It is impossible to describe (and therefore impossibleto make any statements or claims about) some "thing" that "is not dependent on the mind for existence; actual".
Why do you care what shape the earth is?
It is impossible to describe (and therefore impossible to make any statements or claims about) some "thing" that "is not dependent on the mind for existence; actual".Like I said before “a description isn’t necessary.”
Why do you care what shape the earth is?I don’t, I have no personal feelings or opinions in regards to that subject. Logic and emotion isn’t always necessarily intertwined.
How is any of this responsive?
If you didn't care what shape the earth is, you wouldn't mention it.If you didn't care what shape the earth is, you wouldn't think "flat-earthers" are "misguided".
You're basically saying that "objective" is functionally indistinguishable from "incomprehensible".
That’s not true, people being misguided is what I care about that’s why I mentioned it.
You're basically saying that "objective" is functionally indistinguishable from "incomprehensible".How so?
If someone is misguided about something that isn't important to you, why would you care?For example, if some group of people incorrectly called "torches" "flashlights" or "handlamps", would you call them "misguided"?
You're saying that the "literal object" does not rely on detection or description.You're saying that the "literal object itself" does not rely on detection (by a human mind) or description (by a human mind).
I don’t care the only reason I brought up the shape of the earth is because it’s an example of an objective fact, also caring about objective facts has no bearing on its objectivity FYI.
You're saying that the "literal object" does not rely on detection or description.You're saying that the "literal object itself" does not rely on detection (by a human mind) or description (by a human mind).What do you mean by “literal object”?
Would you care if we called it an inter-subjective FACT?
Why do you care whether or not we call "the shape of the earth" an "objective fact"?
Why do you care whether or not we call "the shape of the earth" an "objective fact"?Because I believe things should be represented as they are.
Would you care if we called it an inter-subjective FACT?No, but I would care if we you reject it as an objective fact.
...Well the objectively correct words should be used.
What are you disputing here? Objectivity? Facts? Or both?
THE MAP IS NOT THE TERRITORY.You're basically saying, when I say "stone" and you think of a "stone", there is not a "literal stone" inside your head.Your concept of "stone" is not a "literal stone".
So in other words everything is not what it seems
and if you truly believed this then you would realize that a reality exists independently from your mind,
kinda like the definition of objectivity 🤔.
And no I’m not saying that at all
you came out of left field with that narrative all on your own.
Just to make a distinction, I typically agree with what you're going on about;
however, if you are to assume that our senses are reliable then there are things which exist regardless of us as individuals,
and things that do not -
hence the difference between constructs and objects,
but if you were to not have that assumption then your position would be correct.
As the previously stated assumption is needed for logical conversation, it is the one I make.
there are things that are not dependent on the mind for existence
Yes, you can, that is light, that is the earth, etc, etc, you totally can.
FACT = A STATEMENT AND OR CLAIM AND OR DESCRIPTION (COMPRISED OF WORDS)
now, without minds, there would be nothing to acknowledge or perceive them, but it is not the same thing.
Please support this definition of fact because every source you cited said nothing of the sort.
Please find a definition that is not COMPRISED OF WORDS.
no one is disputing that definitions have words,
