Morality: Absolute vs Relative Mind Independence

[Veritas Aequitas]

There is a lot of misunderstandings and even condemnations when I qualify the philosophical realist's mind-independent as 'absolutely'.
To avoid having to repeat my explanation why I qualify 'absolutely mind-independent,' here is is the 'WHY'.

PH's basis of why 'Morality cannot be Objective' is based on his
'what is fact' which a fact is a feature of reality that is just-is, being-so, that is the case, state of affairs, that is independent of human opinions, beliefs, judgement, description, moral rights or wrongs; this is a claim of philosophical realism i.e.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

What's the difference between 'absolutely mind independent reality' and
'mind independent reality.'?
If something is mind indenpendent, then it doesn't depend on minds. It's not partially indepdendent.
So what gets added when you write 'absolutely.?

I have already explained a '1000' times.

As an empirical realist I accept in one perspective reality and things are mind-independent, e.g. the oncoming train on the track I am standing on exists as a mind-independent thing, thus it rational I will jump off the train track ASAP.
If I don't think that way, then it is assume, the existence of the train is in my mind and thus I should be able to think it away, etc.
But this view of mind-independent is relative and conditioned upon my ANTI-Philosophical_Realism view which is cannot be mind-independent.

Since I am claiming my perspective of mind-independence as an empirical-realist is relative, i.e. conditional to my ANTI-Philosophical_Realism view, it is literally relative, thus it is relative mind-independence.

The philosophical-realist view of mind-independence is unconditional i.e. thing exists independently by themselves, thus appropriately labelled absolutely mind-independent.

I don't see how the above more elaborate explanation is problematic, it is only your ignorance and narrow thinking that you are confused with it.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes: KIV

[Iwannaplato]

I have already explained a '1000' times.

As an empirical realist I accept in one perspective reality and things are mind-independent, e.g. the oncoming train on the track I am standing on exists as a mind-independent thing, thus it rational I will jump off the train track ASAP.
If I don't think that way, then it is assume, the existence of the train is in my mind and thus I should be able to think it away, etc.

So, the criterion that leads you to call it limited mind dependence is that you can't wish it away? Can you wish away most or all parts of your own mental processes? Can you for example decide not to experience anything for the next half a minute?
Would this mean, then, that your own mind is relatively mind independent?

I think it's an odd criterion. If I can make it go away by wishing, it is only relatively mind independent?
So, what are the things that you can wish away, that then are absolutely mind dependent?

But this view of mind-independent is relative and conditioned upon my ANTI-Philosophical_Realism view which is cannot be mind-independent.

Of course the view is minddependent. No one is arguing that views are mind independent. Though, I am not sure people can simply wish away their veiws. Or is that your experience? Can you wish away your views?

The philosophical-realist view of mind-independence is unconditional i.e. thing exists independently by themselves, thus appropriately labelled absolutely mind-independent.

I don't see how the above more elaborate explanation is problematic, it is only your ignorance and narrow thinking that you are confused with it.

Let me let you on a little open secret about humans: when they ask questions, it does not always, or even usually, mean they are confused. This is even more true in philosophical discussions.

Let me repeat that: when someone asks a question, they may very well be trying to get information about what you think or how you support your position. There are other possibilities. Liklihoods.

When you ask questions, should we assume you are confused, since you assume others are when they ask questions?

Of course, in addition to that, you have started saying absolute mind-independence without compromise. Get it. Most people would think it was redundant to add on without compromise. But you did. So it must serve some purpose, which I assume you will now make up. In any case, some readers may have wondered, as I did, what absolutely meant to you, given that you added what seemed like a redundant new phrase.

But nice rhetorical panache getting an insult in for no reason.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I have already explained a '1000' times.

As an empirical realist I accept in one perspective reality and things are mind-independent, e.g. the oncoming train on the track I am standing on exists as a mind-independent thing, thus it rational I will jump off the train track ASAP.
If I don't think that way, then it is assume, the existence of the train is in my mind and thus I should be able to think it away, etc.

So, the criterion that leads you to call it limited mind dependence is that you can't wish it away? Can you wish away most or all parts of your own mental processes? Can you for example decide not to experience anything for the next half a minute?
Would this mean, then, that your own mind is relatively mind independent?

I think it's an odd criterion. If I can make it go away by wishing, it is only relatively mind independent?
So, what are the things that you can wish away, that then are absolutely mind dependent?

Totally off tangent from my point.
"That I can wish it away" is NOT the criterion why I introduced the concept of relative mind-independence [not mind-dependence].
The main reason is to highlight my view of Empirical-Realism as subsumed within Transcendental Idealism.

But this view of mind-independent is relative and conditioned upon my ANTI-Philosophical_Realism view which is cannot be mind-independent.

Of course the view is minddependent. No one is arguing that views are mind independent. Though, I am not sure people can simply wish away their veiws. Or is that your experience? Can you wish away your views?

The philosophical-realist view of mind-independence is unconditional i.e. thing exists independently by themselves, thus appropriately labelled absolutely mind-independent.

You are insulting your own intelligence by teaching me "Of course the view is mind-dependent"
Somehow you got it right in the later statement,

I don't see how the above more elaborate explanation is problematic, it is only your ignorance and narrow thinking that you are confused with it.

Let me let you on a little open secret about humans: when they ask questions, it does not always, or even usually, mean they are confused. This is even more true in philosophical discussions.

Let me repeat that: when someone asks a question, they may very well be trying to get information about what you think or how you support your position. There are other possibilities. Liklihoods.

When you ask questions, should we assume you are confused, since you assume others are when they ask questions?

Of course, in addition to that, you have started saying absolute mind-independence without compromise. Get it. Most people would think it was redundant to add on without compromise. But you did. So it must serve some purpose, which I assume you will now make up. In any case, some readers may have wondered, as I did, what absolutely meant to you, given that you added what seemed like a redundant new phrase.

But nice rhetorical panache getting an insult in for no reason.

It depend on the type of question you are asking.
Surely asking what is 1+1=? type of question do not imply confusion.

But the inability to understand why there is need to differentiate between absolutely mind-independence vs relative mind-independence and insisting such a differentiation is unnecessary is definitely due to confusion or being stuck dogmatically to one philosophical view.