PH: What is Your Philosophical Foundation?

[Veritas Aequitas]

PH, you have been throwing terms around and letting them float and swirl in mid air without any solid foundation, theory nor sound philosophy, e.g. truth-bearers [proposition], truth-makers [facts], states-of-affairs, that is the case, obtain, if and only iff, cat is on the mat, water is H20, etc.

Without any solid foundation you have the gall to denounce there are no moral facts!

Recently I have reading up on philosophies and theories surrounding the above terms and there is nothing solid to it since the logical positivists.
Every proposal by any analytical philosopher is countered by another without any reasonable ending because everyone involved is groping around without foundation.

If you are relying on Wittgenstein, note he had a lot of weakness and limitations [note his 'On Certainty'], thus no solid ground for you. So far, you have not provided any reference to your philosophical claims but merely making noises with your own views.

For me, I have already stated by grounds are based on Kant's Philosophy, science, and others.

So 'what are you' and 'who are you' relying to ground/support your philosophy?
If you admit you cannot I can give you some clues.

ETA:
PH philosophical grounding is that of Philosophical Realism
viewtopic.php?p=665759#p665759

[Iwannaplato]

Where should he answer VA? In the thread where he first wrote this post, or here in yet another thread?

[Iwannaplato]

What VA is doing here is
noticing that he can't refute PH, so...
he makes it seem like PH needs to produce some experts to back up his arguments.
It's an attempt to shift the onus to PH and to sidestep his inability to argue points in a sustained argument.

[Iwannaplato]

What VA is doing here is
noticing that he can't refute PH, so...
he makes it seem like PH needs to produce some experts to back up his arguments.
It's an attempt to shift the onus to PH and to sidestep his inability to argue points in a sustained argument.

And let's be clear. It's not that I think he's wrong. Some things he says I agree with, some of his assertions.
It's that he has a very poor sense of what it means to discuss ideas in a philosophical context

[Peter Holmes]

Doing the same thing - repeating a refuted argument - and expecting a different result. Wait. Isn't that a definition of something?

[FlashDangerpants]

Damn your watery eyes Peter! Have you been using the phrase "if and only if" without some sort of extra philosophy to show you are allowed to use it again? You know how that gets the Viscous Areola's goat!

[Peter Holmes]

Ho hum.

Unless I've miscounted - which is entirely possible - of the 50 OPs on this page alone, 26 are by VA. Gotta be a record.

[Age]

PH, you have been throwing terms around and letting them float and swirl in mid air without any solid foundation, theory nor sound philosophy, e.g. truth-bearers [proposition], truth-makers [facts], states-of-affairs, that is the case, obtain, if and only iff, cat is on the mat, water is H20, etc.

Without any solid foundation you have the gall to denounce there are no moral facts!

I suggest that if you want to announce that there ARE 'moral facts', then just list what those 'moral facts' ARE, EXACTLY.

Until then you are WITHOUT ANY solid foundation, ALSO.

Recently I have reading up on philosophies and theories

But you "read" with and from VERY BIASED eyes, and views.

surrounding the above terms and there is nothing solid to it since the logical positivists.
Every proposal by any analytical philosopher is countered by another without any reasonable ending because everyone involved is groping around without foundation.

If you are relying on Wittgenstein, note he had a lot of weakness and limitations [note his 'On Certainty'], thus no solid ground for you. So far, you have not provided any reference to your philosophical claims but merely making noises with your own views.

For me, I have already stated by grounds are based on Kant's Philosophy, science, and others.

[So 'what are you' and 'who are you' relying to ground/support your philosophy?
If you admit you cannot I can give you some clues.

[Skepdick]

What VA is doing here is
noticing that he can't refute PH, so...

Are you even aware of the first principle of philosophy?

Nobody can refute anything you say. They can only believe to have refuted you.
So it's not so much that VA can't refute PH' - it's that there's nothing VA can say that PH will accept as a refutation.

The entire song and dance of arguments and refutations is bogus. You can choose any position and hold it come what may.

[Age]

What VA is doing here is
noticing that he can't refute PH, so...

Are you even aware of the first principle of philosophy?

Nobody can refute anything you say. They can only believe to have refuted you.

The entire song and dance of proofs and refutations is bogus.

You are Wrong, and this can NOT be REFUTED, correct?

[Skepdick]

You are Wrong, and this can NOT be REFUTED, correct?

Right or wrong has nothing to do with it.

You are confusing morality with the mechanics of argumentation.

[Age]

You are Wrong, and this can NOT be REFUTED, correct?

Right or wrong has nothing to do with it.

I KNOW right NOR wrong has absolutely ANY thing to do with 'it'. I just asked you if 'it' was CORRECT, ONLY?

Either your answer is 'Yes', which makes your CLAIMS here False, Wrong, or Incorrect. Or your answer is "No", which makes your CLAIMS here CONTRADICTORY or HYPOCRITICAL.

You can NOT, logically, CLAIM that NO one can refute ANY thing that you say but that you can refute things that 'others' say.

You are confusing morality with the mechanics of argumentation.

I was NEVER even thinking absolutely ANY thing about either of those things. So, how EXACTLY could I have been confusing them?

I was SOLELY replying to YOUR WORDS, ONLY.

[Skepdick]

You can NOT, logically, CLAIM that NO one can refute ANY thing that you say but that you can refute things that 'others' say.

OK. If you uinsist that I can't do it logically, then I will do it illogically.

[Age]

You can NOT, logically, CLAIM that NO one can refute ANY thing that you say but that you can refute things that 'others' say.

OK. If you uinsist that I can't do it logically, then I will do it illogically.

That is the ONLY way that you could do 'it'.

[Skepdick]

That is the ONLY way that you could do 'it'.

Which part of "You can't refute me, but I can't refute you" is confusing you? It's consistent with the first principle of philosophy.

That principle being - whatever you do is wrong; whatever I do is right. As in morally right and wrong.