be true". Read that again. And again. And again. Until you understand it. Or ask somebody for explain it to you if your brain dysfunction is undermining your ability to understand.

Knowing that a statement is true is a sufficient condition for factuality. Therefore knowing that a statement is true-by-definition, e.g what we call a tautology, is a sufficient condition for factuality.

It's true (by definition!) that Paris is the capital of France. Therefore it's also an objective fact that Paris is the capital of France!
It is true (by definition!) that this color is red. Therefore it is also an objective fact that this color is red!
It is true (by definition!) that murder is wrong. Therefore it is also an objective fact that murder is wrong!

Now watch Peter Holmes move the goal posts. Again.
79ua17.jpg
79ua17.jpg (38.52 KiB) Viewed 253 times
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3710
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Here's some mistaken reasoning.

'Knowing that a statement is true is a sufficient condition for factuality. Therefore knowing that a statement is true-by-definition, e.g what we call a tautology, is a sufficient condition for factuality.

It's true (by definition!) that Paris is the capital of France. Therefore it's also an objective fact that Paris is the capital of France!
It is true (by definition!) that this color is red. Therefore it is also an objective fact that this color is red!
It is true (by definition!) that murder is wrong. Therefore it is also an objective fact that murder is wrong!'

Notice the blurring of the distinction between a fact-as-feature-of-reality and a fact-as-linguistic-assertion. What we call a fact is a feature of reality that is or was the case - which has nothing to do with language, definition, description or a truth-claim. The only condition that matters for what counts as a fact is that it is or was the case. Everything else is secondary and dependent. Ontology is not epistemology. The existence of things has nothing to do with knowledge, and neither has anything to do with language.

I think all philosophical mistakes come from muddling three different things: features of reality that are or were the case; what we believe and know about them; and what we say about them, which (in classical logic) may be true or false, given the way we use the words or other signs. And the above fallacious argument is a fine example of the muddle.
Post Reply