All Knowledge Grounded on a Specific FSK

[FlashDangerpants]

Normal everyday concepts must be qualified to a FSRC before it make any sense.

That is absolute bullshit.

You are too arrogant based on ignorance.

Note this:
Feyman: Need a Framework to Support Truth
viewtopic.php?t=41912

It was bad enough that you used your KFC as a theory of knowledge. It was overkill when you used it as a theory of knowledge and a theory of truth as if those are interchangeable. But now you want to use it as a theory of knowledge, a theory of truth AND a theory of meaning as well.... you are delusional.

And you don't even know enough to understand that objection. But you are about to call me ignorant again.

[Veritas Aequitas]

That is absolute bullshit.

You are too arrogant based on ignorance.

Note this:
Feyman: Need a Framework to Support Truth
viewtopic.php?t=41912

It was bad enough that you used your KFC as a theory of knowledge. It was overkill when you used it as a theory of knowledge and a theory of truth as if those are interchangeable. But now you want to use it as a theory of knowledge, a theory of truth AND a theory of meaning as well.... you are delusional.

And you don't even know enough to understand that objection. But you are about to call me ignorant again.

Carnap
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/carnap/#Fram
"The frameworks on which Carnap worked after this were less specific to particular epistemological problems, and more abstract and general.
In his view, the specification of a framework was a prerequisite for any rational reconstruction of rational discourse whatsoever."
It only made sense to speak of something “existing” relative to a framework (i.e., one could only speak of “existence” as internal to a framework), he said, not in any general sense (external to any framework whatever).

Also note, truth, real, exists and all circular.

[FlashDangerpants]

Normal everyday concepts must be qualified to a FSRC before it make any sense.

Try to stay on some sort of logical path please. This quoted above is phrased as a theory of meaning.

Do you need to clarify your language here, or do you actually mean that these frameworks that denote knowledge, are the same frameworks that denote truth, and are now the same frameworks that denote meaning?

If we can't get past this, there's not much more that can be done with you.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Normal everyday concepts must be qualified to a FSRC before it make any sense.

Try to stay on some sort of logical path please. This quoted above is phrased as a theory of meaning.

Do you need to clarify your language here, or do you actually mean that these frameworks that denote knowledge, are the same frameworks that denote truth, and are now the same frameworks that denote meaning?

If we can't get past this, there's not much more that can be done with you.

Yes.
Water is H20 is true because the science-chemistry FSRC said so.
Water as H20 exists because the science-chemistry FSRC said so.
It is a fact, Water is H20 because the science-chemistry FSRC said so.
Water is H20 is real because the science-chemistry FSRC said so.

What is wrong with the above?

[FlashDangerpants]

Normal everyday concepts must be qualified to a FSRC before it make any sense.

Try to stay on some sort of logical path please. This quoted above is phrased as a theory of meaning.

Do you need to clarify your language here, or do you actually mean that these frameworks that denote knowledge, are the same frameworks that denote truth, and are now the same frameworks that denote meaning?

If we can't get past this, there's not much more that can be done with you.

Yes.
Water is H20 is true because the science-chemistry FSRC said so.
Water as H20 exists because the science-chemistry FSRC said so.
It is a fact, Water is H20 because the science-chemistry FSRC said so.
Water is H20 is real because the science-chemistry FSRC said so.

What is wrong with the above?

Does that have anything to do with the point? How does it relate to "Normal everyday concepts must be qualified to a FSRC before it make any sense."?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Try to stay on some sort of logical path please. This quoted above is phrased as a theory of meaning.

Do you need to clarify your language here, or do you actually mean that these frameworks that denote knowledge, are the same frameworks that denote truth, and are now the same frameworks that denote meaning?

If we can't get past this, there's not much more that can be done with you.

Yes.
Water is H20 is true because the science-chemistry FSRC said so.
Water as H20 exists because the science-chemistry FSRC said so.
It is a fact, Water is H20 because the science-chemistry FSRC said so.
Water is H20 is real because the science-chemistry FSRC said so.

What is wrong with the above?

Does that have anything to do with the point? How does it relate to "Normal everyday concepts must be qualified to a FSRC before it make any sense."?

You asked,
"do you actually mean that these frameworks that denote knowledge, are the same frameworks that denote truth, and are now the same frameworks that denote meaning?"

My principle is,
Whatever the reality, fact, truth, knowledge, meaning, objectivity, it must be contingent upon an embodied human-based FSRC.

The 'whatever' cover "Normal everyday concepts".
I gave an obvious example re 'Water is H20'.

You think of any 'normal everyday concept' and it is definitely contingent within some kind of constituted FSRC [or in combinations], i.e. it cannot standalone as absolutely independent and unconditional.

[FlashDangerpants]

We need to go back to here, because whatever that thing about everyday words needing a KFC to make sense was about, it wasn't a good answer so I don't even really care any more. The normal language games of object reference such as "this is a key" and "this key has been in my pocket all day" are sufficient for the discussion of the key, I will offer nothing but scorn if you try to make it about the molecules of the key, and then the atoms in those molecules.

The activity of knowing things and the things that are being known are not identical,

In this case are you not mirroring "what is knowing" with "the things that are being known" via a reality gap between what is knowing" and that this "things that are being known?"

Reality gap? I'm just describing how our normal everyday concepts work. In normal everyday language if Harry knows that his car keys are in his pocket, then that is one thing, and the actual car keys that are in his pocket are not the same as the knowing about it. The objective fact about the car keys being be in his pocket remains even if Harry has a heart attack and dies and doesn't know anything at all about keys any more.

[Skepdick]

We need to go back to here, because whatever that thing about everyday words needing a KFC to make sense was about, it wasn't a good answer so I don't even really care any more. The normal language games of object reference such as "this is a key" and "this key has been in my pocket all day" are sufficient for the discussion of the key, I will offer nothing but scorn if you try to make it about the molecules of the key, and then the atoms in those molecules.

Idiot-philosopher. Language serves a purpose. Discourse serves a purpose. You can be equally scorned for making it about the key without explaining why you are denoting it. Why not the wallet? Or the chair you are sitting on. Why have you focused there?

In context of two different purposes across different domains of discourse the exact same denotations could mean very different things; or they could be entirely meaningless.

You are pre-supposing the purpose of language and the domain of discourse. You are pre-supposing the "using language to correctly represent and describe reality" game.

The more you succeed at that game - the more useless your language becomes for any practical purposes.

Anything context-free is entirely removed from practice.

[Veritas Aequitas]

We need to go back to here, because whatever that thing about everyday words needing a KFC to make sense was about, it wasn't a good answer so I don't even really care any more. The normal language games of object reference such as "this is a key" and "this key has been in my pocket all day" are sufficient for the discussion of the key, I will offer nothing but scorn if you try to make it about the molecules of the key, and then the atoms in those molecules.

You are just like a cry baby, don't do this or that or else I will cry, wail and bawl.
It is also like Muslims who threaten those who try to rationalize Islam with death threats.
That is not philosophizing.

You can scorn all you want, but I have my own discretion to end the discussion.

The normal language games of object reference such as "this is a key" and "this key has been in my pocket all day" are sufficient for the discussion of the key,

"discussion of the key" has to depend on the intended purpose.
This is sufficient only within a certain contexts which the truth of it is not truthful.
It is only true within a qualified 'ordinary-language FSRC'.
'Ordinary language' imo is good for low grade philosophy toward the well being of the individual[s] and that of humanity.

The activity of knowing things and the things that are being known are not identical,

In this case are you not mirroring "what is knowing" with "the things that are being known" via a reality gap between what is knowing" and that this "things that are being known?"

Reality gap? I'm just describing how our normal everyday concepts work. In normal everyday language if Harry knows that his car keys are in his pocket, then that is one thing, and the actual car keys that are in his pocket are not the same as the knowing about it. The objective fact about the car keys being be in his pocket remains even if Harry has a heart attack and dies and doesn't know anything at all about keys any more.

As I had stated, ordinary language at its best is still low grade philosophy in contrast to philosophy proper. This is what the past philosophers term as 'vulgar' thinking.

"If Harry has a heart attack and dies" it would benefit the rest of humanity to understand why Harry has a heart attack and how others can prevent themselves from having a heart attack.
This require advance scientific knowledge and advanced philosophical thinking.

Re key or anything, the more refined we understand about its feature the greater knowledge [molecules, atoms, quarks] will generate greater benefits than merely knowing it as a solid thing.

Note Russell,

• IS there any knowledge in the world which is so certain that no reasonable man could doubt it?
  This question, which at first sight might not seem difficult, is really one of the most difficult that can be asked.
  When we have realized the obstacles in the way of a straightforward and confident answer, we shall be well launched on the study of philosophy -- for philosophy is merely the attempt to answer such ultimate questions, not carelessly and dogmatically, as we do in ordinary life and even in the sciences,
  but critically after exploring all that makes such questions puzzling, and after realizing all the vagueness and confusion that underlie our ordinary ideas.
  https://www.ditext.com/russell/rus1.html
  
  Are you familiar with the full range of Criticisms against Ordinary Language?
  
  WORDS AND THINGS
  A Critical Account of Linguistic Philosophy and a Study in Ideology
  by ERNEST GELLNER
  
  The Strange Death of Ordinary Language Philosophy
  https://www.mv.helsinki.fi/home/tuschan ... s/strange/
  
  The Demise of Ordinary Language Philosophy: Grice
  https://iep.utm.edu/ord-lang/#H5

[FlashDangerpants]

As I had stated, ordinary language at its best is still low grade philosophy in contrast to philosophy proper. This is what the past philosophers term as 'vulgar' thinking.

You can state any old nonsense you like. The question is what can you demonstrate by argument? At the moment that is not very much.

"philosophy proper" is some self-serving bullshit that nobody cares about and your version of what is "vulgar" or what is wrong with vulgarity interests exactly as many people as phil-proper does or Budhism-proper, or Morality-proper, or any of your other ersatz crap that gets tagged with the worthless "-proper" suffix.

I similarly don't care about your many links to books you haven't read that complain about a branch of philosophy you do not understand. Read the books and then convey the arguments therein showing how they are relevant to what I write or Pete or whoever, if you have the ability to do so. Otherwise, what is the point of you exactly?

[Veritas Aequitas]

As I had stated, ordinary language at its best is still low grade philosophy in contrast to philosophy proper. This is what the past philosophers term as 'vulgar' thinking.

You can state any old nonsense you like. The question is what can you demonstrate by argument? At the moment that is not very much.

"philosophy proper" is some self-serving bullshit that nobody cares about and your version of what is "vulgar" or what is wrong with vulgarity interests exactly as many people as phil-proper does or Budhism-proper, or Morality-proper, or any of your other ersatz crap that gets tagged with the worthless "-proper" suffix.

I similarly don't care about your many links to books you haven't read that complain about a branch of philosophy you do not understand. Read the books and then convey the arguments therein showing how they are relevant to what I write or Pete or whoever, if you have the ability to do so. Otherwise, what is the point of you exactly?

Most of the book I have read and quoted is no different from the 100s of books quoted by various experts in the Bibliography of their book where they quote relevant para, sections or chapter but not the whole book. I don't believe these experts has a >90/100 of the whole book they quoted on their finger tips.

The book that I had spent a lot of time reading which I am very confident [80/100] of is Kant's Critique of Pure Reason. The CPR is very realistic in representing reality, say 90/100.
What I have read from you and Peter in contrast to the CPR is merely 10/100.
I have countered Peter's view [same as yours?], but no effective counter from him;

Philosophical Realism's Mind-Independence is Absurd
viewtopic.php?t=40272
There are Two Senses of Reality
viewtopic.php?t=40265
There are Two Senses of 'What is Fact'
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39587
What is Philosophical Objectivity?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31416
There are Two Senses of 'Objectivity'
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39326
PH: The Fact of the Matter; or Delusion
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39577
PH's What is Fact is Illusory
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39577
Why Philosophical Realism is Illusory
viewtopic.php?t=40167
PH's Philosophical Realism is Illusory
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39992 Apr 23, 2023 8:06 am
PH's Stupidity: The "Mind" Does not Exist as Real
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40071 May 16, 2023 4:59 am

At present I am rereading Wittgenstein's On Certainty to counter your confidence that you have understood the book thoroughly to counter my views.
Wittgenstein On Certainty and Kant
viewtopic.php?t=41948
Do you have a counter to my thesis there in?

[FlashDangerpants]

As I had stated, ordinary language at its best is still low grade philosophy in contrast to philosophy proper. This is what the past philosophers term as 'vulgar' thinking.

You can state any old nonsense you like. The question is what can you demonstrate by argument? At the moment that is not very much.

"philosophy proper" is some self-serving bullshit that nobody cares about and your version of what is "vulgar" or what is wrong with vulgarity interests exactly as many people as phil-proper does or Budhism-proper, or Morality-proper, or any of your other ersatz crap that gets tagged with the worthless "-proper" suffix.

I similarly don't care about your many links to books you haven't read that complain about a branch of philosophy you do not understand. Read the books and then convey the arguments therein showing how they are relevant to what I write or Pete or whoever, if you have the ability to do so. Otherwise, what is the point of you exactly?

Most of the book I have read and quoted is no different from the 100s of books quoted by various experts in the Bibliography of their book where they quote relevant para, sections or chapter but not the whole book. I don't believe these experts has a >90/100 of the whole book they quoted on their finger tips.

Well then you ought to be able to relate the contents, the specific arguments it makes, back to the contents of the specific claims that I or Pete or Sculptor has made, maybe IWP too.

Let us know when you are able to do that, rather than just wave at the existence of a book thatr we completely believe you have definitely "read".

At present I am rereading Wittgenstein's On Certainty to counter your confidence that you have understood the book thoroughly to counter my views.
Wittgenstein On Certainty and Kant
viewtopic.php?t=41948
Do you have a counter to my thesis there in?

Let me know if you are able to make something out of this that might cause me to need to read it again myself.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You can state any old nonsense you like. The question is what can you demonstrate by argument? At the moment that is not very much.

"philosophy proper" is some self-serving bullshit that nobody cares about and your version of what is "vulgar" or what is wrong with vulgarity interests exactly as many people as phil-proper does or Budhism-proper, or Morality-proper, or any of your other ersatz crap that gets tagged with the worthless "-proper" suffix.

I similarly don't care about your many links to books you haven't read that complain about a branch of philosophy you do not understand. Read the books and then convey the arguments therein showing how they are relevant to what I write or Pete or whoever, if you have the ability to do so. Otherwise, what is the point of you exactly?

Most of the book I have read and quoted is no different from the 100s of books quoted by various experts in the Bibliography of their book where they quote relevant para, sections or chapter but not the whole book. I don't believe these experts has a >90/100 of the whole book they quoted on their finger tips.

Well then you ought to be able to relate the contents, the specific arguments it makes, back to the contents of the specific claims that I or Pete or Sculptor has made, maybe IWP too.

Let us know when you are able to do that, rather than just wave at the existence of a book that we completely believe you have definitely "read".

In the majority of cases, it is me who present the claims.
What you, Peter, Sculptor, IWP are doing are countering my claims with merely complains, whining, blabbering, blah, blah based on ignorance, grounded on illusions and without much substance.

PH: The Fact of the Matter; or Delusion
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39577
PH's What is Fact is Illusory
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39577

Why Philosophical Realism is Illusory
viewtopic.php?t=40167

PH's Philosophical Realism is Illusory
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39992 Apr 23, 2023 8:06 am

PH's Stupidity: The "Mind" Does not Exist as Real
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40071 May 16, 2023 4:59 am

I have not addressed much of your ignorance and posts earlier because I had put you on ignored due to your Diarrhea_ing.

At present I am rereading Wittgenstein's On Certainty to counter your confidence that you have understood the book thoroughly to counter my views.
Wittgenstein On Certainty and Kant
viewtopic.php?t=41948
Do you have a counter to my thesis there in?

Let me know if you are able to make something out of this that might cause me to need to read it again myself.

As mentioned by AI, I believe you have missed the historical basis of 'On Certainty' and misinterpreted 'On Certainty' very narrowly as a continuation of his PI and language games.

Since you are banking so heavily on W's "On Certainty" for your philosophy plus condemning my view based on it, I suggest you reread it again.
This time consider language games as a FRSC [Framework and System of Realization of Reality and Cognition] which is the case within "On Certainty".
Since you condemned my FRSC you are the same time condemning W's concept of language games which you accept as great.

[FlashDangerpants]

Most of the book I have read and quoted is no different from the 100s of books quoted by various experts in the Bibliography of their book where they quote relevant para, sections or chapter but not the whole book. I don't believe these experts has a >90/100 of the whole book they quoted on their finger tips.

Well then you ought to be able to relate the contents, the specific arguments it makes, back to the contents of the specific claims that I or Pete or Sculptor has made, maybe IWP too.

Let us know when you are able to do that, rather than just wave at the existence of a book that we completely believe you have definitely "read".

In the majority of cases, it is me who present the claims.
What you, Peter, Sculptor, IWP are doing are countering my claims with merely complains, whining, blabbering, blah, blah based on ignorance, grounded on illusions and without much substance.

Relate the specifc contents, ie the arguments, in the book back to specifc claims or fail to. A list of all the times you have insulted Pete doesn't do either part of that.

You are the one arrogantly claiming to be the guy that fixed all the problems of moral philosophy. Obviously you are the one making the claims that need to be tested. Why is it my responsiblity to make similarly extravagant claims? I am more or less sane and comparatively reasonable and I don't imagine myself to be the greatest philosopher in the world.

Also, when you are presented with people who do make similarly absurd claims to be the greatest, frankly you always back down anyway. You never made any threads calling out Advocate, JohnDoe7, Age or Roydop the way you try to call out Pete on a daily basis.

At present I am rereading Wittgenstein's On Certainty to counter your confidence that you have understood the book thoroughly to counter my views.
Wittgenstein On Certainty and Kant
viewtopic.php?t=41948
Do you have a counter to my thesis there in?

Let me know if you are able to make something out of this that might cause me to need to read it again myself.

As mentioned by AI, I believe you have missed the historical basis of 'On Certainty' and misinterpreted 'On Certainty' very narrowly as a continuation of his PI and language games.

Since you are banking so heavily on W's "On Certainty" for your philosophy plus condemning my view based on it, I suggest you reread it again.
This time consider language games as a FRSC [Framework and System of Realization of Reality and Cognition] which is the case within "On Certainty".
Since you condemned my FRSC you are the same time condemning W's concept of language games which you accept as great.

That's just dumb. I gave you that Grayling lecture which puts this stuff into a perfectly reasonable context https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7Pcwx7oFWs so why are you being so trivial at me? I DGAF about what dumb nonsense you can get an AI to spit out to tell you how clever you are. It will not win arguments for you, give up on the AI nonsense already, your "spellchecker" has absorbed what was left of your mind.

Your KFC nonsense bears no special relation to language games. But why would you even mention it when you have made multiple posts saying Wittgenstein is rubbish and OLP is vulgar and inferior? Why tether your own bullshit to something you think is much worse? Do you ever think before you punch yourself in the toilet zone?

Also, go back and check what I actually said about on certainty. You seem to have an exaggerated opinion of its importance. No I don't thinkI will bother reading it again, I have other stuff to read. When you show signs that you are actually intelligently reading it and are able to usefully refer to the contents, then I might need to review it myself. Until then, you haven't read it, sort that out first.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Well then you ought to be able to relate the contents, the specific arguments it makes, back to the contents of the specific claims that I or Pete or Sculptor has made, maybe IWP too.

Let us know when you are able to do that, rather than just wave at the existence of a book that we completely believe you have definitely "read".

In the majority of cases, it is me who present the claims.
What you, Peter, Sculptor, IWP are doing are countering my claims with merely complains, whining, blabbering, blah, blah based on ignorance, grounded on illusions and without much substance.

Relate the specifc contents, ie the arguments, in the book back to specifc claims or fail to. A list of all the times you have insulted Pete doesn't do either part of that.

You are the one arrogantly claiming to be the guy that fixed all the problems of moral philosophy. Obviously you are the one making the claims that need to be tested. Why is it my responsiblity to make similarly extravagant claims? I am more or less sane and comparatively reasonable and I don't imagine myself to be the greatest philosopher in the world.

Also, when you are presented with people who do make similarly absurd claims to be the greatest, frankly you always back down anyway. You never made any threads calling out Advocate, JohnDoe7, Age or Roydop the way you try to call out Pete on a daily basis.

Let me know if you are able to make something out of this that might cause me to need to read it again myself.

As mentioned by AI, I believe you have missed the historical basis of 'On Certainty' and misinterpreted 'On Certainty' very narrowly as a continuation of his PI and language games.

Since you are banking so heavily on W's "On Certainty" for your philosophy plus condemning my view based on it, I suggest you reread it again.
This time consider language games as a FRSC [Framework and System of Realization of Reality and Cognition] which is the case within "On Certainty".
Since you condemned my FRSC you are the same time condemning W's concept of language games which you accept as great.

That's just dumb. I gave you that Grayling lecture which puts this stuff into a perfectly reasonable context https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7Pcwx7oFWs so why are you being so trivial at me? I DGAF about what dumb nonsense you can get an AI to spit out to tell you how clever you are. It will not win arguments for you, give up on the AI nonsense already, your "spellchecker" has absorbed what was left of your mind.

Your KFC nonsense bears no special relation to language games. But why would you even mention it when you have made multiple posts saying Wittgenstein is rubbish and OLP is vulgar and inferior? Why tether your own bullshit to something you think is much worse? Do you ever think before you punch yourself in the toilet zone?

Also, go back and check what I actually said about on certainty. You seem to have an exaggerated opinion of its importance. No I don't thinkI will bother reading it again, I have other stuff to read. When you show signs that you are actually intelligently reading it and are able to usefully refer to the contents, then I might need to review it myself. Until then, you haven't read it, sort that out first.

where have I stated in absoluteness "made multiple posts saying Wittgenstein is rubbish and OLP is vulgar and inferior?"

I stated Wittgenstein's Tractatus is inferior, which W admitted himself.
W's PI is an improvement.
W's 'On Certainty' [OC] is reasonably realistic but it is not my personal philosophical 'cup of tea'.

'On Certainty' is often quoted by those [you, Peter, and others] who cling to OLP as a 'Bible'.
But I will argue OC is not as credible as the OLPists think it is, thus to erode the arrogance and confidence they have in condemning other views like mine.
The language games that W focused on in OC is merely a FSRC.
Since you and Peter condemned my FSRC as stupid and useless you are indirectly condemning your own concept of language game.