Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon May 27, 2024 10:12 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon May 27, 2024 4:52 am
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun May 26, 2024 5:59 pm
Have a think. You're trying to get to the conclusion that reality can't be absolutely independent from humans, or that reality is (somehow) intricately related to humans, or that there is only reality-contingent-with-humans. These are all ways of saying much the same thing.
But if your premise is 'There is only reality-contingent-with-humans', you're using your conclusion as a premise, which is called 'begging the question'. It means the argument is useless. By adding 'There is only reality-contingent-with-humans' to your premise, you've achieved nothing. See below.
P: There is only reality-contingent-with-humans.
C: Therefore, reality can't be absolutely independent from humans, etc.
The conclusion in effect restates the premise.
The issue is: why does 'there is no such thing as reality-in-itself' entail 'therefore, there is only reality-contingent-with-humans'? You have to answer that question.
I was using and modifying your earlier syllogism.
The argument proper would be something like this;
- i. A part cannot be absolutely independent of the whole which it is intricately a part of.
E.g. the spokes of wheel cannot be absolutely independent of the wheel it is intricately a part of.
P1 Reality is a whole, i.e. all there is.
P2 Humans are parts of reality [the whole]
C Therefore humans cannot be absolutely independent of reality [the whole]
Show me your argument your 'what is fact' is a feature of reality that is the case, just-so, state of affair, which is absolutely independent regardless there are humans or not?
By your definition, your 'what is fact' is a fact-in-itself or fact-by-itself, i.e. is absolutely independent regardless there are humans or not.
If you insist in relating your fact to science, then it is a fact-by-science.
Since science is contingent on humans, whatever the fact-by-science cannot be absolutely independent of the human conditions.
Your absolute independent fact-in-itself is an illusion.
This is a swerve to a different argument and conclusion. Yes, of course, we humans are real, so we can't be absolutely independent from the whole (reality), of which we're a part.
The first part is the obvious premise.
You are unable to realize the vice-versa, i.e. reality cannot be absolutely independent of humans because your
evolutionary default sense of externalness and outerness is too strong and domineering over your higher rational faculty and turning it into an ideology.
But it doesn't follow that there can be no reality-in-itself, independent from humans. The 'whole' (reality) can and does continue to exist even if one of its parts disappears - for example, when an individual dies or a species goes extinct.
Can't you see the logic and rationality?
1. Humans [the parts] cannot be absolutely independent of reality [the whole].
if follows logically and rationally,
2. Reality [the whole] cannot be absolutely independent of humans [its parts].
3. Therefore there is no reality-in-itself independent of humans [its parts].
What is reality is an emergence and is realized via a human-based FSER then perceive, known, and described via a human-based FSC [knowledge]. i.e. FSERC.
Reality was a 'whole' before humans evolved, would have been a 'whole' had we not evolved, and will be a 'whole' when we're gone. So this 'whole' (reality/the universe) is indeed patently and demonstrably independent from humans.
The above is not a realization of reality.
It is merely your
speculation [empty] based on reason from a posteriori experience without any real basis at all.
Note the above is conditioned upon before and after humans which is time and space based where both are contingent upon the human conditions.
What is
reality is an emergence and is realized via a
human-based FSER then perceive, known, and described via a human-based FSC [knowledge]. i.e. FSERC.
Your above is merely speculated from a FSC [cognition and knowledge] but without real emergence and realization of reality [the FSER].
The above dilemma has been around for thousands of years, that is why there is dualism and pyrrhonian skepticism which Kant resolved.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrrhonism
You're dodging the big questions:
1 What exactly is 'reality-in-itself'? (Because, if the expression is meaningless, then so is any premise in which it appears. And any argument from such a premise is incoherent.)
As I had stated when you state your 'what is fact' is a feature of reality that is the case, a state of affairs, is just-is absolutely independent, i.e. regardless whether there are humans or not. that exactly is literally reality-in-itself, or if refer to things, then things-in-themselves.
So your fact is a fact-in-itself,
when refer to factual reality, your's is reality-in-itself.
But somewhere, you realize, you are also a fact which is a part of reality so cannot be in-itself. That is your dilemma! not mine.
2 Why does the premise 'there is no reality-in-itself' entail the conclusion 'therefore, reality can't be absolutely independent from humans'?
The above "reality can't be absolutely independent from humans" is a direct objection and opposition to the
ideology of realists who claim 'reality' or things are absolutely independent from humans.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism
Philosophical realists claim 'reality' or things are absolutely independent from humans.
This is the same as 'reality' or things exist absolutely independent by-themselves, therefore exists
by-themselves or
in-themselves without any human relations.
Thus, the premise 'there is
no reality-in-itself' [existing absolutely independent from humans ]
entail the conclusion,
'therefore, reality [in-itself] can't be absolutely independent from humans'
Note the antirealism [Kantian] paradigm shift, i.e. humans are part and parcel of reality, thus not absolutely independent of reality is to enable humanity to some
degrees of 'control' reality rather than be at the mercy of an absolutely independent reality or a God.
This move is critical to enable moral progress within humanity in the future via the recognition of objective moral facts [FSERC-ed].