Peter's vs VA's 'What is Fact'

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

Post Reply
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Peter's vs VA's 'What is Fact'

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=32765
From the definition of what is fact from the various dictionaries of philosophy, I can summary the confusion from my perspective.

1.In 1739, David Hume cast a fork aggressively dividing "relations of ideas" from "matters of fact and real existence", such that all truths are of one type or the other.[17][18] By Hume's fork, truths by relations among ideas (abstract) all align on one side (analytic, necessary, a priori), whereas truths by states of actualities (concrete) always align on the other side (synthetic, contingent, a posteriori).[17] Of any treatises containing neither, Hume orders, "Commit it then to the flames, for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion".[17]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_p ... Principles

2. Then the Logical Positivists adopted Hume's above point as an ideology and clung to the 'matter of fact' dogmatically and arrogantly but then,

3. The last well-known systematic philosophy of facts was the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus of Wittgenstein, which depended heavily on a conception of atomic or basic facts, conceived as logically simple, independent structures in a logical space.
But Wittgenstein repudiated the metaphysic in his later work.

4. Despite the abandonment by the later-Wittgenstein, Peter Holmes still clung onto the idea of 'matter of fact' Note the OP of Peter's trolling thread "What could make morality objective?" [Jul 2018]

5.
Peter Holmes wrote: Sat Jul 14, 2018 10:29 am It seems to me this question - which has emerged from discussion of my post 'Is morality objective or subjective?' - is the crux in the disagreement between objectivists and subjectivists.
But this assumes that there is indeed something to be known: an object of some kind that verifies the assertion slavery is wrong and falsifies the assertion slavery is right - or, perhaps, vice versa. But what is the object that makes moral judgements objective - matters of fact - and therefore true or false?
So what is it that moral objectivists claim about moral judgements that makes them objective - matters of fact, falsifiable and independent of judgement, belief or opinion?
6. I knew there was something suspicious with Peter's use of the bastardized 'matter of fact' to support his argument, thus I raised the following counter to expose the delusion.

7.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Nov 07, 2020 11:29 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Sat Nov 07, 2020 9:45 am What matters is the nature and function of true factual assertions - what makes them factual and true.
I believe whatever is fact based on the above is a delusional fact, i.e. based on an illusion.
........
The point is whatever fact of reality, it must be justified empirical and philosophy to be true.
.......
Thus whatever facts to you which you insist are absolutely real [unconditional] they are merely delusional facts.
8. The point is while I am trying to refer to "what is fact" as related to something real which is verifiable and justifiable,
Peter has been to clinging to 'what is fact' as some metaphysical things which itself cannot be subject to verification and justification empirically and philosophically.

9. So Peter had been trolling us with an illusion.

10. To avoid Peter's deception I should have avoided the term moral fact in relation to his delusional 'matter of fact' insisted to use the term a real moral thing which is verifiable and justifiable empirically and philosophically to be real.
Post Reply