Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Apr 04, 2021 10:55 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Apr 04, 2021 8:33 am
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sat Apr 03, 2021 12:51 pm
I don't assume facts-in-themselves exist. I have no idea what such things are. They seem to be straw-facts that you've invented, to justify your straw-man argument. So my question stands: what is a fact-in-itself?
As for facts (features of reality), I agree that empirical demonstration of their existence is a rational requirement. And you've failed to meet your burden of empirical proof that moral facts exist. You haven't even explained the meaning of the expression 'moral fact' - because it's incoherent.
Note in the link above, I mentioned,
The thing 'fact-in-itself' is synonymous with
fact-by-itself,
thing-in-itself,
the noumenon which is attributed to things that are absolutely independent of the human conditions, i.e. they exist even if there are no humans. You get this point?
While you are using the term facts generally, I wanted to differentiate your sense of fact from what is typically defined as fact which is conditioned upon a specific FSK.
Thus what is fact to you is a 'fact-in-itself' i.e. '
in-itself' means it is independent of the human mind[s] & conditions and will exists even if there are no humans.
What I termed and defined as fact is conditioned upon a specific FSK, thus cannot be 'in-itself' or 'by-itself'.
Therefore whenever I mentioned 'fact' it has to be qualified to a specific FSK, e.g. scientific facts are conditioned upon the scientific FSK.
What are moral facts are conditioned upon a credible moral FSK.
Because what you termed as fact is a fact-in-itself, there is no way you can reconcile to my moral-fact-via-a-FSK.
I agree that empirical demonstration of their existence is a rational requirement.
If you agree with empirical demonstration of fact, then such a fact cannot be a fact-in-itself. But you seem to be sticking to a fact-in-itself which is demonstrable, thus the contradiction.
And you've failed to meet your burden of empirical proof that moral facts exist. You haven't even explained the meaning of the expression 'moral fact' - because it's incoherent.
As explained above, that is your problem because you keep conflating a fact-in-itself with a FSK-linked-Fact.
A moral fact is one that is linked to the moral FSK.
I have already demonstrated many times how the physical moral oughtness [inhibitors comprising neurons and chemicals] in human brain is processed as a moral fact within the moral FSK. I won't waste time repeating my explanations.
And the comedy continues. A fact-in-itself is a fact-by-itself, a thing-in-itself, the noumenon, and so on. Okay...so what is any one-of-those?
VA, do you think there were things and facts in the universe before humans turned up, and that there will be things and facts in the universe after we're gone? If, as I assume, you do, then those things and facts, to use your own terms. existed and will exist 'independent from human conditions'. But if you don't think such things and facts existed and will exist, what reason do you have to think they didn't and won't?
Your mistake is very simple. You leap from the truth that we describe things in different ways - to the falsehood that we create those things. And from that falsehood, you leap to the falsehood that what we call facts exist 'within FSKs', so that moral facts can exist 'within a moral FSK'. There's a fallacy at every step of your argument. And you'll continue to ignore or not understand this fact.
I NEVER claimed 'we create those thing'.
1. I have argued we co-create those things.
2. Thus whatever is real of reality, i.e. facts or feature of reality, there is no way they [fact] can be absolutely independent of the human conditions.
3. What is the fact of reality are inevitably entangled with a specific FSK.
- E.g. a scientific fact of reality is specific to the scientific FSK.
5. Therefore, a moral fact of reality is specific to the moral FSK.
6. The critical requirement is whatever is a fact or feature of reality must be verified and justified empirically and philosophically within a credible FSK.
Show me where is the fallacy in the above points.
The most you can claim is from your POV, the above is not very sound and that is because you are ignorant of how a moral FSK works.
In addition, you will never understand how a moral FSK works because you have been brainwashed by the ideologies and bastardized philosophies of the LPs and CAPs.
Because of point 2 above,
"2. Thus whatever is real of reality, i.e. facts or feature of reality, there is no way they [fact] can be absolutely independent of the human conditions"
there is no way in the ultimate sense, there is a universe that is absolutely independent of the human conditions.
Point is, whatever the claim of reality, you cannot disentangled the human conditions from it.
As such to a claim-C 'the universes exists before there were humans and after humans are extinct' do not make ultimate real sense.
Claim-C is nevertheless acceptable within common and various conventional senses but not in the ultimate real sense.
Even within Physics, scientists has conceded to their expectation of an absolutely independent reality, note:
Model-dependent realism is a view of scientific inquiry that focuses on the role of scientific models of phenomena.[1] It claims reality should be interpreted based upon these models, and where several models overlap in describing a particular subject, multiple, equally valid, realities exist.
It Model-dependent realism claims that it is meaningless to talk about the "true reality" of a model as we can never be absolutely certain of anything. The only meaningful thing is the usefulness of the model.[2]
The term "model-dependent realism" was coined by Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow in their 2010 book, The Grand Design.[3]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model-dependent_realism
I believe you are ignorant of the above and even I have linked it many time, it won't get into your thick skull.
Do you have a counter against Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow views above?