Pay careful attention.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Jan 20, 2021 5:59 amYou are VERY ignorant of reality and is stuck with your dogmatic, bigoted and ultimately metaphysical world of illusions.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Jan 19, 2021 11:08 amLook at the following words:Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jan 18, 2021 6:01 am
Ffs - Obviously you are wrong since you are the ignorant, dogmatic and bigoted one.
I won't say you are talking nonsense but you are ignorant in confining your views to merely kindergaternish perspectives, e.g. common sense and linguistic.
In the first place, as I had argued many times,
at a higher philosophical level,
there is NO "feature of reality"-in-itself outside language that does not have truth-value.
Whatever the 'feature of reality' it co-entangles with humans and do not exists independently by itself.Now, try thinking really, really hard.
To confirm it is real, that feature of reality [fact, state of affairs, ] has to be verified and justified empirically and philosophically within credible FSK which has truth value.
E.g. the scientific FSK can confirm whether a claim is scientifically true or false.
Showing a feature of reality is real - that it exists, is a fact, is a state-of-affairs - is not a linguistic operation. It has nothing to do with language.
But to 'verify' or 'falsify' something is to show that it's true or false. So the question is: what kind of thing can be shown to be true or false? Can a feature of reality be - and be shown to be - true or false? Obviously not. It can only be shown to exist or not.
So the only things that can be shown to be true or false (verified or falsified) are factual assertions - linguistic expressions.
And, seemingly unaware, you acknowledge this when you say: 'the scientific FSK can confirm whether a claim is scientifically true or false.'
The use of 'verify' to mean 'confirm' is a nice demonstration of the myth of propositions at work, as in the JTB truth-condition: S knows that p iff p is true - which gets things back to front, and is, anyway, ridiculous.
But what matters is that your supposedly crucial condition - 'facts exist only within an FSK' - is irrelevant. Because, so what if they do? Showing that they exist is what matters, and that has nothing to do with language, and so nothing to do with truth and falsehood.
You say my approach is narrowly linguistic. But I'm just insisting on the difference and separation between the way things are and what we say about them.
1. You are merely assuming a feature of reality exists as real, that it is a fact and is a state-of-affairs even before proving it exists.
Therefore you are begging the question.
2. This is the Philosophical Realists' stance, i.e. [mine]
3. The most credible method to prove what you ASSUMED exists as real is to use the scientific FSK.
- [Philosophical] Realism about a certain kind of thing, is the thesis that this kind of thing has [absolute] mind-independent existence, i.e. that it is not just a mere appearance in the eye of the beholder.
But what the scientific FSK conclude as real is merely based on POLISHED CONJECTURES which can be wrong at times with regard to what is supposedly real.
4. So what you had ASSUMED as real, i.e. a feature of reality exists as real, that it is a fact and is a state-of-affairs that is independent of the human minds cannot be proven AT ALL to be really-real and existing-by-itself.
5. Thus the only means a feature of reality as real, fact and is a state-of-affairs it that it co-entangled with human conditions via various FSRs & FSKs.
6. Whether the claim of reality is true or false can only be qualified to a specific FSR/FSK which is constructed by humans.
7. Your insistence and linguistic claim that a feature of reality is real - that it exists, is a fact, is a state-of-affairs, - is a linguistic operation. It has everything to do with the language you use. You are merely thinking of reality linguistically and ASSUMING an absolutely mind independent feature of reality exists as real.
8. To show whether a your ASSUMED feature of reality exists or not and verify & justify what you assumed is real, you will have to resort to 3, i.e. relying upon the most credible FSK, i.e. the scientific FSK which is merely a conjectures polisher and concluding with 'polished conjectures' [hypotheses].Can a feature of reality be - and be shown to be - true or false? Obviously not. It can only be shown to exist or not.
9. Therefore your insistence a feature of reality is real - that it exists, is a fact, is a state-of-affairs, - is a linguistic operation only. You are merely making noises about the metaphysical illusions you ASSUMED as really real existing independently by itself.
1 The features of reality I refer to are precisely those that are or can be empirically confirmed. I don't assume they exist. I insist that they must be demonstrable. So I insist that so-called moral features of reality must be demonstrated. And that demonstration, of course, has nothing to do with language.
2 I agree that any description of a feature of reality - any factual truth-claim - exists within a descriptive context - what you grandly call a system and framework of knowledge (FSK). There's no such thing as a context-free description.
3 But a description neither creates nor changes the thing being described. What - are we ontological idealists?
4 The denial that there are things-in-themselves is really the denial that there can be a context-free, absolute or complete description - which is correct. There can't be. Anxiety about things-in-themselves is the residue of a metaphysical delusion.
5 Diversionary flak about descriptive context, the non-existence of things-in-themselves and therefore facts-in-themselves does precisely nothing to establish the existence of moral features of reality - moral facts - which must be empirically confirmed to be credible.