Philosophy Now Forum

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Apr 10, 2021 5:58 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 7:26 am It is on this basis that there is no proven independent external world and that it cannot be proven, that I state,
everything that was, is and will be the case in the universe CANNOT exist independently of the human conditions.

Non sequitur. We can't prove there is an external world, but we also can't disprove it.

Do you honestly don't realize that your claim is a non sequitur?

Quite. Here's the argument:

The 'external world' can't be proven to exist; therefore the 'external world' can't exist independently from humans.

Erm.

Here is VA's claim:

'...everything that was, is and will be the case in the universe CANNOT exist independently of the human conditions.'

VA thinks this justifies the claim that morality is objective - that there are moral facts. Perhaps this is the argument:

All facts - all features of reality - depend on humans.
So if humans say something is the case, then it is the case.
So if humans say an action is morally right or wrong, then it is morally right or wrong.
Therefore, there are moral facts and morality is objective.

I think the big flaw in this argument is the unstated claim that what we call truth, facts and objectivity are not what we say they are.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Apr 16, 2021 9:06 am Here is VA's claim:

'...everything that was, is and will be the case in the universe CANNOT exist independently of the human conditions.'

VA thinks this justifies the claim that morality is objective - that there are moral facts. Perhaps this is the argument:

All facts - all features of reality - depend on humans.
So if humans say something is the case, then it is the case.
So if humans say an action is morally right or wrong, then it is morally right or wrong.
Therefore, there are moral facts and morality is objective.

I think the big flaw in this argument is the unstated claim that what we call truth, facts and objectivity are not what we say they are.

Big flaw??

You are so ignorant you had been infected with the malignant virus from the bastardized philosophies of the logical positivists and classical analytic philosophers.

I believe there something 'mystical' in the sense you view what is 'facts' [this is why I will avoid this term for the time being].
I would like to trash this out to get to the bottom of the issue.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Apr 16, 2021 9:14 am

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Apr 16, 2021 9:06 am Here is VA's claim:

'...everything that was, is and will be the case in the universe CANNOT exist independently of the human conditions.'

VA thinks this justifies the claim that morality is objective - that there are moral facts. Perhaps this is the argument:

All facts - all features of reality - depend on humans.
So if humans say something is the case, then it is the case.
So if humans say an action is morally right or wrong, then it is morally right or wrong.
Therefore, there are moral facts and morality is objective.

I think the big flaw in this argument is the unstated claim that what we call truth, facts and objectivity are not what we say they are.

Big flaw??

You are so ignorant you had been infected with the malignant virus from the bastardized philosophies of the logical positivists and classical analytic philosophers.

I believe there something 'mystical' in the sense you view what is 'facts' [this is why I will avoid this term for the time being].
I would like to trash this out to get to the bottom of the issue.

If what we call truth, facts and objectivity are not what we say they are - what are they? And how do you know what they are?

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Apr 16, 2021 12:09 pm If what we call truth, facts and objectivity are not what we say they are - what are they? And how do you know what they are?

If what we call truth, facts and objectivity are what we say they are then why isn't a true objective fact that murder is wrong?

I am saying it.

The expression 'a true objective fact' is a complete mess. Could there be a false fact, or a subjective fact?

It's because what we call truth, facts and objectivity are what we say they are - that our saying an assertion is true doesn't mean it must be true - or even that it's factual at all.

Sorry. Posted twice.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Apr 16, 2021 9:14 am You are so ignorant you had been infected with the malignant virus from the bastardized philosophies of the logical positivists and classical analytic philosophers.

When you write stuff like that you come across in the vein of someone like Rush Limbaugh or Alex Jones. (Or at best, like, say, Ayn Rand writing about Kant.)

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Apr 16, 2021 1:04 pm The expression 'a true objective fact' is a complete mess. Could there be a false fact, or a subjective fact?

It's because what we call truth, facts and objectivity are what we say they are - that our saying an assertion is true doesn't mean it must be true - or even that it's factual at all.

On my view there are subjective facts.

"Subjective" refers to mental phenomena. There are facts about mental phenomena. So there are subjective facts.

An example is "Joe feels that Stravinsky is the best composer." That's a subjective fact, a fact about Joe's mental phenomena.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Apr 16, 2021 1:04 pm The expression 'a true objective fact' is a complete mess. Could there be a false fact, or a subjective fact?

It's because what we call truth, facts and objectivity are what we say they are - that our saying an assertion is true doesn't mean it must be true - or even that it's factual at all.

Oh, you don't like my expression? OK. I'll fix it for you.

It's a fact that murder is wrong.
Objectively speaking, murder is wrong.
It's obviously true that murder is wrong.

It's a fact that water is H2O.
Objectively speaking, water is H2O.
It's true that water is H2O.

Those are assertions with a demonstrable truth-value. They claim something about reality that is or isn't the case. And because it demonstrably is the case, these factual assertions are true.

Now do the same demonstration with the assertion 'slavery is wrong'. Is the wrongness of slavery a thing that is or isn't the case? Could the assertion 'slavery is wrong' be false? If not, in what sense could it be true?

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Fri Apr 16, 2021 1:27 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Apr 16, 2021 9:14 am You are so ignorant you had been infected with the malignant virus from the bastardized philosophies of the logical positivists and classical analytic philosophers.

When you write stuff like that you come across in the vein of someone like Rush Limbaugh or Alex Jones. (Or at best, like, say, Ayn Rand writing about Kant.)

He is a big fan of Dinesh D'Souza, so a bit of the old Rush Limbaugh is sort of to be expected.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Fri Apr 16, 2021 4:45 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Fri Apr 16, 2021 1:27 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Apr 16, 2021 9:14 am You are so ignorant you had been infected with the malignant virus from the bastardized philosophies of the logical positivists and classical analytic philosophers.

When you write stuff like that you come across in the vein of someone like Rush Limbaugh or Alex Jones. (Or at best, like, say, Ayn Rand writing about Kant.)

He is a big fan of Dinesh D'Souza, so a bit of the old Rush Limbaugh is sort of to be expected.

I wasn't familiar with D'Souza, but I just looked him up and he looks like a piece of work.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Apr 16, 2021 12:09 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Apr 16, 2021 9:14 am

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Apr 16, 2021 9:06 am Here is VA's claim:

'...everything that was, is and will be the case in the universe CANNOT exist independently of the human conditions.'

VA thinks this justifies the claim that morality is objective - that there are moral facts. Perhaps this is the argument:

All facts - all features of reality - depend on humans.
So if humans say something is the case, then it is the case.
So if humans say an action is morally right or wrong, then it is morally right or wrong.
Therefore, there are moral facts and morality is objective.

I think the big flaw in this argument is the unstated claim that what we call truth, facts and objectivity are not what we say they are.

Big flaw??

You are so ignorant you had been infected with the malignant virus from the bastardized philosophies of the logical positivists and classical analytic philosophers.

I believe there something 'mystical' in the sense you view what is 'facts' [this is why I will avoid this term for the time being].
I would like to trash this out to get to the bottom of the issue.

If what we call truth, facts and objectivity are not what we say they are - what are they? And how do you know what they are?

You tell me what they really are? and what are they really?
Give me some examples to prove your point.

According to Russell [upon very deep reflection], perhaps there is not table at all?
That is because you are never acquainted with the supposedly real table.
What you are directly acquainted with are only the sense data transmitted [cognized upside down] from the supposedly real table.
As such there are a lot of things and processes going on between how you know the table and the supposedly real table.

At best you are only speculating and assuming there is a supposedly real table, thus you are begging the question.

It is very possible there is no real supposedly real table.
This is why there are Philosophers, Physicists, neuroscientists, neuro-psychologists who agree with these thesis;

Humans are the Co-Creator of Reality They are In [2]
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=32476

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

Do you have any counter arguments to the above?

I anticipate you will merely brushed the above off with noises and no counter arguments, prove me wrong.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Fri Apr 16, 2021 7:09 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Fri Apr 16, 2021 4:45 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Fri Apr 16, 2021 1:27 pm

When you write stuff like that you come across in the vein of someone like Rush Limbaugh or Alex Jones. (Or at best, like, say, Ayn Rand writing about Kant.)

He is a big fan of Dinesh D'Souza, so a bit of the old Rush Limbaugh is sort of to be expected.

I wasn't familiar with D'Souza, but I just looked him up and he looks like a piece of work.

I have never asserted I am a fan of Dinesh D'souza who is a very staunch theist, thus do not agree with his philosophical views.
However re History, D'souza has provided very informative leads and knowledge of the history of the Democrats who were the original slave owners, racists and founders of the KKK. This we can follow and verify the truths independently by ourselves.