'States of Affairs" [Analytic] [Moral].

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

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

'States of Affairs" [Analytic] [Moral].

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes et. al. has always insisted there are NO moral facts where "facts" are "states of affairs", 'features of reality', 'that is the case', and the likes.
This I take it are the common elements of Analytic Philosophy inherited from the bastardized philosophies of the logical positivists.

While PH throws around the term 'states of affairs' as if it is of something credible within philosophy, actually it has no groundings to reality at all.

Note the conclusion in this SEP article, that there are no groundings to 'state of affairs' because of the Unity Problem;
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/states-of-affairs/
5.1 The Unity-Problem
If one conceives of a state of affairs as complexes that “contain” particulars and properties, one needs to answer the unity-question
“What unifies some particulars and properties into one state of affairs?”
An answer to this question should distinguish states of affairs from other complexes.

6. Conclusion
Does one need states of affairs in addition to facts and thoughts?
Yes, there seem to be good reasons to posit states of affairs as a sui generis category of object.
If states of affairs are to be useful (i) they must exist even if they do not obtain and (ii) must involve objects and properties (relations) directly. (i) is the basic feature that distinguishes states of affairs from facts; (ii) the basic feature that distinguishes them from thoughts.

Therefore a theory of states of affairs must answer the question how a state of affairs can “involve” objects and properties (relations) and combine them, if the objects don’t exemplify the properties (stand in the relations).

Although there are promising proposals to answer it, this question [unity-Problem] is still open.
The above implies there are no sound and credible grounds for what are claimed as 'states of affairs'.

These Analytic Philosophers has problems with 'states of affairs'
States of affairs have no place in the Fregean theory of reference.

Hence, he [Russell] tried to eliminate states of affairs.
ibid.
Thus when PH's throw around his 'fact as state of affairs' and that this has no groundings, where did he get his arguments, authority and credibility to insist there are no moral facts in according to his fact [as per his definition].

Can anyone justify the Analytical Philosophy version of 'states of affairs' [as discussed in the SEP article] are really real?

In contrast, note in my Empirical Realism approach, where moral-facts-as-they-are are verified and justified empirically and philosophically within a moral framework and system similar to how scientific facts are verified and justified.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: 'States of Affairs" [Analytic] [Moral].

Post by Terrapin Station »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Feb 08, 2021 9:11 am
5.1 The Unity-Problem
If one conceives of a state of affairs as complexes that “contain” particulars and properties, one needs to answer the unity-question
“What unifies some particulars and properties into one state of affairs?”
An answer to this question should distinguish states of affairs from other complexes.
The responses to this should be:

(1) What "other" complexes?

and

(2) One is reading "state of affairs" to (need to be) countable and namely and unitary "thing" of sorts because _____?
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3731
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: 'States of Affairs" [Analytic] [Moral].

Post by Peter Holmes »

Terrapin Station wrote: Wed Feb 10, 2021 12:27 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Feb 08, 2021 9:11 am
5.1 The Unity-Problem
If one conceives of a state of affairs as complexes that “contain” particulars and properties, one needs to answer the unity-question
“What unifies some particulars and properties into one state of affairs?”
An answer to this question should distinguish states of affairs from other complexes.
The responses to this should be:

(1) What "other" complexes?

and

(2) One is reading "state of affairs" to (need to be) countable and namely and unitary "thing" of sorts because _____?
Agreed. And exactly the same criticism of states-of-affairs can be applied to unity, complexes, particulars and properties. In other words, there's no way around the fact that words can mean only what we use them to mean, and that there's no foundation, for what we say, beneath our linguistic practices.
Skepdick
Posts: 14363
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: 'States of Affairs" [Analytic] [Moral].

Post by Skepdick »

Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Feb 10, 2021 1:47 pm Agreed. And exactly the same criticism of states-of-affairs can be applied to unity, complexes, particulars and properties. In other words, there's no way around the fact that words can mean only what we use them to mean, and that there's no foundation, for what we say, beneath our linguistic practices.
Precisely! If language is the foundation of meaning then you are already committed to anti-realism.

There's nothing "outside" of language on which to base our linguistic practices. There's nothing outside of language upon which meaning could be based!

Which is precisely why all that is necessary for morality to be objective is for us to say that it is!

We change the meaning of the word and BOOM! Done.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6266
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: 'States of Affairs" [Analytic] [Moral].

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Skepdick wrote: Wed Feb 10, 2021 1:51 pm
Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Feb 10, 2021 1:47 pm Agreed. And exactly the same criticism of states-of-affairs can be applied to unity, complexes, particulars and properties. In other words, there's no way around the fact that words can mean only what we use them to mean, and that there's no foundation, for what we say, beneath our linguistic practices.
Precisely! If language is the foundation of meaning then you are already committed to anti-realism.
Unless there is no meaningful way to talk of some 'reality' that is not all-this-stuff-you-see-when-you-look-around. You know, the stuff that common language term reality is understood as a refence to, and which the word reality is taken by all who play the language game by the rules take it to mean.
Skepdick
Posts: 14363
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: 'States of Affairs" [Analytic] [Moral].

Post by Skepdick »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Wed Feb 10, 2021 2:02 pm Unless there is no meaningful way to talk of some 'reality' that is not all-this-stuff-you-see-when-you-look-around. You know, the stuff that common language term reality is understood as a refence to, and which the word reality is taken by all who play the language game by the rules take it to mean.
Dumb reductionist. You are yet to work your way up to semantic holism.

The common-language use of the term "reality" references EVERYTHING, which means that it refers to nothing in particular. And so "reality" cannot be understood in terms of its relations to other things, because "reality" doesn't relate to anything. There's no meaningful way to talk about reality anymore than there is a meaningful way to talk about truth.

It's precisely when you start chopping up reality into arbitrary categories is when you get yourself into trouble. All categorisation-schemes and permutations thereof are models/interpretations of reality. Unless you have some a-priori criteria for model-exclusion then ALL categorisation-schemes necessarily obtain. I am not saying anything extraordinary - I am simply saying that there are as many perspectives as there are interpreters.

To imply that language games have rules, is to imply that the social norms of language-use OUGHT to be adhered to. But you let that ship sail when you argued against objective values. If this is just a "language game" then from the PoV of linguistics and a game theory, why OUGHT anyone play by the game by the rules?

To channel Peter Holmes: What or where are these rules? Rules are just abstract, metaphysical nonsense. Show me a rule!

The question "WHY do you want to talk about anything?" is aimed at setting an interpretative frame for the participants in a dialogue.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3731
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: 'States of Affairs" [Analytic] [Moral].

Post by Peter Holmes »

Fatuous claims:

'If language is the foundation of meaning then you are already committed to anti-realism.'

Nope. That words can mean only what we use them to mean doesn't mean that language is the foundation of meaning. That claim is incoherent.
And nope. Realism and anti-realism are ontologies, and 'what exists' has nothing to do with language.

'There's nothing "outside" of language on which to base our linguistic practices. There's nothing outside of language upon which meaning could be based!'

Nope. That there's no foundation, for what we say, beneath our linguistic practices - just means that we can't ask what we talk about to tell us what
our words mean. Dogs and trees can't tell us if they really are what we call dogs and trees. But one of our linguistic practices is to talk about dogs,
trees and other features of what we call reality.

'Which is precisely why all that is necessary for morality to be objective is for us to say that it is!'

Nope. The words 'truth', 'fact' and 'objectivity' mean what we use them to mean. And we don't use them to refer to matters of opinion, such as
aesthetic and moral opinions. Instead, we very specifically use them to refer to what exists or existed. And, pending evidence for the actual
existence of things such as beauty, ugliness, moral rightness and moral wrongness - belief that they exist is irrational.

'We change the meaning of the word and BOOM! Done.'

Nope. Changing the ways we use the words 'truth', 'fact' and 'objectivity' would make absolutely no difference to what actually
does and doesn't exist. Moral rightness and wrongness still wouldn't exist.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: 'States of Affairs" [Analytic] [Moral].

Post by Terrapin Station »

Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Feb 10, 2021 4:45 pm 'If language is the foundation of meaning then you are already committed to anti-realism.'

Nope. That words can mean only what we use them to mean doesn't mean that language is the foundation of meaning. That claim is incoherent.
And nope. Realism and anti-realism are ontologies, and 'what exists' has nothing to do with language.
Well, and antirealism about what? Meaning? Or in general? If in general, that would only make the slightest lick of sense if one were of the view that ontology is all about meaning (and then we'd still need to hook together language implying antirealism rather than realism). If it's just antirealism about meaning, we still have the second problem there--needing to hook together language implying antirealism rather than realism.

Skepdick is too consistently stupid--I mean, every single post , no exaggeration, hinges on some remarkably dumb misunderstanding--to bother with. This is a good example why.
Skepdick
Posts: 14363
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: 'States of Affairs" [Analytic] [Moral].

Post by Skepdick »

Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Feb 10, 2021 4:45 pm Nope. That words can mean only what we use them to mean doesn't mean that language is the foundation of meaning. That claim is incoherent.
And nope. Realism and anti-realism are ontologies, and 'what exists' has nothing to do with language.
Moron. What do you mean by "meaning"?

Ahh well, the word "meaning" could only ever means whatever we use it to mean but....
Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Feb 10, 2021 1:47 pm there's no foundation beneath our linguistic practices.
So the word "meaning" doesn't mean anything.
Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Feb 10, 2021 4:45 pm That there's no foundation, for what we say, beneath our linguistic practices - just means that we can't ask what we talk about to tell us what
our words mean.
PRECISELY!

So there's no way to ask the question: What do you mean by "meaning"?

Because there's no foundation for "meaning". Ooops! Surprise self-buttsexing.
Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Feb 10, 2021 4:45 pm Nope. The words 'truth', 'fact' and 'objectivity' mean what we use them to mean.
What do you use the word "mean" to mean?
Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Feb 10, 2021 4:45 pm And we don't use them to refer to matters of opinion, such as
aesthetic and moral opinions. Instead, we very specifically use them to refer to what exists or existed. And, pending evidence for the actual
existence of things such as beauty, ugliness, moral rightness and moral wrongness - belief that they exist is irrational.
So do you believe in meaning, or would that be irrational?
Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Feb 10, 2021 4:45 pm Nope. Changing the ways we use the words 'truth', 'fact' and 'objectivity' would make absolutely no difference to what actually
does and doesn't exist. Moral rightness and wrongness still wouldn't exist.
So does meaning exist?
Last edited by Skepdick on Wed Feb 10, 2021 4:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3731
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: 'States of Affairs" [Analytic] [Moral].

Post by Peter Holmes »

Terrapin Station wrote: Wed Feb 10, 2021 4:50 pm
Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Feb 10, 2021 4:45 pm 'If language is the foundation of meaning then you are already committed to anti-realism.'

Nope. That words can mean only what we use them to mean doesn't mean that language is the foundation of meaning. That claim is incoherent.
And nope. Realism and anti-realism are ontologies, and 'what exists' has nothing to do with language.
Well, and antirealism about what? Meaning? Or in general? If in general, that would only make the slightest lick of sense if one were of the view that ontology is all about meaning (and then we'd still need to hook together language implying antirealism rather than realism). If it's just antirealism about meaning, we still have the second problem there--needing to hook together language implying antirealism rather than realism.

Skepdick is too consistently stupid--I mean, every single post , no exaggeration, hinges on some remarkably dumb misunderstanding--to bother with. This is a good example why.
Agreed. It's an unpleasant and intellectually challenged troll that I try not to feed.
Skepdick
Posts: 14363
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: 'States of Affairs" [Analytic] [Moral].

Post by Skepdick »

Terrapin Station wrote: Wed Feb 10, 2021 4:50 pm Well, and antirealism about what? Meaning? Or in general? If in general, that would only make the slightest lick of sense if one were of the view that ontology is all about meaning (and then we'd still need to hook together language implying antirealism rather than realism). If it's just antirealism about meaning, we still have the second problem there--needing to hook together language implying antirealism rather than realism.

Skepdick is too consistently stupid--I mean, every single post , no exaggeration, hinges on some remarkably dumb misunderstanding--to bother with. This is a good example why.
From where I am looking you are too stupid to actually understand semantic holism.

From that reference frame meaning IS the most general notion there is.
Last edited by Skepdick on Wed Feb 10, 2021 5:04 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: 'States of Affairs" [Analytic] [Moral].

Post by Terrapin Station »

Skepdick wrote: Wed Feb 10, 2021 5:00 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: Wed Feb 10, 2021 4:50 pm Well, and antirealism about what? Meaning? Or in general? If in general, that would only make the slightest lick of sense if one were of the view that ontology is all about meaning (and then we'd still need to hook together language implying antirealism rather than realism). If it's just antirealism about meaning, we still have the second problem there--needing to hook together language implying antirealism rather than realism.

Skepdick is too consistently stupid--I mean, every single post , no exaggeration, hinges on some remarkably dumb misunderstanding--to bother with. This is a good example why.
From where I am looking you are too stupid to actually understand semantic holism.

From that reference frame meaning IS the most general notion there is.
See, another remarkably stupid misunderstanding. You can't even comprehend a simple Wikipedia page about semantics.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6266
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: 'States of Affairs" [Analytic] [Moral].

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Skepdick wrote: Wed Feb 10, 2021 3:11 pm
FlashDangerpants wrote: Wed Feb 10, 2021 2:02 pm Unless there is no meaningful way to talk of some 'reality' that is not all-this-stuff-you-see-when-you-look-around. You know, the stuff that common language term reality is understood as a refence to, and which the word reality is taken by all who play the language game by the rules take it to mean.
Dumb reductionist. You are yet to work your way up to semantic holism.

The common-language use of the term "reality" references EVERYTHING....
No reason to bother reading beyond that point. There's the fictional, the unreal, the imaginary, and whatever your point was supposed to be. I'm bored of you again now.
Skepdick
Posts: 14363
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: 'States of Affairs" [Analytic] [Moral].

Post by Skepdick »

Terrapin Station wrote: Wed Feb 10, 2021 5:03 pm See, another remarkably stupid misunderstanding. You can't even comprehend a simple Wikipedia page about semantics.
Strawman.

Do you even comprehend what it means when I tell you that I am subscribed to the axiom of unrestricted comprehension?

At least one of us doesn't understand understanding, and it looks a lot like you.
Last edited by Skepdick on Wed Feb 10, 2021 5:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Skepdick
Posts: 14363
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: 'States of Affairs" [Analytic] [Moral].

Post by Skepdick »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Wed Feb 10, 2021 5:05 pm No reason to bother reading beyond that point. There's the fictional, the unreal, the imaginary, and whatever your point was supposed to be. I'm bored of you again now.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

That's just your pet categorisation-schema. Your own, personal model/interpretation of reality. It obtains.

All models obtain.
Post Reply