Peter Holmes & Delusional Facts

[Veritas Aequitas]

The argument below is related to Moral Facts which must be empirically and philosophically justified to be true.

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.

If one is insisting 'this is a dog' based on nature and function - and that make it factual and true without any verification and justification processes, that is illusory and one is chasing reality within a metaphysical delusion.

Addressing to PH:
Whatever you experienced and verified as real and factual is a cognition that is factual.

For example when you see a strange dog in the neighborhood and start telling everyone you saw a real dog as a matter of fact!
In this case you are triggered by an evolutionary process of cognition and realize the 'reality' of a dog and everyone agreed with your fact it is a dog.
But somehow that dog was caught and due to its strangeness was DNA tested to be really a wolf as a matter of fact.

Note the evolutionary process of cognition is grounded and leverage upon all elements, processes and complexities we human has inherited since 4 billion years ago.
The emergence and cognition of reality is not a matter of opening our eyes and mind and perceiving reality out there.

As you can see, your confidence and linguistic fact that you saw a dog is not real but nonetheless you experience a cognition [evolutionary triggered and as a human being], but is your assertion 'I see a real dog' a matter of fact? No!

Your cognition is only a matter of fact when that animal is verified via DNA as a dog. This is a factual cognition. But it is only a factual cognition that is conditional upon the scientific framework and system [biology & genetics].

Therefore your claim;
"What matters is the nature and function of true factual assertions - what makes them factual and true."
is groundless and metaphysically deluded.

Thus whatever facts to you which you insist are absolutely real [unconditional] they are merely delusional facts.

Views??

[Veritas Aequitas]

Note
Empirical Idealism - details TBA

[Peter Holmes]

To my knowledge, there's no evidence that things-in-themselves are different from things as they can be perceived - and that we can never know things-in-themselves. Russell just recycled Kant's metaphysical delusion that such things-in-themselves exist. And Kant's thinking was mired in Cartesian and, ultimately, Platonist nonsense.

A fact is 'a thing that is known to exist, to have occurred, or to be true'. (And, obviously, of those three things only a factual assertion - a linguistic expression - can be true or false.) The Kantian demand to know what a fact-in-itself really is comes from the metaphysical delusion that what we call truth, facts and objectivity aren't what we say they are.

[Veritas Aequitas]

To my knowledge, there's no evidence that things-in-themselves are different from things as they can be perceived - and that we can never know things-in-themselves. Russell just recycled Kant's metaphysical delusion that such things-in-themselves exist. And Kant's thinking was mired in Cartesian and, ultimately, Platonist nonsense.

You are totally ignorant of Kant's Critique of Pure Reason. Therein Kant critiqued [condemned] the ideas of Descartes and Plato as illusory [yes literally non-sense].

It was thus that Plato left the World of the Senses, as setting too narrow Limits to 2 the Understanding, and ventured out beyond it on the wings of the Ideas, in the empty Space of the Pure Understanding. A5B9

In the above Kant condemned Plato as literally engaged in nonsense, i.e. went beyond the sensible into la la land beyond the Understanding.

Kant also condemned Descartes' Cogito.

So don't try to critique Kant or Russell until you have read their relevant work thoroughly with reasonable understanding of their theories.


You are talking nonsense in the above.
Prove to me things-in-themselves exist in-themselves unconditionally?

Things-that-can-be-perceived are merely ideas without any real referents.
For things-that-can-be-perceived to be real they must first be interacted with humans and then perceived. Thus for something to be real, there is inevitable conditioning.

A fact is 'a thing that is known to exist, to have occurred, or to be true'. (And, obviously, of those three things only a factual assertion - a linguistic expression - can be true or false.)

What is the point of linguistic truth of a things without any reference to its reality.
Whatever is a linguistic truth and fact is ONLY conditioned and confined to a linguistic framework and system which in your case is imbued with elements of bastardized philosophy of the logical positivists and those of analytic-philosophy.
The linguistic FSK has no solid grounds in relation to reality but merely describe what is supposedly reality.

In terms of reality, your linguistic FSK is delusional in contrast to any FSK [e.g. Science, Morality, etc.] that are established to verify and justify reality based on experience of reality and empirical evidences of reality couple with philosophical reasoning.

The Kantian demand to know what a fact-in-itself really is comes from the metaphysical delusion that what we call truth, facts and objectivity aren't what we say they are.

Nope!
What the Kantian assert is, what you claim as fact-in-itself or fact-by-language which is based on the linguistic Framework and System, is an illusion and thus delusional.
Your linguistic fact is nonsense, i.e. non-sensible as Kant condemned Plato's forms and universals. [CPR A5-B9]

For any fact to be realistic, it must incorporate the sensible [experienced and evidenced] plus the understanding [intellect].

Note the delusional state you are in when you insist the 'physical' table is really real.
But in reality you are merely ASSUMMING there is a real table out there.
Therefore whatever is table exists only in your head as an idea.
There is no really-real table out there.
Even if you can feel and sense something like a solid table you are not in 'touch' with any real table. There is always a GAP between you and your assumed reality.
Thus the thing of fact that is really real to you is NONSENSE, i.e. not in touch or in solid contact with the your senses.
... (note the problem with the Correspondence Theory of Truth)
This is what early-Russell meant when he asserted "perhaps there is no table at all"!
He meant there is no real unconditional table-in-itself.

Therefore insisting that your linguistic fact is really-real is delusional.

What is really-real as fact can be at best conditional upon the human conditions and conditioned upon the specific Framework and System.

Thus there are moral facts that are justified empirically and philosophically that are conditioned upon a moral framework and system.

[Peter Holmes]

To my knowledge, there's no evidence that things-in-themselves are different from things as they can be perceived - and that we can never know things-in-themselves. Russell just recycled Kant's metaphysical delusion that such things-in-themselves exist. And Kant's thinking was mired in Cartesian and, ultimately, Platonist nonsense.

You are totally ignorant of Kant's Critique of Pure Reason. Therein Kant critiqued [condemned] the ideas of Descartes and Plato as illusory [yes literally non-sense].

It was thus that Plato left the World of the Senses, as setting too narrow Limits to 2 the Understanding, and ventured out beyond it on the wings of the Ideas, in the empty Space of the Pure Understanding. A5B9

In the above Kant condemned Plato as literally engaged in nonsense, i.e. went beyond the sensible into la la land beyond the Understanding.

Kant also condemned Descartes' Cogito.

So don't try to critique Kant or Russell until you have read their relevant work thoroughly with reasonable understanding of their theories.

You are talking nonsense in the above.
Prove to me things-in-themselves exist in-themselves unconditionally?

Things-that-can-be-perceived are merely ideas without any real referents.
For things-that-can-be-perceived to be real they must first be interacted with humans and then perceived. Thus for something to be real, there is inevitable conditioning.

So, condemning Plato's and Descartes' metaphysical delusions leads naturally to the delusion that there are things-in-themselves whose unconditional existence needs to be proved. Perhaps a malicious demon prevents us from knowing them. What codswallop. I suggest you reconsider Kant having removed your conventional-received-wisdom goggles.

A fact is 'a thing that is known to exist, to have occurred, or to be true'. (And, obviously, of those three things only a factual assertion - a linguistic expression - can be true or false.)

What is the point of linguistic truth of a things without any reference to its reality.
Whatever is a linguistic truth and fact is ONLY conditioned and confined to a linguistic framework and system which in your case is imbued with elements of bastardized philosophy of the logical positivists and those of analytic-philosophy.
The linguistic FSK has no solid grounds in relation to reality but merely describe what is supposedly reality.

Read the definition: a fact is a thing that is known to exist [or] to have occurred...

There's nothing linguistic about those things, so nothing that can be true or false. But to repeat, there are three things: features of reality that are or were the case: what we believe and know about them; and what we say about them which, classically, may be true or false.

The dictionary definition of the word 'fact' - merely reflecting actual usage - conflates the first and third of those separate and different things - which has caused and causes a world of philosophical confusion.

Your stupid question is an example: 'What is the point of linguistic truth of a things [sic] without any reference to its reality[?]'

There is no truth EXCEPT linguistic truth. Features of reality just are or were, neither true nor false. Outside language, reality is not linguistic. The truth is not out there, any more than falsehood is. I suggest you let these glaringly obvious facts sink in and percolate - because, when you grasp them properly, you'll see the muddle you've been in.

The sort of Kantian idealism you're flirting with comes from a fundamental mistake about the nature and function of language - I call it the myth of propositions - a mistake that the later Wittgenstein recognised in his earlier work and, by extension, in the whole western philosophical tradition.

In terms of reality, your linguistic FSK is delusional in contrast to any FSK [e.g. Science, Morality, etc.] that are established to verify and justify reality based on experience of reality and empirical evidences of reality couple with philosophical reasoning.

The Kantian demand to know what a fact-in-itself really is comes from the metaphysical delusion that what we call truth, facts and objectivity aren't what we say they are.

Nope!
What the Kantian assert is, what you claim as fact-in-itself or fact-by-language which is based on the linguistic Framework and System, is an illusion and thus delusional.
Your linguistic fact is nonsense, i.e. non-sensible as Kant condemned Plato's forms and universals. [CPR A5-B9]

For any fact to be realistic, it must incorporate the sensible [experienced and evidenced] plus the understanding [intellect].

Note the delusional state you are in when you insist the 'physical' table is really real.
But in reality you are merely ASSUMMING there is a real table out there.
Therefore whatever is table exists only in your head as an idea.
There is no really-real table out there.
Even if you can feel and sense something like a solid table you are not in 'touch' with any real table. There is always a GAP between you and your assumed reality.
Thus the thing of fact that is really real to you is NONSENSE, i.e. not in touch or in solid contact with the your senses.
... (note the problem with the Correspondence Theory of Truth)
This is what early-Russell meant when he asserted "perhaps there is no table at all"!
He meant there is no real unconditional table-in-itself.

Therefore insisting that your linguistic fact is really-real is delusional.

What is really-real as fact can be at best conditional upon the human conditions and conditioned upon the specific Framework and System.

Thus there are moral facts that are justified empirically and philosophically that are conditioned upon a moral framework and system.

Note the insane contortion required to argue that the physical table I'm sitting at now isn't really real, but is only an illusion - that I can only ever assume it's real - but that I can never know what it really is. And philosophers wonder why everyone else thinks we're off with the fairies.

[Skepdick]

There is no truth EXCEPT linguistic truth. Features of reality just are or were, neither true nor false. Outside language, reality is not linguistic.

Begging the questions: What is language? How does language relate to reality?

Note the insane contortion required to argue that the physical table I'm sitting at now isn't really real, but is only an illusion - that I can only ever assume it's real - but that I can never know what it really is.

Spoken like a man stuck in the very metaphysical delusion they insist upon rejecting.

There's particular arrangement of things before you that you are using as a table.

"Real" and "physical", and "knowing what it really is" are metaphysical assertions!

[Sculptor]

The argument below is related to Moral Facts which must be empirically and philosophically justified to be true.

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.

Views??

What you "beleive" is of no importance, set against what is factual and true.

[Skepdick]

What you "beleive" is of no importance, set against what is factual and true.

So why do you believe that "facts" and "truth" are important?

[Sculptor]

What you "beleive" is of no importance, set against what is factual and true.

So why do you believe that "facts" and "truth" are important?

It's a fact.

[Skepdick]

What you "beleive" is of no importance, set against what is factual and true.

So why do you believe that "facts" and "truth" are important?

It's a fact.

It's a fact that facts are important?

I have seen less idiotic shit on fortune cookies.

[Impenitent]

So why do you believe that "facts" and "truth" are important?

It's a fact.

It's a fact that facts are important?

I have seen less idiotic shit on fortune cookies.

Confucius say: if you see shit on your fortune cookies, don't eat them (and that is a moral fact)

-Imp

[Skepdick]

Confucius say: if you see shit on your fortune cookies, don't eat them (and that is a moral fact)

-Imp

Nobody eats the cookies. They sell for the platitude.

[Sculptor]

It's a fact.

It's a fact that facts are important?

I have seen less idiotic shit on fortune cookies.

Confucius say: if you see shit on your fortune cookies, don't eat them (and that is a moral fact)

-Imp

According to the Gospel of Skep Dick, that is only a belief.

[Skepdick]

According to the Gospel of Skep Dick, that is only a belief.

When did you promote yourself to a mind-reader?

According to your gospel, you still can't tell me why you believe in the importance of facts.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You are totally ignorant of Kant's Critique of Pure Reason. Therein Kant critiqued [condemned] the ideas of Descartes and Plato as illusory [yes literally non-sense].

It was thus that Plato left the World of the Senses, as setting too narrow Limits to 2 the Understanding, and ventured out beyond it on the wings of the Ideas, in the empty Space of the Pure Understanding. A5B9

In the above Kant condemned Plato as literally engaged in nonsense, i.e. went beyond the sensible into la la land beyond the Understanding.

Kant also condemned Descartes' Cogito.

So don't try to critique Kant or Russell until you have read their relevant work thoroughly with reasonable understanding of their theories.

You are talking nonsense in the above.
Prove to me things-in-themselves exist in-themselves unconditionally?

Things-that-can-be-perceived are merely ideas without any real referents.
For things-that-can-be-perceived to be real they must first be interacted with humans and then perceived. Thus for something to be real, there is inevitable conditioning.

So, condemning Plato's and Descartes' metaphysical delusions leads naturally to the delusion that there are things-in-themselves whose unconditional existence needs to be proved. Perhaps a malicious demon prevents us from knowing them. What codswallop. I suggest you reconsider Kant having removed your conventional-received-wisdom goggles.

There you go again, it is dishonest to critique Kant and be so arrogant when you have not read Kant's CPR thoroughly to understand it [not necessary agree].

Kant demonstrated things-in-themselves do not exist as real, i.e. they are illusory.

It is you who insist facts-in-themselves exist and are real, so the onus is on you to prove they are exists as real unconditionally.
So my challenge remains .. prove to me facts-in-themselves exist as real.

A fact is 'a thing that is known to exist, to have occurred, or to be true'. (And, obviously, of those three things only a factual assertion - a linguistic expression - can be true or false.)

What is the point of linguistic truth of a things without any reference to its reality.
Whatever is a linguistic truth and fact is ONLY conditioned and confined to a linguistic framework and system which in your case is imbued with elements of bastardized philosophy of the logical positivists and those of analytic-philosophy.
The linguistic FSK has no solid grounds in relation to reality but merely describe what is supposedly reality.

Read the definition: a fact is a thing that is known to exist [or] to have occurred...

There's nothing linguistic about those things, so nothing that can be true or false. But to repeat, there are three things:
features of reality that are or were the case:
what we believe and know about them; and
what we say about them which, classically, may be true or false.

The dictionary definition of the word 'fact' - merely reflecting actual usage - conflates the first and third of those separate and different things - which has caused and causes a world of philosophical confusion.

Your stupid question is an example: 'What is the point of linguistic truth of a things [sic] without any reference to its reality[?]'

There is no truth EXCEPT linguistic truth. Features of reality just are or were, neither true nor false. Outside language, reality is not linguistic. The truth is not out there, any more than falsehood is. I suggest you let these glaringly obvious facts sink in and percolate - because, when you grasp them properly, you'll see the muddle you've been in.

The sort of Kantian idealism you're flirting with comes from a fundamental mistake about the nature and function of language - I call it the myth of propositions - a mistake that the later Wittgenstein recognised in his earlier work and, by extension, in the whole western philosophical tradition.

You are wrong and stupid in insisting "there is no truth EXCEPT linguistic truth."

What about the very obvious scientific truths?
Are you insisting they don't exist?

In addition, there are many types of truths and facts; they are all conditioned upon their respective Framework and System of Knowledge.

There's nothing linguistic about those things, so nothing that can be true or false. But to repeat, there are three things:
1. features of reality that are or were the case:
2. what we believe and know about them; and
3. what we say about them which, classically, may be true or false.

How can you say anything about them until we have done 2 i.e. establish what we believe and what we know about them.

I assert there is no way for 2 except to rely upon specific framework and system of knowledge.

You keep ignoring FSKs but merely stuck with linguistic truths.
Btw, linguistic truths are conditioned upon the linguistic FSKs.

It is therefore very stupid [philosophically] to insist there are no truths except linguistic truths.