FDP 's Philosophical Stance

[Veritas Aequitas]

Request: This thread is for FDP to present his philosophical stance and my comments only. Hopefully others will understand and not post here.

@FDP, this thread is for easy reference of your philosophical stance, so you don't have to repeat it.

My stance is not cryptic. I have been making it clear, but you think you can overrule me. You don't need to place me within a hierachy of FSK things, that sorting game you insist on doesn't really matter, it is a psychological crutch for you and has zero importance to the world around you.

The whole debate really is nonsense.
Reality is what you see when you look around and that is what the concept is for.
You are exactly as real -- no more, no less -- than the things you see when you look around.
You have no outsider position to look at reality from.
You are fooling yourself that you can meaningfully talk of something being more real than reality is (look around you... that thing right there is reality in case you have forgotten).
That reality you see around you is paradigm, imagined alternate realities are fictions.

All this stuff is the start of the chain of errors that Rorty warns against, running from Descartes who did the doubting that the real world is reality, through Locke who inserted extra nonsense about perception that separates us further from "reality", inviting additional solipsisms or Berkeleyan idealism, through to Kant, who does nothing to fix that divide itself, instead trying to magic away just the problems that Locke and Descartes created.

So quit "guessing" and just read my words.

OK, noted your philosophical stance, but Rorty misinterpreted Kant. I believe he relied on Strawson's shot-gun reading of Kant where he ignored the last part which is critical to Kant's intention. I'll get into the detail later.

I suggest you create 10 empty posts 'Notes-KIV' to fill in later so that they are in front of the thread rather than mixed up with other posts when this thread becomes a dumpster.
I have created some empty posts to fill in any relevant matters.

[Veritas Aequitas]

@ FDP

Rorty critiqued those who relied on 'foundationalism' for their philosophical views, e.g. Descartes, Locke, Hume and most of the analytic philosophers.
However, Rorty was wrong in including Kant in the above categories.

Rorty's most admired philosophers are Wittgenstein, Heidegger, Dewey who changed their earlier foundational philosophies to a non-foundational one in the later phase of their philosophical journey.
Rorty wrote:
The book [Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature], like the writings of the philosophers I most admire, is therapeutic rather than constructive

I had a discussion with AI on the above subject.

One conclusion reached is;

• The Weakness of Rorty's Approach:
  Uncertainty of Progress: Without an ideal good, how do individuals know they're improving humanity? They might unknowingly move towards harm.
  Without a universal ideal, it's harder to define "good" and measure progress towards it. There's a risk of individuals unknowingly moving towards something harmful.

On the other hand, Kant's approach is not based on foundationalism in any ontological sense.
Rather Kant adopt an ultimate ideal good which must be supported by the empirical in it utmost best which is continually subject to improvement, rationality, critical thinking and wisdom.
This why Kant vision and mission is perpetual peace [what we can hope for] grounded on what we can know [epistemology], what we can do [morality].

Your approach grounded on Rorty's basic philosophy and others[?] has no compass [lighthouse] to guide for continual self-improvement and thus likely to be wrecked on the rocks of reality.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes:

FDP's views:
Not really. I am largely in line with a set of ideas that might begin with a certain way of interpreting Hume, then largely skips to Wittgenstein. I'm not strictly opposed to some of what the pragmatists argue although once any philosopher says that when we speaks of knowing something what we actually mean is X I am probably going to depart from that philosopher at that point if it hasn't happened already.

If in doubt, read Isaiah Berlin

What the philosophical books and reference relate to your philosophy?
If not, are you on your very own philosophy?

I have already told you the main thing about reading philosophy books. They tend to be better at the start when they describe the problem and blame it on Kant, and then become sort of shit later on when they propose a bad solution. I suggest that applies even to the best such books. To the extent that I am able to determine, I am cool with W's PI [Philosophical Investigation]and On Certainty partly because they don't really fix the problem, they remain largely in the realm of explaining it, which is perhaps cheating.

I like Strawson, but I haven't read his major books in a very long time, and I can't say for sure I would be into them any more now that I mention it. But his preference for a descriptive metaphysics rather than dismissing metaphysics entirely or some revisionist procrustrean effort to fit some notion of 'science being the best KFC' is probably still a good idea. Anyway, as I recall I particularly liked one of his lesser works: Subject and Predicate in Logic and Grammar, and was entirely persuaded at the time, that wasn't this century though. Most likely if I read it now, I will say it starts well...

But, as a wise man recently wrote: If in doubt, read Isaiah Berlin (and I am fully aware that mister Berlin was a moral realist, but I don't hold it against him because I am a pluralist like him).

............
Ryle's opening argument about category mistake is excellent for instance, but the behaviourism of the rest of that book is a bad solution to the issue. So I will use Ryle's argument, but I won't often refer to his big idea.
...................

[FlashDangerpants]

I don't really have much time for this today, sorry.

Rorty criticises Kant for unthinkingly importing the world-of-perception vs real-world dichotomy that Descartes popularised and Locke formalised. This is an accurate criticism because he is showing the root of the whole phenom/noumenon divide that Kant absolutely does use a lot.

That is not criticising Kant for being a foundationalist (if we really need that term) or holding any particular ontological view at all, but for not rejecting an artifact of that other thing. I hope this helps you to understand that Kant isn't the only philosopher that should be understood.

Please stop polluting everything with AI. And don't bother with all this talk of people who don't share your views being evil and standing in need of some self-improvement rubbish, I am only going to issue dire scorn if you do that again.

[phyllo]

Request: This thread is for FDP to present his philosophical stance and my comments only. Hopefully others will understand and not post here.

I don't understand.

A public forum is not a place where you get to restrict who participates.

Why don't you use private messaging if you only want to talk to one person?

Or exchange emails.

[FlashDangerpants]

Request: This thread is for FDP to present his philosophical stance and my comments only. Hopefully others will understand and not post here.

I don't understand.

A public forum is not a place where you get to restrict who participates.

Why don't you use private messaging if you only want to talk to one person?

Or exchange emails.

Don't worry about that, the biggest actual difference between VA and I, the one that makes it truly impossible for him to grasp my position on anything, relates to that request. He's obsessive about formalisation and organising things into neat little piles, I am first and foremost an informalist and reject the idea of neat little hierarchies for all knowings and sayings and doings. These call out threads are a microcosm of that, an attempt to make a naturally unruly forum follow unnaturally orderly rules.

I am happy to tag in anybody who wants to tell VA that the debate about reality versus perceptions and realism vs antirealism has no outcome and changes nothing about the world, our ways of living within the world or our ways of knowing about the world. That's what he really wants to argue against, not so much me.

I suppose if there's anybody else besides him who thinks that one of the outcomes of global antirealism is moral realism then that person is welcome to try and beat me up (unless it's Skepdick in which case I DGAF). But I think there may only be one person who holds such a contradictory set of views available.

[phyllo]

I'm not worried, but I'm nudging the ship back on course.

[Skepdick]

I am happy to tag in anybody who wants to tell VA that the debate about reality versus perceptions and realism vs antirealism has no outcome and changes nothing about the world

Wow! Such a narrow perspective. Philosophy changes nothing about world.

That's the fucking problem.

unless it's Skepdick in which case I DGAF

Whether you do; or don't give a fuck changes nothing about the world either. You are in this game for the lip service and occasional diatribe.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Request: This thread is for FDP to present his philosophical stance and my comments only. Hopefully others will understand and not post here.

I don't understand.
A public forum is not a place where you get to restrict who participates.
Why don't you use private messaging if you only want to talk to one person?
Or exchange emails.

I know I cannot dictate, I was just hoping which anyway I am quite pessimistic.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I don't really have much time for this today, sorry.

Rorty criticises Kant for unthinkingly importing the world-of-perception vs real-world dichotomy that Descartes popularised and Locke formalised. This is an accurate criticism because he is showing the root of the whole phenom/noumenon divide that Kant absolutely does use a lot.

That is not criticising Kant for being a foundationalist (if we really need that term) or holding any particular ontological view at all, but for not rejecting an artifact of that other thing. I hope this helps you to understand that Kant isn't the only philosopher that should be understood.

Please stop polluting everything with AI. And don't bother with all this talk of people who don't share your views being evil and standing in need of some self-improvement rubbish, I am only going to issue dire scorn if you do that again.

Kant unthinkingly??
Kant condemned severely the ontology and metaphysics of past philosophers, this is why he argued the mind-independent thing-in-itself is an illusion.

However, Kant is also a "psychologist" in understanding it is inherent in human nature driven by an evolutionary default and existential crisis to turn to metaphysics for its therapeutic purposes.
He understood that it is impossible at present to demand the majority of billions [now > 8 billion] of people to just give up the 'foundation' [mind-independent ontology and metaphysics] just like that.
He merely insisted that while mind-independent ontology is unavoidable at present, believers should not insist it as an objective reality in an ideological manner, but rather understand it as a useful illusion.

Kant also find the thing-in-itself is also a useful illusion for his project re morality, i.e. the categorical imperative. I will argue Kant's version of morality based on the useful illusion is has greater potential for Rorty's version of morality.
Science actually relied on a useful illusion, the ultimate particle and other ultimate things to drive science forward.
Scientists are deluded to think there is an ultimate particle or things but that is only illusory for science [by definition] is never and impossible to reach certainty or ultimate_ness.

Rorty is right in his criticism of an ontological foundation but he is not wise in insisting we do away with it totally at present or even within the next 100 years.
But Rorty's approach enables the potential to lead individuals and groups to harmful ideologies.

I don't see any wrong with AI as long as we apply general human rationality, critical thinking and wisdom.

Btw, can you list the philosophies and philosophers that are in alignment with your philosophy?
What the philosophical books and reference relate to your philosophy?
If not, are you on your very own philosophy?

[FlashDangerpants]

I don't really have much time for this today, sorry.

Rorty criticises Kant for unthinkingly importing the world-of-perception vs real-world dichotomy that Descartes popularised and Locke formalised. This is an accurate criticism because he is showing the root of the whole phenom/noumenon divide that Kant absolutely does use a lot.

That is not criticising Kant for being a foundationalist (if we really need that term) or holding any particular ontological view at all, but for not rejecting an artifact of that other thing. I hope this helps you to understand that Kant isn't the only philosopher that should be understood.

Please stop polluting everything with AI. And don't bother with all this talk of people who don't share your views being evil and standing in need of some self-improvement rubbish, I am only going to issue dire scorn if you do that again.

Kant unthinkingly??

Ok, then, he made the mistake thinkingly rather than unthinkingly if you prefer, I don't care. Still a mistake was made there by Kant.

Btw, can you list the philosophies and philosophers that are in alignment with your philosophy?

Not really. I am largely in line with a set of ideas that might begin with a certain way of interpreting Hume, then largely skips to Wittgenstein. I'm not strictly opposed to some of what the pragmatists argue although once any philosopher says that when we speaks of knowing something what we actually mean is X I am probably going to depart from that philosopher at that point if it hasn't happened already.

If in doubt, read Isaiah Berlin

What the philosophical books and reference relate to your philosophy?
If not, are you on your very own philosophy?

I have already told you the main thing about reading philosophy books. They tend to be better at the start when they describe the problem and blame it on Kant, and then become sort of shit later on when they propose a bad solution. I suggest that applies even to the best such books. To the extent that I am able to determine, I am cool with the PI and On Certainty partly because they don't really fix the problem, they remain largely in the realm of explaining it, which is perhaps cheating.

I like Strawson, but I haven't read his major books in a very long time, and I can't say for sure I would be into them any more now that I mention it. But his preference for a descriptive metaphysics rather than dismissing metaphysics entirely or some revisionist procrustrean effort to fit some notion of 'science being the best KFC' is probably still a good idea. Anyway, as I recall I particularly liked one of his lesser works: Subject and Predicate in Logic and Grammar, and was entirely persuaded at the time, that wasn't this century though. Most likely if I read it now, I will say it starts well...

But, as a wise man recently wrote: If in doubt, read Isaiah Berlin (and I am fully aware that mister Berlin was a moral realist, but I don't hold it against him because I am a pluralist like him).

[phyllo]

Request: This thread is for FDP to present his philosophical stance and my comments only. Hopefully others will understand and not post here.

I don't understand.
A public forum is not a place where you get to restrict who participates.
Why don't you use private messaging if you only want to talk to one person?
Or exchange emails.

I know I cannot dictate, I was just hoping which anyway I am quite pessimistic.

The point is that if you want to talk with one person, you ought use private messaging.

Why would you use the forum in that case? The only reason that seems to make sense is that you want to put yourself on display.

[Harbal]

Request: This thread is for FDP to present his philosophical stance and my comments only. Hopefully others will understand and not post here.

I probably wouldn't have posted on this thread, but once I became aware of your hopes the temptation to dash them was too irresistible.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I don't understand.
A public forum is not a place where you get to restrict who participates.
Why don't you use private messaging if you only want to talk to one person?
Or exchange emails.

I know I cannot dictate, I was just hoping which anyway I am quite pessimistic.

The point is that if you want to talk with one person, you ought use private messaging.

Why would you use the forum in that case? The only reason that seems to make sense is that you want to put yourself on display.

You read my intent wrongly.
I list all my posts for future references in Word.
While I can link posts in the forum I cannot link them in PM.
The point here is to avoid keep asking FDP what his philosophical stance is.

[Veritas Aequitas]

If in doubt, read Isaiah Berlin

What the philosophical books and reference relate to your philosophy?
If not, are you on your very own philosophy?

I have already told you the main thing about reading philosophy books. They tend to be better at the start when they describe the problem and blame it on Kant, and then become sort of shit later on when they propose a bad solution. I suggest that applies even to the best such books. To the extent that I am able to determine, I am cool with the PI and On Certainty partly because they don't really fix the problem, they remain largely in the realm of explaining it, which is perhaps cheating.

But, as a wise man recently wrote: If in doubt, read Isaiah Berlin (and I am fully aware that mister Berlin was a moral realist, but I don't hold it against him because I am a pluralist like him).

In order words, other than PI, On Certainty, Berlin you are grounding your philosophical stance on your own personal philosophy?

What is the critical point with your reference to Berlin?