Philosophy Now Forum

I've been accused of failing to provide any rational argument for my moral anti-objectivism. So, picking up Flash's strategy of setting out an argument sequentially, here's part 1 of a paper I've published: 'Arguments against moral objectivism' - dealing with preliminaries. Any pushback would be wel...

I think the project of explaining where our moral values and codes come from - 'filling the actual gap' - is important. So I'm following your developing argument with interest. I think the title of your thread, "Is morality objective or subjective?", is a bit problematic; it leaves the qu...

Pete is unusual mainly in that he seems content to argue the basic sceptical point without feeling any particular need to fill in the gap created by that doubt. The question for him, in this thread anyway, doesn't stray from "is morality subjective or objective?" to other questions such a...

I've been waiting 8 years to hear Peter provide a rational justification for his ethical subjectivism. He doesn't have one. All he has is the never-fully-articulated inductive (and invalid) argument that because he, Peter Holmes, has never yet been convinced that any objectivist theory is true, all...

Come to think of it, when there's a troll like moron dick-for-brains around, anyone could be it. I could be. Anyway, I'm done. Or am I?

Crumbles under what slightest scrutiny? It's entirely consistent with both modern science and modern psychology, it's direct realism that has crumbled long ago. Let's skip your usual pathological liar routine and get to the point. What is the actual reason you don't want to admit that you exist? Wh...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_and_indirect_realism There's nothing confusing about what I'm saying I beg to differ. Here's part of the link you suggest: 'Indirect realism is broadly equivalent to the scientific view of perception that subjects do not experience the external world as it reall...

Refute it how? That's what I'm asking. You claim three things refute direct realism: Kant, science and psychology. And then you say science and psychology refute Kant. So I'm confused. Perhaps you could set out the premise(s) of indirect realism - to clear it up. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direc...

The distinction by itself is actually fairly useful, it's only disastrous when we do what Kant did and claim that the noumenon is 100% unknowable. That's actually an insane guess. According to this guess, as a result, only "naive" philosophies are possible. So that's what VA will insist o...

That may be the right diagnosis. And I'm sure that Kant's disastrous noumena/phenomena distinction is at the root of it. The distinction by itself is actually fairly useful, it's only disastrous when we do what Kant did and claim that the noumenon is 100% unknowable. That's actually an insane guess...

He says there are two senses of the word reality What VA has been saying all these years is that there are only two philosophies: naive realism and Kantian naive anti-realism. And that he's super smart because he knows that the second one beats the first one. Kant told him that the "naive"...

Claim: If there were no humans, there would have been and be no universe.

Nonsense.

Claim: If there were no humans, there would have been and be no universe.
Reason: This is because the universe is somehow entangled with humans.

Utter claptrap.

The universe, which includes humans, is not an illusion.

VA. So - humans make reality in the way a carpenter makes a chair. You have got to be kidding. What is wrong with the carpenter made that specific real chair [a part of reality] existing within reality [all there is]? Meanwhile. 1 Reality is all there is. (You agree.) 2 We humans are part of that r...

VA. So - humans make reality in the way a carpenter makes a chair. You have got to be kidding. Meanwhile. 1 Reality is all there is. (You agree.) 2 We humans are part of that reality, and in no way separate from it. (You agree.) 3 We humans have to perceive, know and describe that reality in human w...