The truth is objective

[iambiguous]

Just out of curiosity, the truth about what in particular?

About everything that the truth applies to.

Metaphysically....or existentially? The truths readily communicated by scientists pertaining to the laws of nature? The truths readily communicated by logicians pertaining to the rules of language?

Or "truths" pertaining to morality and ethics?

[bahman]

Just out of curiosity, the truth about what in particular?

About everything that the truth applies to.

Metaphysically....or existentially? The truths readily communicated by scientists pertaining to the laws of nature? The truths readily communicated by logicians pertaining to the rules of language?

All of these.

Or "truths" pertaining to morality and ethics?

Hmmm, morality and ethics, no.

[Iwannaplato]

It is because you, your father, mother, relatives, wife, girlfriend said so?

With more reflective and rigorous thinking,

And here we have an example of condescension and rude tone. Notice that bahman did nothing of the sort in his OP, nothing directed at VA nor at people in general.

It is alright. I will bite him later as a sign of revenge.

I wasn't worried about you. He's just claiming he's a polite poster until others are impolite.
It's just not the case.

[iambiguous]

About everything that the truth applies to.

Metaphysically....or existentially? The truths readily communicated by scientists pertaining to the laws of nature? The truths readily communicated by logicians pertaining to the rules of language?

All of these.

Perhaps. But then the part where these truths are grappled with given the gap between what we have come to conclude about the human condition here and now and Rummy's conjecture regarding, "unknown unknowns....things we don't know we don't know" about the existence of existence itself.

Also, the conumdrum embedded in grappling with the relationship between the laws of matter and the human brain. Do we or do we not have free will?

Or "truths" pertaining to morality and ethics?

Hmmm, morality and ethics, no.

Unless, of course, there is a God. Or unless, perhaps, someday science and/or philosophy does pin down "for all practical purposes" what those like Kant "pinned down" only up in the intellectual clouds.

[bahman]

Metaphysically....or existentially? The truths readily communicated by scientists pertaining to the laws of nature? The truths readily communicated by logicians pertaining to the rules of language?

All of these.

Perhaps. But then the part where these truths are grappled with given the gap between what we have come to conclude about the human condition here and now and Rummy's conjecture regarding, "unknown unknowns....things we don't know we don't know" about the existence of existence itself.

Also, the conumdrum embedded in grappling with the relationship between the laws of matter and the human brain. Do we or do we not have free will?

Sure we have free will. It is necessary occasionally. Think of a situation in which you cannot forecast the market. Can you invest in the market not knowing whether the price of each share increase or not? Of course, you can. Therefore you have free will. There are many occasions in our life when free will comes in handy. Otherwise, we follow a chain of causality if there are no options available though.

Or "truths" pertaining to morality and ethics?

Hmmm, morality and ethics, no.

Unless, of course, there is a God. Or unless, perhaps, someday science and/or philosophy does pin down "for all practical purposes" what those like Kant "pinned down" only up in the intellectual clouds.

I don't think that God can make morality objective. To me morality is objective if we can reason it otherwise, it is subjective meaning that it is opinion, biased, emotional,... dependent.

[bahman]

And here we have an example of condescension and rude tone. Notice that bahman did nothing of the sort in his OP, nothing directed at VA nor at people in general.

It is alright. I will bite him later as a sign of revenge.

I wasn't worried about you. He's just claiming he's a polite poster until others are impolite.
It's just not the case.

I see.

[iambiguous]

All of these.

Perhaps. But then the part where these truths are grappled with given the gap between what we have come to conclude about the human condition here and now and Rummy's conjecture regarding, "unknown unknowns....things we don't know we don't know" about the existence of existence itself.

Also, the conumdrum embedded in grappling with the relationship between the laws of matter and the human brain. Do we or do we not have free will?

Sure we have free will. It is necessary occasionally. Think of a situation in which you cannot forecast the market. Can you invest in the market not knowing whether the price of each share increase or not? Of course, you can. Therefore you have free will. There are many occasions in our life when free will comes in handy. Otherwise, we follow a chain of causality if there are no options available though.

Let's just say that we think this through to very different conclusions. And that given this...

All of this going back to how the matter we call the human brain was "somehow" able to acquire autonomy when non-living matter "somehow" became living matter "somehow" became conscious matter "somehow" became self-conscious matter.

...how would we even begin to pin down whether in fact we have free will?

Or "truths" pertaining to morality and ethics?

Hmmm, morality and ethics, no.

Unless, of course, there is a God. Or unless, perhaps, someday science and/or philosophy does pin down "for all practical purposes" what those like Kant "pinned down" only up in the intellectual clouds.

I don't think that God can make morality objective. To me morality is objective if we can reason it otherwise, it is subjective meaning that it is opinion, biased, emotional,... dependent.

Okay, given a particular issue in which there are conflicting goods, note examples of what you construe to be objective moral truths.

[bahman]

Perhaps. But then the part where these truths are grappled with given the gap between what we have come to conclude about the human condition here and now and Rummy's conjecture regarding, "unknown unknowns....things we don't know we don't know" about the existence of existence itself.

Also, the conumdrum embedded in grappling with the relationship between the laws of matter and the human brain. Do we or do we not have free will?

Sure we have free will. It is necessary occasionally. Think of a situation in which you cannot forecast the market. Can you invest in the market not knowing whether the price of each share increase or not? Of course, you can. Therefore you have free will. There are many occasions in our life when free will comes in handy. Otherwise, we follow a chain of causality if there are no options available though.

Let's just say that we think this through to very different conclusions. And that given this...

All of this going back to how the matter we call the human brain was "somehow" able to acquire autonomy when non-living matter "somehow" became living matter "somehow" became conscious matter "somehow" became self-conscious matter.

...how would we even begin to pin down whether in fact we have free will?

I think that everything is conscious (I have an argument for that). So no, the consciousness is not the property of the brain only. Consciousness is the property of the mind. Mind also has free will.

Or "truths" pertaining to morality and ethics?

Hmmm, morality and ethics, no.

Unless, of course, there is a God. Or unless, perhaps, someday science and/or philosophy does pin down "for all practical purposes" what those like Kant "pinned down" only up in the intellectual clouds.

I don't think that God can make morality objective. To me morality is objective if we can reason it otherwise, it is subjective meaning that it is opinion, biased, emotional,... dependent.

Okay, given a particular issue in which there are conflicting goods, note examples of what you construe to be objective moral truths.

What example?