Is morality objective or subjective?

[Veritas Aequitas]

The term 'philosophy' is now a very loose term.
What you are hinging on is the bastardized form of philosophy.

The origin definition of philosophy is actually inherent in all humans, i.e. the love of wisdom from knowledge and critical thinking.

Whatever of reality we are dealing with must be confined within its relevant framework and system, regardless of whether it is a concrete or abstract noun.
These Framework and System will have varying degrees of credibility and objectivity which can be assessed based on a set of criteria, of which the scientific FSERC is the gold standard [100/100].

So when we assess the Platonic FSK, it would be 10/100 in contrast to the gold standard due to the lack of reliance on empirical evidences.

Thus, whatever is claimed as reality, facts, knowledge or objective it has to have its specific human-based FSK and from there it can be contrasted with the gold standard.

Therefore, from the above, every thing will be covered and its credibility and objective can be assessed and rated.

Your claim of 'what is fact' is a personal subjective claim and cannot be placed within any Framework and System, thus it is very subjective and cannot be assessed and rated at all.

I kept asking you for your references and the specific FSK, i.e. its is Frege, Russell, Wittgenstein, Armstrong, linguistic, ???.
You are unable to support your claim so what you keep postulating is your personal opinion.

No, I propose a premise that entails a conclusion. There are no so-called abstract things - forms or (to update the myth) concepts - so philosophy - 'the love of wisdom from knowledge and critical thinking' - doesn't and can't deal with them.

Instead, it deals with the ways we do or could use some so-called abstract nouns, their cognates and related words. De-dazzle any philosophical question or 'problem', and you'll see that's what it's about. (Other discourses deal with reality outside language, such as the natural sciences.)

Happy to be disabused by anyone here who has even one counter example.

A dog chasing its tail needs to re-think the premise.

You are very lost in philosophy.

• abstract noun: a noun denoting an idea, quality, or state rather than a concrete object, e.g. truth, danger, happiness.

Are you denying the concept of 'truth'? danger, happiness, wisdom, knowledge?
I would claim 'fact' is also an abstract noun.
You insist the above abstract nouns do not exist?

What I claim as fact, truth, knowledge, danger, wisdom, happiness are all contingent upon a human-based FSERC.

Here is another point you avoided above.
Your claim of 'what is fact' is a personal subjective claim and cannot be placed within any Framework and System, thus it is very subjective and cannot be assessed and rated at all.

I kept asking you for your references and the specific FSK, i.e. its is Frege, Russell, Wittgenstein, Armstrong, linguistic, ???. So where is your reference point on this.
You are unable to support your claim so what you keep postulating as "what is fact" is your personal opinion.

Have you got any idea of the origin and history of the term fact up to the present?

[Peter Holmes]

No, I propose a premise that entails a conclusion. There are no so-called abstract things - forms or (to update the myth) concepts - so philosophy - 'the love of wisdom from knowledge and critical thinking' - doesn't and can't deal with them.

Instead, it deals with the ways we do or could use some so-called abstract nouns, their cognates and related words. De-dazzle any philosophical question or 'problem', and you'll see that's what it's about. (Other discourses deal with reality outside language, such as the natural sciences.)

Happy to be disabused by anyone here who has even one counter example.

A dog chasing its tail needs to re-think the premise.

You are very lost in philosophy.

• abstract noun: a noun denoting an idea, quality, or state rather than a concrete object, e.g. truth, danger, happiness.

Are you denying the concept of 'truth'? danger, happiness, wisdom, knowledge?
I would claim 'fact' is also an abstract noun.
You insist the above abstract nouns do not exist?

You either didn't read, or made no attempt to understand, what I wrote.

Look at the above definition of abstract noun. What exactly does it explain? For example, what does the word idea denote? Does it denote (name) an idea, or (posher) a concept? And what does the word concept denote? Try some genuinely critical thinking. And let me help. Here's how the delusion works.

1 We use nouns to name things.
2 We use concrete nouns to name 'concrete', real, physical things, such as rocks and stones and trees.
3 Therefore, it must be the case that we use abstract nouns to name abstract, unreal, non-physical things.

But what are those things? Is there any evidence for their existence? Ah, no, there can't be, because they're abstract, unreal, non-physical things. So what exactly do abstract nouns denote? (How can we keep recognition of the delusion at bay?)

Solution: they denote ideas or concepts, which exist in minds.

But what do the words idea, concept and mind denote? Ah, they denote ideas or concepts.

And on an on. A dog chasing its tail as it spirals down the rabbit hole needs to re-think the premise.

So, no, I don't deny the existence of abstract nouns, such as truth, because they're real things. But you ask if I deny the concept of 'truth', and so on. And I'm asking: what is it, about the existence of which you're asking? Like you, I know how to use the word truth, just as I know how to use an Occam's razor.

I don't suppose you'll read the above carefully and critically either. But if anyone else does, and wants to critique it, please do so.

Here is another point you avoided above.
Your claim of 'what is fact' is a personal subjective claim and cannot be placed within any Framework and System, thus it is very subjective and cannot be assessed and rated at all.

Rubbish. I use standard definitions of the word, such as: 'fact: a thing that is known to exist, or to have occurred, or to be true' (Concise Oxford) - though I challenge both the 'being known' condition, and the obvious equivocation on fact-as-feature-of-reality and fact-as-true-factual-assertion. And anyone is welcome and able to assess and rate my reservations.

I kept asking you for your references and the specific FSK, i.e. its is Frege, Russell, Wittgenstein, Armstrong, linguistic, ???. So where is your reference point on this.
You are unable to support your claim so what you keep postulating as "what is fact" is your personal opinion.

What do you mean by 'reference'? We're talking about premises and conclusions. I happen to follow the later Wittgenstein's radical critique of both his own earlier ideas, in the 'Tractatus', and (inevitably) the ideas of Frege, Russell, the logical positivists, empiricists, rationalists - and, in effect, the whole western philosophical tradition reaching back to and beyond Plato.

But this is always about premises and conclusions.

Have you got any idea of the origin and history of the term fact up to the present?

Yes. I've been thinking about it for at least 40 years.

[phyllo]

That's your aim, perhaps, but mine revolves more around philosophers, using the tools at their disposal, exploring the extent to which, re those like Kant, they can discern what is categorically and imperatively moral or immoral pertaining to sex.

Yeah, that's really demonstrated by your interactions on these sites.

You don't explore anything. You don't discuss any tools of philosophy.

When was the last time you talked about Kant and his writings with anyone? Twenty years ago?

I asking how Kant would deal with some problem and then ignoring all the responses and asking more questions doesn't count as talking about him.

Well, that didn't take long, did it? He's back in Stooge mode. Making me the issue.



Unless, of course, he's right?!

You can't handle it when someone points out that your talk doesn't match your actions.

If it did match, then you would probably have more conversations and more people willing to talk to you. Even the small number of people you don't have contempt for, might keep talking to you.

But you can't teach an old dog new tricks.

[iambiguous]

Yeah, that's really demonstrated by your interactions on these sites.

You don't explore anything. You don't discuss any tools of philosophy.

When was the last time you talked about Kant and his writings with anyone? Twenty years ago?

I asking how Kant would deal with some problem and then ignoring all the responses and asking more questions doesn't count as talking about him.

Well, that didn't take long, did it? He's back in Stooge mode. Making me the issue.



Unless, of course, he's right?!

You can't handle it when someone points out that your talk doesn't match your actions.

If it did match, then you would probably have more conversations and more people willing to talk to you. Even the small number of people you don't have contempt for, might keep talking to you.

But you can't teach an old dog new tricks.

Then I guess you should just steer clear of me here.

[Gary Childress]

Well, that didn't take long, did it? He's back in Stooge mode. Making me the issue.



Unless, of course, he's right?!

You can't handle it when someone points out that your talk doesn't match your actions.

If it did match, then you would probably have more conversations and more people willing to talk to you. Even the small number of people you don't have contempt for, might keep talking to you.

But you can't teach an old dog new tricks.

Then I guess you should just steer clear of me here.

What is "stooge mode"? Or what do you mean by "making [you] the issue"?

[iambiguous]

What is "stooge mode"? Or what do you mean by "making [you] the issue"?

How to explain...

Over the years [20+ now and counting online], I have been flabbergasting -- infuriating? -- the One True Path folks in one or another philosophy forum. The God and the No God moral objectivists in particular.

Or, rather, so it certainly seems to "me".

And, in my view, that revolves basically around 3 things:

1] I argue that while philosophers may go in search of wisdom, this wisdom is always truncated by the gap between what philosophers think they know [about anything] and all that there is to be known in order to grasp the human condition in the context of existence itself. That bothers some. When it really begins to sink in that this quest is ultimately futile, some abandon philosophy altogether. Instead, they stick to the part where they concentrate fully on living their lives "for all practical purposes" from day to day.

2] I suggest in turn it appears reasonable that, in a world sans God, the human brain is but more matter wholly in sync [as a part of nature] with the laws of matter. And, thus, anything we think, feel, say or do is always only that which we were ever able to think, feel, say and do. And that includes philosophers. Some will inevitably find that disturbing. If they can't know for certain that they possess autonomy, they can't know for certain that their philosophical excursions are in fact of their own volition.

3] And then the part where, assuming some measure of autonomy, I suggest that "I" in the is/ought world is basically an existential contraption rooted historically, culturally and experientially in dasein. Uniquely shaped and molded individuals interacting with other uniquely shaped and molded in a world teeming with conflicting goods. Particular worlds understood in particular ways. And in contexts in which wealth and power prevails in the political arena. The part where "I" becomes fractured and fragmented.

Now, at ILP, moreno [iwannaplato here], phyllo and felix da kat, would often make me the issue. It wasn't any of the above points that perturbed them so much as It was, well, me. I just wasn't doing philosophy...right?

Though, again, this is, in turn, no less but another "rooted existentially in dasein" "personal option" of mine. I have no illusions that it reflects, what, the objective truth?

The "Stooge" part comes from this: https://www.salon.com/2000/01/21/tk_2/

"While [Wolfe] conceded that Irving, along with Updike and Mailer, was talented, he said that the three of them weren't 'engaging the life around them'".

And, of course, that's basically my own argument here: bringing theoretical assessments of human morality down out of the didactic -- and for some, pedantic -- clouds.

[Lorikeet]

What is called immoral behaviour requires no human or divine punisher. It is its own punishment.
Those practicing immoral acts increase the probabilities of suffering negative consequences.
The reason men try to impose rules on such behaviours, using god as a means, is because they do not want to suffer the negative consequences of another's activities.
If these behaviours are normalized, or the degree to which they are normalized determines the probability of systemic collapse or for a system to become incapable of competing with other systems - of sustaining itself.

Morality is an encoding of evolved behaviours. They do not emerge from nowhere and they are not conjured up out of nothing.

Every culture that has ever existed or that can ever exist must impose limits to individual behaviours - particularly sexual behaviours.
Every group, including those of other species, must impose rules of conduct upon its participants, otherwise the group cannot survive.
Such rules eventually become ingrained in a species as part of their behavioural norms, but mutations do arise necessitating a reaffirmation of the rules.
These rules are not arbitrary but are founded on what benefits cooperative survival and reproductive strategies. This is why we find such behaviours in many social species.

Humans add to these rules their own amendments, such as those pertaining to human promiscuity, including rules about abortion, sexual behaviours, rape, violence, adultery etc.
All these rules are meant to inhibit behaviours that will reduce a group's cohesion and its competitiveness, relative to other groups (societies, systems, nations etc.).

In short, behaviours that contradict these moral/ethical rules need not be punished by a god or by human laws... the punishment is an increase in the probability of negative consequences, e.g., incest need not be enforced by a god or human authority... its punishment is an increase in the probability of producing genetic deficiencies that will impact the group if it is normalized.
Same goes for paedophilia, or all forms of paraphilia.

[Veritas Aequitas]

No, I propose a premise that entails a conclusion. There are no so-called abstract things - forms or (to update the myth) concepts - so philosophy - 'the love of wisdom from knowledge and critical thinking' - doesn't and can't deal with them.

Instead, it deals with the ways we do or could use some so-called abstract nouns, their cognates and related words. De-dazzle any philosophical question or 'problem', and you'll see that's what it's about. (Other discourses deal with reality outside language, such as the natural sciences.)

Happy to be disabused by anyone here who has even one counter example.

A dog chasing its tail needs to re-think the premise.

You are very lost in philosophy.

• abstract noun: a noun denoting an idea, quality, or state rather than a concrete object, e.g. truth, danger, happiness.

Are you denying the concept of 'truth'? danger, happiness, wisdom, knowledge?
I would claim 'fact' is also an abstract noun.
You insist the above abstract nouns do not exist?

You either didn't read, or made no attempt to understand, what I wrote.

You can take it by default, I am trying very hard to understand what you are trying to convey.
I have even raised threads [need to find it] to understand what is your philosophical stance.
viewtopic.php?t=35095&start=60
If you think I have not read or understand, it is likely to be an oversight or you have not presented your point clearly enough.

Look at the above definition of abstract noun. What exactly does it explain? For example, what does the word idea denote? Does it denote (name) an idea, or (posher) a concept? And what does the word concept denote? Try some genuinely critical thinking. And let me help. Here's how the delusion works.

1 We use nouns to name things.
2 We use concrete nouns to name 'concrete', real, physical things, such as rocks and stones and trees.
3 Therefore, it must be the case that we use abstract nouns to name abstract, unreal, non-physical things.

But what are those things? Is there any evidence for their existence? Ah, no, there can't be, because they're abstract, unreal, non-physical things. So what exactly do abstract nouns denote? (How can we keep recognition of the delusion at bay?)

Solution: they denote ideas or concepts, which exist in minds.

But what do the words idea, concept and mind denote? Ah, they denote ideas or concepts.

And on an on. A dog chasing its tail as it spirals down the rabbit hole needs to re-think the premise.

So, no, I don't deny the existence of abstract nouns, such as truth, because they're real things. But you ask if I deny the concept of 'truth', and so on. And I'm asking: what is it, about the existence of which you're asking? Like you, I know how to use the word truth, just as I know how to use an Occam's razor.

I don't suppose you'll read the above carefully and critically either. But if anyone else does, and wants to critique it, please do so.

You wrote above;
PH: "There are no so-called abstract things - forms or (to update the myth) concepts - so philosophy - 'the love of wisdom from knowledge and critical thinking' - doesn't and can't deal with them."
then you wrote:
I don't deny the existence of abstract nouns

The fact is you lack depth and nuances to words and concepts.

From an antirealist [Kantian] POV, concrete things and abstract things [nouns] lies within a continuum of reality [in varying degrees] contingent upon a human-based FSERC.
As such for an antirealist, in a higher perspective, there are NO [u]absolutely[/u] independent things like concrete nouns.

I have raised my threads on 'in one perspective why reality is a hallucination of varying degrees, e.g.;

Your brain hallucinates your conscious reality – Anil & Ramachandran
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=25316

Here is another point you avoided above.
Your claim of 'what is fact' is a personal subjective claim and cannot be placed within any Framework and System, thus it is very subjective and cannot be assessed and rated at all.

Rubbish. I use standard definitions of the word, such as: 'fact: a thing that is known to exist, or to have occurred, or to be true' (Concise Oxford) - though I challenge both the 'being known' condition, and the obvious equivocation on fact-as-feature-of-reality and fact-as-true-factual-assertion. And anyone is welcome and able to assess and rate my reservations.

In this case, we cannot restrict the meaning of what is fact from a dictionary.
We should at least refer to the definition and meaning from WIKI, SEP, IEP or philosophical books and articles. e.g.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact
You appear to be running away from this more meaningful definition and details which is more relevant for this particular discussion.
The WIKI article gives further links to other references.

The more detailed definition and meaning of 'what is fact' leads to the concept that 'what is fact' is contingent upon some Framework and System [emergence, realization of reality, cognition, knowledge and description]. FSERC.

I kept asking you for your references and the specific FSK, i.e. its is Frege, Russell, Wittgenstein, Armstrong, linguistic, ???. So where is your reference point on this.
You are unable to support your claim so what you keep postulating as "what is fact" is your personal opinion.

What do you mean by 'reference'? We're talking about premises and conclusions. I happen to follow the later Wittgenstein's radical critique of both his own earlier ideas, in the 'Tractatus', and (inevitably) the ideas of Frege, Russell, the logical positivists, empiricists, rationalists - and, in effect, the whole western philosophical tradition reaching back to and beyond Plato.
But this is always about premises and conclusions.

Not reference as with 'referent.'
I am asking for reference in terms of books, papers and articles that support your theory of 'what is fact'.

But what you are claiming re "what is fact" i.e. a feature of reality that is the case, state of affair, just-is is more to the Tractatus of early Wittgenstein, which W has abandoned as in his PI and the later-Wittgenstein 'On Certainty.'

It is not easy to understand the later-W's ideas; I don't think you have understood W's On Certainty and his later ideas thoroughly.

The early-W re Tractatus is realist while the later-W leans more to antirealism.
There are many articles that claim the later-W is antirealist, e.g.
https://www.redalyc.org/journal/1053/105352363010/html/
You can do a search in google to view them and their argument; don't think you can counter them.

Have you got any idea of the origin and history of the term fact up to the present?

Yes. I've been thinking about it for at least 40 years.

I don't think you have cover the topic thoroughly with a fine-toothed comb.
I have been trying to do so for a long time and is looking into more details of it at present.

Note this:
On the History of Philosophies of Facts
SEP: Kevin Mulligan & Fabrice Correia
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fact ... facts.html

I have opened a thread on 'Origin and History of 'What is fact'.
Origin & History of 'What is Fact'
viewtopic.php?t=42261

I want to show the realists [philosophical]' dogmatic versions of 'what is fact' is fatuous and a sham.

[Peter Holmes]

You are very lost in philosophy.

• abstract noun: a noun denoting an idea, quality, or state rather than a concrete object, e.g. truth, danger, happiness.

Are you denying the concept of 'truth'? danger, happiness, wisdom, knowledge?
I would claim 'fact' is also an abstract noun.
You insist the above abstract nouns do not exist?

You either didn't read, or made no attempt to understand, what I wrote.

You can take it by default, I am trying very hard to understand what you are trying to convey.
I have even raised threads [need to find it] to understand what is your philosophical stance.
viewtopic.php?t=35095&start=60
If you think I have not read or understand, it is likely to be an oversight or you have not presented your point clearly enough.

Look at the above definition of abstract noun. What exactly does it explain? For example, what does the word idea denote? Does it denote (name) an idea, or (posher) a concept? And what does the word concept denote? Try some genuinely critical thinking. And let me help. Here's how the delusion works.

1 We use nouns to name things.
2 We use concrete nouns to name 'concrete', real, physical things, such as rocks and stones and trees.
3 Therefore, it must be the case that we use abstract nouns to name abstract, unreal, non-physical things.

But what are those things? Is there any evidence for their existence? Ah, no, there can't be, because they're abstract, unreal, non-physical things. So what exactly do abstract nouns denote? (How can we keep recognition of the delusion at bay?)

Solution: they denote ideas or concepts, which exist in minds.

But what do the words idea, concept and mind denote? Ah, they denote ideas or concepts.

And on an on. A dog chasing its tail as it spirals down the rabbit hole needs to re-think the premise.

So, no, I don't deny the existence of abstract nouns, such as truth, because they're real things. But you ask if I deny the concept of 'truth', and so on. And I'm asking: what is it, about the existence of which you're asking? Like you, I know how to use the word truth, just as I know how to use an Occam's razor.

I don't suppose you'll read the above carefully and critically either. But if anyone else does, and wants to critique it, please do so.

You wrote above;
PH: "There are no so-called abstract things - forms or (to update the myth) concepts - so philosophy - 'the love of wisdom from knowledge and critical thinking' - doesn't and can't deal with them."
then you wrote:
I don't deny the existence of abstract nouns

The fact is you lack depth and nuances to words and concepts.

From an antirealist [Kantian] POV, concrete things and abstract things [nouns] lies within a continuum of reality [in varying degrees] contingent upon a human-based FSERC.
As such for an antirealist, in a higher perspective, there are NO [u]absolutely[/u] independent things like concrete nouns.

I have raised my threads on 'in one perspective why reality is a hallucination of varying degrees, e.g.;

Your brain hallucinates your conscious reality – Anil & Ramachandran
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=25316

Here is another point you avoided above.
Your claim of 'what is fact' is a personal subjective claim and cannot be placed within any Framework and System, thus it is very subjective and cannot be assessed and rated at all.

Rubbish. I use standard definitions of the word, such as: 'fact: a thing that is known to exist, or to have occurred, or to be true' (Concise Oxford) - though I challenge both the 'being known' condition, and the obvious equivocation on fact-as-feature-of-reality and fact-as-true-factual-assertion. And anyone is welcome and able to assess and rate my reservations.

In this case, we cannot restrict the meaning of what is fact from a dictionary.
We should at least refer to the definition and meaning from WIKI, SEP, IEP or philosophical books and articles. e.g.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact
You appear to be running away from this more meaningful definition and details which is more relevant for this particular discussion.
The WIKI article gives further links to other references.

The more detailed definition and meaning of 'what is fact' leads to the concept that 'what is fact' is contingent upon some Framework and System [emergence, realization of reality, cognition, knowledge and description]. FSERC.

I kept asking you for your references and the specific FSK, i.e. its is Frege, Russell, Wittgenstein, Armstrong, linguistic, ???. So where is your reference point on this.
You are unable to support your claim so what you keep postulating as "what is fact" is your personal opinion.

What do you mean by 'reference'? We're talking about premises and conclusions. I happen to follow the later Wittgenstein's radical critique of both his own earlier ideas, in the 'Tractatus', and (inevitably) the ideas of Frege, Russell, the logical positivists, empiricists, rationalists - and, in effect, the whole western philosophical tradition reaching back to and beyond Plato.
But this is always about premises and conclusions.

Not reference as with 'referent.'
I am asking for reference in terms of books, papers and articles that support your theory of 'what is fact'.

But what you are claiming re "what is fact" i.e. a feature of reality that is the case, state of affair, just-is is more to the Tractatus of early Wittgenstein, which W has abandoned as in his PI and the later-Wittgenstein 'On Certainty.'

It is not easy to understand the later-W's ideas; I don't think you have understood W's On Certainty and his later ideas thoroughly.

The early-W re Tractatus is realist while the later-W leans more to antirealism.
There are many articles that claim the later-W is antirealist, e.g.
https://www.redalyc.org/journal/1053/105352363010/html/
You can do a search in google to view them and their argument; don't think you can counter them.

Have you got any idea of the origin and history of the term fact up to the present?

Yes. I've been thinking about it for at least 40 years.

I don't think you have cover the topic thoroughly with a fine-toothed comb.
I have been trying to do so for a long time and is looking into more details of it at present.

Note this:
On the History of Philosophies of Facts
SEP: Kevin Mulligan & Fabrice Correia
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fact ... facts.html

I have opened a thread on 'Origin and History of 'What is fact'.
Origin & History of 'What is Fact'
viewtopic.php?t=42261

I want to show the realists [philosophical]' dogmatic versions of 'what is fact' is fatuous and a sham.

False.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You either didn't read, or made no attempt to understand, what I wrote.

You can take it by default, I am trying very hard to understand what you are trying to convey.
I have even raised threads [need to find it] to understand what is your philosophical stance.
viewtopic.php?t=35095&start=60
If you think I have not read or understand, it is likely to be an oversight or you have not presented your point clearly enough.

Look at the above definition of abstract noun. What exactly does it explain? For example, what does the word idea denote? Does it denote (name) an idea, or (posher) a concept? And what does the word concept denote? Try some genuinely critical thinking. And let me help. Here's how the delusion works.

1 We use nouns to name things.
2 We use concrete nouns to name 'concrete', real, physical things, such as rocks and stones and trees.
3 Therefore, it must be the case that we use abstract nouns to name abstract, unreal, non-physical things.

But what are those things? Is there any evidence for their existence? Ah, no, there can't be, because they're abstract, unreal, non-physical things. So what exactly do abstract nouns denote? (How can we keep recognition of the delusion at bay?)

Solution: they denote ideas or concepts, which exist in minds.

But what do the words idea, concept and mind denote? Ah, they denote ideas or concepts.

And on an on. A dog chasing its tail as it spirals down the rabbit hole needs to re-think the premise.

So, no, I don't deny the existence of abstract nouns, such as truth, because they're real things. But you ask if I deny the concept of 'truth', and so on. And I'm asking: what is it, about the existence of which you're asking? Like you, I know how to use the word truth, just as I know how to use an Occam's razor.

I don't suppose you'll read the above carefully and critically either. But if anyone else does, and wants to critique it, please do so.

You wrote above;
PH: "There are no so-called abstract things - forms or (to update the myth) concepts - so philosophy - 'the love of wisdom from knowledge and critical thinking' - doesn't and can't deal with them."
then you wrote:
I don't deny the existence of abstract nouns

The fact is you lack depth and nuances to words and concepts.

From an antirealist [Kantian] POV, concrete things and abstract things [nouns] lies within a continuum of reality [in varying degrees] contingent upon a human-based FSERC.
As such for an antirealist, in a higher perspective, there are NO [u]absolutely[/u] independent things like concrete nouns.

I have raised my threads on 'in one perspective why reality is a hallucination of varying degrees, e.g.;

Your brain hallucinates your conscious reality – Anil & Ramachandran
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=25316

Rubbish. I use standard definitions of the word, such as: 'fact: a thing that is known to exist, or to have occurred, or to be true' (Concise Oxford) - though I challenge both the 'being known' condition, and the obvious equivocation on fact-as-feature-of-reality and fact-as-true-factual-assertion. And anyone is welcome and able to assess and rate my reservations.

In this case, we cannot restrict the meaning of what is fact from a dictionary.
We should at least refer to the definition and meaning from WIKI, SEP, IEP or philosophical books and articles. e.g.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact
You appear to be running away from this more meaningful definition and details which is more relevant for this particular discussion.
The WIKI article gives further links to other references.

The more detailed definition and meaning of 'what is fact' leads to the concept that 'what is fact' is contingent upon some Framework and System [emergence, realization of reality, cognition, knowledge and description]. FSERC.

What do you mean by 'reference'? We're talking about premises and conclusions. I happen to follow the later Wittgenstein's radical critique of both his own earlier ideas, in the 'Tractatus', and (inevitably) the ideas of Frege, Russell, the logical positivists, empiricists, rationalists - and, in effect, the whole western philosophical tradition reaching back to and beyond Plato.
But this is always about premises and conclusions.

Not reference as with 'referent.'
I am asking for reference in terms of books, papers and articles that support your theory of 'what is fact'.

But what you are claiming re "what is fact" i.e. a feature of reality that is the case, state of affair, just-is is more to the Tractatus of early Wittgenstein, which W has abandoned as in his PI and the later-Wittgenstein 'On Certainty.'

It is not easy to understand the later-W's ideas; I don't think you have understood W's On Certainty and his later ideas thoroughly.

The early-W re Tractatus is realist while the later-W leans more to antirealism.
There are many articles that claim the later-W is antirealist, e.g.
https://www.redalyc.org/journal/1053/105352363010/html/
You can do a search in google to view them and their argument; don't think you can counter them.

Yes. I've been thinking about it for at least 40 years.

I don't think you have cover the topic thoroughly with a fine-toothed comb.
I have been trying to do so for a long time and is looking into more details of it at present.

Note this:
On the History of Philosophies of Facts
SEP: Kevin Mulligan & Fabrice Correia
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fact ... facts.html

I have opened a thread on 'Origin and History of 'What is fact'.
Origin & History of 'What is Fact'
viewtopic.php?t=42261

I want to show the realists [philosophical]' dogmatic versions of 'what is fact' is fatuous and a sham.

False.

Where's your philosophical and intellectual integrity?

Looks like you are surrendering because you have ran out of arguments to counter my arguments?

[Peter Holmes]

You can take it by default, I am trying very hard to understand what you are trying to convey.
I have even raised threads [need to find it] to understand what is your philosophical stance.
viewtopic.php?t=35095&start=60
If you think I have not read or understand, it is likely to be an oversight or you have not presented your point clearly enough.


You wrote above;
PH: "There are no so-called abstract things - forms or (to update the myth) concepts - so philosophy - 'the love of wisdom from knowledge and critical thinking' - doesn't and can't deal with them."
then you wrote:
I don't deny the existence of abstract nouns

The fact is you lack depth and nuances to words and concepts.

From an antirealist [Kantian] POV, concrete things and abstract things [nouns] lies within a continuum of reality [in varying degrees] contingent upon a human-based FSERC.
As such for an antirealist, in a higher perspective, there are NO [u]absolutely[/u] independent things like concrete nouns.

I have raised my threads on 'in one perspective why reality is a hallucination of varying degrees, e.g.;

Your brain hallucinates your conscious reality – Anil & Ramachandran
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=25316




In this case, we cannot restrict the meaning of what is fact from a dictionary.
We should at least refer to the definition and meaning from WIKI, SEP, IEP or philosophical books and articles. e.g.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact
You appear to be running away from this more meaningful definition and details which is more relevant for this particular discussion.
The WIKI article gives further links to other references.

The more detailed definition and meaning of 'what is fact' leads to the concept that 'what is fact' is contingent upon some Framework and System [emergence, realization of reality, cognition, knowledge and description]. FSERC.


Not reference as with 'referent.'
I am asking for reference in terms of books, papers and articles that support your theory of 'what is fact'.

But what you are claiming re "what is fact" i.e. a feature of reality that is the case, state of affair, just-is is more to the Tractatus of early Wittgenstein, which W has abandoned as in his PI and the later-Wittgenstein 'On Certainty.'

It is not easy to understand the later-W's ideas; I don't think you have understood W's On Certainty and his later ideas thoroughly.

The early-W re Tractatus is realist while the later-W leans more to antirealism.
There are many articles that claim the later-W is antirealist, e.g.
https://www.redalyc.org/journal/1053/105352363010/html/
You can do a search in google to view them and their argument; don't think you can counter them.




I don't think you have cover the topic thoroughly with a fine-toothed comb.
I have been trying to do so for a long time and is looking into more details of it at present.

Note this:
On the History of Philosophies of Facts
SEP: Kevin Mulligan & Fabrice Correia
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fact ... facts.html

I have opened a thread on 'Origin and History of 'What is fact'.
Origin & History of 'What is Fact'
viewtopic.php?t=42261

I want to show the realists [philosophical]' dogmatic versions of 'what is fact' is fatuous and a sham.

False.

Where's your philosophical and intellectual integrity?

Looks like you are surrendering because you have ran out of arguments to counter my arguments?

No. It's just boring having to repeat refutations that you don't or can't understand. However, see my other post, because it may help you. The penny may drop.

[Veritas Aequitas]

False.

Where's your philosophical and intellectual integrity?

Looks like you are surrendering because you have ran out of arguments to counter my arguments?

No. It's just boring having to repeat refutations that you don't or can't understand. However, see my other post, because it may help you. The penny may drop.

Don't be so arrogant based on high ignorance.

You need to understand both our position [dichotomy] are separated by a wide chasm of philosophical views [realism vs antirealism], each with millions of supporters. [so it is not just me alone].

The fact is your realism view is a primal and primitive view driven by an evolutionary default, thus supported by the majority.
As with all fields of knowledge, the anti-realists' [Kantian] is a further evolved, advanced and more matured view than your primitive view.
Note the progress from the realist primitive folk-physics, to classical Newtonian physics to Einsteinian then to QM [antirealism].
It is the same with the advance from realists' cognitive science to antirealist cognitive science.

Point is you are still arguing on the grounds of primal primitive realism.

[Harbal]

The fact is your realism view is a primal and primitive view driven by an evolutionary default, thus supported by the majority.

It seems you are wrong on the grounds that too many people agree with you, Peter.

[FlashDangerpants]

The fact is your realism view is a primal and primitive view driven by an evolutionary default, thus supported by the majority.

It seems you are wrong on the grounds that too many people agree with you, Peter.

The keen observer of KFC theory would note that this entails that Pete's KFC-bucket has all the credibility and therefore is the KFC-champion.

[Peter Holmes]

The fact is your realism view is a primal and primitive view driven by an evolutionary default, thus supported by the majority.

It seems you are wrong on the grounds that too many people agree with you, Peter.

Maybe it's a rare case where intersubjective consensus doesn't work.