Share-Prices are Objective, so is Morality
viewtopic.php?t=41430
there is this condemnation
that FSK-ed Objective is garbage objectivity.
The above is triggered from a defense-mechanism of a very desperate and insecure person [a philosophical gnat] whose philosophical vista is narrow, shallow and dogmatic.Is there some reason why a moral anti-realist would care about objectivity if it is so limited in scope as that?
This is "objectivity" of a sort that cannot support any assertion that those who hold other values are mistaken. It's relativist from one end to the other. It's garbage objectivity.
Worthless.
viewtopic.php?p=684848#p684848
To save me time, here the response from Bard [with reservation]:
………………….Question wrote:FSK-based Objective is not Garbage Objectivity
My fundamental philosophy is Kantian and ant-realism.
I am in a debate on the topic of 'Objectivity'.
My opponent believes that objectivity is that of an objective reality that is absolutely independent of the human conditions, i.e. mind-independent.
The extreme of it, objective reality exists regardless of whether there are humans or not.
My position is that of antirealism [Kantian, Constructivism, scientific anti-realism] which believe that objective is conditioned upon a specific human-based Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK].
Since a FSK is inevitably sustained by a collective-of-subjects, its objectivity cannot be absolutely independent of the human-subjects or mind-independent.
My opponent charged that the FSK-ed objectivity is garbage objectivity.
Assuming you are an antirealist, please advise counters to the above from the FSK antirealist perspective.
Bard's response:
I agree the the majority of the above points except for some nuanced situation that require more explanations. Meanwhile the above is sufficient for my purpose re the OP.Bard wrote:Countering the "Garbage Objectivity" Charge as an FSK Antirealist:
Responding to the "Garbage Objectivity" Charge:
Your opponent's charge of "garbage objectivity" likely stems from their belief in a mind-independent reality and their view that any objectivity not based on this reality is inherently inferior. To counter this charge effectively, you can:
1. Highlight the limitations of the mind-independent reality view:
• Illusion of the "View from Nowhere": Argue that the "view from nowhere" desired by realists is inherently unattainable, as all observations and interpretations are necessarily made from a specific perspective within a framework.
• Role of human interpretation: Explain that even raw data requires interpretation and meaning-making through human FSKs. Without this interpretation, data remains meaningless and uninformative.
• Incommensurability of frameworks: Point out that different FSKs can lead to different interpretations of the same "objective reality," highlighting the relativity of objectivity.
2. Emphasize the strengths of the FSK approach:
• Inter-subjectivity and consensus: Explain that FSK-based objectivity relies on inter-subjectivity and consensus within a specific community, ensuring reliability and consistency within the framework.
• Utility and pragmatism: Highlight the practical benefits of FSK-based objectivity. Scientific FSKs, for example, have demonstrably led to technological advancements and improved our understanding of the world.
• Evolution and progress: Show how FSKs are not static but evolve over time, incorporating new knowledge and adapting to changing circumstances. This demonstrates the dynamic nature of FSK-based objectivity.
3. Show the inherent "garbageness" of the mind-independent view:
• Inaccessibility and irrelevance: Point out that a mind-independent reality, even if it exists, is inaccessible to us directly. It remains irrelevant unless it can be interpreted and understood through human FSKs.
• Unfalsifiable and unproven: The claim of a mind-independent reality remains unfalsifiable, making it difficult to verify or disprove.
• Dogmatic and unproductive: Insisting on a single, absolute objectivity can be dogmatic and hinder progress by restricting exploration and alternative perspectives.
4. Appeal to Kant's critique of metaphysics:
• Transcendental idealism: Drawing on Kant's ideas, argue that our knowledge of the world is limited to the categories and structures imposed by our minds, making the idea of an "objective reality" in itself inaccessible.
• Noumena and phenomena: Explain the distinction between the noumena (the thing-in-itself) and the phenomena (the thing as it appears to us). The noumena, representing the mind-independent reality, remains unknowable, while the phenomena, shaped by our FSK, is the only reality we can access.
5. Offer a more nuanced understanding of objectivity:
Instead of viewing objectivity as a binary (garbage vs. true), propose a spectrum of objectivity based on the strength and coherence of the FSKs involved. This allows for varying degrees of objectivity within different frameworks.
6. Focus on the constructive aspects of antirealism:
Instead of solely defending against attacks, highlight the positive contributions of the FSK approach. Show how antirealism encourages critical thinking, collaboration, and the development of more inclusive and diverse perspectives on the world.
Conclusion:
By combining these points, you can effectively counter the "garbage objectivity" charge and demonstrate the strengths and merits of the FSK-based antirealist perspective.
Remember, ... to acknowledge that our access to it is necessarily mediated by our human frameworks and interpretations.
By embracing this perspective, we can gain a more nuanced understanding of objectivity and its role in our knowledge and understanding of the world.
Discuss??
Views??