Is morality objective or subjective?

[Skepdick]

'The assertion 'snow is white' is true because the stuff we call snow is the colour we call white.

So then "Snow is white" is false and "The colour of snow is white" is true.

What or where is "the colour" of snow? What or where is "it" that we call "colour"?

[Magnus Anderson]

What or where is "the colour" of snow? What or where is "it" that we call "colour"?

I've explained this to you before. But let me try to do it one more time.

The statement "The snow is white" means "The snow is such that, when a trichromat observes it, he's visually affected in a way that makes him see white color."

We have no choice but to understand reality in terms of how it affects us. This isn't to say that our maps of reality are necessarily false. It merely means that a map of reality is not the same thing as reality.

[Skepdick]

What or where is "the colour" of snow? What or where is "it" that we call "colour"?

I've explained this to you before. But let me try to do it one more time.

The statement "The snow is white" means "The snow is such that, when a trichromat observes it, he's visually affected in a way that makes him see white color."

I don't know how to break this to you but... "white" is not a color.

It's a composition of colors - and more specifically. It's the composition of ALL colors. Something something about Newton and a prism.

Now all you have to do here is define what "ALL colors" means. Just take the EM spectrum and draw me some lines.

Draw one line where "colors" start and another line where "colors" end.

We have no choice but to understand reality in terms of how it affects us. This isn't to say that our maps of reality are necessarily false. It merely means that a map of reality is not the same thing as reality.

Perfectly clear. Just so long as we agree that the map is mind-dependent and that mind-independence is Philosophical hogwash.

[Magnus Anderson]

I don't know how to break this to you but... "white" is not a color.

It's a composition of colors - and more specifically. It's the composition of ALL colors. Something something about Newton and a prism.

Now all you have to do here is define what "ALL colors" means. Just take the EM spectrum and draw me some lines.

Draw one line where "colors" start and another line where "colors" end.

You're playing word games, guy.

Perfectly clear. Just so long as we agree that the map is mind-dependent and that mind-independence is Philosophical hogwash.

It exists inside a mind, it is constructed by a mind, it is influenced by what's inside a mind . . . but none of that means it's necessarily false.

[Skepdick]

I don't know how to break this to you but... "white" is not a color.

It's a composition of colors - and more specifically. It's the composition of ALL colors. Something something about Newton and a prism.

Now all you have to do here is define what "ALL colors" means. Just take the EM spectrum and draw me some lines.

Draw one line where "colors" start and another line where "colors" end.

You're playing word games, guy.

No, I am not, you fucking incompetent bufoon.

Here's two simple questions for you?

How many colors are on the left hand side of the prism?
How many colors are on the right hand side of the prism?

Explain the difference.

[Magnus Anderson]

Noone cares, guy. Learn to listen to what the other person is saying.

[Skepdick]

Noone cares, guy. Learn to listen to what the other person is saying.

Yes. Learn to listen.

Which part of me saying "White is not a color" is confusing you?

[Magnus Anderson]

It's irrelevant, guy. The point is that when you observe a physical object such as snow, your senses get affected in certain way, as a consequence of which, your brain ends up building a 2D image full of white dots. That's the point.

[Skepdick]

It's irrelevant, guy. The point is that when you observe a physical object such as snow, your senses get affected in certain way, as a consequence of which, your brain ends up building a 2D image full of white dots. That's the point.

OK. I'll play pretend with you. Lets pretend that what you say is true.

What makes the dots in my brain "white" ?

[Magnus Anderson]

Irrelevant.

[Skepdick]

Irrelevant.

What the fuck?

You literally just said....

The point is that when you observe a physical object such as snow, your senses get affected in certain way, as a consequence of which, your brain ends up building a 2D image full of white dots. That's the point.

The whiteness of the dots was irrelevant to your point?

Why did you use the adjective "white" if it's irrelevant?

Why didn't you say...

The point is that when you observe a physical object such as snow, your senses get affected in certain way, as a consequence of which, your brain ends up building a 2D image full of dots. That's the point.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Yes, correspondence or maker-bearer theories of truth are circular.

'The assertion 'snow is white' is true because the stuff we call snow is the colour we call white.'

And such theories demonstrate the original and foundational philosophical delusion of mistaking what we say for the way things are.

A name no more corresponds with what it names - or a description with what it describes - than an arrow corresponds with its target.

Wittgenstein's insight that meaning is use has profound and ramifying implications.

"Meaning is use" is not an issue as long as it is conditioned upon a specific human-based Framework and System of Reality or Knowledge [FSK] with its language games and implied human based rules.

The issue is when it is insisted the 'meaning' from use refers to a thing that exists absolutely independent of the human conditions, i.e. philosophical realism.
This is where you differentiated the description and the-described, but you insist the-described exists absolutely independent of humans [human conditions].

When you differentiate the-described from the human conditions, you by default are engaging in mirroring and corresponding your description with the-described [the fact].

As you are insisting, what is fact is a feature of reality that is just-is, being so, that is the case, and it is absolute independent of the human conditions.
In this case you are appealing to to imaginary, mystical undefined entities, so it is incoherent.

I have challenged you on this many times, but you are running away as a coward;

PH's What is Fact is Illusory
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39577

There are Two Senses of 'What is Fact'
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39587

I suggest you deal with above 2 critical arguments.
You have not demonstrated your independent facts which is a feature of reality exist as real; you merely blabber it is just-is, being-so, that is the case, blah, blah...

In my case, I am not insisting the description is the-described.
Rather, what I claiming the-described is not absolutely independent of the human conditions regardless of whether there are humans or not.

[Peter Holmes]

Yes, correspondence or maker-bearer theories of truth are circular.

'The assertion 'snow is white' is true because the stuff we call snow is the colour we call white.'

And such theories demonstrate the original and foundational philosophical delusion of mistaking what we say for the way things are.

A name no more corresponds with what it names - or a description with what it describes - than an arrow corresponds with its target.

Wittgenstein's insight that meaning is use has profound and ramifying implications.

"Meaning is use" is not an issue as long as it is conditioned upon a specific human-based Framework and System of Reality or Knowledge [FSK] with its language games and implied human based rules.

The issue is when it is insisted the 'meaning' from use refers to a thing that exists absolutely independent of the human conditions, i.e. philosophical realism.
This is where you differentiated the description and the-described, but you insist the-described exists absolutely independent of humans [human conditions].

When you differentiate the-described from the human conditions, you by default are engaging in mirroring and corresponding your description with the-described [the fact].

As you are insisting, what is fact is a feature of reality that is just-is, being so, that is the case, and it is absolute independent of the human conditions.
In this case you are appealing to to imaginary, mystical undefined entities, so it is incoherent.

I have challenged you on this many times, but you are running away as a coward;

PH's What is Fact is Illusory
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39577

There are Two Senses of 'What is Fact'
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39587

I suggest you deal with above 2 critical arguments.
You have not demonstrated your independent facts which is a feature of reality exist as real; you merely blabber it is just-is, being-so, that is the case, blah, blah...

In my case, I am not insisting the description is the-described.
Rather, what I claiming the-described is not absolutely independent of the human conditions regardless of whether there are humans or not.

Your expression, 'absolutely independent of [from] the human conditions', is a conceptual mess. And it's also patently ridiculous. The universe existed before humans evolved, would have existed had humans not evolved, and will exist when we're extinct - all the while 'independent from the human conditions'.

Now, I think you know this damn well, and that if you didn't feel the need to justify a silly moral objectivism, you'd be untroubled by the existence of what we call facts - some of which are the things that natural scientists discover and describe.

Both of your premises are false or not shown to be true, so your conclusion is doa:

P1 What we call facts emerge from, and exist within, a framework and system of knowledge.
P2 There is a morality framework and system of knowledge.
C Therefore, there are moral facts.

I and others have falsified these assertions, and refuted this silly argument, 'a thousand times'. But, by all means, keep regurgitating it. One's own vomit can be strangely attractive.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Yes, correspondence or maker-bearer theories of truth are circular.

'The assertion 'snow is white' is true because the stuff we call snow is the colour we call white.'

And such theories demonstrate the original and foundational philosophical delusion of mistaking what we say for the way things are.

A name no more corresponds with what it names - or a description with what it describes - than an arrow corresponds with its target.

Wittgenstein's insight that meaning is use has profound and ramifying implications.

"Meaning is use" is not an issue as long as it is conditioned upon a specific human-based Framework and System of Reality or Knowledge [FSK] with its language games and implied human based rules.

The issue is when it is insisted the 'meaning' from use refers to a thing that exists absolutely independent of the human conditions, i.e. philosophical realism.
This is where you differentiated the description and the-described, but you insist the-described exists absolutely independent of humans [human conditions].

When you differentiate the-described from the human conditions, you by default are engaging in mirroring and corresponding your description with the-described [the fact].

As you are insisting, what is fact is a feature of reality that is just-is, being so, that is the case, and it is absolute independent of the human conditions.
In this case you are appealing to to imaginary, mystical undefined entities, so it is incoherent.

I have challenged you on this many times, but you are running away as a coward;

PH's What is Fact is Illusory
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39577

There are Two Senses of 'What is Fact'
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39587

I suggest you deal with above 2 critical arguments.
You have not demonstrated your independent facts which is a feature of reality exist as real; you merely blabber it is just-is, being-so, that is the case, blah, blah...

In my case, I am not insisting the description is the-described.
Rather, what I claiming the-described is not absolutely independent of the human conditions regardless of whether there are humans or not.

Your expression, 'absolutely independent of [from] the human conditions', is a conceptual mess. And it's also patently ridiculous. The universe existed before humans evolved, would have existed had humans not evolved, and will exist when we're extinct - all the while 'independent from the human conditions'.

Now, I think you know this damn well, and that if you didn't feel the need to justify a silly moral objectivism, you'd be untroubled by the existence of what we call facts - some of which are the things that natural scientists discover and describe.

Both of your premises are false or not shown to be true, so your conclusion is doa:

P1 What we call facts emerge from, and exist within, a framework and system of knowledge.
P2 There is a morality framework and system of knowledge.
C Therefore, there are moral facts.

I and others have falsified these assertions, and refuted this silly argument, 'a thousand times'. But, by all means, keep regurgitating it. One's own vomit can be strangely attractive.

You had avoided this two challenges below;

PH's What is Fact is Illusory
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39577

There are Two Senses of 'What is Fact'
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39587

That is why you are still insisting on your delusional views.

Your expression, 'absolutely independent of [from] the human conditions', is a conceptual mess. And it's also patently ridiculous. The universe existed before humans evolved, would have existed had humans not evolved, and will exist when we're extinct - all the while 'independent from the human conditions'.

The point here is,
all facts, truths, knowledge are conditioned upon a human based FSK.

The fact that "the universe existed before humans evolved" is conditioned upon a science-cosmological FSK, as such this fact cannot be absolutely independent of the human conditions.

Note the inferences from QM re the following;

The Moon Does Not Exist If No Humans 'Look' at It
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39510

similarly, no humans at all, no universe.

Whether it is morality or not, in principle, there no way I will accept your 'what is fact' which is based on illusions.

Don't give the "I and others" crap.
Show me the specific refutations.

[Skepdick]

Wee use language to convey meanings of thoughts, and it only works because we mean more or less the same things by these words as other users of the language. The key thing is that the concpets we construct our sentences out of are public, you don't choose what a word means, it means to youy what it means to everyone or else you happen to be mistaken not everyone else (think of the thing where Age tells everyone he doesn't believe anything because his version of "believe" is private, so nobody understands him).

Along with the concepts being public, so are the rules of the language games in which they are used. Think of a game of chess where one of the white pawns is missing so you substitute the hat from a monopoly set. If the white player then rolls a die and sends his hat clockwise for up to 6 squares and tries to buy the square he lands on, that move didn't have any meaning within the rules of chess.

So in general, whatever anyone tries to do, the words they use only have meaning if they conform to the understood rules ofthe language game in which those concepts are used. Thus the following sentence can only have any meaning at all if it is untrue: If X is true then Y is false, if Y is true then X is false, X is true, but Y is also true.

I agree 100% with everything FlashDangerpants says above. I mean it - truly and in accordance with the understood rules of the language game.

Also, I would like to draw your attention to the notion of irony.

irony noun the expression of one's meaning by using language that normally signifies the opposite, typically for humorous or emphatic effect.

That sentence, if uttered with intent, could only be expressed in a private language. There's a second argument to be made about whether a private language would contain any meanings at all, but strictly speaking that arg is overkill.

And there's a third argument - that only a private language can be coherent.

Public languages are the product of endless compromise; so it is absolotely idiotic to hold them to the sort of standards of consistency you are holding them to. Tighten the screws on strictness when interpreting legal terms/definitions and all the contradictions in our very legal systems begin popping out of the woodwork.