"Fact" is an ambiguous word in that it can be taken to signify a statement of an actuality or simply an actuality;
— Janus
Disagree. A fact, as the argument states, is specific. — Wayfarer
Finally, after 20 odd pages of discussion, you still seem to think idealism is saying that 'without an observer reality does not exist'. I do not say that. — Wayfarer
But 'exists' means 'to have an identity' - to be this, as distinct from that. And I can't see how you can have that, without an observer. — Wayfarer
A fact does not hold in the universe if it has not been explicitly formulated. That should be obvious, because a fact is specific. In other words, statements-of-fact are produced by living observers, and thereby come into existence as a result of being constructed. It is only after they have been constructed (in words or symbols) that facts come to exist. Commonsense wisdom holds the opposite view: It holds that facts exist in the universe regardless of whether anyone notices them, and irrespective of whether they have been articulated in words.
I claim that we can only talk sensibly about something at least possibly experienceable by us. I'm saying connected to our experience, not fully and finally or even mostly given, for even everyday objects are 'transcendent' in the Husserlian sense: they suggest an infinity of possible adumbrations. Note that I think a person can be alone with an experience --- be the only person who sees or knows an entity. — plaque flag
As we look down on that city in the valley, it exists only as the-valley-for, never from no perspective at all. — plaque flag
Metaphysics has to reduce the many to the one, and if we assume the many is truly real this cannot be done. I think you'd have to admit that the incomprehension of philosophers suggests that they're missing a trick. . — FrancisRay
Clearly the need being fulfilled is not salvation so religion must be fulfilling other needs.. — praxis
But saying, for example, that someone "inoculated people against reality" is already an interpretation of his act, not the act itself. Of course, then there are those who will say it's not so, that it's not merely an interpretation. — baker
Sure, there are some obvious instances of people "seeing the same things".
Is Pluto a planet or not? When you look at Pluto, you might see a planet, but someone else doesn't. How so? — baker
How do you know we in fact see the same things? — baker
So let's apply this to a practical example:
When the critics of Trump and his followers make claims about them, they (ie. the critics) believe that they are making claims about how things really are.
How do you comment? — baker
There you fixated on contamination and distortion, ignoring conditioning. Anti-Realists certainly hold that reality is conditioned by the human subject. Imputation of or fixation on distortion tends to beg the question, but it is ultimately pertinent given that we are considering the possibility of knowing reality as it is in itself. Thus it is a distortion in relation to that counterfactual possibility. — Leontiskos
The "glassy aspect" is merely representative of that which conveys reality in a way other than it is in itself; a "distortion," so to speak. — Leontiskos
a lack of transparency in argument leads to a weakening and breakdown of philosophical communities. — Leontiskos
But I am probably not honing in on the exact difference that Banno and creativesoul are meting out. — Leontiskos
I’ll ask you the same question that I asked the thread starter (and they ignored). Do you know of anyone who religion has provided deliverance from sin and its consequences? — praxis
It pertains to empirical arguments and metaphysical arguments and arguments about astrology and homeopathy and alien abductions. The advice given in the OP is meant to aid arguments of all kinds. — Leontiskos
If you don't believe metaphysics is truth-apt then presumably you don't get into a lot of arguments about metaphysics. Similarly, because we don't believe taste is truth-apt, we don't argue about taste ("de gustibus non disputandum est"). My advice in the OP applies to arguments, and people argue about theses that they believe are susceptible of truth and falsity. — Leontiskos
Classically, a sound argument is an argument that possess both validity and true premises. An unsound argument lacks one or both. — Leontiskos
There are two basic ways that an argument can get at truth✝: by being right and by being wrong. Yet in order for this to work the argument must be seen to be right or wrong. If it is seen to be right then it will lead the one who sees it into the truth of its conclusion. If it is seen to be wrong then it will lead the one who sees it away from specious reasoning and away from an unsound conclusion. In each case the crucial factor is that it be seen that it be transparent. — Leontiskos
Can they be sound or unsound? I hold to the common view that they can. — Leontiskos
Hence belief presupposes truth. — Banno
There are two basic ways that an argument can get at truth✝: by being right and by being wrong. Yet in order for this to work the argument must be seen to be right or wrong. If it is seen to be right then it will lead the one who sees it into the truth of its conclusion. If it is seen to be wrong then it will lead the one who sees it away from specious reasoning and away from an unsound conclusion. In each case the crucial factor is that it be seen, that it be transparent. — Leontiskos
So, either S's attitude towards the broken clock - at time t`- was not a belief about the broken clock or not all belief is equivalent to a propositional attitude, because broken clocks are neither propositions nor attitudes. — creativesoul
something has happened to them, which was 'unimagineable' - 'I never imagined that would happen!' — Wayfarer
Thereby absolving us of all responsibility as moral agents. — Wayfarer
So, even though I am not a cat I can still be certain that I am? Just not absolutely certain. — jgill
I am not asserting my "existence"; I am claiming what I will stand for in relation to how our community judges a part of our lives where we are at a loss as to the criteria (e.g., for what will count as being just). I "exist" in standing against (or for) our shared culture in a way that requires that I have to back it up. — Antony Nickles