Linking 'The-Described" to its Description?

[Veritas Aequitas]

This topic is relevant to establish Objective Moral Facts to justify Morality is Objective.

Skepdick asked a very valid question;
"How does a description relate to a described?"
So, how??

Well, let's see if we can work it out. And let's start with names.

1. How does the name dog relate to the things we call dogs?
2. Well now, could it be as simple as that we use the word to talk about the things?
3. And is the name the thing itself? Of course not.
4. And does our using the name bring the thing into existence? Of course not.
5. And is the thing 'conditioned upon' our use of the name? Of course not.
6. And would what we call a dog be what it is if there were no humans to perceive, know, name and describe it? Of course there would.

Now, a description 'relates to the described' in exactly the same way. A thing can be named and described in any number of different ways. But neither a name nor a description is the thing being named or described.

What you started off in the above is using the human-based linguistic-FSK.
As such 'that thing itself' and the name 'dog' is conditioned upon the human-based linguistic-FSK, i.e. without this linguistic-FSK, there is no way you can realized and expressed the above.
Therefore both "that thing itself" and the name 'dog' is 'CONDITIONED UPON' i.e. the human-based linguistic-FSK.
Note, the linguistic FSK is "human-based" thus cannot be absolutely independent from the human conditions or in general "mind-independent."

You agree, the name 'dog' does not bring that-thing into existence.
Now what is 'that thing itself'? or to be specific the 'thing-in-itself'.
When you speak of 'thing itself' you are assuming the thing exists by itself, i.e. unconditionally of the human conditions. [your point 6].

Do you realize your are conflating and equivocating the conditioned [thing as dog as conditioned to the human based FSK - point 1&2] with the unconditional thing-itself.
That is a fallacy of equivocation.
This is why your conclusion is illusory.

That is where there is a problem with "your" simply linking the description with 'the-described'.

And note 'existence' is not a predicate, it is merely the copula "is" or "is_ness" in this case. This is a serious issue that need attention.
Your simple predicating the 'existence of the dog' with the human-based linguistic FSK is too superficial.

What is more precise is to rely on the science-biology FSK which can only confirm that "thing" is an animal plus biologically an animal and taxanomically a dog within the dog species, Canis familiaris.
In addition, the breed of 'that-thing-dog' is determined by some authority [dog-breed-FSK] which at present rely on DNA testing to confirm the exact breed of a dog.

"Fédération Cynologique Internationale (FCI): FCI is an international canine organization that recognizes and standardizes dog breeds on a global scale. It works with national kennel clubs to establish and maintain breed standards."

There is no such thing as a dog-in-itself existing absolutely and unconditionally independently from the human conditions.

What is that 'thing' that is 'dog' is conditioned via the linguistic, science-biology FSK and dog-breed FSK.

That thing as 'dog' and conditioned upon the above FSK is an emergence and a realization as conditioned upon 13.5 billions years of physicality and 4.5 years of organic and biological evolution [since LUCA] as I had argued below;

Reality: Emergence & Realization Prior to Perceiving, Knowing & Describing
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40145

You have not bothered to counter my points rationally with critical thinking but merely brush them off with dogmatic clinging to your simple fundamentalistic ideology of independence and the linguistic-FSK.

What you are claiming that the dog-itself exists absolutely independent of the human conditions [your pt. 6] is merely trying to mirror your description to something that is illusory.

There is no way you can realistically link your description to the-described without conditioning this linkage to the relevant human-based FSKs.

And I keep repeating this because you and moron dick-for-brains seem unable to grasp its significance - even if you agree that it's true. Your silly idea is that, since we have to perceive, know and describe reality in human ways, reality itself is 'conditioned upon' our ways of knowing (via 'fsks') and describing it. You say there's no such thing as 'reality itself' at all. And that conclusion is completely unjustified.

Yours is the silly idea from some kindi, what I have presented is relatively a Ph.D level view for you to chew [if only that is possible].


Discuss?? Views?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes: KIV

[Atla]

Most people just go insane, but this guy worked hard for years and years to construct a peculiar form of insanity, and then buy into it. And no one could deter him from it. And now he wants to wreck the world with it, as if it needed even more wrecking. Anyway:

On a scale of 1 to 10 from least rational to most rational, could you rate how rational the idea is that the thing-in-itself can not have mind-independent existence?

The idea that the thing-in-itself cannot have mind-independent existence is a philosophical concept rooted in Kantian philosophy. Immanuel Kant argued that our perceptions of the world are shaped by our mental faculties, and we can never know the true nature of things as they exist independently of our minds.

The rationality of this idea depends on one's philosophical perspective. Different philosophers and scholars might have varying opinions on this matter.

From a Kantian perspective, where the idea originated, it would be rated highly rational, perhaps close to 10, as it forms a fundamental basis of his transcendental idealism.

From a more empirical or materialistic perspective, where the emphasis is on the objective existence of the external world regardless of human perception, the idea might be rated lower, around 3 or 4, as it contradicts the assumption of a mind-independent reality.

It's important to note that philosophical ideas often exist on a spectrum, and what one person finds rational, another might not. Different philosophical traditions and schools of thought can lead to different evaluations of the rationality of a particular concept.

According to God we have to put Kant above science, instead of putting science above Kant, to get the result that VA needs.

[Age]

This topic is relevant to establish Objective Moral Facts to justify Morality is Objective.

BUT, from what I have seen so far, I have YET to SEE 'you' ESTABLISH just ONE so-called 'Objective Moral Fact' here "veritas aequitas".

'you' go on and on about 'Objective Moral Facts', BUT if there was ONE, then WHY NOT just write down what that ONE 'Objective Moral Fact' IS, EXACTLY?

Skepdick asked a very valid question;
"How does a description relate to a described?"
So, how??

Well, let's see if we can work it out. And let's start with names.

1. How does the name dog relate to the things we call dogs?
2. Well now, could it be as simple as that we use the word to talk about the things?
3. And is the name the thing itself? Of course not.
4. And does our using the name bring the thing into existence? Of course not.
5. And is the thing 'conditioned upon' our use of the name? Of course not.
6. And would what we call a dog be what it is if there were no humans to perceive, know, name and describe it? Of course there would.

Now, a description 'relates to the described' in exactly the same way. A thing can be named and described in any number of different ways. But neither a name nor a description is the thing being named or described.

What you started off in the above is using the human-based linguistic-FSK.
As such 'that thing itself' and the name 'dog' is conditioned upon the human-based linguistic-FSK, i.e. without this linguistic-FSK, there is no way you can realized and expressed the above.
Therefore both "that thing itself" and the name 'dog' is 'CONDITIONED UPON' i.e. the human-based linguistic-FSK.
Note, the linguistic FSK is "human-based" thus cannot be absolutely independent from the human conditions or in general "mind-independent."

You agree, the name 'dog' does not bring that-thing into existence.
Now what is 'that thing itself'? or to be specific the 'thing-in-itself'.
When you speak of 'thing itself' you are assuming the thing exists by itself, i.e. unconditionally of the human conditions. [your point 6].

Do you realize your are conflating and equivocating the conditioned [thing as dog as conditioned to the human based FSK - point 1&2] with the unconditional thing-itself.
That is a fallacy of equivocation.
This is why your conclusion is illusory.

That is where there is a problem with "your" simply linking the description with 'the-described'.

And note 'existence' is not a predicate, it is merely the copula "is" or "is_ness" in this case. This is a serious issue that need attention.
Your simple predicating the 'existence of the dog' with the human-based linguistic FSK is too superficial.

What is more precise is to rely on the science-biology FSK which can only confirm that "thing" is an animal plus biologically an animal and taxanomically a dog within the dog species, Canis familiaris.
In addition, the breed of 'that-thing-dog' is determined by some authority [dog-breed-FSK] which at present rely on DNA testing to confirm the exact breed of a dog.

"Fédération Cynologique Internationale (FCI): FCI is an international canine organization that recognizes and standardizes dog breeds on a global scale. It works with national kennel clubs to establish and maintain breed standards."

There is no such thing as a dog-in-itself existing absolutely and unconditionally independently from the human conditions.

What is that 'thing' that is 'dog' is conditioned via the linguistic, science-biology FSK and dog-breed FSK.

That thing as 'dog' and conditioned upon the above FSK is an emergence and a realization as conditioned upon 13.5 billions years of physicality and 4.5 years of organic and biological evolution [since LUCA] as I had argued below;

Reality: Emergence & Realization Prior to Perceiving, Knowing & Describing
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40145

You have not bothered to counter my points rationally with critical thinking but merely brush them off with dogmatic clinging to your simple fundamentalistic ideology of independence and the linguistic-FSK.

What you are claiming that the dog-itself exists absolutely independent of the human conditions [your pt. 6] is merely trying to mirror your description to something that is illusory.

There is no way you can realistically link your description to the-described without conditioning this linkage to the relevant human-based FSKs.

And I keep repeating this because you and moron dick-for-brains seem unable to grasp its significance - even if you agree that it's true. Your silly idea is that, since we have to perceive, know and describe reality in human ways, reality itself is 'conditioned upon' our ways of knowing (via 'fsks') and describing it. You say there's no such thing as 'reality itself' at all. And that conclusion is completely unjustified.

Yours is the silly idea from some kindi, what I have presented is relatively a Ph.D level view for you to chew [if only that is possible].


Discuss?? Views?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Individually and collectively, we evaluate (subjectively) against criteria all the time. And this can be a rational process ...

The above is valid and sound but what you continued from the above is mere babblings.

Note:
There are Two Senses of 'Objectivity'
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39326
1. Philosophical Realism mind independent Objectivity = illusory
2. FSK-ed Objectivity = realistic

2. FSK-ed Objectivity = realistic
When we evaluate (subjectively) against criteria all the time, collectively, it has to be conditioned upon a Framework and System [FSR-FSK] that is instituted [explicitly or implicitly] by a collective of humans with a Constitution as its foundation, with a structure, principles and processes that generate a result that is objective.

The resultant conclusions [facts] therefrom the human-based FSK is objective because the conclusions are independent of the individual[s] opinion, beliefs, judgment, and descriptions; they are conditioned upon the Framework and System itself and not on the individual subjects.

But because the Framework and System that generate the fact is based on a collective of subjects, the this objectivity is fundamentally intersubjective, i.e. it follows, it cannot be absolutely independent of humans and the human conditions.

Because there are so many variables underlying each human-based FSK, they cannot have the same degrees of FSK-ed objectivity. [the most credible and objective FSK is the scientific FSK].
viewtopic.php?f=12&t=39585

It is undeniable there are different human-based FSK with their specific FSK-ed facts different degrees of objectivity.

For example,
It is a fact,
Simone Biles is the women's 2023 all-around World Artistic Gymnastics Champion.
Do you deny this fact?

The reality is the above merely a sporting fact conditioned upon the
The International Gymnastics Federation FSK.
Even though not qualified generally, it cannot be a standalone fact.

But because the above objective fact is based on personal judgments of a group of judges assessed on a set of authorized criteria, it cannot be as objective as the the objectivity of the scientific FSK.

As such, it is possible for objective FSK-ed facts from different sources, e.g. science, politics, legal, economics, linguistic, history, finance, and so on as conditioned upon their respective FSK.

Therefore it is possible of objective moral facts from a moral-FSK with its specific degrees of credibility and objectivity; Morality is objective on this basis.
I have explained on this basis in much details in various threads and posts.