One [of many] Justification of Moral Facts as Real

[Skepdick]

"In my opinion all X are Y" and "It is certain that all X are Y" are superficially similar statements from different language games. Your continuum deal just ignores that and pretends that the only meaningful difference is some number you made up for the amount of belief involved. If you have ever read On Certainty and come to any conclusion that Wittgenstein agrees with what are writing, you did not understand it.

Your career focus on fine detail and being analytical hasn't been as good as you think it has. You seem to have some plan to publish, right? You will get anihilated if you don't start learning more from counter arguments than you have been so far. It would be so bad I might actually feel sorry for you.

You don't need to worry about paralysis by analysis and I have concerns about those peers who tell you otherwise. You do need to worry about this rut you are in where you cannot understand what other people are writing because you are too infatuated with what you have already written.

The 'verification and justification empirically and philosophically' thing you tack onto your arguments never fits there, it's just a phrase you use to avoid thinking about whether some claim you've made is true/false by definition or by observation so you try to make it both to make sure it can never be false.

Only very old fashioned philosophers think that realism and antirealism is an important, useful or even meaningful question. The fact that you are still doing it suggests that you should just stop pretending to this modernism thing, it isn't to your taste.

This entire posts sums up as "I don't like your hermeneutic. You should use mine."

[Veritas Aequitas]

"In my opinion all X are Y" and "It is certain that all X are Y" are superficially similar statements from different language games. Your continuum deal just ignores that and pretends that the only meaningful difference is some number you made up for the amount of belief involved. If you have ever read On Certainty and come to any conclusion that Wittgenstein agrees with what are writing, you did not understand it.

I sure understand the difference between
"In my opinion all X are Y" and "It is certain that all X are Y."
First there is no absolute 100% unconditional certainty.
Whatever is claimed with "certainty" is always conditioned to its specific framework and System of knowledge [FSK].

That conditional "certainty" correlates with "credibility" of the specific FSK.
As I had stated the most credible and reliable FSK is the scientific FSK as the standard bearer, despite its truths are at best "polished conjectures".

In Wittgenstein "On Certainty" my take away is Wittgenstein's views re "door hinges" and "river beds" in relation to truth which I can take as the specific FSK which is grounding the truth as claimed. In a way, they are related to the 'language games' played by whoever claimed their truth is.

Btw, are you aware of the history of Wittgenstein's "On Certainty" and how it came about, which is traceable to Kant's Challenge in the Preface of his CPR?

If you insist it is otherwise I will can refresh "On Certainty" again.

Your career focus on fine detail and being analytical hasn't been as good as you think it has. You seem to have some plan to publish, right? You will get anihilated if you don't start learning more from counter arguments than you have been so far. It would be so bad I might actually feel sorry for you.

You don't need to worry about paralysis by analysis and I have concerns about those peers who tell you otherwise. You do need to worry about this rut you are in where you cannot understand what other people are writing because you are too infatuated with what you have already written.

The 'verification and justification empirically and philosophically' thing you tack onto your arguments never fits there, it's just a phrase you use to avoid thinking about whether some claim you've made is true/false by definition or by observation so you try to make it both to make sure it can never be false.

Only very old fashioned philosophers think that realism and antirealism is an important, useful or even meaningful question. The fact that you are still doing it suggests that you should just stop pretending to this modernism thing, it isn't to your taste.

When I have the opportunity I will publish re my encompassing Moral Framework and System.

After the extensive research I have done, I can anticipate the critiques coming my way and in most cases it is because they are ignorant and to stuck with the conventional views of what is morality.
Most think Kant's morality is deontology but it is not.
As limited by the academic straight-jacket, most who deal with morality and ethics do not take into account the full-fledged range of human nature and the exponentially expanding and advancing knowledge we have today.

Modernism? you referring to Rorty and the modern pragmatists? or who else?
If so, the past philosophers were Yang all the way, and what Rorty et. al. are proposing is solely "Yin" all the way.
What I am heading towards is Yin-Yang in complementarity - aha! which is you think is metaphysical nonsense as with the LPs did.

[Peter Holmes]

What moral law? How did it get within him? Does everyone have it 'within them'? Or is it 'within' only the enlightened and rational? What are the elements of this supposed moral law? And on and on.

Now, you're impressed by this mystical claptrap, perhaps unaware of its direct descent from religious dogma about the supposed divine spark put there by an invented god. You've secularised the nonsense by talking about an 'oughtness' programmed into human brains - but its the same speculative rubbish, for which there's exactly the same empirical evidence: none.

Do you not think that people have moral dispositions due to their brain structure and function (which is as it is via a combo of genetics and environmental factors (including nutrition and all sorts of things))?

It's a fact that people have dispositions. But 'the moral law within' is a different kettle of synapses.

[FlashDangerpants]

"In my opinion all X are Y" and "It is certain that all X are Y" are superficially similar statements from different language games. Your continuum deal just ignores that and pretends that the only meaningful difference is some number you made up for the amount of belief involved. If you have ever read On Certainty and come to any conclusion that Wittgenstein agrees with what are writing, you did not understand it.

Your career focus on fine detail and being analytical hasn't been as good as you think it has. You seem to have some plan to publish, right? You will get anihilated if you don't start learning more from counter arguments than you have been so far. It would be so bad I might actually feel sorry for you.

You don't need to worry about paralysis by analysis and I have concerns about those peers who tell you otherwise. You do need to worry about this rut you are in where you cannot understand what other people are writing because you are too infatuated with what you have already written.

The 'verification and justification empirically and philosophically' thing you tack onto your arguments never fits there, it's just a phrase you use to avoid thinking about whether some claim you've made is true/false by definition or by observation so you try to make it both to make sure it can never be false.

Only very old fashioned philosophers think that realism and antirealism is an important, useful or even meaningful question. The fact that you are still doing it suggests that you should just stop pretending to this modernism thing, it isn't to your taste.

This entire posts sums up as "I don't like your hermeneutic. You should use mine."

That's untrue. I have no problem with him choosing to be an old fashioned neo-kantian. My advice is not to be that while transparently wishing he was something newer than that. To become this post-analytic thing he would have to drop the hermaneutic he actually prefers and adopt one that I prefer, but which he doesn't actually like at all.

An accurate description would therefore be "you don't like my hermaneutic, use the one you do like". If he ever does plan to put his work in front of real philosophers instead of a pisspot little web site with nasty areseholes like you and me on it, that's the best bit of advice he's received in his life.

[Skepdick]

To become this post-analytic thing he would have to drop the hermaneutic he actually prefers and adopt one that I prefer, but which he doesn't actually like at all.

An accurate description would therefore be "you don't like my hermaneutic, use the one you do like". If he ever does plan to put his work in front of real philosophers instead of a pisspot little web site with nasty areseholes like you and me on it, that's the best bit of advice he's received in his life.

You could've just said "target your audience in a language they understand"...

Which is perfectly find advice when one aims at persuasion.
It's horrible advice when one aims at discovering/creating new knowledge.

How do I persuade you that your framework is crap?

[FlashDangerpants]

"In my opinion all X are Y" and "It is certain that all X are Y" are superficially similar statements from different language games. Your continuum deal just ignores that and pretends that the only meaningful difference is some number you made up for the amount of belief involved. If you have ever read On Certainty and come to any conclusion that Wittgenstein agrees with what are writing, you did not understand it.

I sure understand the difference between
"In my opinion all X are Y" and "It is certain that all X are Y."
First there is no absolute 100% unconditional certainty.
Whatever is claimed with "certainty" is always conditioned to its specific framework and System of knowledge [FSK].

That conditional "certainty" correlates with "credibility" of the specific FSK.
As I had stated the most credible and reliable FSK is the scientific FSK as the standard bearer, despite its truths are at best "polished conjectures".

In Wittgenstein "On Certainty" my take away is Wittgenstein's views re "door hinges" and "river beds" in relation to truth which I can take as the specific FSK which is grounding the truth as claimed. In a way, they are related to the 'language games' played by whoever claimed their truth is.

Btw, are you aware of the history of Wittgenstein's "On Certainty" and how it came about, which is traceable to Kant's Challenge in the Preface of his CPR?

If you insist it is otherwise I will can refresh "On Certainty" again.

Sooooo ... are you working on the basis that the difference between "I know X ... " and "I believe X ..." is just a matter of percentage of ... certainty?
Like, would you say that really that's what it means to say the one thing instead of the other?

Your career focus on fine detail and being analytical hasn't been as good as you think it has. You seem to have some plan to publish, right? You will get anihilated if you don't start learning more from counter arguments than you have been so far. It would be so bad I might actually feel sorry for you.

You don't need to worry about paralysis by analysis and I have concerns about those peers who tell you otherwise. You do need to worry about this rut you are in where you cannot understand what other people are writing because you are too infatuated with what you have already written.

The 'verification and justification empirically and philosophically' thing you tack onto your arguments never fits there, it's just a phrase you use to avoid thinking about whether some claim you've made is true/false by definition or by observation so you try to make it both to make sure it can never be false.

Only very old fashioned philosophers think that realism and antirealism is an important, useful or even meaningful question. The fact that you are still doing it suggests that you should just stop pretending to this modernism thing, it isn't to your taste.

When I have the opportunity I will publish re my encompassing Moral Framework and System.

After the extensive research I have done, I can anticipate the critiques coming my way and in most cases it is because they are ignorant and to stuck with the conventional views of what is morality.
Most think Kant's morality is deontology but it is not.
As limited by the academic straight-jacket, most who deal with morality and ethics do not take into account the full-fledged range of human nature and the exponentially expanding and advancing knowledge we have today.

That's going to go horribly for you.

I always took all that stuff in Kant about morality being a case of following imperatives to be pretty deontological too. Maybe you should do a seperate thread to enlighten such fools as I - I'm not particularly expert on Kant personally so I've decided to wait and see how that goes.

Modernism? you referring to Rorty and the modern pragmatists? or who else?
If so, the past philosophers were Yang all the way, and what Rorty et. al. are proposing is solely "Yin" all the way.
What I am heading towards is Yin-Yang in complementarity - aha! which is you think is metaphysical nonsense as with the LPs did.

I said it was mysticism. It is. You can drone on about it if you want, but I will just skip those bits.

[Veritas Aequitas]

"In my opinion all X are Y" and "It is certain that all X are Y" are superficially similar statements from different language games. Your continuum deal just ignores that and pretends that the only meaningful difference is some number you made up for the amount of belief involved. If you have ever read On Certainty and come to any conclusion that Wittgenstein agrees with what are writing, you did not understand it.

I sure understand the difference between
"In my opinion all X are Y" and "It is certain that all X are Y."
First there is no absolute 100% unconditional certainty.
Whatever is claimed with "certainty" is always conditioned to its specific framework and System of knowledge [FSK].

That conditional "certainty" correlates with "credibility" of the specific FSK.
As I had stated the most credible and reliable FSK is the scientific FSK as the standard bearer, despite its truths are at best "polished conjectures".

In Wittgenstein "On Certainty" my take away is Wittgenstein's views re "door hinges" and "river beds" in relation to truth which I can take as the specific FSK which is grounding the truth as claimed. In a way, they are related to the 'language games' played by whoever claimed their truth is.

Btw, are you aware of the history of Wittgenstein's "On Certainty" and how it came about, which is traceable to Kant's Challenge in the Preface of his CPR?

If you insist it is otherwise I will can refresh "On Certainty" again.

Sooooo ... are you working on the basis that the difference between "I know X ... " and "I believe X ..." is just a matter of percentage of ... certainty?
Like, would you say that really that's what it means to say the one thing instead of the other?

It is not impossible to work out % of certainty if we can set up a "FSK of certainty" based on some agreed criteria like how sports competition e.g. "Diving" marks are quantified from 0/7 to 7/7 [100%].
It is obvious we can rate the certainty % [confidence levels] relatively to that of the creationists' claim with that of a physicists on the claims of the origin of the Universe.

Your career focus on fine detail and being analytical hasn't been as good as you think it has. You seem to have some plan to publish, right? You will get anihilated if you don't start learning more from counter arguments than you have been so far. It would be so bad I might actually feel sorry for you.

You don't need to worry about paralysis by analysis and I have concerns about those peers who tell you otherwise. You do need to worry about this rut you are in where you cannot understand what other people are writing because you are too infatuated with what you have already written.

The 'verification and justification empirically and philosophically' thing you tack onto your arguments never fits there, it's just a phrase you use to avoid thinking about whether some claim you've made is true/false by definition or by observation so you try to make it both to make sure it can never be false.

Only very old fashioned philosophers think that realism and antirealism is an important, useful or even meaningful question. The fact that you are still doing it suggests that you should just stop pretending to this modernism thing, it isn't to your taste.

When I have the opportunity I will publish re my encompassing Moral Framework and System.

After the extensive research I have done, I can anticipate the critiques coming my way and in most cases it is because they are ignorant and to stuck with the conventional views of what is morality.
Most think Kant's morality is deontology but it is not.
As limited by the academic straight-jacket, most who deal with morality and ethics do not take into account the full-fledged range of human nature and the exponentially expanding and advancing knowledge we have today.

That's going to go horribly for you.

I always took all that stuff in Kant about morality being a case of following imperatives to be pretty deontological too. Maybe you should do a seperate thread to enlighten such fools as I - I'm not particularly expert on Kant personally so I've decided to wait and see how that goes.

I won't be discussing that.

Modernism? you referring to Rorty and the modern pragmatists? or who else?
If so, the past philosophers were Yang all the way, and what Rorty et. al. are proposing is solely "Yin" all the way.
What I am heading towards is Yin-Yang in complementarity - aha! which is you think is metaphysical nonsense as with the LPs did.

I said it was mysticism. It is. You can drone on about it if you want, but I will just skip those bits.

It is unfortunate, that is an LP attitude when you don't survey the full extent of what is Yin-Yang principle fundamentally about beside its unfortunate clouding by woo woo matters at the fringes.

Note, surely you can agree with Newtonian Physics principles even when Newton claimed all his theories are grounded upon a God creating all those things, laws and principles in the first place.

[Veritas Aequitas]

"In my opinion all X are Y" and "It is certain that all X are Y" are superficially similar statements from different language games. Your continuum deal just ignores that and pretends that the only meaningful difference is some number you made up for the amount of belief involved. If you have ever read On Certainty and come to any conclusion that Wittgenstein agrees with what are writing, you did not understand it.

Your career focus on fine detail and being analytical hasn't been as good as you think it has. You seem to have some plan to publish, right? You will get anihilated if you don't start learning more from counter arguments than you have been so far. It would be so bad I might actually feel sorry for you.

You don't need to worry about paralysis by analysis and I have concerns about those peers who tell you otherwise. You do need to worry about this rut you are in where you cannot understand what other people are writing because you are too infatuated with what you have already written.

The 'verification and justification empirically and philosophically' thing you tack onto your arguments never fits there, it's just a phrase you use to avoid thinking about whether some claim you've made is true/false by definition or by observation so you try to make it both to make sure it can never be false.

Only very old fashioned philosophers think that realism and antirealism is an important, useful or even meaningful question. The fact that you are still doing it suggests that you should just stop pretending to this modernism thing, it isn't to your taste.

This entire posts sums up as "I don't like your hermeneutic. You should use mine."

That's untrue. I have no problem with him choosing to be an old fashioned neo-kantian. My advice is not to be that while transparently wishing he was something newer than that. To become this post-analytic thing he would have to drop the hermaneutic he actually prefers and adopt one that I prefer, but which he doesn't actually like at all.

An accurate description would therefore be "you don't like my hermaneutic, use the one you do like". If he ever does plan to put his work in front of real philosophers instead of a pisspot little web site with nasty areseholes like you and me on it, that's the best bit of advice he's received in his life.

I don't prefer the neo-Kantian label.
There is nothing really new [fundamentally] from Kant that is already in the core of Buddhism [rising from 2500+ years ago].
The only difference is Kant is more systematic and organized in his delivery.

I would be interested to know what does your hermeneutics entailed.

[FlashDangerpants]

I sure understand the difference between
"In my opinion all X are Y" and "It is certain that all X are Y."
First there is no absolute 100% unconditional certainty.
Whatever is claimed with "certainty" is always conditioned to its specific framework and System of knowledge [FSK].

That conditional "certainty" correlates with "credibility" of the specific FSK.
As I had stated the most credible and reliable FSK is the scientific FSK as the standard bearer, despite its truths are at best "polished conjectures".

In Wittgenstein "On Certainty" my take away is Wittgenstein's views re "door hinges" and "river beds" in relation to truth which I can take as the specific FSK which is grounding the truth as claimed. In a way, they are related to the 'language games' played by whoever claimed their truth is.

Btw, are you aware of the history of Wittgenstein's "On Certainty" and how it came about, which is traceable to Kant's Challenge in the Preface of his CPR?

If you insist it is otherwise I will can refresh "On Certainty" again.

Sooooo ... are you working on the basis that the difference between "I know X ... " and "I believe X ..." is just a matter of percentage of ... certainty?
Like, would you say that really that's what it means to say the one thing instead of the other?

It is not impossible to work out % of certainty if we can set up a "FSK of certainty" based on some agreed criteria like how sports competition e.g. "Diving" marks are quantified from 0/7 to 7/7 [100%].
It is obvious we can rate the certainty % [confidence levels] relatively to that of the creationists' claim with that of a physicists on the claims of the origin of the Universe.

So in order to have your FSK about morality-proper become true, we need to have a new FSK about truth-and-fact-and-belief-proper, for which we need a new FSK for counting-how-much-we-believe-proper.

When I have the opportunity I will publish re my encompassing Moral Framework and System.

After the extensive research I have done, I can anticipate the critiques coming my way and in most cases it is because they are ignorant and to stuck with the conventional views of what is morality.
Most think Kant's morality is deontology but it is not.
As limited by the academic straight-jacket, most who deal with morality and ethics do not take into account the full-fledged range of human nature and the exponentially expanding and advancing knowledge we have today.

That's going to go horribly for you.

I always took all that stuff in Kant about morality being a case of following imperatives to be pretty deontological too. Maybe you should do a seperate thread to enlighten such fools as I - I'm not particularly expert on Kant personally so I've decided to wait and see how that goes.

I won't be discussing that.

Oh ok, so this is a tell don't show game where you announce how much you think you are the world's leading expert on Kant and we just say sure, now we've been told, we don't have any further questions.

Modernism? you referring to Rorty and the modern pragmatists? or who else?
If so, the past philosophers were Yang all the way, and what Rorty et. al. are proposing is solely "Yin" all the way.
What I am heading towards is Yin-Yang in complementarity - aha! which is you think is metaphysical nonsense as with the LPs did.

I said it was mysticism. It is. You can drone on about it if you want, but I will just skip those bits.

It is unfortunate, that is an LP attitude when you don't survey the full extent of what is Yin-Yang principle fundamentally about beside its unfortunate clouding by woo woo matters at the fringes.

Note, surely you can agree with Newtonian Physics principles even when Newton claimed all his theories are grounded upon a God creating all those things, laws and principles in the first place.

I'm not stooping to discussing mysticism. There's a religion sub for that stuff, I hardly ever join in with it.

[FlashDangerpants]

I don't prefer the neo-Kantian label.
There is nothing really new [fundamentally] from Kant that is already in the core of Buddhism [rising from 2500+ years ago].
The only difference is Kant is more systematic and organized in his delivery.

I would be interested to know what does your hermeneutics entailed.

Call yourself whatever you like, I'm surprised you haven't adopted the title of Philosopher-Proper anyway.

The point is that you interpret all philosphical questions in a very old fashioned way, so you don't actually seem to like the newer stuff much. And thus your public yearning to be what comes after analytic philosophy doesn't make much sense. Now you are representing the year 500 BC apparently, which rather underlines that point.

I only ever use that 'FSK' term in conversation with you, talk of hermaneutics is overblown in this context, as is to be expected from the dude who keeps posting pictures of red circles in a silly attempt to drag some poor fool into a 6 week game of duck-rabbit. I only used it because it at all because I replied to a post that contained it.

It should be fairly obvious to anybody that what I write outside of the political philosphy sub isn't terribly original, and I mostly pinch it from Wittgenstein, with no doubt many severe errors for which poor old Ludwig should not be held responsible. If I ever give the accidental appearance of subtlety, that would probably be something I stole from some other source, most likely Isiah Berlin.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Sooooo ... are you working on the basis that the difference between "I know X ... " and "I believe X ..." is just a matter of percentage of ... certainty?
Like, would you say that really that's what it means to say the one thing instead of the other?

It is not impossible to work out % of certainty if we can set up a "FSK of certainty" based on some agreed criteria like how sports competition e.g. "Diving" marks are quantified from 0/7 to 7/7 [100%].
It is obvious we can rate the certainty % [confidence levels] relatively to that of the creationists' claim with that of a physicists on the claims of the origin of the Universe.

So in order to have your FSK about morality-proper become true, we need to have a new FSK about truth-and-fact-and-belief-proper, for which we need a new FSK for counting-how-much-we-believe-proper.

If is not about whether my morality FSK is true or not as whether it is credible or not relative to the credibility of the scientific FSK.

In this case the question is whether the justified moral facts from the supposed credible moral FSK are solidly grounded, verifiable, justifiable testable and repeatable or not in real life or in thought experiments?

I have already given you an obvious self-evident proof and empirical proof.
It is self-evident you and most of those you know do not go about killing humans upon impulse at any time. WHY??
It is also self-evident the 7 billion + of majority do not go about killing humans upon some impulse at any time. WHY??
This is a VERY STRONG induction argument.
Why? because of my thesis - 'no human ought to kill humans' as programmed via evolutions on an "apparent" biological teleology.

The above is crude, thus we need to subject the above to more rigorous verifications, tests and justifications.

[FlashDangerpants]

It is not impossible to work out % of certainty if we can set up a "FSK of certainty" based on some agreed criteria like how sports competition e.g. "Diving" marks are quantified from 0/7 to 7/7 [100%].
It is obvious we can rate the certainty % [confidence levels] relatively to that of the creationists' claim with that of a physicists on the claims of the origin of the Universe.

So in order to have your FSK about morality-proper become true, we need to have a new FSK about truth-and-fact-and-belief-proper, for which we need a new FSK for counting-how-much-we-believe-proper.

If is not about whether my morality FSK is true or not as whether it is credible or not relative to the credibility of the scientific FSK.

In this case the question is whether the justified moral facts from the supposed credible moral FSK are solidly grounded, verifiable, justifiable testable and repeatable or not in real life or in thought experiments?

I have already given you an obvious self-evident proof and empirical proof.
It is self-evident you and most of those you know do not go about killing humans upon impulse at any time. WHY??
It is also self-evident the 7 billion + of majority do not go about killing humans upon some impulse at any time. WHY??
This is a VERY STRONG induction argument.
Why? because of my thesis - 'no human ought to kill humans' as programmed via evolutions on an "apparent" biological teleology.

The above is crude, thus we need to subject the above to more rigorous verifications, tests and justifications.

"apparent"?
Are you planning to sky hook this or is it a cranes thing?

[Veritas Aequitas]

I don't prefer the neo-Kantian label.
There is nothing really new [fundamentally] from Kant that is already in the core of Buddhism [rising from 2500+ years ago].
The only difference is Kant is more systematic and organized in his delivery.

I would be interested to know what does your hermeneutics entailed.

Call yourself whatever you like, I'm surprised you haven't adopted the title of Philosopher-Proper anyway.

The point is that you interpret all philosphical questions in a very old fashioned way, so you don't actually seem to like the newer stuff much. And thus your public yearning to be what comes after analytic philosophy doesn't make much sense. Now you are representing the year 500 BC apparently, which rather underlines that point.

I only ever use that 'FSK' term in conversation with you, talk of hermaneutics is overblown in this context, as is to be expected from the dude who keeps posting pictures of red circles in a silly attempt to drag some poor fool into a 6 week game of duck-rabbit. I only used it because it at all because I replied to a post that contained it.

It should be fairly obvious to anybody that what I write outside of the political philosphy sub isn't terribly original, and I mostly pinch it from Wittgenstein, with no doubt many severe errors for which poor old Ludwig should not be held responsible. If I ever give the accidental appearance of subtlety, that would probably be something I stole from some other source, most likely Isiah Berlin.

Old fashion??
not especially when I condemned the off-tangent bastardized philosophies of the logical positivists and classical analytic philosophers.
In addition, I always refer to the trend of the exponential expansion of knowledge and technology, e.g. the neurosciences, cognitive sciences, etc. etc.

Yes, there is such thing as philosophy-proper which is "programmed" within all humans but merely active is some and dormant in the majority.

The point is the core of the 2500 year old, 500BC Buddhism is in alignment with the inherent philosophy-proper but many who are not in alignment with its core engages with its woo woo elements of rebirth, heaven, gods, idol-worshipping at the fringes.

If you follow the trend [internet], there has been a trend in the surge of Buddhism's core teachings. If one were to get into Buddhism-proper and adopt its practices, one will gain its benefits objectively which are supported by loads of research findings.

Isiah Berlin main focus is on politics with the analytic bent and there is really nothing interesting from him in other philosophical subjects.
So you don't have any solid philosophical groundings to stand in justifying your philosophical views.
I am not saying that is a bad thing, but if you don't have any philosophical groundings [giant shoulders to stand on] you will have to present a paper for every view you hold and express.

[Skepdick]

"apparent"?
Are you planning to sky hook this or is it a cranes thing?

So this other dude on this forum started a thread about dogmatism.

You should go check it out. He makes some good points about forcing people to believe what you believe without argument.

I think it applies pertinently to your belief in foundationalism. Perhaps you two can have a chat?

[FlashDangerpants]

I don't prefer the neo-Kantian label.
There is nothing really new [fundamentally] from Kant that is already in the core of Buddhism [rising from 2500+ years ago].
The only difference is Kant is more systematic and organized in his delivery.

I would be interested to know what does your hermeneutics entailed.

Call yourself whatever you like, I'm surprised you haven't adopted the title of Philosopher-Proper anyway.

The point is that you interpret all philosphical questions in a very old fashioned way, so you don't actually seem to like the newer stuff much. And thus your public yearning to be what comes after analytic philosophy doesn't make much sense. Now you are representing the year 500 BC apparently, which rather underlines that point.

I only ever use that 'FSK' term in conversation with you, talk of hermaneutics is overblown in this context, as is to be expected from the dude who keeps posting pictures of red circles in a silly attempt to drag some poor fool into a 6 week game of duck-rabbit. I only used it because it at all because I replied to a post that contained it.

It should be fairly obvious to anybody that what I write outside of the political philosphy sub isn't terribly original, and I mostly pinch it from Wittgenstein, with no doubt many severe errors for which poor old Ludwig should not be held responsible. If I ever give the accidental appearance of subtlety, that would probably be something I stole from some other source, most likely Isiah Berlin.

Old fashion??
not especially when I condemned the off-tangent bastardized philosophies of the logical positivists and classical analytic philosophers.
In addition, I always refer to the trend of the exponential expansion of knowledge and technology, e.g. the neurosciences, cognitive sciences, etc. etc.

Yet you are still arguing about whether reality is relly real or not. So yes, you are deeply old fashioned. You are a fossil.

Yes, there is such thing as philosophy-proper which is "programmed" within all humans but merely active is some and dormant in the majority.

That deserves nothing more than "lol"

... <bunch of religion stuff to be ignored goes here>...

Meh

Isiah Berlin main focus is on politics with the analytic bent and there is really nothing interesting from him in other philosophical subjects.
So you don't have any solid philosophical groundings to stand in justifying your philosophical views.
I am not saying that is a bad thing, but if you don't have any philosophical groundings [giant shoulders to stand on] you will have to present a paper for every view you hold and express.

Whatever, it's not like I'm really feeling a deep need to discuss value pluralism with you anyway, you wouldn't get it.