Prepositions, Facts, States of Affairs - all Groundless

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: 12239
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Prepositions, Facts, States of Affairs - all Groundless

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes, et. al. often throw the terms 'propositions' 'facts' and 'states of affairs' to justify their ideology of what-is-reality and there are no objective moral facts.

I took a deeper philosophical dive into the above terms [PH's specific] via the following links from SEP [has reasonable philosophical credibility] and note all of them are groundless.


Re Propositions;
  • The term ‘Proposition’ has a broad use in contemporary philosophy. It is used to refer to some or all of the following:
    • the primary bearers of truth-value,
    • the objects of belief and other “Propositional attitudes” (i.e., what is believed, doubted, etc.[1]),
    • the referents of that-clauses, and
    • the meanings of sentences.
The term 'proposition' is too broad' and loose so we have rely on 'facts' and 'state of affairs'.


re States-of-affairs, it is unsettled matter;
  • 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 is still open.

re Facts
  • The word “fact” is used in at least two different ways.

    First:
    In the locution “matters of fact”, facts are taken to be
    what is contingently the case, or
    that of which we may have empirical or a posteriori knowledge.

    Second;
    The word [fact] is also used in locutions such as
    • It is a fact that Sam is sad
    • That Sam is sad is a fact
    • That 2+2=4 is a fact.

    In this second use, the functor (operator, connective) “It is a fact that” takes a sentence to make a sentence
    (an alternative view has it that “It is a fact” takes a nominalised sentence, a that-clause, to make a sentence),
    and the predicate “is a fact” is either elliptic for the functor, or takes a nominalised sentence to make a sentence.

    It is locutions of this second sort that philosophers have often employed in order to claim (or deny) that facts are part of the inventory of what there is,
    and play an important role in semantics, ontology, metaphysics, epistemology and the philosophy of mind.
    https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/facts/
Note the first related to 'matter of fact' and is contingently the case, or
that of which we may have empirical or a posteriori knowledge.

The second is merely linguistic, i.e. a play with words and meaning.

In addition,
  • Is a fact just a true Proposition?
    There are metaphysical and linguistic arguments to the contrary.
In this case, what is fact is very debatable in relation to metaphysical and linguistic arguments

What is more reasonable regarding 'what is fact' is this;
  • Frege famously wrote,
    “‘Facts, facts, facts’ cries the scientist if he wants to bring home the necessity of a firm foundation for science.
    What is a fact?
    A fact is a thought that is true.” (1918, p. 25)
    http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/propositions/
A better approach to what is fact would be this;
  • First:
    In the locution “matters of fact”, facts are taken to be
    what is contingently the case, or
    that of which we may have empirical or a posteriori knowledge.

    Thus Hume famously writes at the beginning of Section IV of An Enquiry concerning Human Understanding:
    “All the objects of human reason or inquiry may naturally be divided into two kinds, to wit,
    1. Relations of Ideas and
    2. Matters of Fact”.

    The latter option [Humean] is expounded in the influential philosophy of facts to be found in Wittgenstein’s Tractatus (1921).
    Wittgenstein there announces that the world is the totality of facts and that every fact is contingent (Wittgenstein TLP: 1.1).
    https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/facts/
All the above 'matter of fact' is most credible when justified within the Scientific Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK].

As such amidst of the blah, blah, blah within a deeper philosophical discussion of what is fact, the fundamental principles of what is fact is represented via the WIKI's definition of what is fact, i.e.
A fact is something that is true.
The usual test for a statement of fact is verifiability, that is whether it can be demonstrated to correspond to experience. Standard reference works are often used to check facts.
Scientific facts are verified by repeatable careful observation or measurement by experiments or other means.

For example,
"This sentence contains words." accurately describes a linguistic fact, and
"The sun is a star" accurately describes an astronomical fact. Further,
"Abraham Lincoln was the 16th President of the United States" and "Abraham Lincoln was assassinated" both accurately describe historical facts.

Generally speaking, facts are independent of belief and of knowledge and opinion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact
Thus,
All facts are conditioned upon its specific FSK.
i.e. Scientific facts are are conditioned upon the scientific FSK [the most credible at present].
Thus moral facts are are conditioned upon the moral FSK.

Btw, my moral facts are not related to 'moral' statements of what is right or wrong morally but rather are grounded on matter of fact of the inherent moral potential represent by its physical neural correlates in the brain and body.


My point,
Peter Holmes et. al., your counters against my claims "there are objective moral facts" are a sham based on your groundless terms re prepositions, facts and state-of-affairs and your dogmatic ideological view of what is morality.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6207
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: PrOpositions, Facts, States of Affairs - all Groundless

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Does he know that he just barfed up a big old slice of Logical Positivism?
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6591
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: PrOpositions, Facts, States of Affairs - all Groundless

Post by Iwannaplato »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Thu May 19, 2022 8:14 am Does he know that he just barfed up a big old slice of Logical Positivism?
I guess for me the continuing oddity is this...
Scientific facts are are conditioned upon the scientific FSK [the most credible at present].
So, science has the most credible FSK. Scientific research has concluded that there was no life on earth in its early stages, but there was a planet here.

I really do wonder how he thinks life arose? (now, ironically, I do think life is necessary for anything to exist. But I am a panpsychist. It's my best guess anyway. And then you can have a planet without plants and bacteria and what is called life because there was some rudimentary awareness in matter)
But in his system, where he seems only to grudgingly allow for consciousness outside of humans, how did life arise? It noticed itself? There was nothing before life. So, there was nothing. So, suddenly life appeared - perhaps when the first primates arrived - and a whole world around them. So, suddenly an extremely complicated planet with an extremely complicated ecology, geology and weather systems appeared because the first consciousness arose (how?) and noticed everything around it.

I don't understand these anti-realists who only drive a little ways down the anti-reality road.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6207
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: PrOpositions, Facts, States of Affairs - all Groundless

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Iwannaplato wrote: Thu May 19, 2022 12:07 pm
FlashDangerpants wrote: Thu May 19, 2022 8:14 am Does he know that he just barfed up a big old slice of Logical Positivism?
I guess for me the continuing oddity is this...
Scientific facts are are conditioned upon the scientific FSK [the most credible at present].
So, science has the most credible FSK. Scientific research has concluded that there was no life on earth in its early stages, but there was a planet here.

I really do wonder how he thinks life arose? (now, ironically, I do think life is necessary for anything to exist. But I am a panpsychist. It's my best guess anyway. And then you can have a planet without plants and bacteria and what is called life because there was some rudimentary awareness in matter)
But in his system, where he seems only to grudgingly allow for consciousness outside of humans, how did life arise? It noticed itself? There was nothing before life. So, there was nothing. So, suddenly life appeared - perhaps when the first primates arrived - and a whole world around them. So, suddenly an extremely complicated planet with an extremely complicated ecology, geology and weather systems appeared because the first consciousness arose (how?) and noticed everything around it.

I don't understand these anti-realists who only drive a little ways down the anti-reality road.
It's all extraordinarily weird. I agree the combo of anti-realist in all affairs except morality just never made the slightest bit of sense.

His approach to facts is even worse. Up there he's repeatedly written that things must be true in order to be facts. But he's also committed to things like Astrology and beauty pageants being sourcs of facts, as well as to entirely contradictory things even where there is a paradox. When he gets himself into difficulty he always briefly agrees with Skepdick who will tell you that mutually exclusive fact claims can be simultaneously true if you are just willing to make that the entire point of your new logic and forget everythiong else. But as soon as he doesn't need to hide behind Skepdick, he goes back to saying facts must be true.

He's in a weird liar's paradox where facts must be true, but that fact is still true even if facts don't need to be true.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: PrOpositions, Facts, States of Affairs - all Groundless

Post by Skepdick »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Thu May 19, 2022 12:28 pm mutually exclusive fact claims can be simultaneously true if you are just willing to make that the entire point of your new logic and forget everythiong else.
What a colourful wordsalad that was.

Which part of "no privileged descriptions" is going over your head exactly? There is no such thing as "mutual exclusivity" in facts.
Mutual exclusivity is about resource contention.

You say the lights are on. I say the lights as off. We get to say whatever we want, simultaneously - no conflict can come about from such activity!
You want to toggle the lights. I don't want you to toggle the lights. One of us can't get what he wants - conflict!

Whether the light is on; or off - I don't care. Describe them however you want, just don't fucking toggle them.
FlashDangerpants wrote: Thu May 19, 2022 12:28 pm He's in a weird liar's paradox where facts must be true, but that fact is still true even if facts don't need to be true.
That's because he understands (better than you it seems) that truth/facts/assertions are valid only relative to a model/interpretative framework.
Atla
Posts: 6607
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: PrOpositions, Facts, States of Affairs - all Groundless

Post by Atla »

Iwannaplato wrote: Thu May 19, 2022 12:07 pm now, ironically, I do think life is necessary for anything to exist. But I am a panpsychist. It's my best guess anyway. And then you can have a planet without plants and bacteria and what is called life because there was some rudimentary awareness in matter
You're smart, you can do better than that. Panpsychism is the best guess within Western philosophy, but all Western philosophy is fundamentally retarded due to the inherent cognitive double-vision. For example there is no rudimentary awareness "in" matter, because rudimentary awareness and matter are one and the same thing. In Western philosophy we see it as two things, this view needs to be collapsed. Beyond panpsychism lies the final philosophy of nondualism.

It's not even a literal awareness, it's just witness-consciousness which is simply another word existence. Life doesn't have anything to do with this fundamentally, the division of the world into living and non-living is pretty much arbitrary.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6591
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: PrOpositions, Facts, States of Affairs - all Groundless

Post by Iwannaplato »

Atla wrote: Thu May 19, 2022 8:42 pm You're smart, you can do better than that. Panpsychism is the best guess within Western philosophy, but all Western philosophy is fundamentally retarded due to the inherent cognitive double-vision. For example there is no rudimentary awareness "in" matter, because rudimentary awareness and matter are one and the same thing.
That's peachy with me.
In Western philosophy we see it as two things,
I tend to see it as a facet of matter. Not another thing. Actually I don't really like the word matter. It has so much metaphysical bias. It sounds like it is talking about substance. Like materialism (or physicalism) is staking a claim that what is is matter, not something else, or physical not something else. But since what is considered physical/material has been expanding and the kinds of 'things' that can be considered these things is much more broad criteriawise, it just means real stuff. But consciousness is a facet of what is, all of it.
this view needs to be collapsed. Beyond panpsychism lies the final philosophy of nondualism.
I suppose I am sort of a believer in spectrumism, stuff is on a spectrum of tendencies. But I don't have much practical use for hardening into a monist or dualist or even a spectrumist position. I find those ways of conceiving seem pretty good in different contexts.
It's not even a literal awareness, it's just witness-consciousness which is simply another word existence. Life doesn't have anything to do with this fundamentally, the division of the world into living and non-living is pretty much arbitrary.
Yeah, I find that conception of the self or what is as limited. The emotions are, for example, treated like internal weather, but consciousness, is where it's at. Well, partially sure. And then desire too, tends to be disidentified with in non-dualist witness belief systems. I often find both an interperson dualism - hey those emotions and desire are ookie - and a denied ontological dualism. That may not apply in any way to you.
Atla
Posts: 6607
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: PrOpositions, Facts, States of Affairs - all Groundless

Post by Atla »

Iwannaplato wrote: Thu May 19, 2022 8:52 pmI tend to see it as a facet of matter. Not another thing. Actually I don't really like the word matter. It has so much metaphysical bias. It sounds like it is talking about substance. Like materialism (or physicalism) is staking a claim that what is is matter, not something else, or physical not something else. But since what is considered physical/material has been expanding and the kinds of 'things' that can be considered these things is much more broad criteriawise, it just means real stuff. But consciousness is a facet of what is, all of it.
My point is that the learned Western double-vision can take a million different forms, no matter how subtle. For example "consciousness is a facet of what is" is still a double-vision, it should be collapsed.
Yeah, I find that conception of the self or what is as limited. The emotions are, for example, treated like internal weather, but consciousness, is where it's at. Well, partially sure. And then desire too, tends to be disidentified with in non-dualist witness belief systems. I often find both an interperson dualism - hey those emotions and desire are ookie - and a denied ontological dualism. That may not apply in any way to you.
Nah, that kind of "pop" nondualism is also retarded imo. Emotions, desires, the ego etc. are totally part of the local human consciousness and we should usually identify with them. The trick is to realize however that human consciousness is simply part of the witness-consciousness, everything is the witness-consciousness in other words existence. Consciousness has two meanings that we usually conflate.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6591
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: PrOpositions, Facts, States of Affairs - all Groundless

Post by Iwannaplato »

Atla wrote: Thu May 19, 2022 9:05 pm My point is that the learned Western double-vision can take a million different forms, no matter how subtle. For example "consciousness is a facet of what is" is still a double-vision, it should be collapsed.
Why?

And it ain't just Western. Most of the East is very dualist. At least in their religions. Officially they have no problems with the limbic system, but socially and in spiritual practice, woh. They got techniques to scalpel that out of you.
Atla
Posts: 6607
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: PrOpositions, Facts, States of Affairs - all Groundless

Post by Atla »

Iwannaplato wrote: Thu May 19, 2022 9:11 pm
Atla wrote: Thu May 19, 2022 9:05 pm My point is that the learned Western double-vision can take a million different forms, no matter how subtle. For example "consciousness is a facet of what is" is still a double-vision, it should be collapsed.
Why? And it ain't just Western. Most of the East is very dualist. At least in their religions. Officially they have no problems with the limbic system, but socially and in spiritual practice, woh. They got techniques to scalpel that out of you.
Yeah a lot of the East is also dualist.

Why collapse the illusion of duality you ask?
Well because it's just an illusion?
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6591
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: PrOpositions, Facts, States of Affairs - all Groundless

Post by Iwannaplato »

Atla wrote: Thu May 19, 2022 9:16 pm
Iwannaplato wrote: Thu May 19, 2022 9:11 pm
Atla wrote: Thu May 19, 2022 9:05 pm My point is that the learned Western double-vision can take a million different forms, no matter how subtle. For example "consciousness is a facet of what is" is still a double-vision, it should be collapsed.
Why? And it ain't just Western. Most of the East is very dualist. At least in their religions. Officially they have no problems with the limbic system, but socially and in spiritual practice, woh. They got techniques to scalpel that out of you.
Yeah a lot of the East is also dualist.

Why collapse the illusion of duality you ask?
Well because it's just an illusion?
Why not be eclectic and flexible? I mean, there's implicit dualism in your responses to me. I mean, monism is an illusion when experiencing certain things. At least, I have found no reason to take some internal disciplinary system to keep me always expressing non-dualism.
Atla
Posts: 6607
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: PrOpositions, Facts, States of Affairs - all Groundless

Post by Atla »

Iwannaplato wrote: Thu May 19, 2022 9:23 pm
Atla wrote: Thu May 19, 2022 9:16 pm
Iwannaplato wrote: Thu May 19, 2022 9:11 pm Why? And it ain't just Western. Most of the East is very dualist. At least in their religions. Officially they have no problems with the limbic system, but socially and in spiritual practice, woh. They got techniques to scalpel that out of you.
Yeah a lot of the East is also dualist.

Why collapse the illusion of duality you ask?
Well because it's just an illusion?
Why not be eclectic and flexible? I mean, there's implicit dualism in your responses to me. I mean, monism is an illusion when experiencing certain things. At least, I have found no reason to take some internal disciplinary system to keep me always expressing non-dualism.
I was just talking about the true nature of consciousness. Obviously in everyday life we re-adopt a dualistic approach.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6591
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: PrOpositions, Facts, States of Affairs - all Groundless

Post by Iwannaplato »

Atla wrote: Thu May 19, 2022 9:28 pm I was just talking about the true nature of consciousness. Obviously in everyday life we re-adopt a dualistic approach.
Everyday life is what I got. I certainly don't deny non-dualist experiences. And to me even 'the true nature of consciousness' is dualistic because it seems to view us or everything as consciousness which to me leaves out part what we/it are/is.
Atla
Posts: 6607
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: PrOpositions, Facts, States of Affairs - all Groundless

Post by Atla »

Iwannaplato wrote: Thu May 19, 2022 9:35 pm
Atla wrote: Thu May 19, 2022 9:28 pm I was just talking about the true nature of consciousness. Obviously in everyday life we re-adopt a dualistic approach.
Everyday life is what I got. I certainly don't deny non-dualist experiences. And to me even 'the true nature of consciousness' is dualistic because it seems to view us or everything as consciousness which to me leaves out part what we/it are/is.
It doesn't leave out anything. Everything I say is metaphor because it's not possible to do anything else.
I simply told you there is a philosophy beyond panpsychism, not that it's possible to grasp it right away.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6591
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: PrOpositions, Facts, States of Affairs - all Groundless

Post by Iwannaplato »

Atla wrote: Thu May 19, 2022 9:40 pm [
It doesn't leave out anything.
Perhaps your version of it. And I mean a very local version, not Theravada Buddhism, Shaivite Hinduism, or Ken Wlber's version and so on down the line...... IOW I don't know exactly what you mean or how you react or what you express or disidentify with or not. But if it's any of the relatively easily accessible religions, practices, subversions out there, they got a boatload of denial and dualism.
Everything I say i metaphor because it's not possible to do anything else.
Well, not for me either.
I simply told you there is a philosophy beyond panpsychism, not that it's possible to grasp it right away.
How would you know I was in a rush, even long ago, and haven't considered it already? Is it my use of metaphors?
Post Reply