Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 11:24 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 5:24 am
Did you listen to that 'short' video? it is in there.
Are you saying that Silvia Jones is a moral antirealist who employs that argument? Or does she quote a moral antirealist (with an attribution) who employs that argument?
She provided quotes from moral antirealist and moral realist.
I have given the principles involved and numerous examples.
Nope. You've never explained what I'm asking you to explain.
It is so obvious this legal truth [adjudicated belief] is independent of individuals' opinion and beliefs held by individuals then and even now.
It is a legal truth because the court 'said' so, not because the individuals said so.
Not in the slightest. Your task is to explain how that (belief) could possibly be independent of persons' beliefs via becoming institutionalized. You need to literally explain, in detail, just how this happens ontologically, so that we get to a point where ontologically it somehow (you're going to explain how) becomes something (what?) other than a (personal) belief. Simply claiming that it's the case or saying that it's obvious doesn't cut it.
I believe we are talking pass each other on the above.
If I am not mistaken your idea of independent and objectivity is that ontological thing that is independent of all human minds, i.e. it will exists even if humans are extinct.
My sense of independence of mind and objectivity is different, i.e.
What is Philosophical Objectivity?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31416
- In philosophy, objectivity is the concept of truth independent from individual subjectivity (bias caused by one's perception, emotions, or imagination).
A proposition is considered to have objective truth when its truth conditions are met without bias caused by a sentient subject.
Scientific objectivity refers to the ability to judge without partiality or external influence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy)
Scientific truths and their objectivity are not dependent on a sentient subject, therefore they are objective, i.e. independent of any individual beliefs and opinion.
This happened when an individual[subject]'s thesis is accepted within the scientific-FSK, thus institutionalized, it is independent of the individual's scientists who presented the thesis for acceptance by the scientific "institution" - the scientific FSK.
I believe your confusion is because you are thinking in the common and conventional sense, while I am viewing it from the most refined sense of reality.
To you the proposition '
this is a table' is independent of the individual and regardless of it is institutionalized [by the furniture-FSK, etc.].
But you forget about Russell's doubt?
Russell: "Perhaps There is No Table At ALL?"
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=32814
In addition you are ignorant 'what is a table' is institutionalized within the common-sense-FSK and conventional-sense-FSK.
Since FSKs are human constructs, as such there is no absolutely independent Ontological table-in-itself in the first place.
Your problem is you don't understand which paradigm you are standing on to make your assertion thus insisting you are right based on a one-track minded lesser realistic view.