Morality: Limitations of Logic and Linguistics

[Veritas Aequitas]

The moral fact deniers like Peter Holmes et. al. always cling to the logic and linguistic framework and system {FSK} to argue there are no moral facts and whatever moral statements are merely descriptive and has no truth-values.

Logic and linguistic [language] are useful tool for understanding and communicating elements of reality, but they have limitations which we must be very mindful of.

The Limitation of Logic
There are loads of writing on the limitation of logic.
Here's Kant point re the limitations of logic which give logic its advantages;

The sphere of Logic is quite precisely delimited; its sole concern is to give an exhaustive exposition and a strict proof of the Formal Rules of all Thought, whether it be a priori or Empirical, whatever be its Origin or its Object, and whatever hindrances, accidental or natural, it may encounter in our Minds.

That Logic should have been thus successful is an advantage which it owes entirely to its Limitations,
whereby it is justified in abstracting indeed, it is under obligation to do so from all Objects of Knowledge and their differences, leaving the Understanding nothing to deal with save itself and its Form.
CPR B-ix

In abstracting, logic only deal with the bare forms or concepts of an object rather than the real object concerned.
This is why logic has a problem when dealing with more objects and things at higher precisions and in complex modes.
This is especially so when dealing with "humans" which are 'infinitely' complex - the human brain has 100 billion neurons each with up to 10,000 synapses [connectors]. [note this point!]

The Limitation of Language [linguistics].
There are loads of writings re the limitation of language and linguistics.

Here is a quick reference from wiki;

• Problems in the philosophy of language
  4.1 Formal versus informal approaches
  4.2 Problem of universals and composition
  4.3 Nature of language
  4.4 Translation and interpretation
  4.5 Vagueness

“The limits of my language means the limits of my world.”
— Ludwig Wittgenstein

The point is with the limitations inherent in logic and language, both the logic FSK and linguistic FSK do not represent reality precisely but rather crudely.

Relatively the mode and FSK that is more precise in representing reality than the logical and linguistic FSK is the Scientific FSK which is the most credible we have at present.

Logic, therefore, as a propaedeutic, forms, as it were, only the vestibule of the sciences; and when we are concerned with specific Modes of Knowledge, while Logic is indeed presupposed in any critical estimate of them, yet for the actual acquiring of them [knowledge] we have to look to the sciences properly so called, that is, to the Objective Sciences.

Thus we can use the scientific FSK as the standard bearer of the truths of reality with the other FSKs having lower degrees of credibility.

However, note, despite the scientific FSK is the standard bearer of the truths of reality, scientific truths are at best mere 'polished conjectures' [hypothesis] and not the ultimate objective truth of reality.

Facts and truths are specific to a Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK].

As such moral facts and truths are specific to a Moral FSK.
I argue the Moral FSK is similar to the scientific FSK.
Thus if the scientific FSK credibility rating of reality is 99/100,, then the moral FSK will have a credibility rating of 80/100.

Meanwhile I will rate the logic FSK at 49/100 given that logic is dealing with the bare forms [universals] of reality and the linguistic FSK at 55/100.
As Kant had stated to be more precise with reality, logic will have to fall back on the scientific FSK.

My point;
Given that moral-fact-deniers [e.g. PH et. al] rely on the logic and linguistic FSKs with credibility rating of logic at 49/100 and linguistic at 55/100, their views has no credibility on the moral facts justified and verified empirically and philosophically from within a moral FSK at a rating of 80/100.

[Veritas Aequitas]

My point:
Since Peter Holmes dogmatically merely cling to the logical and linguistic framework and system of knowledge [FSK], it mean that PH's views are of very low credibility ratings to counter my Justified True Moral Facts from the more credible moral FSK [i.e. similar to the scientific FSK.]

[Peter Holmes]

The moral fact deniers like Peter Holmes et. al. always cling to the logic and linguistic framework and system {FSK} to argue there are no moral facts and whatever moral statements are merely descriptive and has no truth-values.

Logic and linguistic [language] are useful tool for understanding and communicating elements of reality, but they have limitations which we must be very mindful of.

The Limitation of Logic
There are loads of writing on the limitation of logic.
Here's Kant point re the limitations of logic which give logic its advantages;

The sphere of Logic is quite precisely delimited; its sole concern is to give an exhaustive exposition and a strict proof of the Formal Rules of all Thought, whether it be a priori or Empirical, whatever be its Origin or its Object, and whatever hindrances, accidental or natural, it may encounter in our Minds.

That Logic should have been thus successful is an advantage which it owes entirely to its Limitations,
whereby it is justified in abstracting indeed, it is under obligation to do so from all Objects of Knowledge and their differences, leaving the Understanding nothing to deal with save itself and its Form.
CPR B-ix

In abstracting, logic only deal with the bare forms or concepts of an object rather than the real object concerned.
This is why logic has a problem when dealing with more objects and things at higher precisions and in complex modes.
This is especially so when dealing with "humans" which are 'infinitely' complex - the human brain has 100 billion neurons each with up to 10,000 synapses [connectors]. [note this point!]

The Limitation of Language [linguistics].
There are loads of writings re the limitation of language and linguistics.

Here is a quick reference from wiki;

• Problems in the philosophy of language
  4.1 Formal versus informal approaches
  4.2 Problem of universals and composition
  4.3 Nature of language
  4.4 Translation and interpretation
  4.5 Vagueness

“The limits of my language means the limits of my world.”
— Ludwig Wittgenstein

The point is with the limitations inherent in logic and language, both the logic FSK and linguistic FSK do not represent reality precisely but rather crudely.

Relatively the mode and FSK that is more precise in representing reality than the logical and linguistic FSK is the Scientific FSK which is the most credible we have at present.

Logic, therefore, as a propaedeutic, forms, as it were, only the vestibule of the sciences; and when we are concerned with specific Modes of Knowledge, while Logic is indeed presupposed in any critical estimate of them, yet for the actual acquiring of them [knowledge] we have to look to the sciences properly so called, that is, to the Objective Sciences.

Thus we can use the scientific FSK as the standard bearer of the truths of reality with the other FSKs having lower degrees of credibility.

However, note, despite the scientific FSK is the standard bearer of the truths of reality, scientific truths are at best mere 'polished conjectures' [hypothesis] and not the ultimate objective truth of reality.

Facts and truths are specific to a Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK].

As such moral facts and truths are specific to a Moral FSK.
I argue the Moral FSK is similar to the scientific FSK.
Thus if the scientific FSK credibility rating of reality is 99/100,, then the moral FSK will have a credibility rating of 80/100.

Meanwhile I will rate the logic FSK at 49/100 given that logic is dealing with the bare forms [universals] of reality and the linguistic FSK at 55/100.
As Kant had stated to be more precise with reality, logic will have to fall back on the scientific FSK.

My point;
Given that moral-fact-deniers [e.g. PH et. al] rely on the logic and linguistic FSKs with credibility rating of logic at 49/100 and linguistic at 55/100, their views has no credibility on the moral facts justified and verified empirically and philosophically from within a moral FSK at a rating of 80/100.

There are so many mistakes here - it's such a categorical mess - that it's hard to know where to begin. And anyway, you seem unable to learn from having your work corrected. You either don't understand or ignore the corrections. So it's a waste of time.

[Veritas Aequitas]

There are so many mistakes here - it's such a categorical mess - that it's hard to know where to begin. And anyway, you seem unable to learn from having your work corrected. You either don't understand or ignore the corrections. So it's a waste of time.

To be corrected by you with your ignorance?
So far you have not cited even one reference to back your claims.

1. You can start by defending language/linguistic do not have limitations and that whatever it claimed as knowledge is absolutely true.

2. Then defend 'logic' also do not have limitations.

On what solid grounds do you have to your claim logic and language are solid basis for knowledge.

Thereafter you can proceed to counter the other points - which has been done in other threads.

[Peter Holmes]

There are so many mistakes here - it's such a categorical mess - that it's hard to know where to begin. And anyway, you seem unable to learn from having your work corrected. You either don't understand or ignore the corrections. So it's a waste of time.

To be corrected by you with your ignorance?
So far you have not cited even one reference to back your claims.

1. You can start by defending language/linguistic do not have limitations and that whatever it claimed as knowledge is absolutely true.

2. Then defend 'logic' also do not have limitations.

On what solid grounds do you have to your claim logic and language are solid basis for knowledge.

Thereafter you can proceed to counter the other points - which has been done in other threads.

How to untangle your confusion? Well, see if you can understand the following.

1 There are three separate and different things: features of reality; what we believe or know about them, such as that they are or were the case; and what we say about them, which, classically, may be true or false. And to muddle these three things up is a mistake.

2 Features of reality are neither true nor false; they just are or were the case. Outside language, reality is not linguistic. So the truth isn't out there, any more than falsehood is.

3 What we believe and know about features of reality is neither true nor false; we just either believe or know it or we don't. Belief and knowledge are not linguistic. So the expressions 'propositional belief' and 'propositional knowledge' are incoherent. There are just beliefs and knowledge-claims which can be - but don't have to be - expressed linguistically.

4 So the only things that can be true or false are factual assertions about features of reality; typically, these are linguistic expressions of the form 'X is the case'. Truth and falsehood are attributes only of factual assertions.

Conclusion. It follows that your demand for proof that language has no limitations, and that 'linguistic knowledge' (?) is 'absolutely true' (?) is conceptually incoherent. It doesn't even amount to a straw man. And it demonstrates an ignorance so profound that, unless you try to grasp the basics, I don't think it's worth bothering with you any more.

[Veritas Aequitas]

There are so many mistakes here - it's such a categorical mess - that it's hard to know where to begin. And anyway, you seem unable to learn from having your work corrected. You either don't understand or ignore the corrections. So it's a waste of time.

To be corrected by you with your ignorance?
So far you have not cited even one reference to back your claims.

1. You can start by defending language/linguistic do not have limitations and that whatever it claimed as knowledge is absolutely true.

2. Then defend 'logic' also do not have limitations.

On what solid grounds do you have to your claim logic and language are solid basis for knowledge.

Thereafter you can proceed to counter the other points - which has been done in other threads.

How to untangle your confusion? Well, see if you can understand the following.

1 There are three separate and different things:
i. features of reality;
ii. what we believe or know about them, such as that they are or were the case; and
iii. what we say about them, which, classically, may be true or false.
And to muddle these three things up is a mistake.

I understand your perspective of the above which is the conventional sense or in the linguistic and logical Framework and System of Knowledge.

Your "feature of reality" is from the Philosophical Realism perspective, i.e

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism
  [Philosophical] Realism ... a view about the properties of reality in general, holding that reality exists independent of the mind

Thus your view of the 'feature of reality' [1i] is true within common and conventional sense but it is not realistic nor tenable in the ultimate reality sense.

It is not me who is ignorant, rather it is you who is ignorant there are credible challenges to your dogmatic views.
Whilst I can understand your position to offer the counter view, you do not even understand [not necessary agree with] my opposing view to offer any counter to it.

2 Features of reality are neither true nor false; they just are or were the case. Outside language, reality is not linguistic. So the truth isn't out there, any more than falsehood is.

You don't even understand what 'feature of reality' really meant.
As I had argued alternatively there are no absolute feature-of-reality-IN-ITSELF.
If they don't exist in-themselves, there is no question of 'they just are or were the case'.

All you can do is to describe whatever you think is reality using language as in [1] above.

3 What we believe and know about features of reality is neither true nor false; we just either believe or know it or we don't. Belief and knowledge are not linguistic. So the expressions 'propositional belief' and 'propositional knowledge' are incoherent. There are just beliefs and knowledge-claims which can be - but don't have to be - expressed linguistically.

But the only way and you insists as in [1] above is merely using language.

However you are ignorant there is more to 1ii.
Since there is no absolute feature-of-reality-IN-ITSELF, the only reality we have is that which is actualized and realized via the processes of the Framework and System of Reality [FSR].
As such what is reality, feature of reality, fact, state of affairs, reality as just are or were the case, is entangle with the human conditions.

The feature of reality cannot be independent of the human conditions, since humans are part and parcel of reality, i.e. ALL-THERE-IS.

4 So the only things that can be true or false are factual assertions about features of reality; typically, these are linguistic expressions of the form 'X is the case'. Truth and falsehood are attributes only of factual assertions.

These linguistic expression or factual assertions use language, thus are limited.
The most effective way is thus via the processes of realization and actualization of the specific FSR.

Conclusion. It follows that your demand for proof that language has no limitations, and that 'linguistic knowledge' (?) is 'absolutely true' (?) is conceptually incoherent. It doesn't even amount to a straw man.
And it demonstrates an ignorance so profound that, unless you try to grasp the basics, I don't think it's worth bothering with you any more.

Point is, your only way related to reality is to describe it using language as in 1 above.
Since linguistic and language is limited, your conclusions based on language and logic are also limited.

The most effective and realistic way to actualize and realize reality is via the processes of the FSR and describe reality therefrom.
This is what the scientific FSR is doing and thus my claim with moral facts from a moral FSR which is similar to the scientific FSR.

As I had mentioned many times, your philosophical base is very kindergartenish and you yet have the blinded arrogance to critique my stance where I had offered detailed explanation which as always is beyond your ken.

I'll repeat,
You want to correct me with your ignorance?
So far you have not cited even one reference to back your claims.

[Peter Holmes]

To be corrected by you with your ignorance?
So far you have not cited even one reference to back your claims.

1. You can start by defending language/linguistic do not have limitations and that whatever it claimed as knowledge is absolutely true.

2. Then defend 'logic' also do not have limitations.

On what solid grounds do you have to your claim logic and language are solid basis for knowledge.

Thereafter you can proceed to counter the other points - which has been done in other threads.

How to untangle your confusion? Well, see if you can understand the following.

1 There are three separate and different things:
i. features of reality;
ii. what we believe or know about them, such as that they are or were the case; and
iii. what we say about them, which, classically, may be true or false.
And to muddle these three things up is a mistake.

I understand your perspective of the above which is the conventional sense or in the linguistic and logical Framework and System of Knowledge.

Your "feature of reality" is from the Philosophical Realism perspective, i.e

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism
  [Philosophical] Realism ... a view about the properties of reality in general, holding that reality exists independent of the mind

Thus your view of the 'feature of reality' [1i] is true within common and conventional sense but it is not realistic nor tenable in the ultimate reality sense.

It is not me who is ignorant, rather it is you who is ignorant there are credible challenges to your dogmatic views.
Whilst I can understand your position to offer the counter view, you do not even understand [not necessary agree with] my opposing view to offer any counter to it.

2 Features of reality are neither true nor false; they just are or were the case. Outside language, reality is not linguistic. So the truth isn't out there, any more than falsehood is.

You don't even understand what 'feature of reality' really meant.
As I had argued alternatively there are no absolute feature-of-reality-IN-ITSELF.
If they don't exist in-themselves, there is no question of 'they just are or were the case'.

All you can do is to describe whatever you think is reality using language as in [1] above.

3 What we believe and know about features of reality is neither true nor false; we just either believe or know it or we don't. Belief and knowledge are not linguistic. So the expressions 'propositional belief' and 'propositional knowledge' are incoherent. There are just beliefs and knowledge-claims which can be - but don't have to be - expressed linguistically.

But the only way and you insists as in [1] above is merely using language.

However you are ignorant there is more to 1ii.
Since there is no absolute feature-of-reality-IN-ITSELF, the only reality we have is that which is actualized and realized via the processes of the Framework and System of Reality [FSR].
As such what is reality, feature of reality, fact, state of affairs, reality as just are or were the case, is entangle with the human conditions.

The feature of reality cannot be independent of the human conditions, since humans are part and parcel of reality, i.e. ALL-THERE-IS.

4 So the only things that can be true or false are factual assertions about features of reality; typically, these are linguistic expressions of the form 'X is the case'. Truth and falsehood are attributes only of factual assertions.

These linguistic expression or factual assertions use language, thus are limited.
The most effective way is thus via the processes of realization and actualization of the specific FSR.

Conclusion. It follows that your demand for proof that language has no limitations, and that 'linguistic knowledge' (?) is 'absolutely true' (?) is conceptually incoherent. It doesn't even amount to a straw man.
And it demonstrates an ignorance so profound that, unless you try to grasp the basics, I don't think it's worth bothering with you any more.

Point is, your only way related to reality is to describe it using language as in 1 above.
Since linguistic and language is limited, your conclusions based on language and logic are also limited.

The most effective and realistic way to actualize and realize reality is via the processes of the FSR and describe reality therefrom.
This is what the scientific FSR is doing and thus my claim with moral facts from a moral FSR which is similar to the scientific FSR.

As I had mentioned many times, your philosophical base is very kindergartenish and you yet have the blinded arrogance to critique my stance where I had offered detailed explanation which as always is beyond your ken.

I'll repeat,
You want to correct me with your ignorance?
So far you have not cited even one reference to back your claims.

Claim: humans are part of reality; therefore reality is not independent from humans. What mystical nonsense!

Claim: 'Thus your view of the 'feature of reality' [1i] is true within common and conventional sense but it is not realistic nor tenable in the ultimate reality sense.' What ultimate reality sense is that? Is that the reality-in-itself that you deny exists? If there's no ultimate reality, why is my expression 'feature of reality' inadequate or inaccurate? This is incoherent and contradictory nonsense.

Claim: our only access to what we call reality is within a framework and system of reality. But what are the contents of an FSR? They're not linguistic assertions, because we're talking about reality, not descriptions. And we agree there are no things-in-themselves. Your question-begging invention 'FSR' is as useless as your question-begging invention 'FSK'.

And none of this nonsense does anything to establish the existence of a moral reality and therefore moral facts. Sound and fury signifying nothing.

You say I do nothing to counter your claims and arguments. On the contrary, I and others have been falsifying your claims and refuting your arguments all along. Obviously, to no effect.

[Skepdick]

Claim: humans are part of reality; therefore reality is not independent from humans. What mystical nonsense!

Mystical nonsense? That's exactly how validity and soundness work in logic!

First you want valid/sound arguments, then you call them mystical.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Claim: humans are part of reality; therefore reality is not independent from humans. What mystical nonsense!

I have to say you are very stupid [not intelligent at all] in the above.
The logic is staring right in front of you.

• 1. Reality is ALL-there-IS.
  2. Humans are part and parcel of ALL-there-IS, i.e. reality
  3. Therefore humans cannot be ultimately* independent of ALL-there-in i.e. reality.

Show which premise is wrong or do not follow.

* As I had stated, within common sense and conventional sense, humans are independent of the external world, but that is only apparent.

Claim: 'Thus your view of the 'feature of reality' [1i] is true within common and conventional sense but it is not realistic nor tenable in the ultimate reality sense.'
What ultimate reality sense is that?
Is that the reality-in-itself that you deny exists?
If there's no ultimate reality, why is my expression 'feature of reality' inadequate or inaccurate?
This is incoherent and contradictory nonsense.

Again you show your lack of intelligence on the above point.

I have already stated above,

• Your "feature of reality" is from the Philosophical Realism perspective, i.e
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism
  [Philosophical] Realism ... a view about the properties of reality in general, holding that reality exists independent of the mind

On the contrary my approach is that of Philosophical Anti-Realism where reality is NOT independent of the mind [human conditions] as proven in the above syllogism.

What ultimate reality sense is that?

You have to do more serious philosophy to understand [not necessary with] the above question.

Claim: our only access to what we call reality is within a framework and system of reality. But what are the contents of an FSR?
They're not linguistic assertions, because we're talking about reality, not descriptions.
And we agree there are no things-in-themselves.
Your question-begging invention 'FSR' is as useless as your question-begging invention 'FSK'.

I do not want to use the term 'access' which imply dualism of externality in this case.
What is reality is a spontaneous realization that involve the FSR and FSK.
Thereafter we speak of that spontaneous realization re reality using language.

And none of this nonsense does anything to establish the existence of a moral reality and therefore moral facts. Sound and fury signifying nothing.

Why not?

• If facts are dependent on its specific FSR/FSK,
  e.g. scientific facts from scientific FSR/FSK,
  -the moral FSK is similar to the scientific FSK,
  -the moral facts emerge from the moral FSK.

Note my arguments;
What is a Fact?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29486

There are Moral Facts
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29777

You say I do nothing to counter your claims and arguments. On the contrary, I and others have been falsifying your claims and refuting your arguments all along. Obviously, to no effect.

You are your gang of ignoramus are merely making noises from the linguistic framework.
They are mostly hearsays which sound good to you and the rest.
Anyone can do that.

Your counters and views has no philosophical credibility as none of you cite any philosophical theories and references to support your noises.
I predict if you ever come up with any references I will be able to track them to the bastardized philosophies of the logical positivists and other shaky unrealistic theories.

Let me give you a clue to the backgrounds of your noises which your ignorant of, i.e.

• 1. from Hume's no ought from is - which is not effective for your use
  2. from Moore's Naturalistic Fallacy - not effective
  3. from Ayers' [LP] emotivism
  4. from Analytic Philosophy and the language turn
  5. from the non-cognitivists.

I bet you don't have a good philosophical grasp of the above but merely expressing a layman POV.

[Peter Holmes]

Claim: humans are part of reality; therefore reality is not independent from humans. What mystical nonsense!

I have to say you are very stupid [not intelligent at all] in the above.
The logic is staring right in front of you.

• 1. Reality is ALL-there-IS.
  2. Humans are part and parcel of ALL-there-IS, i.e. reality
  3. Therefore humans cannot be ultimately* independent of ALL-there-in i.e. reality.

Show which premise is wrong or do not follow.

* As I had stated, within common sense and conventional sense, humans are independent of the external world, but that is only apparent.

Claim: 'Thus your view of the 'feature of reality' [1i] is true within common and conventional sense but it is not realistic nor tenable in the ultimate reality sense.'
What ultimate reality sense is that?
Is that the reality-in-itself that you deny exists?
If there's no ultimate reality, why is my expression 'feature of reality' inadequate or inaccurate?
This is incoherent and contradictory nonsense.

Again you show your lack of intelligence on the above point.

I have already stated above,

• Your "feature of reality" is from the Philosophical Realism perspective, i.e
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism
  [Philosophical] Realism ... a view about the properties of reality in general, holding that reality exists independent of the mind

On the contrary my approach is that of Philosophical Anti-Realism where reality is NOT independent of the mind [human conditions] as proven in the above syllogism.

What ultimate reality sense is that?

You have to do more serious philosophy to understand [not necessary with] the above question.

Claim: our only access to what we call reality is within a framework and system of reality. But what are the contents of an FSR?
They're not linguistic assertions, because we're talking about reality, not descriptions.
And we agree there are no things-in-themselves.
Your question-begging invention 'FSR' is as useless as your question-begging invention 'FSK'.

I do not want to use the term 'access' which imply dualism of externality in this case.
What is reality is a spontaneous realization that involve the FSR and FSK.
Thereafter we speak of that spontaneous realization re reality using language.

And none of this nonsense does anything to establish the existence of a moral reality and therefore moral facts. Sound and fury signifying nothing.

Why not?

• If facts are dependent on its specific FSR/FSK,
  e.g. scientific facts from scientific FSR/FSK,
  -the moral FSK is similar to the scientific FSK,
  -the moral facts emerge from the moral FSK.

Note my arguments;
What is a Fact?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29486

There are Moral Facts
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29777

You say I do nothing to counter your claims and arguments. On the contrary, I and others have been falsifying your claims and refuting your arguments all along. Obviously, to no effect.

You are your gang of ignoramus are merely making noises from the linguistic framework.
They are mostly hearsays which sound good to you and the rest.
Anyone can do that.

Your counters and views has no philosophical credibility as none of you cite any philosophical theories and references to support your noises.
I predict if you ever come up with any references I will be able to track them to the bastardized philosophies of the logical positivists and other shaky unrealistic theories.

Let me give you a clue to the backgrounds of your noises which your ignorant of, i.e.

• 1. from Hume's no ought from is - which is not effective for your use
  2. from Moore's Naturalistic Fallacy - not effective
  3. from Ayers' [LP] emotivism
  4. from Analytic Philosophy and the language turn
  5. from the non-cognitivists.

I bet you don't have a good philosophical grasp of the above but merely expressing a layman POV.

All negligible blather, as usual.

The analytic 'turn to language' - which sadly took a wrong turn into so-called conceptual analysis - has been the dominant feature of mainstream western philosophy for well over a century. Perhaps you haven't reached that chapter in your bluffers' guide.

One tiny question: do you think there's such a thing as linguistic expression that isn't a linguistic expression?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Claim: humans are part of reality; therefore reality is not independent from humans. What mystical nonsense!

I have to say you are very stupid [not intelligent at all] in the above.
The logic is staring right in front of you.

• 1. Reality is ALL-there-IS.
  2. Humans are part and parcel of ALL-there-IS, i.e. reality
  3. Therefore humans cannot be ultimately* independent of ALL-there-in i.e. reality.

Show which premise is wrong or do not follow.

* As I had stated, within common sense and conventional sense, humans are independent of the external world, but that is only apparent.

Claim: 'Thus your view of the 'feature of reality' [1i] is true within common and conventional sense but it is not realistic nor tenable in the ultimate reality sense.'
What ultimate reality sense is that?
Is that the reality-in-itself that you deny exists?
If there's no ultimate reality, why is my expression 'feature of reality' inadequate or inaccurate?
This is incoherent and contradictory nonsense.

Again you show your lack of intelligence on the above point.

I have already stated above,

• Your "feature of reality" is from the Philosophical Realism perspective, i.e
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism
  [Philosophical] Realism ... a view about the properties of reality in general, holding that reality exists independent of the mind

On the contrary my approach is that of Philosophical Anti-Realism where reality is NOT independent of the mind [human conditions] as proven in the above syllogism.

What ultimate reality sense is that?

You have to do more serious philosophy to understand [not necessary with] the above question.

Claim: our only access to what we call reality is within a framework and system of reality. But what are the contents of an FSR?
They're not linguistic assertions, because we're talking about reality, not descriptions.
And we agree there are no things-in-themselves.
Your question-begging invention 'FSR' is as useless as your question-begging invention 'FSK'.

I do not want to use the term 'access' which imply dualism of externality in this case.
What is reality is a spontaneous realization that involve the FSR and FSK.
Thereafter we speak of that spontaneous realization re reality using language.

And none of this nonsense does anything to establish the existence of a moral reality and therefore moral facts. Sound and fury signifying nothing.

Why not?

• If facts are dependent on its specific FSR/FSK,
  e.g. scientific facts from scientific FSR/FSK,
  -the moral FSK is similar to the scientific FSK,
  -the moral facts emerge from the moral FSK.

Note my arguments;
What is a Fact?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29486

There are Moral Facts
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29777

You say I do nothing to counter your claims and arguments. On the contrary, I and others have been falsifying your claims and refuting your arguments all along. Obviously, to no effect.

You are your gang of ignoramus are merely making noises from the linguistic framework.
They are mostly hearsays which sound good to you and the rest.
Anyone can do that.

Your counters and views has no philosophical credibility as none of you cite any philosophical theories and references to support your noises.
I predict if you ever come up with any references I will be able to track them to the bastardized philosophies of the logical positivists and other shaky unrealistic theories.

Let me give you a clue to the backgrounds of your noises which your ignorant of, i.e.

• 1. from Hume's no ought from is - which is not effective for your use
  2. from Moore's Naturalistic Fallacy - not effective
  3. from Ayers' [LP] emotivism
  4. from Analytic Philosophy and the language turn
  5. from the non-cognitivists.

I bet you don't have a good philosophical grasp of the above but merely expressing a layman POV.

All negligible blather, as usual.

The analytic 'turn to language' - which sadly took a wrong turn into so-called conceptual analysis - has been the dominant feature of mainstream western philosophy for well over a century. Perhaps you haven't reached that chapter in your bluffers' guide.

Not sure what is your ultimate stance
So do you agree with that "conceptual analysis" or not.

One tiny question: do you think there's such a thing as linguistic expression that isn't a linguistic expression?

This is irrelevant.

You still have not give me your answers as to what philosophical theories [references requited] you are relying upon to support your philosophical stance.
I predicted your sources could come from 1 -5 above, it not, then from where and whom did you get your philosophical groundings.

[Peter Holmes]

I have to say you are very stupid [not intelligent at all] in the above.
The logic is staring right in front of you.

• 1. Reality is ALL-there-IS.
  2. Humans are part and parcel of ALL-there-IS, i.e. reality
  3. Therefore humans cannot be ultimately* independent of ALL-there-in i.e. reality.

Show which premise is wrong or do not follow.

* As I had stated, within common sense and conventional sense, humans are independent of the external world, but that is only apparent.


Again you show your lack of intelligence on the above point.

I have already stated above,

• Your "feature of reality" is from the Philosophical Realism perspective, i.e
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism
  [Philosophical] Realism ... a view about the properties of reality in general, holding that reality exists independent of the mind

On the contrary my approach is that of Philosophical Anti-Realism where reality is NOT independent of the mind [human conditions] as proven in the above syllogism.


You have to do more serious philosophy to understand [not necessary with] the above question.


I do not want to use the term 'access' which imply dualism of externality in this case.
What is reality is a spontaneous realization that involve the FSR and FSK.
Thereafter we speak of that spontaneous realization re reality using language.



Why not?

• If facts are dependent on its specific FSR/FSK,
  e.g. scientific facts from scientific FSR/FSK,
  -the moral FSK is similar to the scientific FSK,
  -the moral facts emerge from the moral FSK.

Note my arguments;
What is a Fact?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29486

There are Moral Facts
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29777


You are your gang of ignoramus are merely making noises from the linguistic framework.
They are mostly hearsays which sound good to you and the rest.
Anyone can do that.

Your counters and views has no philosophical credibility as none of you cite any philosophical theories and references to support your noises.
I predict if you ever come up with any references I will be able to track them to the bastardized philosophies of the logical positivists and other shaky unrealistic theories.

Let me give you a clue to the backgrounds of your noises which your ignorant of, i.e.

• 1. from Hume's no ought from is - which is not effective for your use
  2. from Moore's Naturalistic Fallacy - not effective
  3. from Ayers' [LP] emotivism
  4. from Analytic Philosophy and the language turn
  5. from the non-cognitivists.

I bet you don't have a good philosophical grasp of the above but merely expressing a layman POV.

All negligible blather, as usual.

The analytic 'turn to language' - which sadly took a wrong turn into so-called conceptual analysis - has been the dominant feature of mainstream western philosophy for well over a century. Perhaps you haven't reached that chapter in your bluffers' guide.

Not sure what is your ultimate stance
So do you agree with that "conceptual analysis" or not.

One tiny question: do you think there's such a thing as linguistic expression that isn't a linguistic expression?

This is irrelevant.

You still have not give me your answers as to what philosophical theories [references requited] you are relying upon to support your philosophical stance.
I predicted your sources could come from 1 -5 above, it not, then from where and whom did you get your philosophical groundings.

1 What and where are so-called abstract things, such as concepts? Pending evidence for their existence, belief that they exist is irrational. And it follows that conceptual analysis is barely-disguised mysticism. In fact, conceptual analysis is nothing more than an explanation of the way we use or could use a word or a group of words.

2 To repeat: is there such a thing as a linguistic expression that isn't a linguistic expression? Let me help you out: the answer is NO. For example, 'humans ought not to kill humans' is a linguistic expression. But you call it a fact in our brains - nothing to do with language. So you're saying this linguistic expression is not a linguistic expression. Ooops. Truth is, you accuse me of linguistic limitation, ignoring the fact that we have to use language to talk about anything. When we talk about things, we're not somehow grasping the things we're talking about.

3 Rather than appeal to - and hide behind - more or less misleading theories, I prefer to deal with factual assertions and arguments. And I've explained my starting assumptions. You can label positions as realist or anti-realist if it comforts you - but who cares? It's the claims and arguments that count. You claim there are moral facts, and sound arguments for their existence - but you've failed to justify that claim.

[Skepdick]

1 What and where are so-called abstract things, such as concepts? Pending evidence for their existence, belief that they exist is irrational.

What and where is "existence" ? Pending evidence for its existence, belief that existence exists is irrational.
What and where is "evidence" ? Pending evidence its existence, belief that evidence exists is irrational.
What and where are "beliefs"? Pending evidence for their existence, belief that beliefs exists is irrational.
What and where is "irrationality"? Pending evidence for its existence, belief that irrationality exists is irrational.

Fucking. Philosophical. Retard.

Intent is necessary, but insufficient for language.

There's no such thing as mind-independent linguistic expression, because if it lacks intent it's not a linguistic expression.

If the clouds in the sky spell out "Happy Birthday" it's not a linguistic expression. Just a ridiculous coincidence.

Uh, oh, oh!!!

What and where is "intent"? Pending evidence for its existence, belief that intent exists is irrational.

[DPMartin]

The moral fact deniers like Peter Holmes et. al. always cling to the logic and linguistic framework and system {FSK} to argue there are no moral facts and whatever moral statements are merely descriptive and has no truth-values.

Logic and linguistic [language] are useful tool for understanding and communicating elements of reality, but they have limitations which we must be very mindful of.

The Limitation of Logic
There are loads of writing on the limitation of logic.
Here's Kant point re the limitations of logic which give logic its advantages;

The sphere of Logic is quite precisely delimited; its sole concern is to give an exhaustive exposition and a strict proof of the Formal Rules of all Thought, whether it be a priori or Empirical, whatever be its Origin or its Object, and whatever hindrances, accidental or natural, it may encounter in our Minds.

That Logic should have been thus successful is an advantage which it owes entirely to its Limitations,
whereby it is justified in abstracting indeed, it is under obligation to do so from all Objects of Knowledge and their differences, leaving the Understanding nothing to deal with save itself and its Form.
CPR B-ix

In abstracting, logic only deal with the bare forms or concepts of an object rather than the real object concerned.
This is why logic has a problem when dealing with more objects and things at higher precisions and in complex modes.
This is especially so when dealing with "humans" which are 'infinitely' complex - the human brain has 100 billion neurons each with up to 10,000 synapses [connectors]. [note this point!]

The Limitation of Language [linguistics].
There are loads of writings re the limitation of language and linguistics.

Here is a quick reference from wiki;

• Problems in the philosophy of language
  4.1 Formal versus informal approaches
  4.2 Problem of universals and composition
  4.3 Nature of language
  4.4 Translation and interpretation
  4.5 Vagueness

“The limits of my language means the limits of my world.”
— Ludwig Wittgenstein

The point is with the limitations inherent in logic and language, both the logic FSK and linguistic FSK do not represent reality precisely but rather crudely.

Relatively the mode and FSK that is more precise in representing reality than the logical and linguistic FSK is the Scientific FSK which is the most credible we have at present.

Logic, therefore, as a propaedeutic, forms, as it were, only the vestibule of the sciences; and when we are concerned with specific Modes of Knowledge, while Logic is indeed presupposed in any critical estimate of them, yet for the actual acquiring of them [knowledge] we have to look to the sciences properly so called, that is, to the Objective Sciences.

Thus we can use the scientific FSK as the standard bearer of the truths of reality with the other FSKs having lower degrees of credibility.

However, note, despite the scientific FSK is the standard bearer of the truths of reality, scientific truths are at best mere 'polished conjectures' [hypothesis] and not the ultimate objective truth of reality.

Facts and truths are specific to a Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK].

As such moral facts and truths are specific to a Moral FSK.
I argue the Moral FSK is similar to the scientific FSK.
Thus if the scientific FSK credibility rating of reality is 99/100,, then the moral FSK will have a credibility rating of 80/100.

Meanwhile I will rate the logic FSK at 49/100 given that logic is dealing with the bare forms [universals] of reality and the linguistic FSK at 55/100.
As Kant had stated to be more precise with reality, logic will have to fall back on the scientific FSK.

My point;
Given that moral-fact-deniers [e.g. PH et. al] rely on the logic and linguistic FSKs with credibility rating of logic at 49/100 and linguistic at 55/100, their views has no credibility on the moral facts justified and verified empirically and philosophically from within a moral FSK at a rating of 80/100.

hit us with a "moral fact" that is truth

[Skepdick]

hit us with a "moral fact" that is truth

Murder is wrong.

It's trivially true. It's the default position - it requires no evidence or justification whatsoever and most people accept it at face value.

However, if you are feeling philosophical/disagreeable, then go ahead and burden yourself with justifying the rejection.