PH's "What is Fact" is Philosophical Realism

[Veritas Aequitas]

PH's "What is Fact" is Philosophical Realism and Metaphysical Realism.

This OP is applicable to those who share the same definition of what-is-fact with PH.

Question: My interlocutor defines 'what is fact' as 'that feature of reality , that is just-is, being-so, that in/are the case, states of affairs, has truth conditions and is independent of individual opinions, beliefs and judgment.
Without considering any other qualification, but merely based on the above definition, can I classify my interlocutor as a philosophical realist and metaphysical realist?

Here's ChatGpt [with reservations];

Based on the definition you provided, your interlocutor's perspective aligns with key aspects of both Philosophical Realism and Metaphysical Realism. Let's break down the components of the definition and how they relate to these philosophical positions:

"Feature of Reality":
Both Philosophical Realism and Metaphysical Realism assert the existence of an objective reality independent of our thoughts or perceptions. Your interlocutor's mention of a "feature of reality" is consistent with a realist perspective.

"Just-is, Being-so, States of Affairs":
The language of "just-is" and "being-so" suggests an acknowledgment of objective states of affairs in the world. This aligns with the realist view that there are facts or states of affairs that exist independently of our subjective experiences.

"Has Truth Conditions":
Truth conditions are often associated with realist positions. The idea is that a statement or proposition is true if it accurately corresponds to the way things are in the world. This concept aligns with a realist understanding of truth.

"Independent of Individual Opinions, Beliefs, and Judgment":
The emphasis on independence from individual opinions, beliefs, and judgment is a characteristic feature of realism. Both Philosophical Realism and Metaphysical Realism posit an objective reality that is not contingent on personal perspectives.
Given these considerations, it would be reasonable to classify your interlocutor as holding a realist position.
The alignment with key realist principles, such as the existence of an objective reality and the independence of facts from individual subjectivity, supports the classification of your interlocutor as a philosophical realist and, by extension, a metaphysical realist.

PH do you agree with the above, if not, why?

Discuss?? Views??

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes:

ChatGpt's definitions:

• Philosophical Realism:
  Philosophical Realism, broadly speaking, is the view that there is a mind-independent reality that exists independently of our perceptions or beliefs. In the context of facts, realists would typically affirm the existence of objective facts about the world. Facts, on this view, exist whether or not we are aware of them.
  
  Metaphysical Realism:
  Metaphysical Realism extends beyond issues of knowledge and truth to broader questions about the nature of reality. It asserts that there is an objective, mind-independent reality, and our concepts and language aim to accurately describe this reality. Facts, in the metaphysical realist framework, are considered to be aspects of this independently existing reality.

[Atla]

So now that you opened the 564th thread about PH, facts and realism, do you feel better?

[Iwannaplato]

So now that you opened the 564th thread about PH, facts and realism, do you feel better?

He's directly addressing one person. It's a private message posing as a thread: that is, noise.

[Skepdick]

So now that you opened the 564th thread about PH, facts and realism, do you feel better?

He's directly addressing one person. It's a private message posing as a thread: that is, noise.

I'm pretty sure a private message admitting error and sparing one's dignity from public humiliation would have ended this by now...

Instead the war of egos continues and everybody's a loser.

Only it's becoming more and more clear who the liar is, and maybe it's time for some hemlock.

[promethean75]

That's crazy that So-crates chose execution to exile. Siriusly what have we learned, what have we taken home from So-crates lesson in martyrdom. Not a gotdamn thing, that's what. Bet he'll think twice when faced again with the decision to sacrifice himself for some greater good.

And it is in fact the case of Socrates, along with some encouragement by Max S., that i chose not to make a martyr of myself - perhaps being the greatest instance of martyrdom of this century so far - and sacrifice myself for a world audience that's simply incapable of learning lessons, anyway. Had So-crates read Max S. before his trial, i feel like that whole thing wouldn't have happened and So-crates woulda left the city, found em a spot in the woods and started growing marijuana or something much more practical than participating in Plato's dialogues and getting himself into some deep philosophical shit demanding that he sacrifices himself to be 'virtuous' etc.

At the symposium be like nah I'm good I'll just listen u guys go a'head.

[iambiguous]

Start here: https://www.ipl.org/essay/After-Death-I ... othingness.

That's really what it comes down to, in my view.

Did Socrates believe in a God, the God? Did he believe in an afterlife? Yes? Then, okay, he does the bit with the hemlock and moves on to the next chapter in his life. In other words, it doesn't really matter whether God/the afterlife does exist or not. All that counts instead is whether you believe that they do.

No, he didn't? Then, okay, he sacrifices himself and becomes a hero to many down through the ages.

As for this...

"Realism, in philosophy, the viewpoint which accords to things which are known or perceived an existence or nature which is independent of whether anyone is thinking about or perceiving them." IPL

...you tell me how it is applicable either to God and the afterlife or to objective ethics.

Given a particular context, for example.

[promethean75]

No Socrates' religious beliefs were way cooler than any monotheistic religious beliefs. He believed that the soul was on a journey to excellence where one contemplates the eternal perfection of the Forms after living a virtuous life in the pursuit of knowledge etc. And that learning isn't really learning but like a recollection of knowledge one already had, see. so Socrates was all like 'bro how can i know that one plus one equals two if I didn't already know it' and everybody was like 'wooooah'.

Socrates was an erotic like plato so that's why his religious views weren't miserable and fraught with guilt and suspicion like the christians.