What could make morality objective?

[Veritas Aequitas]

My argument is this:
Whatever is reality, fact, truth, existence, knowledge [with exception] is contingent upon an embodied human based FSRC.

We know. But this claim is false, and has ridiculous implications.

If there is no reality outside a model (an FSRC), then there is no way to assess and compare the objectivity of models, so there is no way to know that the natural sciences are 'the gold standard', which is what you claim.

And if there is no reality outside a model, then we humans are merely features of a model - and the models we make are models made by models.

I have mentioned a 'million' times,
your using of 'there is a reality outside a FSRC' is grounded on an illusion.
PH's What is Fact is Illusory
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39577
As such, you don't have any valid grounds to refute my claims.

It is a strawman.
It is not accurate to state the FSRC is a model per se.
A model per se is merely a representation of something real.
The FSRC itself is something that is real, thus cannot be a model per se.
What actually emerged, realized and cognized is not based on any model per se, it is just reality. One can model it, but that is after the fact.

The claim of an FSRC is [repeat];
Whatever is reality, fact, truth, existence, knowledge [with exception] is contingent upon an embodied human based FSRC; this oppose [is against] the p-realist claim that reality is absolutely independent of the human conditions.

Your silly theory is one version of the philosophical antirealisms that can be traced back to Kant's silly distinction between phenomena and noumena - a distinction that he simultaneously invoked and denied, with catastrophic consequences.

Don't insult your intelligence in 'sillying' Kant [one of the greatest philosopher of all time] when you have not understood [not agree with] his philosophical foundation.

Perhaps you or any other antirealist, constructivist or model-dependent realist here can answer the following questions.
If to construct a model of reality is to construct reality, then of what is the model a model?
If all we can know about reality are the models we construct, then how can we construct them in the first place?
If there is no reality outside a model, who or what makes the models?

The above is a strawman as usual.
As Wittgenstein claimed, you are bewitched by language -too literal in this case.
'Constructivism' in this case is not a builder constructing a building from a model.
What constructivism [philosophical not civil engineering] meant is, whatever is reality, it cannot be absolutely independent of the human condition.
Metaphorically, if reality is a 'construction', then humans has a part in that 'construction'.
Example;
Humans are the Co-Creator of Reality They are In create
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISdBAf-ysI0 AL-Khalili

Fact is, philosophical antirealism is fake, because it always begins with 'What we humans do is...', thus assuming the existence of an example of what it denies.

Fact is, antirealists aren't 'anti' or opposed to reality, cos that would be absurd. What they're opposed to is the delusion that any one description or kind of description can capture the essence or ultimate nature of reality - thus flirting with the delusion that there is or could be such a thing.

End the flirtation - and the whole antirealist project is pointless.

Strawman as usual again.

Antirealism per se is not fake.
Antirealism argued that realism [p] is fake, not realistic nor tenable.
The onus in on p-realists to prove their realism is really real and not fake, not illusory.

My personal beliefs are that of Kantian [not 100%] and others.
You can argue Kantianism is fake, but have you read Kant's CPR thoroughly to qualify to prove Kantianism is fake?

Btw, realism [an evolutionary default] itself is not pointless, what is bad is when realists adopt basic realism as an ideology i.e. a philosophical realism, metaphysical realism and/or transcendental realism which is grounded on an illusion.
I am personally an empirical realist and moral realist but not a p-realist, m-realist nor t-realist [which are fake and illusory].

The problem with p-realists is psychological, not epistemological, i.e. they are not matured enough to progress beyond basic realism to cognize higher and more refined aspects of reality.
You are like those Newtonian and Einsteinian physicists [p-realists] who are stuck with their respective ideology and unable to cognize QM [anti-p-realists] which has a higher utility potential for humanity's progress.

Seems your strawman making factory is getting more and more productive.

[promethean75]

Why i don't think Holmes's strawmanning u at all, VA. His criticisms ARE legitimate and fundamental arguments challenging the position... not just some trivial complaints that distract from your premises.

Anytime a philosopher doesn't understand his opponents objections, he'll say the opponent is strawmanning em. Every time without fail. It's a built-in feature of being a philosopher. Also, philosophers love to think an opponent objects becuz the opponent doesn't like something about em. Like u might find a conservative disagreeing with a liberal's arguments in favor of the tabula rasa theory only becuz the liberal won't vote for Trump. U think I'm kidding it happens. All the time.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Why i don't think Holmes's strawmanning u at all, VA. His criticisms ARE legitimate and fundamental arguments challenging the position... not just some trivial complaints that distract from your premises.

Anytime a philosopher doesn't understand his opponents objections, he'll say the opponent is strawmanning em. Every time without fail. It's a built-in feature of being a philosopher. Also, philosophers love to think an opponent objects becuz the opponent doesn't like something about em. Like u might find a conservative disagreeing with a liberal's arguments in favor of the tabula rasa theory only becuz the liberal won't vote for Trump. U think I'm kidding it happens. All the time.

In most of the discussion at present, I am the one who is making a claim based on my argument, e.g. "Morality is Objective in the context of a FSRC".

The problem is PH failed to understand [not necessary agree with] my premises [has a lot of nuances] but argued based on his own in an attempt to refute my argument.
This is why I requested PH to read this thread seriously;
Relativism, Contextualism, Perspectivism & FSRC
viewtopic.php?t=41979
the basic and fundamental [not the forms] is similar to my FSRC.

Generally when one failed to understand [not agree] with the premises and argument of the other and argued based on that wrong understanding, then one is 'strawmanning'.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

When I accuse PH of 'strawmanning', the essence of it is based on the above context.

[Peter Holmes]

What constructivism [philosophical not civil engineering] meant is, whatever is reality, it cannot be absolutely independent of the human condition.
Metaphorically, if reality is a 'construction', then humans has a part in that 'construction'.

Everything in the universe before humans evolved was absolutely, completely, utterly, etc independent of the human conditions. The universe was not a human construction, metaphorical or not. So your main premise is false, how ever often you repeat it. And with its falsehood your whole theory collapses.

[Veritas Aequitas]

What constructivism [philosophical not civil engineering] meant is, whatever is reality, it cannot be absolutely independent of the human condition.
Metaphorically, if reality is a 'construction', then humans has a part in that 'construction'.

Everything in the universe before humans evolved was absolutely, completely, utterly, etc independent of the human conditions. The universe was not a human construction, metaphorical or not. So your main premise is false, how ever often you repeat it. And with its falsehood your whole theory collapses.

Do you understand why relativists, constructivists, transcendental idealists and empirical realists, oppose the belief of p-realists who believe reality and things are independent of the human conditions?
This is why I recommend you read the SEP article on 'Relativism'.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/relativism/

Relativism, roughly put, is the view that truth and falsity, right and wrong, standards of reasoning, and procedures of justification are products of differing conventions and frameworks of assessment and that their authority is confined to the context giving rise to them.

More precisely, “relativism” covers views which maintain that—at a high level of abstraction—at least some class of things have the properties they have (e.g., beautiful, morally good, epistemically justified) not simpliciter,
but only relative to a given framework of assessment (e.g., local cultural norms, individual standards), and correspondingly, that the truth of claims attributing these properties holds only once the relevant framework of assessment is specified or supplied.

Relativists characteristically insist, furthermore, that if something is only relatively so, then there can be no framework-independent vantage point from which the matter of whether the thing in question is so can be established.

Do you understand why relativists take the above stance against philosophical [metaphysical and transcendental] realism?

Your simply handwaving and insisting relativism is false is groundless without understanding why relativism emerged in the first place and refuting it based on that understanding.
Do you understand the historical context [evolutionary and others] of how relativism emerged?

The point is realism in general [p-realism is ideologized] is the evolutionary default with a history of 31.7 billion years [physical] and 3.5 b years organically, i.e. primordial and primitive. Relativism is a recent emergence attributed to the more developed brain of humans [the neo-cortex].

You are merely insulting your intelligence if you keep relying on handwaving to shoo relativism away base on your inherent primordial thinking.

Also that there is a SEP article [relatively long one] on relativism lend credence to this philosophical standpoint. It is not something you accuse me of plucking from the air.

[Peter Holmes]

VA. Here's part of a quotation above.

'Relativism, roughly put, is the view that truth and falsity, right and wrong, standards of reasoning, and procedures of justification are products of differing conventions and frameworks of assessment and that their authority is confined to the context giving rise to them.'

These things - 'truth and falsity, right and wrong, standards of reasoning, and procedures of justification' - have nothing to do with the existence of the universe before humans evolved. QED.

[Veritas Aequitas]

VA. Here's part of a quotation above.

'Relativism, roughly put, is the view that truth and falsity, right and wrong, standards of reasoning, and procedures of justification are products of differing conventions and frameworks of assessment and that their authority is confined to the context giving rise to them.'

These things - 'truth and falsity, right and wrong, standards of reasoning, and procedures of justification' - have nothing to do with the existence of the universe before humans evolved. QED.

Why are you so selective?

Here are the more relevant paragraphs;

More precisely, “relativism” covers views which maintain that—at a high level of abstraction—at least some class of things have the properties they have (e.g., beautiful, morally good, epistemically justified) not simpliciter,
but only relative to a given framework of assessment (e.g., local cultural norms, individual standards), and correspondingly, that the truth of claims attributing these properties holds only once the relevant framework of assessment is specified or supplied.

"Simpliciter" means unconditionally.

"that the truth of claims attributing these properties holds only once the relevant framework of assessment is specified or supplied"
the above means any claims of truth of reality, must be contingent upon a specific framework of assessment which inevitably must be human based.
Thus whatever the truth and there reality thereon is contingent and cannot be absolutely "uncontingent" [unconditional] to the human conditions.

Thus your claim,
"These things - 'truth and falsity, right and wrong, standards of reasoning, and procedures of justification' - have nothing to do with the existence of the universe before humans evolved" itself is contingent and cannot be absolutely unconditioned of the human conditions, because;

Relativists characteristically insist, furthermore, that if something is only relatively so, then there can be no framework-independent vantage point from which the matter of whether the thing in question is so can be established.

meaning there is no human-based framework-independent vantage point to establish the purely independent truth that;
"These things - 'truth and falsity, right and wrong, standards of reasoning, and procedures of justification' - have nothing to do with the existence of the universe before humans evolved"

You are playing God [with an independent vantage point] if you insist;
"These things - 'truth and falsity, right and wrong, standards of reasoning, and procedures of justification' - have nothing to do with the existence of the universe before humans evolved" is an absolute unconditional truth of reality.

Because an absolutely independent unconditional vantage point is an impossibility, the only tenable and realistic vantage point is the relativistic one, which is based directly upon empirical evidence reinforced with critical-philosophy conditioned upon a human-based FSRC.

You have a cognitive dissonance, i.e. the description is not the-described.
This is because you are grounding the above view based on an illusion.

My solution is this [I have linked this a 'million' times];
Reality: Emergence & Realization Prior to Perceiving, Knowing & Describing
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40145
VA: Knowledge & Descriptions CANNOT Produce Facts
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39925 Apr 10, 2023
Perceiving, Knowing & Describing a Thing Not Related to Existence of the Thing
viewtopic.php?t=40715

Your thinking is still stuck with the evolutionary primordial dogmatism;
Note the evolution of the realization of reality;
1. In the primordial day, our ancestors adapted to an independent external world.
2. Then we have an independent external world created by an independent God.
3. During Newton' time, humans and scientists were still stuck with 2.
4. Then came Einstein who enlighten humanity to the idea of relativity to the observers, i.e. human being but this relativity is still subsumed within an independent God.
5. Then we have QM which introduced a more realistic sense of relativity as per the SEP article.

You will note the relative thinking in 5 is of more refined thinking and has a greater cost-benefit than 1 to 4.

As you can see, your philosophical thinking is fundamental stuck to 1, 2 and 3 with some inkling of 4 but not 5. So your thinking is driven fundamentally by primordial thinking.

[Peter Holmes]

VA. Here's part of a quotation above.

'Relativism, roughly put, is the view that truth and falsity, right and wrong, standards of reasoning, and procedures of justification are products of differing conventions and frameworks of assessment and that their authority is confined to the context giving rise to them.'

These things - 'truth and falsity, right and wrong, standards of reasoning, and procedures of justification' - have nothing to do with the existence of the universe before humans evolved. QED.

Why are you so selective?

I'm pointing out that this account of 'relativism' makes sense, but that it says nothing about reality itself - such as the existence of the universe - but only the way humans think and talk about reality. You have a complete block in your understanding when it comes to the difference between these things. You mistake what we know and say about things for the way things are - as though they're one and the same thing.

Here are the more relevant paragraphs;

More precisely, “relativism” covers views which maintain that—at a high level of abstraction—at least some class of things have the properties they have (e.g., beautiful, morally good, epistemically justified) not simpliciter,
but only relative to a given framework of assessment (e.g., local cultural norms, individual standards), and correspondingly, that the truth of claims attributing these properties holds only once the relevant framework of assessment is specified or supplied.

"Simpliciter" means unconditionally.

1 Abstraction is a metaphysical delusion. There are no abstract or non-physical things. They're misleading fictions. So the expression 'at a high level of abstraction, some class of things have properties' is pretentious gibberish.

2 That the properties we call beauty, moral goodness and epistemic justification are not objective - that they're matters of individual or collective opinion - is true. And that's why moral objectivists are wrong.

3 The expression 'framework of assessment' refers to the fact that a description - and therefore a truth-claim - is always contextual and conventional - which I've said all along. But a description is not the described - and the described - such as the universe - is not contextual and conventional.

"that the truth of claims attributing these properties holds only once the relevant framework of assessment is specified or supplied"
the above means any claims of truth of reality, must be contingent upon a specific framework of assessment which inevitably must be human based.
Thus whatever the truth and there reality thereon is contingent and cannot be absolutely "uncontingent" [unconditional] to the human conditions.

Ffs, think about what you're saying here. Of course 'the truth' is contingent on context and linguistic convention. The truth isn't 'out there', any more than falsehood is. But that doesn't mean that reality is contingent - human-dependent. How can we say that? How can we know? What evidence could show it?

Thus your claim,
"These things - 'truth and falsity, right and wrong, standards of reasoning, and procedures of justification' - have nothing to do with the existence of the universe before humans evolved" itself is contingent and cannot be absolutely unconditioned of the human conditions, because;

Relativists characteristically insist, furthermore, that if something is only relatively so, then there can be no framework-independent vantage point from which the matter of whether the thing in question is so can be established.

meaning there is no human-based framework-independent vantage point to establish the purely independent truth that;
"These things - 'truth and falsity, right and wrong, standards of reasoning, and procedures of justification' - have nothing to do with the existence of the universe before humans evolved"

From what framework-independent vantage point do you conclude that there can be no framework-independent vantage point? Or that there can be no colour if there are no categorisations of colour?

You are playing God [with an independent vantage point] if you insist;
"These things - 'truth and falsity, right and wrong, standards of reasoning, and procedures of justification' - have nothing to do with the existence of the universe before humans evolved" is an absolute unconditional truth of reality.

All the scientific evidence we have shows that the universe existed before we evolved. Therefore, it's rational to conclude that the universe existed before we evolved, so that its existence had nothing to do with us - and the factual assertion 'the universe existed before we evolved' is true (contextually and conventionally). The conditions 'absolute' and 'unconditional' represent a straw man argument.

Because an absolutely independent unconditional vantage point is an impossibility, the only tenable and realistic vantage point is the relativistic one, which is based directly upon empirical evidence reinforced with critical-philosophy conditioned upon a human-based FSRC.

This 'absolutely independent unconditional vantage point' is your straw man invention. You have to have it, so that you can maintain your silly version of antirealism. I think it may well be a ghostly hangover from substance dualism - the mind above the material fray, above the empirical evidence. It's empiricist skepticism at work.

You have a cognitive dissonance, i.e. the description is not the-described.
This is because you are grounding the above view based on an illusion.

Spotted. A description really isn't the described. And your delusion is that, somehow, it is. Here's the fallacy.

Premise: A description of (knowledge of) reality is always contingent or relative to a framework.
Conclusion: Therefore, reality is always contingent or relative to a framework.

And this just does not follow. The premise does not justify the conclusion.

[Skepdick]

1 Abstraction is a metaphysical delusion. There are no abstract or non-physical things.

What a peculiar sentence. He uses the abstraction "thing" only to deny its existence.

What or where is a "thing". Show me one...

Peter "Dumb Cunt" Holmes really wants to have his cake and eat it too.

[Peter Holmes]

Just a follow-up.

If the 'opposite' of relative is absolute, then the claim that knowledge or a description (a truth-claim) must be relative - is absolute.

If it isn't absolute, but only relative, then its truth is, as it were, conditional.

The fantasy of an absolute or independent description - a saying that says it all - is what haunts VA. And its impossibility supposedly entails the impossibility of 'reality-in-itself' - Kant's noumenon.

[Veritas Aequitas]

VA. Here's part of a quotation above.

'Relativism, roughly put, is the view that truth and falsity, right and wrong, standards of reasoning, and procedures of justification are products of differing conventions and frameworks of assessment and that their authority is confined to the context giving rise to them.'

These things - 'truth and falsity, right and wrong, standards of reasoning, and procedures of justification' - have nothing to do with the existence of the universe before humans evolved. QED.

Why are you so selective?

I'm pointing out that this account of 'relativism' makes sense, but that it says nothing about reality itself - such as the existence of the universe - but only the way humans think and talk about reality. You have a complete block in your understanding when it comes to the difference between these things. You mistake what we know and say about things for the way things are - as though they're one and the same thing.

Here are the more relevant paragraphs;

More precisely, “relativism” covers views which maintain that—at a high level of abstraction—at least some class of things have the properties they have (e.g., beautiful, morally good, epistemically justified) not simpliciter,
but only relative to a given framework of assessment (e.g., local cultural norms, individual standards), and correspondingly, that the truth of claims attributing these properties holds only once the relevant framework of assessment is specified or supplied.

"Simpliciter" means unconditionally.

1 Abstraction is a metaphysical delusion. There are no abstract or non-physical things. They're misleading fictions. So the expression 'at a high level of abstraction, some class of things have properties' is pretentious gibberish.

2 That the properties we call beauty, moral goodness and epistemic justification are not objective - that they're matters of individual or collective opinion - is true. And that's why moral objectivists are wrong.

3 The expression 'framework of assessment' refers to the fact that a description - and therefore a truth-claim - is always contextual and conventional - which I've said all along. But a description is not the described - and the described - such as the universe - is not contextual and conventional.

What I agreed is with the fundamental of 'relativism', i.e.
"that the truth of claims attributing these properties holds only once the relevant framework of assessment is specified or supplied."

Your strawman again:
my point is not about "a description is not the described" which I have explained a 'million' times, i.e.

VA: Knowledge & Descriptions CANNOT Produce Facts
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39925 Apr 10, 2023
Perceiving, Knowing & Describing a Thing Not Related to Existence of the Thing
viewtopic.php?t=40715

Can you confirm to the above of my point where I agree 'a description is not the-described' and do not repeat this strawman again.

My truth claims is about the emergence and realization of reality PRIOR to the knowing and perception of that reality.

Reality: Emergence & Realization Prior to Perceiving, Knowing & Describing
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40145
What is Emergence & Realization
viewtopic.php?t=40721

What is the point of you keep countering with your rubbish and not acknowledging my points?

"that the truth of claims attributing these properties holds only once the relevant framework of assessment is specified or supplied"
the above means any claims of truth of reality, must be contingent upon a specific framework of assessment which inevitably must be human based.
Thus whatever the truth and there reality thereon is contingent and cannot be absolutely "uncontingent" [unconditional] to the human conditions.

Ffs, think about what you're saying here. Of course 'the truth' is contingent on context and linguistic convention. The truth isn't 'out there', any more than falsehood is. But that doesn't mean that reality is contingent - human-dependent. How can we say that? How can we know? What evidence could show it?

Strawman as explained above.
Reality is contingent [not literally human-dependent] upon a human-based FSRC.

Repeat:
Reality: Emergence & Realization Prior to Perceiving, Knowing & Describing
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40145
What is Emergence & Realization
viewtopic.php?t=40721

The evidence that we know reality [all there is, including oneself] is leverage upon empirical evidences verified and justified contingent upon the human-based scientific FSRC reinforced with critical philosophy. [rationality and critical thinking].
Because the whole things is human-based, deductively it follows, whatever is the resultant reality cannot be absolute independent of the human conditions.
Do you dispute this?

Thus your claim,
"These things - 'truth and falsity, right and wrong, standards of reasoning, and procedures of justification' - have nothing to do with the existence of the universe before humans evolved" itself is contingent and cannot be absolutely unconditioned of the human conditions, because;

Relativists characteristically insist, furthermore, that if something is only relatively so, then there can be no framework-independent vantage point from which the matter of whether the thing in question is so can be established.

meaning there is no human-based framework-independent vantage point to establish the purely independent truth that;
"These things - 'truth and falsity, right and wrong, standards of reasoning, and procedures of justification' - have nothing to do with the existence of the universe before humans evolved"

From what framework-independent vantage point do you conclude that there can be no framework-independent vantage point? Or that there can be no colour if there are no categorisations of colour?

You missed the point.

I am stated, YOU [PH] do not have an Framework-independent vantage point to arrive your conclusion of an absolute independent reality, i.e. that is a contradiction.

On the other hand, what I have is a human-based Framework vantage point in realization of reality and the subsequent knowing and description of reality.
There are two processes here, before one described the-described, one must realized the-described to be described.

You are playing God [with an independent vantage point] if you insist;
"These things - 'truth and falsity, right and wrong, standards of reasoning, and procedures of justification' - have nothing to do with the existence of the universe before humans evolved" is an absolute unconditional truth of reality.

All the scientific evidence we have shows that the universe existed before we evolved. Therefore, it's rational to conclude that the universe existed before we evolved, so that its existence had nothing to do with us - and the factual assertion 'the universe existed before we evolved' is true (contextually and conventionally). The conditions 'absolute' and 'unconditional' represent a straw man argument.

I have gone through this [your weak-link] before.

There is no scientific Framework-independent vantage point that verify and justify the universe existed and existed before we evolved.
The scientific Framework i.e. scientific FSRC is contingent upon scientists who are human subjects.
The scientific FSRC cannot make conclusions that are absolutely independent of itself as a human-based framework and system.

Note this fundamental from above;
"that the truth of claims attributing these properties holds only once the relevant framework of assessment is specified or supplied"
so the realization of reality and its truth holds only once the relevant framework of assessment is specified or supplied" i.e. once the scientific FSRC is specified.

Because an absolutely independent unconditional vantage point is an impossibility, the only tenable and realistic vantage point is the relativistic one, which is based directly upon empirical evidence reinforced with critical-philosophy conditioned upon a human-based FSRC.

This 'absolutely independent unconditional vantage point' is your straw man invention. You have to have it, so that you can maintain your silly version of antirealism. I think it may well be a ghostly hangover from substance dualism - the mind above the material fray, above the empirical evidence. It's empiricist skepticism at work.

The point is in alignment with 'relativism' which is a recognized popular philosophical stance held by many philosophers.
Provide solid counters to the above?

You have a cognitive dissonance, i.e. the description is not the-described.
This is because you are grounding the above view based on an illusion.

Spotted. A description really isn't the described. And your delusion is that, somehow, it is. Here's the fallacy.

Premise: A description of (knowledge of) reality is always contingent or relative to a framework.
Conclusion: Therefore, reality is always contingent or relative to a framework.

And this just does not follow. The premise does not justify the conclusion.

That is your strawman.

Should be
Premise: A realization of reality and the description of (knowledge of) reality are always contingent or relative to a human-based framework.
Conclusion: Therefore, the realized reality and the description of (knowledge of) the realized reality are always contingent or relative to a human-based framework.

You and your gang has always accused me of comprehension problems.
Actually it is you and your gang who have comprehension problems in resisting comprehension [not agree] of my views due to your dogmatic ideology.

To avoid future problems you need to repeat my points [you had done so before], then only critique it.

Your denial above of abstraction is really cheap philosophy.
Actually every word you used here is an abstraction of reality - not the exact nor precise reality. When you refer to a 'group of people', or anything that is an abstraction because what is really real on the point should be the exact number of people with all their distinct qualities in the exact time and space [the detailed states of affairs].
Do you even understand this??

[Veritas Aequitas]

@PH

Btw, any comments on this thread?
Tractatus' 'What is Fact' is a Failure.
viewtopic.php?t=42038

[Peter Holmes]

Why are you so selective?

I'm pointing out that this account of 'relativism' makes sense, but that it says nothing about reality itself - such as the existence of the universe - but only the way humans think and talk about reality. You have a complete block in your understanding when it comes to the difference between these things. You mistake what we know and say about things for the way things are - as though they're one and the same thing.

Here are the more relevant paragraphs;


"Simpliciter" means unconditionally.

1 Abstraction is a metaphysical delusion. There are no abstract or non-physical things. They're misleading fictions. So the expression 'at a high level of abstraction, some class of things have properties' is pretentious gibberish.

2 That the properties we call beauty, moral goodness and epistemic justification are not objective - that they're matters of individual or collective opinion - is true. And that's why moral objectivists are wrong.

3 The expression 'framework of assessment' refers to the fact that a description - and therefore a truth-claim - is always contextual and conventional - which I've said all along. But a description is not the described - and the described - such as the universe - is not contextual and conventional.

What I agreed is with the fundamental of 'relativism', i.e.
"that the truth of claims attributing these properties holds only once the relevant framework of assessment is specified or supplied."

Agreed. And a truth-claim is a description. And the attribution of any properties - not just beauty, moral goodness and epistemic justification - is (usually) a linguistic operation involving making truth-claims. And those truth-claims are always relative to a 'framework' - ie, they're contextual and conventional. And this is the relativism you're promoting. And it says nothing about reality - the way things are.

Your strawman again:
my point is not about "a description is not the described" which I have explained a 'million' times, i.e.

VA: Knowledge & Descriptions CANNOT Produce Facts
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39925 Apr 10, 2023
Perceiving, Knowing & Describing a Thing Not Related to Existence of the Thing
viewtopic.php?t=40715

Can you confirm to the above of my point where I agree 'a description is not the-described' and do not repeat this strawman again.

But your argument is that a description is the described. Your denial is pointless, because your argument contradicts its conclusion. You deny there's any such thing as reality outside a framework or model of that reality - outside a description of that reality. You call it an illusion.

My truth claims is about the emergence and realization of reality PRIOR to the knowing and perception of that reality.

Reality: Emergence & Realization Prior to Perceiving, Knowing & Describing
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40145
What is Emergence & Realization
viewtopic.php?t=40721

What is the point of you keep countering with your rubbish and not acknowledging my points?

Your 'emergence and realisation' rubbish is completely irrelevant in this context. If it refers to the evolution of the universe and human life, gives a shit that the universe and human life evolved? Of course they did. We have massive and overwhelming evidence that they did. And I have no idea what the 'realisation of reality' means, because it's mystical gibberish, which you haven't explained, even if you think you have.

"that the truth of claims attributing these properties holds only once the relevant framework of assessment is specified or supplied"
the above means any claims of truth of reality, must be contingent upon a specific framework of assessment which inevitably must be human based.
Thus whatever the truth and there reality thereon is contingent and cannot be absolutely "uncontingent" [unconditional] to the human conditions.

Ffs, think about what you're saying here. Of course 'the truth' is contingent on context and linguistic convention. The truth isn't 'out there', any more than falsehood is. But that doesn't mean that reality is contingent - human-dependent. How can we say that? How can we know? What evidence could show it?

Strawman as explained above.
Reality is contingent [not literally human-dependent] upon a human-based FSRC.

NO IT ISN'T. AND THAT'S NOT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. The truth of a description is 'contingent' - contextual and conventional - but only factual assertions have truth-value. Reality - or features of reality - have no truth-value, because (outside language) they're not linguistic. All along, you've conflated what there is with what's known and said about it.

Repeat:
Reality: Emergence & Realization Prior to Perceiving, Knowing & Describing
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40145
What is Emergence & Realization
viewtopic.php?t=40721

The evidence that we know reality [all there is, including oneself] is leverage upon empirical evidences verified and justified contingent upon the human-based scientific FSRC reinforced with critical philosophy. [rationality and critical thinking].
Because the whole things is human-based, deductively it follows, whatever is the resultant reality cannot be absolute independent of the human conditions.
Do you dispute this?

Yes, because it's false. As I've explained 'a million times', the conclusion doesn't follow from the premise. I know, let's look at it again.

Premise: We humans have to perceive, know and describe reality in human ways.
Conclusion: Therefore, reality is not (absolutely/wholly) independent from us humans.

Open your eyes - unblock your thinking - and you'll be able to grasp why this is a non sequitur. The premise does not entail the conclusion. And, anyway, the conclusion has ridiculous implications. Try gaming them out yourself.

Your denial above of abstraction is really cheap philosophy.
Actually every word you used here is an abstraction of reality - not the exact nor precise reality. When you refer to a 'group of people', or anything that is an abstraction because what is really real on the point should be the exact number of people with all their distinct qualities in the exact time and space [the detailed states of affairs].
Do you even understand this??

Denial of the existence of abstract things is not uncommon. And I expect that, like everyone else, you have no evidence for the existence of abstract or non-physical things. You just go along with the idea of them.

And the argument from the nature of language - such as the delusion that common nouns are names of abstractions, such as identities - is easy to demolish. (As it happens, I'm working on a very short paper - 'Identity, abstraction and concepts' - which I may post here. Lucky people.)

The rotten root of it all is muddling up what there is with things we believe, know and say about what there is. And your confusion is just another version of a very ancient mistake.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Agreed. And a truth-claim is a description. And the attribution of any properties - not just beauty, moral goodness and epistemic justification - is (usually) a linguistic operation involving making truth-claims. And those truth-claims are always relative to a 'framework' - ie, they're contextual and conventional. And this is the relativism you're promoting. And it says nothing about reality - the way things are.

You missed my point.
I wrote this earlier;
viewtopic.php?p=703353#p703353

"that the truth of claims attributing these properties holds only once the relevant framework of assessment is specified or supplied"
the above means any claims of truth of reality, must be contingent upon a specific framework of assessment which inevitably must be human based.
Thus whatever the truth and there reality thereon is contingent and cannot be absolutely "uncontingent" [unconditional] to the human conditions.

There are Two Senses of Reality
viewtopic.php?t=40265

It is the same that there are Two Senses of Truth; your sense of truth is illusory akin to the Correspondence Theory of Truth, i.e. using language to mirror whatever [fact, that is the case, state of affairs] is deemed to be real out there.

Your strawman again:
my point is not about "a description is not the described" which I have explained a 'million' times, i.e.

VA: Knowledge & Descriptions CANNOT Produce Facts
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39925 Apr 10, 2023
Perceiving, Knowing & Describing a Thing Not Related to Existence of the Thing
viewtopic.php?t=40715

Can you confirm to the above of my point where I agree 'a description is not the-described' and do not repeat this strawman again.

But your argument is that a description is the described. Your denial is pointless, because your argument contradicts its conclusion. You deny there's any such thing as reality outside a framework or model of that reality - outside a description of that reality. You call it an illusion.

Strawman, I did not state a description is the-described.
Rather my point the the description and the-described cannot be absolutely independent but some how connected via a FSRC.
Note, W language game is a subset of the FSRC.
viewtopic.php?t=41998

My truth claims is about the emergence and realization of reality PRIOR to the knowing and perception of that reality.

Reality: Emergence & Realization Prior to Perceiving, Knowing & Describing
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40145
What is Emergence & Realization
viewtopic.php?t=40721

What is the point of you keep countering with your rubbish and not acknowledging my points?

Your 'emergence and realisation' rubbish is completely irrelevant in this context. If it refers to the evolution of the universe and human life, gives a shit that the universe and human life evolved? Of course they did. We have massive and overwhelming evidence that they did.
And I have no idea what the 'realisation of reality' means, because it's mystical gibberish, which you haven't explained, even if you think you have.

Rubbish?
That is why I insisted you understand [not agree] my point thoroughly before you made any critique and judgment on it.
This is why I suggest you read the whole of the SEP article on 'Relativism'.
As you that very proud intellectually to critique something you don't understand [not agree]?

I have explained my views a 'million' times in a 'million' posts and 'million' threads, but yet you are unable to understand it.
This is your psychological weakness due to a strong and active defense mechanism and selective cognition [cannot see the 500 pound gorilla].

Strawman as explained above.
Reality is contingent [not literally human-dependent] upon a human-based FSRC.

NO IT ISN'T. AND THAT'S NOT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. The truth of a description is 'contingent' - contextual and conventional - but only factual assertions have truth-value. Reality - or features of reality - have no truth-value, because (outside language) they're not linguistic. All along, you've conflated what there is with what's known and said about it.

Again you do not understand [not agree with] my points because you are stuck to the linguistic framework and system as in W's Tractatus.
But W had moved on and evolved his philosophy to that of the FSRC in On Certainty.

All along, you've conflated what there is with what's known and said about it.

I have already explained the above is your strawman and had provided explanations and argument otherwise.
The problem is you have an immatured cognitive deficit to understand [not agree with] my point.
Just in case, my points are not plucked from the air but sit is shoulders of giants as supported e.g. the SEP article on 'Relativism'.

Repeat:
Reality: Emergence & Realization Prior to Perceiving, Knowing & Describing
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40145
What is Emergence & Realization
viewtopic.php?t=40721

The evidence that we know reality [all there is, including oneself] is leverage upon empirical evidences verified and justified contingent upon the human-based scientific FSRC reinforced with critical philosophy. [rationality and critical thinking].
Because the whole things is human-based, deductively it follows, whatever is the resultant reality cannot be absolute independent of the human conditions.
Do you dispute this?

Yes, because it's false. As I've explained 'a million times', the conclusion doesn't follow from the premise. I know, let's look at it again.

Premise: We humans have to perceive, know and describe reality in human ways.
Conclusion: Therefore, reality is not (absolutely/wholly) independent from us humans.

Open your eyes - unblock your thinking - and you'll be able to grasp why this is a non sequitur. The premise does not entail the conclusion. And, anyway, the conclusion has ridiculous implications. Try gaming them out yourself.

Strawman again, despite the links I provided above.

I have corrected your strawman earlier, here again; it should be;

Premise: Reality emerged and is realized within humans [FSER] which is subsequently perceived, known and described in human ways [FSC {K}].
Conclusion: Therefore, the described reality is not (absolutely/wholly) independent from us humans as contingent upon a FSRC.

What you do not understand is the prior processes of FSER prior to the FSC?
Where did reality came from if not from the FSER?
The alternative theories of yours are not tenable.

Your denial above of abstraction is really cheap philosophy.
Actually every word you used here is an abstraction of reality - not the exact nor precise reality. When you refer to a 'group of people', or anything that is an abstraction because what is really real on the point should be the exact number of people with all their distinct qualities in the exact time and space [the detailed states of affairs].
Do you even understand this??

Denial of the existence of abstract things is not uncommon. And I expect that, like everyone else, you have no evidence for the existence of abstract or non-physical things. You just go along with the idea of them.

And the argument from the nature of language - such as the delusion that common nouns are names of abstractions, such as identities - is easy to demolish. (As it happens, I'm working on a very short paper - 'Identity, abstraction and concepts' - which I may post here. Lucky people.)

The rotten root of it all is muddling up what there is with things we believe, know and say about what there is. And your confusion is just another version of a very ancient mistake.

I stated every realization of reality & things [physical or otherwise] is an abstraction of what is supposed to be the absolute true reality & thing which is conditioned upon a FSRC.

Prove to me your really real physical thing exist absolutely independent of the human conditions?

Non-physical reality and things merely exists along the same continuum of reality as conditioned upon a specific FSRC.

Once time, gravity, & unobservables, pain, feelings, emotions were categorized as abstract things.
But now time, gravity and unobservables which are fundamentally abstractions are regarded as real things but only qualified to the specific science-physics FSRC. Other abstractions are also qualified as real within their respective FSRC.

Based on what you have posted so far and if on the same basis, your paper 'Identity, abstraction and concepts' is likely to be grounded on an illusion.

[Peter Holmes]

VA. Prove that really real physical things don't exist independent from human beings - and didn't exist before humans evolved - because all the evidence we have indicates that they do and did. So the burden of proof is yours.

Here's your argument:

Premise: Reality emerged and is realized within humans [FSER] which is subsequently perceived, known and described in human ways [FSC {K}].
Conclusion: Therefore, the described reality is not (absolutely/wholly) independent from us humans as contingent upon a FSRC.

You've snuck in 'the described reality' instead of 'reality', which, of course, completely changes your argument. I've never denied that humans have to perceive, know and describe reality in human ways.