Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Jun 11, 2023 5:40 pm
According to VA, I'm a philosophical realist, clinging to an outmoded illusion. But here's VA's silly argument.
There are many types of realism.
You cannot deny you are a
philosophical realist.
Premise: Humans can perceive, know and describe reality only in human ways.
Conclusion: Therefore,
1 - humans can never know reality-in-itself - Kant's teasing 'noumenon'; or
2 - there is no such thing as reality-in-itself - Kant's teasing 'noumenon'.
VA either doesn't or can't afford to recognise that neither conclusion follows from the premise.
Strawman - the ">millionth" times.
I NEVER claimed there is no such thing as reality-in-itself [noumenon] because it cannot be known.
I deliberately posted Kant's chapter on
Phenomena vs Noumena to give you an idea why the noumenon is illusory is claimed as positively real in your sense of reality, i.e. philosophical realism.
If you are an average person, you have to read it at least 10 times to grasp what Kant intended to convey.
Suggest you take it seriously, if you understand [not necessary agree] Kant's in this chapter, I guarantee your thinking skills would have increased by one notch.
VA insists that [philosophical]-realism has to be absolutist or essentialist - which is false. Philosophical realism does not entail belief in the existence of reality-in-itself - or even that such a term has any coherent meaning whatsoever.
Since there are many types of realism, I have to be specific, i.e. your realism is that of philosophical-realism or p-realism.
Your definition of fact as a feature of reality is that which is just-is, being-so, that is the case, a state of affair, independent of the human-body-brain-mind, i.e. opinions, beliefs, and judgments.
This is obviously referencing the reality in itself or thing-in-itself that is independent to the human-body-brain-mind in accordance to your sense of reality.
Show me where I am wrong?
VA's philosophical anti-realism is as conceptually incoherent as the straw man realism he can't do without. And philosophical antirealism is a tired, outmoded fashion from the last half of the 20th century.
My anti-p-realism is that of the Kantian type which is grounded on the human-based scientific-FSK.
You don't agree with the human-based scientific reality, truths and facts?
Show me why this is not realistic nor tenable?
And meanwhile, none of this has anything to do with moral objectivity - which is a contradiction in terms.
My principle is this [repeated a 'million' times];
Reality, facts, truths, knowledge and Objectivity are conditioned upon a specific human-based FSR-FSK.
The human-based scientific FSK is the most credible, reliable and objective at present.
The human-based moral FSK has near equivalence objectivity to the scientific-FSK because almost all of its critical inputs are from the scientific FSK.
Thus the human-based moral FSK enables the realization and emergence of objective moral facts which is subsequently perceive, known and described, then applied as a guide only.
Therefore the human-based FSK morality is highly objective.
What is a Moral Framework and System?
viewtopic.php?p=487529#p487529
just edited it to include the above last para.