Is morality objective or subjective?

Should you think about your duty, or about the consequences of your actions? Or should you concentrate on becoming a good person?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12372
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Sat Jul 09, 2022 9:23 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Jul 09, 2022 4:45 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Fri Jul 08, 2022 8:46 am
Nonsense. We describe what we call reality in different ways. But the claim that what we call reality is nothing more than or different from the ways we describe it is ridiculous. And it's certainly not what Kant argued.
You are not thinking critically at all but merely clinging to your shallow, narrow and dogmatic views of the metaphysical realists' ideology.

Note
Whatever are scientific facts, truths, knowledge & reality are conditioned upon the scientific FSK.
Of the best of best, the scientific FKS is the most credible [reliable and trustworthy] as PRESENT.
You just cannot deny the above.
I don't. And what makes scientific descriptions credible and reliable is evidence from the reality they describe. Simples.
Scientific descriptions?? You are merely insulting your own intelligence with this claim.

The reality is scientific descriptions are description of scientific facts, truths and knowledge.
What makes the scientific FSK and scientific facts reliable, trustworthy and credible is the fulfilment of its promise that its conclusion are consistent for anyone who do the same experiment.
It is evidence from the experiments and repetitions that is critical not 'evidence from the reality'

As you can see you are talking nonsense in this case!
Even Wittgenstein would agree when he stated what are beliefs & knowledge are conditioned upon the Language Game [framework], the human conditions and the human community. [re On Certainty]
Other than that, "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."
Please don't mangle Wittgenstein's ideas. That quote is from the Tractatus, which he later spent many years reforming, correcting or even repudiating. And you don't understand the significance of language games. (More below.)
Tractatus?? that was his kindergarten days but he has progressed with his term 'language games' at the PhD level with his 'On Certainty'.
I had just finished reading and refreshing on W's 'On Certainty' and what I stated is as represented in his 'On Certainty' where the term 'game' is used more than 86 times with Language-Game >65 times.
As far as 'On Certainty' is concern, beliefs & knowledge are conditioned upon the Language Game [framework], the human conditions and the human community.
Show me where I am wrong with 'On Certainty'.

Note Wittgenstein's philosophical views matured with reality analogous like the Newtonian [Tractatus] to Einstein [PI] to QM [On Certainty] view of reality where in his 'On Certainty' he leveraged a lot on the entanglement of the human conditions and the human community.
Kant claimed whatever is reality [empirical realism] is entangled with the human conditions and system, thus the human framework and system.
One can think of an independent reality-in-itself, but to claim and insist there is a "really-real-reality" that is independent of the human conditions is delusional [like you].
And it's certainly not what Kant argued.
Show me the references from Kant's works on this claims of yours?
Show me where Kant says that reality is how we perceive, know and describe it. He certainly says we can't perceive know and describe reality in any other than the way we do.
You are making the initial claim "And it's certainly not what Kant argued", so the onus is on you for your references to show otherwise.

It is not my onus to answer, but here is Kant on 'reality',
As a Category or 'Pure Concept of the Understanding'
Reality is defined as
'that which corresponds to a Sensation-in-general' or that 'the Concept of which points to being (in time)' (CPR A143/B182).
-Caygill
"Sensation" is obviously a human conditions, thus reality is entangled with the human conditions.
You'll need to read Kant thoroughly to grasp the full meaning of the above.

The metaphors are breeding! What makes a description credible is physical (empirical) evidence from the reality that the description describes. No evidence = no credibility. That's why there is no astrological 'FSK'. There's no astrological knowledge. It's all made up.
The only thing that could make it possible is physical (empirical) evidence for the actual existence of moral facts - features of reality. No evidence = no 'FSK', because it means there's nothing to be known.
You cannot insist there is 'no FSK' which is like there is no "language games."
Wrong. You misunderstand why Wittgenstein introduced the idea of language games - which was to emphasise what he called the autonomy of grammar (language) in the many and various contexts in which we use it - including when we describe reality.
Note my point re Wittgenstein from his 'On Certainty'.
All FSKs are entangled with humans in various degrees of credibility.
What is wrong with this principle?

So in principle the astrologer community do operate within a FSK.
And here's the absurdity of your argument - what's wrong with your principle - in a nutshell. There are no astrological facts, so there's no astrology FSK - framework and system of knowledge. As I've/we've pointed out many times, from the correct observation that what we call facts are context-dependent, you falsely conclude that descriptive contexts create facts. And that's nonsense.
Nah, you are too arrogant with your ignorance.

It is a fact that the astrological community has a Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK] or claims of knowledge.
Thus you cannot deny there is no astrology FSK.
The question is whether the astrological FSK is reliable or credible.

Note;
  • For example,
    "This sentence contains words." accurately describes a linguistic fact, and
    "The sun is a star" accurately describes an astronomical fact. Further,
    "Abraham Lincoln was the 16th President of the United States" and "Abraham Lincoln was assassinated" both accurately describe [size-130]historical facts[/size].
    Generally speaking, facts are independent of belief and of knowledge and opinion.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact
Historical facts emerged from a specific historical FSK or FSR[Reality].
Surely you are aware 'historical facts' are not very accurate and reliable* BUT nevertheless they are accepted as facts, i.e. historical facts.
* It is well accepted, "History Written by Victors."

I am sure you accept "historical facts" but somehow will impute a certain confidence level to it depending from the specific historical FSK.
If you accept historical facts why the hypocrisy in rejecting moral facts from a credible moral FSK where the majority of its input are scientific facts from the scientific FSK.

Thus there are moral facts unless you are a hypocrite.
Last edited by Veritas Aequitas on Sun Jul 10, 2022 5:19 am, edited 1 time in total.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12372
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Sat Jul 09, 2022 12:01 pm Here's where I think Kantians can go wrong.

Premise: As humans, we have no choice but to perceive, know and describe reality - including our selves - in a human way.
Conclusion: So we can perceive, know and describe only things-as-they-appear-to-us (phenomena), not things-in-themselves (noumena).

So it's my phenomenal body that walks my phenomenal dog. And no thing-in-itself gets any exercise.

Some questions:

1 If we can have no vantage point above the fray - the world of phenomena - how can we know they are phenomena and not noumena? (I smell special pleading.)

2 If there are no noumena, why are phenomena phenomena? (What happens when we remove one side of a dichotomy or contrast?)

3 If the noumenal is merely a limiting concept, what and where is it, and how does it limit anything?

4 If we can't prove the existence of the 'external world', why do we assume the existence of the 'internal world'? Is the 'I' or the mind noumenal after all? (Descartes vindicated?)

Though it seems plausible, there's something wrong with the premise, which is why the conclusion is always already down the rabbit hole.

And meanwhile, none of this has anything to do with the existence of so-called moral facts.
Don't expose your ignorance with your arrogance [intellectual bankruptcy] in killing your own strawman.

Suggest you read Kant's work thoroughly understand [not necessary agree with] it before you question Kant's philosophy.

It took me [the average person] 3 years full time to have a reasonable grasp of Kant's work, how can anyone who is ignorant of Kant's work be able to grasp the answer to the above in a few forum posts.

Note this comment from Rick Lewis [owner of Philosophy Now and this forum?];
Kant is certainly among the five most influential philosophers in history.
..........
It would be wrong of me to imply that Kant’s books are a rattling good read. The ideas may be exciting, but the Critique of Pure Reason (for instance) requires weeks of careful sustained attention and much coffee.
https://philosophynow.org/issues/49/Kant_200_Years_On
Note merely weeks but >112 to 150 weeks of careful sustained attention.
Here is the recent article highlighted in this forum;
Did Kant Solve Skepticism?
Thomas Morrison asks just what Kant learned from his Critique of Pure Reason.
https://philosophynow.org/issues/150/Di ... Skepticism
Morrison has some understanding of Kant's works but he is like you groping with the idea of the 'noumena' because he had not understood [which is not an easy task that require >100 of weeks] Kant thoroughly.

Here is an indication of your dogmatic ignorance.
1 If we can have no vantage point above the fray - the world of phenomena - how can we know they are phenomena and not noumena? (I smell special pleading.)

We know what is phenomena with confidence based on verification and justification of empirical reality based on scientific facts from the scientific FSK [the most credible at present]. This is the scientific reality, an emergent reality that is realized by humans in alignment with the scientific FSK.

Problem is the majority of people are still beastly [relatively new evolutionary] and driven by insecure psychology [an existential crisis] to insist there is an independent reality beyond scientific reality or human-entangled reality. This is the noumena and thing-in-itself independent of scientific reality which you [metaphysical realism] are seeking.
At the extreme of psychological insecurity, theists clasp and grasp onto an illusory God that has brought tons of evil misery to humanity.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3732
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Jul 10, 2022 4:41 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Sat Jul 09, 2022 12:01 pm Here's where I think Kantians can go wrong.

Premise: As humans, we have no choice but to perceive, know and describe reality - including our selves - in a human way.
Conclusion: So we can perceive, know and describe only things-as-they-appear-to-us (phenomena), not things-in-themselves (noumena).

So it's my phenomenal body that walks my phenomenal dog. And no thing-in-itself gets any exercise.

Some questions:

1 If we can have no vantage point above the fray - the world of phenomena - how can we know they are phenomena and not noumena? (I smell special pleading.)

2 If there are no noumena, why are phenomena phenomena? (What happens when we remove one side of a dichotomy or contrast?)

3 If the noumenal is merely a limiting concept, what and where is it, and how does it limit anything?

4 If we can't prove the existence of the 'external world', why do we assume the existence of the 'internal world'? Is the 'I' or the mind noumenal after all? (Descartes vindicated?)

Though it seems plausible, there's something wrong with the premise, which is why the conclusion is always already down the rabbit hole.

And meanwhile, none of this has anything to do with the existence of so-called moral facts.
Don't expose your ignorance with your arrogance [intellectual bankruptcy] in killing your own strawman.

Suggest you read Kant's work thoroughly understand [not necessary agree with] it before you question Kant's philosophy.

It took me [the average person] 3 years full time to have a reasonable grasp of Kant's work, how can anyone who is ignorant of Kant's work be able to grasp the answer to the above in a few forum posts.

Note this comment from Rick Lewis [owner of Philosophy Now and this forum?];
Kant is certainly among the five most influential philosophers in history.
..........
It would be wrong of me to imply that Kant’s books are a rattling good read. The ideas may be exciting, but the Critique of Pure Reason (for instance) requires weeks of careful sustained attention and much coffee.
https://philosophynow.org/issues/49/Kant_200_Years_On
Note merely weeks but >112 to 150 weeks of careful sustained attention.
Here is the recent article highlighted in this forum;
Did Kant Solve Skepticism?
Thomas Morrison asks just what Kant learned from his Critique of Pure Reason.
https://philosophynow.org/issues/150/Di ... Skepticism
Morrison has some understanding of Kant's works but he is like you groping with the idea of the 'noumena' because he had not understood [which is not an easy task that require >100 of weeks] Kant thoroughly.

Here is an indication of your dogmatic ignorance.
1 If we can have no vantage point above the fray - the world of phenomena - how can we know they are phenomena and not noumena? (I smell special pleading.)

We know what is phenomena with confidence based on verification and justification of empirical reality based on scientific facts from the scientific FSK [the most credible at present]. This is the scientific reality, an emergent reality that is realized by humans in alignment with the scientific FSK.

Problem is the majority of people are still beastly [relatively new evolutionary] and driven by insecure psychology [an existential crisis] to insist there is an independent reality beyond scientific reality or human-entangled reality. This is the noumena and thing-in-itself independent of scientific reality which you [metaphysical realism] are seeking.
At the extreme of psychological insecurity, theists clasp and grasp onto an illusory God that has brought tons of evil misery to humanity.
I wonder why you think not answering my questions, and merely repeating your dogmas, gets us anywhere. Tell you what, have a go at just this question:

If there are no noumena, then why are phenomena phenomena?

Notice this is not asking what phenomena are, or are supposed to be. It's asking why these things are phenomena - appearances - given that there are no noumena - things-in-themselves.

And you can save time and effort by starting like this: 'Given that there are no noumena (things-in-themselves), phenonmena are phenonmena (appearances) because ...'
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12372
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Sun Jul 10, 2022 7:14 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Jul 10, 2022 4:41 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Sat Jul 09, 2022 12:01 pm Here's where I think Kantians can go wrong.

Premise: As humans, we have no choice but to perceive, know and describe reality - including our selves - in a human way.
Conclusion: So we can perceive, know and describe only things-as-they-appear-to-us (phenomena), not things-in-themselves (noumena).

So it's my phenomenal body that walks my phenomenal dog. And no thing-in-itself gets any exercise.

Some questions:

1 If we can have no vantage point above the fray - the world of phenomena - how can we know they are phenomena and not noumena? (I smell special pleading.)

2 If there are no noumena, why are phenomena phenomena? (What happens when we remove one side of a dichotomy or contrast?)

3 If the noumenal is merely a limiting concept, what and where is it, and how does it limit anything?

4 If we can't prove the existence of the 'external world', why do we assume the existence of the 'internal world'? Is the 'I' or the mind noumenal after all? (Descartes vindicated?)

Though it seems plausible, there's something wrong with the premise, which is why the conclusion is always already down the rabbit hole.

And meanwhile, none of this has anything to do with the existence of so-called moral facts.
Don't expose your ignorance with your arrogance [intellectual bankruptcy] in killing your own strawman.

Suggest you read Kant's work thoroughly understand [not necessary agree with] it before you question Kant's philosophy.

It took me [the average person] 3 years full time to have a reasonable grasp of Kant's work, how can anyone who is ignorant of Kant's work be able to grasp the answer to the above in a few forum posts.

Note this comment from Rick Lewis [owner of Philosophy Now and this forum?];
Kant is certainly among the five most influential philosophers in history.
..........
It would be wrong of me to imply that Kant’s books are a rattling good read. The ideas may be exciting, but the Critique of Pure Reason (for instance) requires weeks of careful sustained attention and much coffee.
https://philosophynow.org/issues/49/Kant_200_Years_On
Note merely weeks but >112 to 150 weeks of careful sustained attention.
Here is the recent article highlighted in this forum;
Did Kant Solve Skepticism?
Thomas Morrison asks just what Kant learned from his Critique of Pure Reason.
https://philosophynow.org/issues/150/Di ... Skepticism
Morrison has some understanding of Kant's works but he is like you groping with the idea of the 'noumena' because he had not understood [which is not an easy task that require >100 of weeks] Kant thoroughly.

Here is an indication of your dogmatic ignorance.
1 If we can have no vantage point above the fray - the world of phenomena - how can we know they are phenomena and not noumena? (I smell special pleading.)

We know what is phenomena with [high] confidence based on verification and justification of empirical reality based on scientific facts from the scientific FSK [the most credible at present]. This is the scientific reality, an emergent reality that is realized by humans in alignment with the scientific FSK.

Problem is the majority of people are still beastly [relatively new evolutionary] and driven by insecure psychology [an existential crisis] to insist there is an independent reality beyond scientific reality or human-entangled reality. This is the noumena and thing-in-itself independent of scientific reality which you [metaphysical realism] are seeking.
At the extreme of psychological insecurity, theists clasp and grasp onto an illusory God that has brought tons of evil misery to humanity.
I wonder why you think not answering my questions, and merely repeating your dogmas, gets us anywhere. Tell you what, have a go at just this question:

If there are no noumena, then why are phenomena phenomena?

Notice this is not asking what phenomena are, or are supposed to be. It's asking why these things are phenomena - appearances - given that there are no noumena - things-in-themselves.

And you can save time and effort by starting like this: 'Given that there are no noumena (things-in-themselves), phenonmena are phenonmena (appearances) because ...'
How come you are so blind, I gave you the answer as [see above];
  • Here is an indication of your dogmatic ignorance.
    1 If we can have no vantage point above the fray - the world of phenomena - how can we know they are phenomena and not noumena? (I smell special pleading.)

    We know what is phenomena with confidence based on verification and justification of empirical reality based on scientific facts from the scientific FSK [the most credible at present]. This is the scientific reality, an emergent reality that is realized by humans in alignment with the scientific FSK.
    See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenomenon

    Problem is the majority of people are still beastly [relatively new evolutionary] and driven by insecure psychology [an existential crisis] to insist there is an independent reality beyond scientific reality or human-entangled reality. This is the noumena and thing-in-itself independent of scientific reality which you [metaphysical realism] are seeking.
    At the extreme of psychological insecurity, theists clasp and grasp onto an illusory God that has brought tons of evil misery to humanity.
The above is merely a crude answer but sufficient.
You need to read up Kant if get the full picture.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3732
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Jul 10, 2022 7:20 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Sun Jul 10, 2022 7:14 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Jul 10, 2022 4:41 am
Don't expose your ignorance with your arrogance [intellectual bankruptcy] in killing your own strawman.

Suggest you read Kant's work thoroughly understand [not necessary agree with] it before you question Kant's philosophy.

It took me [the average person] 3 years full time to have a reasonable grasp of Kant's work, how can anyone who is ignorant of Kant's work be able to grasp the answer to the above in a few forum posts.

Note this comment from Rick Lewis [owner of Philosophy Now and this forum?];



Note merely weeks but >112 to 150 weeks of careful sustained attention.



Morrison has some understanding of Kant's works but he is like you groping with the idea of the 'noumena' because he had not understood [which is not an easy task that require >100 of weeks] Kant thoroughly.

Here is an indication of your dogmatic ignorance.
1 If we can have no vantage point above the fray - the world of phenomena - how can we know they are phenomena and not noumena? (I smell special pleading.)

We know what is phenomena with [high] confidence based on verification and justification of empirical reality based on scientific facts from the scientific FSK [the most credible at present]. This is the scientific reality, an emergent reality that is realized by humans in alignment with the scientific FSK.

Problem is the majority of people are still beastly [relatively new evolutionary] and driven by insecure psychology [an existential crisis] to insist there is an independent reality beyond scientific reality or human-entangled reality. This is the noumena and thing-in-itself independent of scientific reality which you [metaphysical realism] are seeking.
At the extreme of psychological insecurity, theists clasp and grasp onto an illusory God that has brought tons of evil misery to humanity.
I wonder why you think not answering my questions, and merely repeating your dogmas, gets us anywhere. Tell you what, have a go at just this question:

If there are no noumena, then why are phenomena phenomena?

Notice this is not asking what phenomena are, or are supposed to be. It's asking why these things are phenomena - appearances - given that there are no noumena - things-in-themselves.

And you can save time and effort by starting like this: 'Given that there are no noumena (things-in-themselves), phenonmena are phenonmena (appearances) because ...'
How come you are so blind, I gave you the answer as [see above];
  • Here is an indication of your dogmatic ignorance.
    1 If we can have no vantage point above the fray - the world of phenomena - how can we know they are phenomena and not noumena? (I smell special pleading.)

    We know what is phenomena with confidence based on verification and justification of empirical reality based on scientific facts from the scientific FSK [the most credible at present]. This is the scientific reality, an emergent reality that is realized by humans in alignment with the scientific FSK.

    Problem is the majority of people are still beastly [relatively new evolutionary] and driven by insecure psychology [an existential crisis] to insist there is an independent reality beyond scientific reality or human-entangled reality. This is the noumena and thing-in-itself independent of scientific reality which you [metaphysical realism] are seeking.
    At the extreme of psychological insecurity, theists clasp and grasp onto an illusory God that has brought tons of evil misery to humanity.
The above is merely a crude answer but sufficient.
You need to read up Kant if get the full picture.
No, you're just repeating how we recognise phenomena (appearances): 'We know what is phenomena with confidence based on verification and justification of empirical reality based on scientific facts from the scientific FSK [the most credible at present]. This is the scientific reality, an emergent reality that is realized by humans in alignment with the scientific FSK.'

I'm asking why they're phenomena (appearances), given that there are no noumena (things-in-themselves). Try again. Complete the following sentence:

Given that there are no noumena (things-in-themselves), phenonmena are phenomena (appearances) because ...
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12372
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Sun Jul 10, 2022 7:28 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Jul 10, 2022 7:20 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Sun Jul 10, 2022 7:14 am

I wonder why you think not answering my questions, and merely repeating your dogmas, gets us anywhere. Tell you what, have a go at just this question:

If there are no noumena, then why are phenomena phenomena?

Notice this is not asking what phenomena are, or are supposed to be. It's asking why these things are phenomena - appearances - given that there are no noumena - things-in-themselves.

And you can save time and effort by starting like this: 'Given that there are no noumena (things-in-themselves), phenonmena are phenonmena (appearances) because ...'
How come you are so blind, I gave you the answer as [see above];
  • Here is an indication of your dogmatic ignorance.
    1 If we can have no vantage point above the fray - the world of phenomena - how can we know they are phenomena and not noumena? (I smell special pleading.)

    We know what is phenomena with confidence based on verification and justification of empirical reality based on scientific facts from the scientific FSK [the most credible at present]. This is the scientific reality, an emergent reality that is realized by humans in alignment with the scientific FSK.

    Problem is the majority of people are still beastly [relatively new evolutionary] and driven by insecure psychology [an existential crisis] to insist there is an independent reality beyond scientific reality or human-entangled reality. This is the noumena and thing-in-itself independent of scientific reality which you [metaphysical realism] are seeking.
    At the extreme of psychological insecurity, theists clasp and grasp onto an illusory God that has brought tons of evil misery to humanity.
The above is merely a crude answer but sufficient.
You need to read up Kant if get the full picture.
No, you're just repeating how we recognise phenomena (appearances): 'We know what is phenomena with confidence based on verification and justification of empirical reality based on scientific facts from the scientific FSK [the most credible at present]. This is the scientific reality, an emergent reality that is realized by humans in alignment with the scientific FSK.'

I'm asking why they're phenomena (appearances), given that there are no noumena (things-in-themselves). Try again. Complete the following sentence:

Given that there are no noumena (things-in-themselves), phenonmena are phenomena (appearances) because ...
Didn't you read the next section?

What is phenomena is obvious which can be verified and justified scientifically, but the impatient "beastly" majority are driven to think too far beyond the phenomena, so Kant introduced the concept of the "noumena"* to satisfy their curiosity on a temporary basis, i.e. as a limiting concept.
Note it was Kant who introduced the idea of of the "noumenon" to serve his [that] purpose he intended not for you to veer off with your own views on it?

I gave you the analogy of the 'mirage' where they immature jump into conclusion the 'mirage' is the really real thing when it is a merely an illusion.
It is the same with the thing-in-itself [Kant temporary associated with the noumenon], which Kant is well aware is an illusion which he justified in the later part of the CPR.

Here is a clue from the CPR re Noumenon as a limiting concept'
Kant in CPR wrote:Further, the Concept of a Noumenon is necessary, to prevent Sensible Intuition from being extended to Things-in-Themselves, and thus to Limit the Objective Validity of Sensible Knowledge. A254
This is one of the following premise where Kant countered the theists' Cosmological Argument for God, i.e. theists cannot rely on empirical evidences via science etc. to extend to the thing-in-itself, i.e. God which is illusory and committing the equivocation fallacy.

Thus your pining for the thing-in-itself aka the noumenon as real is just like the theists clinging to the thing-in-itself as God.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3732
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Jul 10, 2022 7:57 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Sun Jul 10, 2022 7:28 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Jul 10, 2022 7:20 am
How come you are so blind, I gave you the answer as [see above];
  • Here is an indication of your dogmatic ignorance.
    1 If we can have no vantage point above the fray - the world of phenomena - how can we know they are phenomena and not noumena? (I smell special pleading.)

    We know what is phenomena with confidence based on verification and justification of empirical reality based on scientific facts from the scientific FSK [the most credible at present]. This is the scientific reality, an emergent reality that is realized by humans in alignment with the scientific FSK.

    Problem is the majority of people are still beastly [relatively new evolutionary] and driven by insecure psychology [an existential crisis] to insist there is an independent reality beyond scientific reality or human-entangled reality. This is the noumena and thing-in-itself independent of scientific reality which you [metaphysical realism] are seeking.
    At the extreme of psychological insecurity, theists clasp and grasp onto an illusory God that has brought tons of evil misery to humanity.
The above is merely a crude answer but sufficient.
You need to read up Kant if get the full picture.
No, you're just repeating how we recognise phenomena (appearances): 'We know what is phenomena with confidence based on verification and justification of empirical reality based on scientific facts from the scientific FSK [the most credible at present]. This is the scientific reality, an emergent reality that is realized by humans in alignment with the scientific FSK.'

I'm asking why they're phenomena (appearances), given that there are no noumena (things-in-themselves). Try again. Complete the following sentence:

Given that there are no noumena (things-in-themselves), phenonmena are phenomena (appearances) because ...
Didn't you read the next section?

What is phenomena is obvious which can be verified and justified scientifically, but the impatient "beastly" majority are driven to think too far beyond the phenomena, so Kant introduced the concept of the "noumena"* to satisfy their curiosity on a temporary basis, i.e. as a limiting concept.
Note it was Kant who introduced the idea of of the "noumenon" to serve his [that] purpose he intended not for you to veer off with your own views on it?

I gave you the analogy of the 'mirage' where they immature jump into conclusion the 'mirage' is the really real thing when it is a merely an illusion.
It is the same with the thing-in-itself [Kant temporary associated with the noumenon], which Kant is well aware is an illusion which he justified in the later part of the CPR.

Here is a clue from the CPR re Noumenon as a limiting concept'
Kant in CPR wrote:Further, the Concept of a Noumenon is necessary, to prevent Sensible Intuition from being extended to Things-in-Themselves, and thus to Limit the Objective Validity of Sensible Knowledge. A254
This is one of the following premise where Kant countered the theists' Cosmological Argument for God, i.e. theists cannot rely on empirical evidences via science etc. to extend to the thing-in-itself, i.e. God which is illusory and committing the equivocation fallacy.

Thus your pining for the thing-in-itself aka the noumenon as real is just like the theists clinging to the thing-in-itself as God.
I'm not pining for the thing-in-itself. I think it's a fiction that Kant invented in a vain attempt to overcome empiricist skepticism about the existence of 'the external world' - which is also a fiction. In fact, there's no problem, so we don't need to solve it.

And you don't answer my question - given that there are no noumena (things-in-themselves), why are phenomena phenomena (appearances)? - because it demonstrates the fallacy of Kant's argument. No noumena = no phenomena = no contrast between things-in-themselves and things-as-they-appear.

And, by the way, I've been studying Kant and arguing with Kantians for many years - so your boasting and condescension cut no mustard with me. It's the evidence and arguments that count - and 'Kantianism' is a dead end.
bobmax
Posts: 596
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2022 7:38 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by bobmax »

Peter Holmes wrote: Sun Jul 10, 2022 9:49 am I'm not pining for the thing-in-itself. I think it's a fiction that Kant invented in a vain attempt to overcome empiricist skepticism about the existence of 'the external world' - which is also a fiction. In fact, there's no problem, so we don't need to solve it.

And you don't answer my question - given that there are no noumena (things-in-themselves), why are phenomena phenomena (appearances)? - because it demonstrates the fallacy of Kant's argument. No noumena = no phenomena = no contrast between things-in-themselves and things-as-they-appear.

And, by the way, I've been studying Kant and arguing with Kantians for many years - so your boasting and condescension cut no mustard with me. It's the evidence and arguments that count - and 'Kantianism' is a dead end.
However, in my opinion, Kant remains important above all for his approach.

Because it is evident that Kant does not want to deceive himself.
And then his reasoning becomes circular, full of tautologies.
As he proceeds, Kant shows the limit that rational thought that seeks truth inevitably runs into.

It is Kant's honesty that really matters.
By following him, we can relive the effort of trying to understand what cannot be understood.

But it is precisely the experience of the insuperable limit that deeply shakes.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12372
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Sun Jul 10, 2022 9:49 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Jul 10, 2022 7:57 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Sun Jul 10, 2022 7:28 am No, you're just repeating how we recognise phenomena (appearances): 'We know what is phenomena with confidence based on verification and justification of empirical reality based on scientific facts from the scientific FSK [the most credible at present]. This is the scientific reality, an emergent reality that is realized by humans in alignment with the scientific FSK.'

I'm asking why they're phenomena (appearances), given that there are no noumena (things-in-themselves). Try again. Complete the following sentence:

Given that there are no noumena (things-in-themselves), phenonmena are phenomena (appearances) because ...
Didn't you read the next section?

What is phenomena is obvious which can be verified and justified scientifically, but the impatient "beastly" majority are driven to think too far beyond the phenomena, so Kant introduced the concept of the "noumena"* to satisfy their curiosity on a temporary basis, i.e. as a limiting concept.
Note it was Kant who introduced the idea of of the "noumenon" to serve his [that] purpose he intended not for you to veer off with your own views on it?

I gave you the analogy of the 'mirage' where they immature jump into conclusion the 'mirage' is the really real thing when it is a merely an illusion.
It is the same with the thing-in-itself [Kant temporary associated with the noumenon], which Kant is well aware is an illusion which he justified in the later part of the CPR.

Here is a clue from the CPR re Noumenon as a limiting concept'
Kant in CPR wrote:Further, the Concept of a Noumenon is necessary, to prevent Sensible Intuition from being extended to Things-in-Themselves, and thus to Limit the Objective Validity of Sensible Knowledge. A254
This is one of the following premise where Kant countered the theists' Cosmological Argument for God, i.e. theists cannot rely on empirical evidences via science etc. to extend to the thing-in-itself, i.e. God which is illusory and committing the equivocation fallacy.

Thus your pining for the thing-in-itself aka the noumenon as real is just like the theists clinging to the thing-in-itself as God.
And, by the way, I've been studying Kant and arguing with Kantians for many years - so your boasting and condescension cut no mustard with me. It's the evidence and arguments that count - and 'Kantianism' is a dead end.
If you have been studying Kant and understood [not necessary agree with] his works [CPR in this case], you would not be asking me the above questions, for the answers are all in the CPR.
From your postings re Kant I AM CONFIDENT you have not understood [not necessary agree with] his works [CPR in this case].
I'm not pining for the thing-in-itself. I think it's a fiction that Kant invented in a vain attempt to overcome empiricist skepticism about the existence of 'the external world' - which is also a fiction. In fact, there's no problem, so we don't need to solve it.
Your above is proof you have not understood Kant's work.
The "empiricist skepticism" issue is not the critical matter to Kant but merely necessary for his main mission.

Kant's main mission of his vision is Perpetual Peace. To do so he had to destroy the hold of the Schools, i.e. the theologians and theists who hold the thing-in-itself as God which had brought forth much evils throughout the history of mankind and hindered the progress of humanity.

To achieve his mission, Kant adopted his Copernican Revolution which focused on the Empirical as the starting point, i.e. the reality which can be verified and justified as real then from there explained how the theists jumped from empiricism directly to the illusory God.
To do so, Kant had to introduce the idea of the noumenon to contrast the phenomenon, and explain how the noumenon [illusory] is falsely taken to be the illusory God. The same Noumenon in another perspective is the thing-in-itself;
Kant in CPR wrote:The Concept of a Noumenon that is, of a Thing which is not to be Thought as Object of the Senses but as a Thing-in-itself, solely through a Pure Understanding is not in any way contradictory.
B310
Don't read too much in the 'not in any way contradictory' for Kant stated, it is still Problematic;
Kant in CPR wrote:If the Objective Reality of a Concept cannot be in any way known,
while yet the Concept contains no Contradiction
and also at the same time is connected with other Modes of Knowledge that involve Given Concepts which it [concept] serves to Limit,
I entitle that Concept, Problematic.
I'm not pining for the thing-in-itself.
Indeed you are and you are ignorant of what you are doing.
You insisted reality [all things therein] are independent of the human conditions.
To Kant the thing-in-itself [self-explanatory] is 'in-itself' thus independent of the human conditions.
Thereby you insisted on fact-in-itself, i.e. facts-in-themselves which are independent of the human opinions & beliefs and all human conditions.
So how can you deny you are not pining for the thing-in-itself [Kantian].

Btw, your pining for the 'things-in-themselves' as the really real independent things is merely one shade from the theists beliefs i.e. the Father of all things-in-themselves i.e. the illusory God.
And you don't answer my question - given that there are no noumena (things-in-themselves), why are phenomena phenomena (appearances)? - because it demonstrates the fallacy of Kant's argument. No noumena = no phenomena = no contrast between things-in-themselves and things-as-they-appear.
This shows clearly your ignorance of Kant's work.

I mentioned the theists' Cosmological Argument for God and that should have trigger a clue for you but you are ignorant, dogmatic and blind as usual.

1. Isn't it obvious if you see a watch in the sand in a beach, there must be a creator it, for what is a creation, there must be a creator. This is common sense and to think there is no creator is absurd.
2. But the theists insist based on the above logic, there must be a 'Creator' for all the things we see in the Universe, since there is no man capable of such creation, it must be an omnipotent God who is the Creator. This is like 1 above but it is an irrational sense.

So for every creation there must be a creator i.e. via common sense dualism.
Since it is so evident there are phenomena, there is a psychological tendencies for the majority to link the phenomena to a creator, a thing-in-itself, i.e. God.

Thus it was necessary for Kant to put a pause to a hasty jump from the empirical to God [thing-in-itself] by introducing an intermediate noumena as a limiting concept which is actually illusory. The only real thing are the phenomena which can be empirically verified and justified via a credible FSK such as Science.

I quoted this earlier on the necessity of the concept of Noumenon as a limit;
Kant in CPR wrote:
Further, the Concept of a Noumenon is necessary, to prevent Sensible Intuition from being extended to Things-in-Themselves, and thus to Limit the Objective Validity of Sensible Knowledge. A254
Your "given that there are no noumena (things-in-themselves), why are phenomena phenomena (appearances)?"
is a strawman.

The question should be, given there are phenomena [empirically evident] why the need for 'noumena [things-in-themselves]?

As explained above, the 'noumena' is a critical concept [premise] for Kant to ensure his whole argument follows to justify his main mission, i.e. Perpetual Peace.

Btw, Kant's concept of noumena is somewhat similar to Russell's No Man's Land [Philosophy], i.e. the intermediate between the empirically verifiable world and the illusory irrational world of the theologians.
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2020/08 ... -land.html

I don't believe you have read Kant's CPR thoroughly.
If you had [I don't think so] then you should refresh this chapter'
  • I. TRANSCENDENTAL DOCTRINE OF ELEMENTS
    SECOND PART. TRANSCENDENTAL LOGIC . . . .
    FIRST DIVISION. Transcendental Analytic . .
    TRANSCENDENTAL DOCTRINE OF JUDGMENT
    BOOK II (ANALYTIC OF PRINCIPLES)

    CHAPTER III
    THE GROUND OF THE DISTINCTION OF ALL Objects-In-General INTO PHENOMENA AND NOUMENA
Relevance:
There are no things-in-themselves, thus no facts-in-themselves. [Kant]
There are only facts-in-FSKs. [based on arguments].
Therefore there are moral facts in moral FSK. [based on arguments].
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3732
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Jul 11, 2022 2:05 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Sun Jul 10, 2022 9:49 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Jul 10, 2022 7:57 am
Didn't you read the next section?

What is phenomena is obvious which can be verified and justified scientifically, but the impatient "beastly" majority are driven to think too far beyond the phenomena, so Kant introduced the concept of the "noumena"* to satisfy their curiosity on a temporary basis, i.e. as a limiting concept.
Note it was Kant who introduced the idea of of the "noumenon" to serve his [that] purpose he intended not for you to veer off with your own views on it?

I gave you the analogy of the 'mirage' where they immature jump into conclusion the 'mirage' is the really real thing when it is a merely an illusion.
It is the same with the thing-in-itself [Kant temporary associated with the noumenon], which Kant is well aware is an illusion which he justified in the later part of the CPR.

Here is a clue from the CPR re Noumenon as a limiting concept'



This is one of the following premise where Kant countered the theists' Cosmological Argument for God, i.e. theists cannot rely on empirical evidences via science etc. to extend to the thing-in-itself, i.e. God which is illusory and committing the equivocation fallacy.

Thus your pining for the thing-in-itself aka the noumenon as real is just like the theists clinging to the thing-in-itself as God.
And, by the way, I've been studying Kant and arguing with Kantians for many years - so your boasting and condescension cut no mustard with me. It's the evidence and arguments that count - and 'Kantianism' is a dead end.
If you have been studying Kant and understood [not necessary agree with] his works [CPR in this case], you would not be asking me the above questions, for the answers are all in the CPR.
From your postings re Kant I AM CONFIDENT you have not understood [not necessary agree with] his works [CPR in this case].
I'm not pining for the thing-in-itself. I think it's a fiction that Kant invented in a vain attempt to overcome empiricist skepticism about the existence of 'the external world' - which is also a fiction. In fact, there's no problem, so we don't need to solve it.
Your above is proof you have not understood Kant's work.
The "empiricist skepticism" issue is not the critical matter to Kant but merely necessary for his main mission.

Kant's main mission of his vision is Perpetual Peace. To do so he had to destroy the hold of the Schools, i.e. the theologians and theists who hold the thing-in-itself as God which had brought forth much evils throughout the history of mankind and hindered the progress of humanity.

To achieve his mission, Kant adopted his Copernican Revolution which focused on the Empirical as the starting point, i.e. the reality which can be verified and justified as real then from there explained how the theists jumped from empiricism directly to the illusory God.
To do so, Kant had to introduce the idea of the noumenon to contrast the phenomenon, and explain how the noumenon [illusory] is falsely taken to be the illusory God. The same Noumenon in another perspective is the thing-in-itself;
Kant in CPR wrote:The Concept of a Noumenon that is, of a Thing which is not to be Thought as Object of the Senses but as a Thing-in-itself, solely through a Pure Understanding is not in any way contradictory.
B310
Don't read too much in the 'not in any way contradictory' for Kant stated, it is still Problematic;
Kant in CPR wrote:If the Objective Reality of a Concept cannot be in any way known,
while yet the Concept contains no Contradiction
and also at the same time is connected with other Modes of Knowledge that involve Given Concepts which it [concept] serves to Limit,
I entitle that Concept, Problematic.
I'm not pining for the thing-in-itself.
Indeed you are and you are ignorant of what you are doing.
You insisted reality [all things therein] are independent of the human conditions.
To Kant the thing-in-itself [self-explanatory] is 'in-itself' thus independent of the human conditions.
Thereby you insisted on fact-in-itself, i.e. facts-in-themselves which are independent of the human opinions & beliefs and all human conditions.
So how can you deny you are not pining for the thing-in-itself [Kantian].

Btw, your pining for the 'things-in-themselves' as the really real independent things is merely one shade from the theists beliefs i.e. the Father of all things-in-themselves i.e. the illusory God.
And you don't answer my question - given that there are no noumena (things-in-themselves), why are phenomena phenomena (appearances)? - because it demonstrates the fallacy of Kant's argument. No noumena = no phenomena = no contrast between things-in-themselves and things-as-they-appear.
This shows clearly your ignorance of Kant's work.

I mentioned the theists' Cosmological Argument for God and that should have trigger a clue for you but you are ignorant, dogmatic and blind as usual.

1. Isn't it obvious if you see a watch in the sand in a beach, there must be a creator it, for what is a creation, there must be a creator. This is common sense and to think there is no creator is absurd.
2. But the theists insist based on the above logic, there must be a 'Creator' for all the things we see in the Universe, since there is no man capable of such creation, it must be an omnipotent God who is the Creator. This is like 1 above but it is an irrational sense.

So for every creation there must be a creator i.e. via common sense dualism.
Since it is so evident there are phenomena, there is a psychological tendencies for the majority to link the phenomena to a creator, a thing-in-itself, i.e. God.

Thus it was necessary for Kant to put a pause to a hasty jump from the empirical to God [thing-in-itself] by introducing an intermediate noumena as a limiting concept which is actually illusory. The only real thing are the phenomena which can be empirically verified and justified via a credible FSK such as Science.

I quoted this earlier on the necessity of the concept of Noumenon as a limit;
Kant in CPR wrote:
Further, the Concept of a Noumenon is necessary, to prevent Sensible Intuition from being extended to Things-in-Themselves, and thus to Limit the Objective Validity of Sensible Knowledge. A254
Your "given that there are no noumena (things-in-themselves), why are phenomena phenomena (appearances)?"
is a strawman.

The question should be, given there are phenomena [empirically evident] why the need for 'noumena [things-in-themselves]?

As explained above, the 'noumena' is a critical concept [premise] for Kant to ensure his whole argument follows to justify his main mission, i.e. Perpetual Peace.

Btw, Kant's concept of noumena is somewhat similar to Russell's No Man's Land [Philosophy], i.e. the intermediate between the empirically verifiable world and the illusory irrational world of the theologians.
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2020/08 ... -land.html

I don't believe you have read Kant's CPR thoroughly.
If you had [I don't think so] then you should refresh this chapter'
  • I. TRANSCENDENTAL DOCTRINE OF ELEMENTS
    SECOND PART. TRANSCENDENTAL LOGIC . . . .
    FIRST DIVISION. Transcendental Analytic . .
    TRANSCENDENTAL DOCTRINE OF JUDGMENT
    BOOK II (ANALYTIC OF PRINCIPLES)

    CHAPTER III
    THE GROUND OF THE DISTINCTION OF ALL Objects-In-General INTO PHENOMENA AND NOUMENA
Relevance:
There are no things-in-themselves, thus no facts-in-themselves. [Kant]
There are only facts-in-FSKs. [based on arguments].
Therefore there are moral facts in moral FSK. [based on arguments].
Kant's argument is a mess. Have a think about these assertions.

1 Proving the existence of the external world is a problem only if there is indeed an external world.

2 There can be an external world only if there's an internal world. Otherwise, the distinction collapses, and all we have is the world.

3 If the internal world is noumenal (a thing-in-itself), then the claim that there are no noumena is false.

4 If the internal world is phenomenal (an appearance), then it can't be a platform from which to prove the existence of the (phenomenal) external world. Bye bye empirical evidence.

5 If there are no noumena (things-in-themselves), then the claim that there are only phenomena (things-as-they-appear) is incoherent. The distinction collapses, and all we have is things. And the claim that those things can only be things-in-themselves is perfectly circular and so self-defeating.

6 If a noumenon is merely a limiting concept: what and where is it?; is it noumenal or phenomenal?; how does it limit anything - what sort of boundary does it delineate? And so on, deeper and deeper down the rabbit hole.

Kant's solution solves nothing, and just creates more problems. But to repeat, if there's no problem, we don't need to solve it. So, what's the problem, and is it real?
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3732
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Jul 11, 2022 2:05 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Sun Jul 10, 2022 9:49 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Jul 10, 2022 7:57 am
Didn't you read the next section?

What is phenomena is obvious which can be verified and justified scientifically, but the impatient "beastly" majority are driven to think too far beyond the phenomena, so Kant introduced the concept of the "noumena"* to satisfy their curiosity on a temporary basis, i.e. as a limiting concept.
Note it was Kant who introduced the idea of of the "noumenon" to serve his [that] purpose he intended not for you to veer off with your own views on it?

I gave you the analogy of the 'mirage' where they immature jump into conclusion the 'mirage' is the really real thing when it is a merely an illusion.
It is the same with the thing-in-itself [Kant temporary associated with the noumenon], which Kant is well aware is an illusion which he justified in the later part of the CPR.

Here is a clue from the CPR re Noumenon as a limiting concept'



This is one of the following premise where Kant countered the theists' Cosmological Argument for God, i.e. theists cannot rely on empirical evidences via science etc. to extend to the thing-in-itself, i.e. God which is illusory and committing the equivocation fallacy.

Thus your pining for the thing-in-itself aka the noumenon as real is just like the theists clinging to the thing-in-itself as God.
And, by the way, I've been studying Kant and arguing with Kantians for many years - so your boasting and condescension cut no mustard with me. It's the evidence and arguments that count - and 'Kantianism' is a dead end.
If you have been studying Kant and understood [not necessary agree with] his works [CPR in this case], you would not be asking me the above questions, for the answers are all in the CPR.
From your postings re Kant I AM CONFIDENT you have not understood [not necessary agree with] his works [CPR in this case].
I'm not pining for the thing-in-itself. I think it's a fiction that Kant invented in a vain attempt to overcome empiricist skepticism about the existence of 'the external world' - which is also a fiction. In fact, there's no problem, so we don't need to solve it.
Your above is proof you have not understood Kant's work.
The "empiricist skepticism" issue is not the critical matter to Kant but merely necessary for his main mission.

Kant's main mission of his vision is Perpetual Peace. To do so he had to destroy the hold of the Schools, i.e. the theologians and theists who hold the thing-in-itself as God which had brought forth much evils throughout the history of mankind and hindered the progress of humanity.

To achieve his mission, Kant adopted his Copernican Revolution which focused on the Empirical as the starting point, i.e. the reality which can be verified and justified as real then from there explained how the theists jumped from empiricism directly to the illusory God.
To do so, Kant had to introduce the idea of the noumenon to contrast the phenomenon, and explain how the noumenon [illusory] is falsely taken to be the illusory God. The same Noumenon in another perspective is the thing-in-itself;
Kant in CPR wrote:The Concept of a Noumenon that is, of a Thing which is not to be Thought as Object of the Senses but as a Thing-in-itself, solely through a Pure Understanding is not in any way contradictory.
B310
Don't read too much in the 'not in any way contradictory' for Kant stated, it is still Problematic;
Kant in CPR wrote:If the Objective Reality of a Concept cannot be in any way known,
while yet the Concept contains no Contradiction
and also at the same time is connected with other Modes of Knowledge that involve Given Concepts which it [concept] serves to Limit,
I entitle that Concept, Problematic.
I'm not pining for the thing-in-itself.
Indeed you are and you are ignorant of what you are doing.
You insisted reality [all things therein] are independent of the human conditions.
To Kant the thing-in-itself [self-explanatory] is 'in-itself' thus independent of the human conditions.
Thereby you insisted on fact-in-itself, i.e. facts-in-themselves which are independent of the human opinions & beliefs and all human conditions.
So how can you deny you are not pining for the thing-in-itself [Kantian].

Btw, your pining for the 'things-in-themselves' as the really real independent things is merely one shade from the theists beliefs i.e. the Father of all things-in-themselves i.e. the illusory God.
And you don't answer my question - given that there are no noumena (things-in-themselves), why are phenomena phenomena (appearances)? - because it demonstrates the fallacy of Kant's argument. No noumena = no phenomena = no contrast between things-in-themselves and things-as-they-appear.
This shows clearly your ignorance of Kant's work.

I mentioned the theists' Cosmological Argument for God and that should have trigger a clue for you but you are ignorant, dogmatic and blind as usual.

1. Isn't it obvious if you see a watch in the sand in a beach, there must be a creator it, for what is a creation, there must be a creator. This is common sense and to think there is no creator is absurd.
2. But the theists insist based on the above logic, there must be a 'Creator' for all the things we see in the Universe, since there is no man capable of such creation, it must be an omnipotent God who is the Creator. This is like 1 above but it is an irrational sense.

So for every creation there must be a creator i.e. via common sense dualism.
Since it is so evident there are phenomena, there is a psychological tendencies for the majority to link the phenomena to a creator, a thing-in-itself, i.e. God.

Thus it was necessary for Kant to put a pause to a hasty jump from the empirical to God [thing-in-itself] by introducing an intermediate noumena as a limiting concept which is actually illusory. The only real thing are the phenomena which can be empirically verified and justified via a credible FSK such as Science.

I quoted this earlier on the necessity of the concept of Noumenon as a limit;
Kant in CPR wrote:
Further, the Concept of a Noumenon is necessary, to prevent Sensible Intuition from being extended to Things-in-Themselves, and thus to Limit the Objective Validity of Sensible Knowledge. A254
Your "given that there are no noumena (things-in-themselves), why are phenomena phenomena (appearances)?"
is a strawman.

The question should be, given there are phenomena [empirically evident] why the need for 'noumena [things-in-themselves]?

As explained above, the 'noumena' is a critical concept [premise] for Kant to ensure his whole argument follows to justify his main mission, i.e. Perpetual Peace.

Btw, Kant's concept of noumena is somewhat similar to Russell's No Man's Land [Philosophy], i.e. the intermediate between the empirically verifiable world and the illusory irrational world of the theologians.
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2020/08 ... -land.html

I don't believe you have read Kant's CPR thoroughly.
If you had [I don't think so] then you should refresh this chapter'
  • I. TRANSCENDENTAL DOCTRINE OF ELEMENTS
    SECOND PART. TRANSCENDENTAL LOGIC . . . .
    FIRST DIVISION. Transcendental Analytic . .
    TRANSCENDENTAL DOCTRINE OF JUDGMENT
    BOOK II (ANALYTIC OF PRINCIPLES)

    CHAPTER III
    THE GROUND OF THE DISTINCTION OF ALL Objects-In-General INTO PHENOMENA AND NOUMENA
Relevance:
There are no things-in-themselves, thus no facts-in-themselves. [Kant]
There are only facts-in-FSKs. [based on arguments].
Therefore there are moral facts in moral FSK. [based on arguments].
Kant's argument is a mess. Have a think about these assertions.

1 Proving the existence of the external world is a problem only if there is indeed an external world.

2 There can be an external world only if there's an internal world. Otherwise, the distinction collapses, and all we have is the world.

3 If the internal world is noumenal (a thing-in-itself), then the claim that there are no noumena is false.

4 If the internal world is phenomenal (an appearance), then it can't be a platform from which to prove the existence of the (phenomenal) external world. Bye bye empirical evidence.

5 If there are no noumena (things-in-themselves), then the claim that there are only phenomena (things-as-they-appear) is incoherent. The distinction collapses, and all we have is things. And the claim that those things can only be things-in-themselves is perfectly circular and so self-defeating.

6 If a noumenon is merely a limiting concept: what and where is it?; is it noumenal or phenomenal?; how does it limit anything - what sort of boundary does it delineate? And so on, deeper and deeper down the rabbit hole.

Kant's solution solves nothing, and just creates more problems. But to repeat, if there's no problem, we don't need to solve it. So, what's the problem, and is it real?
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12372
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Mon Jul 11, 2022 11:29 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Jul 11, 2022 2:05 am I don't believe you have read Kant's CPR thoroughly.
If you had [I don't think so] then you should refresh this chapter'
  • I. TRANSCENDENTAL DOCTRINE OF ELEMENTS
    SECOND PART. TRANSCENDENTAL LOGIC . . . .
    FIRST DIVISION. Transcendental Analytic . .
    TRANSCENDENTAL DOCTRINE OF JUDGMENT
    BOOK II (ANALYTIC OF PRINCIPLES)

    CHAPTER III
    THE GROUND OF THE DISTINCTION OF ALL Objects-In-General INTO PHENOMENA AND NOUMENA
Relevance:
There are no things-in-themselves, thus no facts-in-themselves. [Kant]
There are only facts-in-FSKs. [based on arguments].
Therefore there are moral facts in moral FSK. [based on arguments].
Kant's argument is a mess. Have a think about these assertions.

1 Proving the existence of the external world is a problem only if there is indeed an external world.
It is obvious you have not read Kant thoroughly nor understood [not necessary agree with] his views completely.

The point here is, by default of evolution, the so-called metaphysical/philosophical realists had been claiming there is an external world that is independent of the human conditions. Even a small kid will start with such a belief of an independent external world, thus the necessary default of ALL humans.
As such the majority of human philosophy had been grounded on this 'realists' view since 'philosophy' emerged from within humanity.

While the metaphysical/philosophical 'realists' has its basic pros it also has its cons.

As humans continued to evolve subsequently and into the future, there is a realization that the cons of realism are constraints and hindrances to humanity's progress and as such need to be resolved.

While earlier on some wiser humans have realized the cons of realism, it was the Jains and the Buddha in >2500 years ago who presented a shift in paradigm from realism to anti-realism with Buddhist philosophies.

For the Greeks it was Heraclitus [no same river], Protagoras [man is the measure of all things] who introduced anti-realism within 500-100BCE. As expected they were trashed by the realists, which has been continuing till the present.

Thus Kant's Copernican Revolution [anti-realism] in the 1700s was nothing new, but then Kant's presentation is more rigorous, well argued, systematic and holistic.

However, because 'realism' as a default and embedded deep in the DNA of human nature, the majority [like you] will naturally cling and be dogmatic to realism as a psychological crutch; as such will defend realism as if there is no tomorrow.
2 There can be an external world only if there's an internal world. Otherwise, the distinction collapses, and all we have is the world.
I have explained above how the idea of the external world arose.
I presume those realists who cling to an external world will argued the internal world is within their mind, thoughts and dreams.

The point is regardless how you deny it, your claim of a fact-in-itself that is a feature of reality allude to an external world from the human condition, thus you are by definition a metaphysical /philosophical realist.

OTOH, the Kantian empirical realist [transcendental idealist] do recognize there is an external and internal world by default BUT this externality/internality is merely a subset of the human conditions, thus no absolutely independent external world by itself.
3 If the internal world is noumenal (a thing-in-itself), then the claim that there are no noumena is false.
You got this wrong because you have not understood Kant's philosophy.
Kant NEVER asserted the internal world is noumenal!!
The noumena is merely a limiting concept to contrast with the phenomena world.
4 If the internal world is phenomenal (an appearance), then it can't be a platform from which to prove the existence of the (phenomenal) external world. Bye bye empirical evidence.
Kant do not rely on the idea of the 'internal world'.
The idea of the noumena is a limit to the empirical world so that realists like you do not insist there is an independent fact beyond the emerged empirical evidence and to ensure the theist do not equivocate the empirical with the thing-in-itself, i.e. God.
This is very long complex argument which you are ignorant of, so don't try to be a smart alec until you have understood [not necessary agree with] it.
5 If there are no noumena (things-in-themselves), then the claim that there are only phenomena (things-as-they-appear) is incoherent. The distinction collapses, and all we have is things. And the claim that those things can only be things-in-themselves is perfectly circular and so self-defeating.
As I had stated the phenomena is the most certainly [not 100%] factual based on empirical evidence that are verifiable and justifiable. How can this be incoherent.

You are the one who is making an incoherent claim; your "fact as a feature of reality that is independent of the human conditions' is actually a noumena which is ultimately proven by Kant to be illusory.
6 If a noumenon is merely a limiting concept: what and where is it?; is it noumenal or phenomenal?; how does it limit anything - what sort of boundary does it delineate? And so on, deeper and deeper down the rabbit hole.
Actually, you are the one who is claiming the so-called noumena is the real thing.
So I ask you 'what and where is it? and I have been asking you this point a 'million' times from another perspective'.
Kant's solution solves nothing, and just creates more problems. But to repeat, if there's no problem, we don't need to solve it. So, what's the problem, and is it real?
You are the one who is lost based on your ignorance and dogmatism.
In a way you are using your [whatever you have] intelligence to defend your ignorance.

Kant's solution provide the path to perpetual peace. Obvious you will not agree because you are too ignorant of Kant's philosophy and is too dogmatic to be stuck in your 1 mile high, 5 feet wide silo.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3732
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

VA

Have another go at the folowing assertion. You didn't understand the point about incoherence last time.

If there are no noumena (things-in-themselves), then the claim that there are only phenomena (things-as-they-appear) is incoherent. The distinction collapses, and all we have is things. And the claim that those things can only be things-in-themselves is perfectly circular and so self-defeating.

(VA either won't or can't address this. But can any other Kantian here straighten me out?)
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Belinda »

Peter Holmes wrote: Tue Jul 12, 2022 11:32 am VA

Have another go at the folowing assertion. You didn't understand the point about incoherence last time.

If there are no noumena (things-in-themselves), then the claim that there are only phenomena (things-as-they-appear) is incoherent. The distinction collapses, and all we have is things. And the claim that those things can only be things-in-themselves is perfectly circular and so self-defeating.

(VA either won't or can't address this. But can any other Kantian here straighten me out?)
Not only is there no such thing as the noumenal, neither is there such as thing as a fully formed phenomenal world apart from experiences. Not only is Peter a bundle of experiences, he is nothing but a bundle of experiences. Experiences are limited not by a real world but by possibility. All phenomenal worlds are experiences or they are nothing.Experiences and only experiences are reality.

Ethics are true only if they are possible to achieve as experiences. For instance we'd say that to work a magical solution to an ethical problem is neither true nor untrue but is nonsense. Also an ethic is true only if it is coherent. The fact is, we don't know which ethics cohere with Nature /God, and we men are in the scary situation of having to find that out for ourselves.

Christians believe that we have an actual pattern of ethical behaviour in the life of Christ.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6268
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Did Belinda have some sort of come to Jebus moment recently? It seems she's taken to making everything about religion lately and she's starting to resemble Immanuel Can.
Post Reply