Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sat May 21, 2022 8:37 am
My claim that what we call a fact is 'something that really exists or has occurred' is not groundless. That is a standard dictionary definition - an explanation of how we use the word
fact. You're free to use words any way you like. But there's no reason for the rest of us to use words the way you want us to.
You have lost it when you insist on sticking to "dictionary definitions" when we are doing a serious philosophical discussion here.
Note my argument here;
Prepositions, Facts, States of Affairs - all Groundless
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=34902
Where I dig deep into the above in the very credible SEP;
What is your counter to the above on the claim that your basis of what is fact from the dictionary is groundless from the philosophical perspective.
Calling what I say 'kindergarten stuff' doesn't address my refutation of your argument. So it looks like you can't do it. Hence the yaboo name-calling.
It is obvious your throwing and insistent with reference to dictionary definitions is relatively 'kindergarten stuff' as compared to references from SEP and other philosophical materials.
To repeat, your claim that a fact - 'something that really exists or has occurred' - can't exist outside a descriptive context is patently false. It's cart-before-the-horsery.
Strawmanning again based on your dogmatically shallow and narrow thinking.
Based on common and conventional sense, things exist independent of the descriptive context, but this is dogmatically shallow and narrow thinking.
You should note humans has been advancing by their ability to grasp rationally what is beyond common and conventional sense. Note the advances in Physics from classical to Einsteinian, to QM with the shifting in paradigm with each phase of advances where the observers are inevitably entangled with what is reality.
My claim is whatever is reality is always conditioned upon a specific FSK [constructed and maintained by men] thus inevitably, reality is entangled with reality.
To insist reality [fact, truths, the real] is
absolutely independent of the human condition is
a non-starter.
Point is you are so ignorant of the serious philosophical issues, e.g. it is a scandal philosophy with the insistence there are things absolutely independent of the human conditions [description, etc.];
Kant wrote:However harmless Idealism may be considered in respect of the essential aims of Metaphysics (though, in fact, it is not thus harmless),
it still remains a scandal to Philosophy and to Human Reason-in-General that the Existence of Things outside us (from which we derive the whole Material of Knowledge, even for our Inner Sense) must be accepted merely on Faith,
and that if anyone thinks good to doubt their Existence, we are unable to counter his doubts by any satisfactory proof. B54
Above is a direct challenge to your claim, things can exist independently of the descriptive.
Note:
Kant considered it to be scandalous that philosophy still had not found a rational proof of the existence of the external world during his time. Arguably, the scandal continues today because scepticism remains a widely debated and extremely divisive issue among contemporary thinkers.
Luigi Caranti
G E Moore [one of your philosophical Godfather] took the challenge but failed miserably.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Here_is_one_hand
Why you are stuck in a rut with dogmatic views is because you are so ignorant of the range of disputed views to your claims. You should at least understand [not necessary agree with] these issue to avoid simply brushing away the issues.