There is No Fact-in-Itself

[Skepdick]

It's mystical nonsense.

Just because you are unpersuaded does not mean you are not stupid.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The existence and nature of water is NOT dependent on or 'entangled with' human conditions, opinions or beliefs. It's what we call a fact of what we call reality. And what we call a fact is 'a thing that is known to exist, to have occurred, or to be true'. You've been suckered by a fashionable metaphysical delusion.

That we describe what we call reality in different ways doesn't mean that reality is 'entangled with' or dependent on us. And our blather about reality doesn't and can't magic things - such as supposed abstract things - into existence. We can always call astrology or alchemy a 'framework and system of knowledge', but that doesn't mean that there are astrological or alchemical facts.

Your claim, 'Moral facts are entangled within the moral FSK and the whole universe' is meaningless, mystical bollocks.

Nul point.

You are merely making noises based on ignorance.

All you can do is merely throwing words at me [linguistic perspective] which is not realistic per se.
PH: It's what we call a fact of what we call reality. And what we call a fact is 'a thing that is known to exist, to have occurred, or to be true'.

You are truly ignorant philosophically.

Whatever is term 'fact' must be verified and justified empirically and philosophically within its specific FSK.

How come you are so ignorant, i.e.
reality is all-there-is,
whatever exists is part and parcel of reality, i.e. all-there-is,
the Universe is part and parcel of reality,
thus whatever exists inevitable entangles with the whole universe.

What is wrong with the above argument?

It's mystical nonsense.

You are so ignorant that you are the one who is chasing after a mystical illusion and nonsense.

Note my claim,
"Whatever is term 'fact' must be verified and justified empirically and philosophically within its specific FSK."
What is so nonsense about that?

Meanwhile, note your nonsense;
All you can do is merely throwing words at me [linguistic perspective] which is not realistic per se.
PH: It's what we call a fact of what we call reality. And what we call a fact is 'a thing that is known to exist, to have occurred, or to be true'.

You don't have the philosophical balls to qualify your claim with "must be verified and justified empirically and philosophically within its specific FSK".

[Veritas Aequitas]

To claim whatever that is a fact exists independent of human conceptions as Philosophical Realists do is not tenable nor realistic.

Based on?

Just for your information, I don't want to be drag into a detailed discussion. in [mine].

• [Philosophical] Realism can also be a view about the properties of reality in general, holding that reality exists independent of the mind, as opposed to non-realist views
• which question the certainty [absoluteness] of anything beyond one's own mind.
  
  
  Today it is more usually contrasted with [Philosophical] anti-realism, for example in the philosophy of science #.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

* I do not agree with "(like some forms of skepticism and solipsism)"
# note alternative views.

As such Philosophical Anti-realists claim Philosophical Realism is not tenable nor realistic.
There are many views of Philosophical Anti-realism, mine is that of Empirical Realism of the Kantian kind.

[bahman]

1 In my discussion with Peter Holmes, et. al. they claim there are no moral facts - they're the moral-fact-deniers.

2 For them there are only 'facts' i.e. defined as,
a fact is a feature of reality, something that is the case—that is, a state of affairs which is confined to the linguistic perspective, e.g.

• 3 Facts may be understood as information that makes a true sentence true.
  E.g. the fact 'Water is H20".
  
  Facts may also be understood as those things to which a true sentence refers.
  The statement "Jupiter is the largest planet in the solar system" is about the fact Jupiter is the largest planet in the solar system.

4 The problem is Peter Holmes et. al. are blinded by their dogmatism and bigotry in sticking to merely one perspective of 'what is fact', i.e. the linguistic and semantic perspective which are merely based on words and do not reflect and engage reality.

5 The point is there is no fact-in-itself that they speak of.
Fact-in-itself is defined as fact or feature-of-reality, state-of-affair, something-that-is-the-case that exists by itself independent of human conceptions and entanglements.
If we are to represent 'fact' and 'humans' in venn diagrams, the two circles will interact 90% with each other.

6 Can the moral-fact-deniers [like PH] prove a fact-in-itself exists as really-real and is totally independent of humans entanglement?

7 My claim is,

• what is fact, i.e. feature-of-reality, state-of-affair, something-that-is-the-case cannot exists as a fact-in-itself, i.e. totally independent of humans entanglements;
  
  what is justified as fact exists as a 'package' or 'system' i.e. fact-in-entanglement-with-humans, thus cannot be totally independent of human conditions.

8 Fact-in-entanglement-with-humans entangles with humans within various framework and system of reality [FSR] or knowledge [FSK].
The most credible FSK is the scientific FSK, thus the standard bearer of reality relative to all other known FSKs.

9 Thus, note the examples given as what is fact above,

• the fact, 'Water is H20" is in entanglement with the Chemistry FSK
  
  the fact, "Jupiter is the largest planet in the solar system" entangles with the Astronomy FSK.

So, at the mentioned of any fact, it is implied by default to include the specific FSK and human conditions it is entangled with.
To claim whatever that is a fact exists independent of human conceptions as Philosophical Realists do is not tenable nor realistic.

10 Since specific facts [even as claimed by the moral deniers] as demonstrated above are conditioned upon and entangled with a specific framework & system and human conditions,
thus justified moral facts are specific to the moral framework and system.
Therefore justified moral facts do exist as conditioned and in entanglement with the moral FSK.

11 The problem with PH et. al. is, at the mentioned of justified moral facts, they quickly jumped to their dogmatic definition of 'what is fact' [fact-in-itself] in the linguistic perspective [2 &3 ] without any consideration to the point that facts [as explained] above must imperatively be conjoined with their specific framework and system [4-10].

There are no fact-in-itself!

Views?

Fact is what is obvious and is agreed upon. There are linguistic facts and non-linguistic facts. Non-linguistic facts are about reality as it is and they are base for linguistic facts.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Fact is what is obvious and is agreed upon. There are linguistic facts and non-linguistic facts. Non-linguistic facts are about reality as it is and they are base for linguistic facts.

What is agreed upon need not be true of reality, note the flat-earth was agreed upon by the majority at one time.

Can you demonstrate how a linguistic fact is really real?

Non-linguistic facts are facts that are verified and justified empirically and philosophically within the constitution of a framework and system of knowledge FSK.
No fact can exists by itself without a qualification [entanglement] with a specific FSK.

Note this;
What is Fact
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29486

A fact is a thing that is known to be consistent with objective reality and can be proven to be true with evidence.

For example, "This sentence contains words." is a linguistic fact, and

"The sun is a star." is a cosmological fact.

Further, "Abraham Lincoln was the 16th President of the United States." and "Abraham Lincoln was assassinated." are also both facts, of history.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact#In_law

It is very common people will take for granted and state the fact "The sun is a star" as obvious, but what is most critical in philosophy is,
the fact that "The sun is a star" can only be a cosmological fact when qualified to the Cosmological or Astronomy FSK and nowhere else.

We cannot state the fact that "The sun is a star" is a biological fact within the biological FSK.

Therefore for "what is a fact", that fact must imperatively be qualified to its specific framework and system of knowledge [FSK], e.g. linguistic, cosmological, historical, legal, scientific [& subs], medical, etc.

[Peter Holmes]

You are merely making noises based on ignorance.

All you can do is merely throwing words at me [linguistic perspective] which is not realistic per se.
PH: It's what we call a fact of what we call reality. And what we call a fact is 'a thing that is known to exist, to have occurred, or to be true'.

You are truly ignorant philosophically.

Whatever is term 'fact' must be verified and justified empirically and philosophically within its specific FSK.

How come you are so ignorant, i.e.
reality is all-there-is,
whatever exists is part and parcel of reality, i.e. all-there-is,
the Universe is part and parcel of reality,
thus whatever exists inevitable entangles with the whole universe.

What is wrong with the above argument?

It's mystical nonsense.

You are so ignorant that you are the one who is chasing after a mystical illusion and nonsense.

Note my claim,
"Whatever is term 'fact' must be verified and justified empirically and philosophically within its specific FSK."
What is so nonsense about that?

Meanwhile, note your nonsense;
All you can do is merely throwing words at me [linguistic perspective] which is not realistic per se.
PH: It's what we call a fact of what we call reality. And what we call a fact is 'a thing that is known to exist, to have occurred, or to be true'.

You don't have the philosophical balls to qualify your claim with "must be verified and justified empirically and philosophically within its specific FSK".

I wonder. When I say a fact is a feature of reality that is or was the case - which part of that definition don't you understand?

I wonder why you keep claiming that my idea of what constitutes a fact is purely linguistic. It seems to be necessary for your argument to misrepresent mine. It's called straw-manning.

Try again. What we call a fact is EITHER a feature of reality that is or was the case, OR a description of such a feature of reality, with a truth-value (true) independent from opinion. (This is a standard dictionary definition of the word 'fact'.)

Notice the disjunction - the OR bit - because that means both definitions apply. And notice that the first disjunct - a feature of reality that is or was the case - has nothing to do with language (excepting, of course, linguistic expressions), and therefore can have no truth-value. Outside language, a feature of reality just is or was the case.

Now, your claim is that there are moral facts, in the first sense - meaning real moral things - features of reality that actually and empirically demonstrably exist. And I understand and accept the meaning of that claim. I take it seriously. And I think it has nothing to do with language. And I, along with everyone else, await your demonstration of the existence of such a real thing - a moral feature of reality that is or was the case.

Stop lying about what I think a fact is. Just stop it. And instead, meet the burden of proof for your claim.

[Skepdick]

I wonder. When I say a fact is a feature of reality that is or was the case - which part of that definition don't you understand?

I wonder. When I say "opinions are features of reality and they are the case as held" - which part of that don't you understand?

P1. It is a fact that I hold the opinions that I hold.
P2. I am a feature of reality.
P3. My opinions are a feature of me.
C. My opinions are features of reality.

What we call a fact is EITHER a feature of reality that is or was the case, OR a description of such a feature of reality, with a truth-value (true) independent from opinion.

That last bit is called special pleading.

[Terrapin Station]

Just for your information, I don't want to be drag into a detailed discussion.

As such Philosophical Anti-realists claim Philosophical Realism is not tenable nor realistic.

Re the second sentence there, right, but the task is to discuss the basis for this.

If we're not here to have detailed discussions about such things, why are we on a board like this in the first place?

[Skepdick]

Re the second sentence there, right, but the task is to discuss the basis for this.

Anti-realists would say that it doesn't require a basis. It's the default position.

Realism has failed to meet the necessary conditions.

They have claimed a reality but failed to prove it.

[bahman]

Fact is what is obvious and is agreed upon. There are linguistic facts and non-linguistic facts. Non-linguistic facts are about reality as it is and they are base for linguistic facts.

What is agreed upon need not be true of reality, note the flat-earth was agreed upon by the majority at one time.

Correct.

Can you demonstrate how a linguistic fact is really real?

Linguistic fact is mental. It exists as thoughts since otherwise it could not be experienced.

Non-linguistic facts are facts that are verified and justified empirically and philosophically within the constitution of a framework and system of knowledge FSK.
No fact can exists by itself without a qualification [entanglement] with a specific FSK.

Note this;
What is Fact
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29486

A fact is a thing that is known to be consistent with objective reality and can be proven to be true with evidence.

For example, "This sentence contains words." is a linguistic fact, and

"The sun is a star." is a cosmological fact.

Further, "Abraham Lincoln was the 16th President of the United States." and "Abraham Lincoln was assassinated." are also both facts, of history.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact#In_law

It is very common people will take for granted and state the fact "The sun is a star" as obvious, but what is most critical in philosophy is,
the fact that "The sun is a star" can only be a cosmological fact when qualified to the Cosmological or Astronomy FSK and nowhere else.

We cannot state the fact that "The sun is a star" is a biological fact within the biological FSK.

Therefore for "what is a fact", that fact must imperatively be qualified to its specific framework and system of knowledge [FSK], e.g. linguistic, cosmological, historical, legal, scientific [& subs], medical, etc.

I agree.

[Veritas Aequitas]

It's mystical nonsense.

You are so ignorant that you are the one who is chasing after a mystical illusion and nonsense.

Note my claim,
"Whatever is term 'fact' must be verified and justified empirically and philosophically within its specific FSK."
What is so nonsense about that?

Meanwhile, note your nonsense;
All you can do is merely throwing words at me [linguistic perspective] which is not realistic per se.
PH: It's what we call a fact of what we call reality. And what we call a fact is 'a thing that is known to exist, to have occurred, or to be true'.

You don't have the philosophical balls to qualify your claim with "must be verified and justified empirically and philosophically within its specific FSK".

I wonder. When I say a fact is a feature of reality that is or was the case - which part of that definition don't you understand?

I wonder why you keep claiming that my idea of what constitutes a fact is purely linguistic. It seems to be necessary for your argument to misrepresent mine. It's called straw-manning.

Try again. What we call a fact is EITHER a feature of reality that is or was the case, OR a description of such a feature of reality, with a truth-value (true) independent from opinion. (This is a standard dictionary definition of the word 'fact'.)

Notice the disjunction - the OR bit - because that means both definitions apply. And notice that the first disjunct - a feature of reality that is or was the case - has nothing to do with language (excepting, of course, linguistic expressions), and therefore can have no truth-value. Outside language, a feature of reality just is or was the case.

I understand your definition, but that is only THE definition and not the supposedly-said-'fact'.

My point is, even that which is your 'supposedly-said-fact' is merely a "begged" supposition in your mind that it exists as a mind independent real feature of reality.

Because it is only a 'supposedly-said-fact' it is at best an assumption or 'begged' thus these are all grounded on your statement of that fact, i.e. linguistic.

Otherwise demonstrate to me your 'supposed-said-fact' is really real empirically and philosophically rather than linguistically as you are doing.

Now, your claim is that there are moral facts, in the first sense - meaning real moral things - features of reality that actually and empirically demonstrably exist.
And I understand and accept the meaning of that claim. I take it seriously.
And I think it has nothing to do with language.
And I, along with everyone else, await your demonstration of the existence of such a real thing - a moral feature of reality that is or was the case.

If I cannot verify and justify the said moral facts empirically and philosophically within a moral FSK, then yes, that would only be a statement [of words and language] thus, linguistic.

However I have provided demonstrations of how I verify and justify the said moral facts empirically and philosophically within a moral FSK, i.e.

• 1. Define what is a Moral FSK and its features,
  2. Demonstrated the verification and justifications processes.

I am not and do not intend to go into the extensive and complex processes of the above.
However I have explained some basis, principles and given examples to the above.

Stop lying about what I think a fact is. Just stop it. And instead, meet the burden of proof for your claim.

It is critical that I point out what you think as 'fact' is spurious.
I highlighted above, your fact is merely a 'supposedly-said-fact' represented by statements only.

Note this is critical
There are No Fact-in-Itself
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31591

You merely brush off the above as mythical nonsense and have not addressed the above post effectively.

Fact-in-itself is one of a thing-in-itself which is a Kantian idea.
To Kant, one can think [as you are doing with statements] of a thing-in-itself, i.e. fact-in-itself [mind independent], but ultimately that thing-in-itself or in this case, fact-in-itself is an illusion.

Here is Kant's reference to the thing-in-itself as an illusion; .. in [mine]..

There will therefore be Syllogisms which contain no Empirical premisses, and by means of which we conclude from something which we know to something else [thing-in-itself] of which we have no Concept, and to which, owing to an inevitable Illusion, we yet ascribe Objective Reality.
B397 CPR

That is what you are doing you are ascribing Objective Reality to your begged-supposed-fact which is ultimately an illusion.

Point is there are no mind independent fact-in-itself as you are begging and claiming, rather there are only fact-by-FSK which are ultimately not mind independent but are objective.