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

Peter Holmes
Posts: 3732
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Belinda wrote: Tue Jul 12, 2022 12:53 pm
Peter Holmes wrote: Tue Jul 12, 2022 11:32 am VA

Have another go at the following 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.
Thanks, but I don't think your version helps. If there are no noumena (things-in-themselves), then the claim that there are only phenomena (things-as-they-appear-but-are-full-fat-only-if-they-are-experiences) is incoherent. (And what is a semi-skimmed phenomenon?)

The femur in my right leg is not 'an experience'. And neither is that rock on that planet orbiting that star on the other side of the universe. Enough with the claptrap already.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

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?)
The truth is you are too ignorant and dogmatic in understanding my full posts, suggest you read it again together with the explanation below.

My point was your statement below is incoherent in the first place because it is a strawman; Kant would not agree with it at all.
PH:If there are no noumena (things-in-themselves), then the claim that there are only phenomena (things-as-they-appear) is incoherent.

In your statement above there are two parts, i.e.
1. there are no noumena (things-in-themselves)
2. there are only phenomena (things-as-they-appear)

The point is, regardless of whether 'there are no noumena' or 'there are noumena',
statement [2] cannot be incoherent because phenomena can be verified and justified as real within the scientific FSK.
The incoherence is only from your strawman.

As had explained in the earlier stage of my post, Kant introduced "the concept of the noumena" as the illusion that you and others are insisting upon.
Thus what Kant is presenting is that you [and your likes] are claiming there is a noumena as underlying the phenomena which to Kant is mere nonsense.

But to pacify [temporary shut up] the impatient of your likes, Kant would have implied, "OK let there be a 'noumena' in contrast to the phenomena but it is only to be accepted as a limiting concept but not a real thing."

Kant subsequently demonstrated the "noumena" aka the thing-in-itself is illusory.

So,
If there are no noumena (illusions), then the claim that there are only phenomena (things-as-they-appear)
is definitely coherent.
i.e. if there are no illusions [noumena], then there are only phenomena, the real things which can be verified and justified via the scientific FSK.

It is irrational to insist that it is incoherent as you have claimed earlier.

Analogy:
Let say your two year old son happily came to you saying he had received his Christmas gifts from Santa Claus [which he supposed is really real] and ask you where is Santa Claus?
As the typical father in this case, you would have stated Santa had flown back with his reindeers and is in his home in somewhere in the north [you pointing in that direction].
Given the situation, you have no choice but to 'bullshit' and hopefully someday when he is matured enough he will know the truth that the supposed 'Santa' was merely an illusion.

Kant was in the same scenario like kids asking about where is the "real-Santa"; in Kant's case it is the question of where is the real thing behind the phenomena, so he merely invented the "concept of the noumena" to satisfy the questions of ignorant realists at least temporarily.
Thereafter in the later stage of his full argument he demonstrated the noumena is also the thing-in-itself and ultimately it is an illusion.
The difference here is while every kid will likely mature to know 'Santa' is merely an illusion invented by parents, most metaphysical realists [like you] will never be able to realize there is no real noumena [fact as feature of reality] and what is supposedly underlying the phenomena is an illusion.
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: Wed Jul 13, 2022 8:42 am
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?)
The truth is you are too ignorant and dogmatic in understand my full posts.

My point was your statement below is incoherent in the first place because it is a strawman; Kant would not agree with it at all.
PH:If there are no noumena (things-in-themselves), then the claim that there are only phenomena (things-as-they-appear) is incoherent.

In your statement above there are two parts, i.e.
1. there are no noumena (things-in-themselves)
2. there are only phenomena (things-as-they-appear)

The point is, regardless of whether 'there are no noumena' or 'there are noumena',
statement [2] cannot be incoherent because phenomena can be verified and justified as real within the scientific FSK.

As had explained in the earlier stage of my post, Kant introduced "the concept of the noumena" as the illusion that you and others are insisting upon.
Thus what Kant is presenting is that you [and your likes] are claiming there is a noumena as underlying the phenomena which to Kant is mere nonsense.

But to pacify [temporary shut up] the impatient of your likes, Kant would have implied, "OK let there be a 'noumena' in contrast to the phenomena but it is only to be accepted as a limiting concept but not a real thing."

Kant subsequently demonstrated the "noumena" aka the thing-in-itself is illusory.

So,
If there are no noumena (illusions), then the claim that there are only phenomena (things-as-they-appear)
is definitely coherent.
i.e. if there are no illusions, then there are only phenomena, the real things.

It is irrational to insist that it is incoherent as you have claimed earlier.
No, you're just not getting it. To repeat: 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.

The use of the term 'phenomena' is incoherent, because it makes no sense to call something an appearance if there's nothing of which it's an appearance. If there are no noumena, the term 'phenomena' makes a distinction which doesn't obtain. As you put it, there are only 'the real things' - which makes you a realist after all.

The claim that realists believe in the existence of things-in-themselves is a straw man - a product of Kant's argument. Realists have no idea what a thing-in-itself can possibly be. Outside Kantian blather, the expression has no discernable meaning.
popeye1945
Posts: 2130
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by popeye1945 »

Spinoza stated that the body is the idea of the mind, the body being an object in the physical world. This is established I think without to much trouble. It is also the physical reaction, read changes in the physical body that presents us with apparent reality. Modern science tells us that ultimate reality as opposed to apparent reality is a place of no things. So here's the rub, then where and/or how do objects come about in apparent reality? Are they independent of biology, no, just as you know apparent reality due to what you believe to be objects having an effect upon your body the objects themselves are but energy, objects are the effects of energies on the body. I think we all understand that the only way we can know apparent reality is through cognitive awareness of it, there simply is no other possibility. This also means that all meaning is the property of the conscious subject and never belongs to the object until a conscious subject bestows the meaning of experience upon a meaningless world. So, to get back to the original title of the post, morality is meaning and is subjective belonging solely to a conscious subject thus, it can only become objectified through the subject bestowing that meaning onto the meaningless physical world. The apparent reality is the emergent reactionary manifestation of the relation between subject and object and belongs solely to the conscious subject. Biology is the creator of all meaning and in its absence, the physical world is forever meaningless. Think about it, there is nothing in the world that has meaning in and of itself but only in relation to a conscious subject and the old saying is fortified, subject and object stand or fall together.
Skepdick
Posts: 14366
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Skepdick »

Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Jul 13, 2022 9:18 am No, you're just not getting it. To repeat: 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.
How is it that you seem to have such clear insight on the collapse of the noumena/phenomena distinction; and then magically you are struck by amnesia on the collapse of the subjectivity/objectivity distinction?!?

Everyone knows what a thing (an object) is!
I am an object - a thing.
You are an object - a thing.

What the hell is a "subject"? The expression has no discernable meaning.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Belinda »

popeye1945 wrote: Tue Jul 26, 2022 7:03 am Spinoza stated that the body is the idea of the mind, the body being an object in the physical world. This is established I think without to much trouble. It is also the physical reaction, read changes in the physical body that presents us with apparent reality. Modern science tells us that ultimate reality as opposed to apparent reality is a place of no things. So here's the rub, then where and/or how do objects come about in apparent reality? Are they independent of biology, no, just as you know apparent reality due to what you believe to be objects having an effect upon your body the objects themselves are but energy, objects are the effects of energies on the body. I think we all understand that the only way we can know apparent reality is through cognitive awareness of it, there simply is no other possibility. This also means that all meaning is the property of the conscious subject and never belongs to the object until a conscious subject bestows the meaning of experience upon a meaningless world. So, to get back to the original title of the post, morality is meaning and is subjective belonging solely to a conscious subject thus, it can only become objectified through the subject bestowing that meaning onto the meaningless physical world. The apparent reality is the emergent reactionary manifestation of the relation between subject and object and belongs solely to the conscious subject. Biology is the creator of all meaning and in its absence, the physical world is forever meaningless. Think about it, there is nothing in the world that has meaning in and of itself but only in relation to a conscious subject and the old saying is fortified, subject and object stand or fall together.
I agree. Subject and object do stand or fall together. However it's subject we need to get clear about. We objectify 'subject'. So what if anything remains? There is no subject, no "I". What remains is not nothing, obviously. If anything is axiomatic it's axiomatic that something is happening. Experiences are happenings and happenings are experiences. There we have it, what we can't be mistaken about. Experience is being and being is experience.
popeye1945
Posts: 2130
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by popeye1945 »

Belinda wrote: Tue Jul 26, 2022 11:58 am
popeye1945 wrote: Tue Jul 26, 2022 7:03 am Spinoza stated that the body is the idea of the mind, the body being an object in the physical world. This is established I think without to much trouble. It is also the physical reaction, read changes in the physical body that presents us with apparent reality. Modern science tells us that ultimate reality as opposed to apparent reality is a place of no things. So here's the rub, then where and/or how do objects come about in apparent reality? Are they independent of biology, no, just as you know apparent reality due to what you believe to be objects having an effect upon your body the objects themselves are but energy, objects are the effects of energies on the body. I think we all understand that the only way we can know apparent reality is through cognitive awareness of it, there simply is no other possibility. This also means that all meaning is the property of the conscious subject and never belongs to the object until a conscious subject bestows the meaning of experience upon a meaningless world. So, to get back to the original title of the post, morality is meaning and is subjective belonging solely to a conscious subject thus, it can only become objectified through the subject bestowing that meaning onto the meaningless physical world. The apparent reality is the emergent reactionary manifestation of the relation between subject and object and belongs solely to the conscious subject. Biology is the creator of all meaning and in its absence, the physical world is forever meaningless. Think about it, there is nothing in the world that has meaning in and of itself but only in relation to a conscious subject and the old saying is fortified, subject and object stand or fall together.
I agree. Subject and object do stand or fall together. However it's subject we need to get clear about. We objectify 'subject'. So what if anything remains? There is no subject, no "I". What remains is not nothing, obviously. If anything is axiomatic it's axiomatic that something is happening. Experiences are happenings and happenings are experiences. There we have it, what we can't be mistaken about. Experience is being and being is experience.
Belinda,

We objectify subject only in the sense of Spinoza's the body is the idea of the mind, it is out there with all the other objects. The subject is that which is conscious of the changes affecting the body, call it reactive consciousness. Effects,read changes are occurring to the body from the energies of ultimate reality, which again is a place of no things just energies. So in a sense, there is no distance no separation between subject and object, only half of one's brain/mind is encased within the skull the other half is the energies of ultimate reality which in effect are the world as object. In the absence of a conscious subject the physical world as an object ceases to exist [cognatively] and in the absence of the physical world as object, consciousness ceases to be--- they stand or fall together. Being is the reactionary relation between subject and object, we experience and experience is meaning which we then bestow upon a meaningless physical world.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Belinda »

popeye1945 wrote: Tue Jul 26, 2022 1:47 pm
Belinda wrote: Tue Jul 26, 2022 11:58 am
popeye1945 wrote: Tue Jul 26, 2022 7:03 am Spinoza stated that the body is the idea of the mind, the body being an object in the physical world. This is established I think without to much trouble. It is also the physical reaction, read changes in the physical body that presents us with apparent reality. Modern science tells us that ultimate reality as opposed to apparent reality is a place of no things. So here's the rub, then where and/or how do objects come about in apparent reality? Are they independent of biology, no, just as you know apparent reality due to what you believe to be objects having an effect upon your body the objects themselves are but energy, objects are the effects of energies on the body. I think we all understand that the only way we can know apparent reality is through cognitive awareness of it, there simply is no other possibility. This also means that all meaning is the property of the conscious subject and never belongs to the object until a conscious subject bestows the meaning of experience upon a meaningless world. So, to get back to the original title of the post, morality is meaning and is subjective belonging solely to a conscious subject thus, it can only become objectified through the subject bestowing that meaning onto the meaningless physical world. The apparent reality is the emergent reactionary manifestation of the relation between subject and object and belongs solely to the conscious subject. Biology is the creator of all meaning and in its absence, the physical world is forever meaningless. Think about it, there is nothing in the world that has meaning in and of itself but only in relation to a conscious subject and the old saying is fortified, subject and object stand or fall together.
I agree. Subject and object do stand or fall together. However it's subject we need to get clear about. We objectify 'subject'. So what if anything remains? There is no subject, no "I". What remains is not nothing, obviously. If anything is axiomatic it's axiomatic that something is happening. Experiences are happenings and happenings are experiences. There we have it, what we can't be mistaken about. Experience is being and being is experience.
Belinda,

We objectify subject only in the sense of Spinoza's the body is the idea of the mind, it is out there with all the other objects. The subject is that which is conscious of the changes affecting the body, call it reactive consciousness. Effects,read changes are occurring to the body from the energies of ultimate reality, which again is a place of no things just energies. So in a sense, there is no distance no separation between subject and object, only half of one's brain/mind is encased within the skull the other half is the energies of ultimate reality which in effect are the world as object. In the absence of a conscious subject the physical world as an object ceases to exist [cognatively] and in the absence of the physical world as object, consciousness ceases to be--- they stand or fall together. Being is the reactionary relation between subject and object, we experience and experience is meaning which we then bestow upon a meaningless physical world.
I think Spinoza 's
"the body is the idea of the mind", it is out there with all the other objects.
veers towards absolute idealism. I think Spinoza's theory of existence is not entirely equally dual aspect .

I agree with all you say, above, about the dual aspects extension and thought of extension.They do stand or fall together. Your last sentence is biased towards absolute idealism. I find this difficult and hope your discussion will continue so I may understand it a little more.
popeye1945
Posts: 2130
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by popeye1945 »

Belinda,

We objectify subject only in the sense of Spinoza's the body is the idea of the mind, it is out there with all the other objects. The subject is that which is conscious of the changes affecting the body, call it reactive consciousness. Effects,read changes are occurring to the body from the energies of ultimate reality, which again is a place of no things just energies. So in a sense, there is no distance no separation between subject and object, only half of one's brain/mind is encased within the skull the other half is the energies of ultimate reality which in effect are the world as object. In the absence of a conscious subject the physical world as an object ceases to exist [cognatively] and in the absence of the physical world as object, consciousness ceases to be--- they stand or fall together. Being is the reactionary relation between subject and object, we experience and experience is meaning which we then bestow upon a meaningless physical world.
[/quote]


I think Spinoza 's
"the body is the idea of the mind", it is out there with all the other objects.
veers towards absolute idealism. I think Spinoza's theory of existence is not entirely equally dual aspect .

I agree with all you say, above, about the dual aspects extension and thought of extension.They do stand or fall together. Your last sentence is biased towards absolute idealism. I find this difficult and hope your discussion will continue so I may understand it a little more.
[/quote]

Belinda,

Your quite right it is absolute idealism, to me given what modern science tells us about ultimate reality being simply energies it a logical conclusion. Spinoza of course did not have that information and it has only been relatively recently that they realized that matter is not made of matter but energy. As far as Spinoza's theory of existence goes it cannot be a dual aspect, we separate subject and object as an aid to discussion and free speculation but there is no duality. Are you thinking that creating a concept in the concrete in the physical world is extension?
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Belinda »

popeye1945 wrote: Tue Jul 26, 2022 11:31 pm Belinda,

We objectify subject only in the sense of Spinoza's the body is the idea of the mind, it is out there with all the other objects. The subject is that which is conscious of the changes affecting the body, call it reactive consciousness. Effects,read changes are occurring to the body from the energies of ultimate reality, which again is a place of no things just energies. So in a sense, there is no distance no separation between subject and object, only half of one's brain/mind is encased within the skull the other half is the energies of ultimate reality which in effect are the world as object. In the absence of a conscious subject the physical world as an object ceases to exist [cognatively] and in the absence of the physical world as object, consciousness ceases to be--- they stand or fall together. Being is the reactionary relation between subject and object, we experience and experience is meaning which we then bestow upon a meaningless physical world.

I think Spinoza 's
"the body is the idea of the mind", it is out there with all the other objects.
veers towards absolute idealism. I think Spinoza's theory of existence is not entirely equally dual aspect .

I agree with all you say, above, about the dual aspects extension and thought of extension.They do stand or fall together. Your last sentence is biased towards absolute idealism. I find this difficult and hope your discussion will continue so I may understand it a little more.
[/quote]

Belinda,

Your quite right it is absolute idealism, to me given what modern science tells us about ultimate reality being simply energies it a logical conclusion. Spinoza of course did not have that information and it has only been relatively recently that they realized that matter is not made of matter but energy. As far as Spinoza's theory of existence goes it cannot be a dual aspect, we separate subject and object as an aid to discussion and free speculation but there is no duality. Are you thinking that creating a concept in the concrete in the physical world is extension?
[/quote]

Thoughts don't occupy space but extended matter occupies space. I find Spinoza's dual aspect theory easy to envisage, I like it, but at the same time scepticism about perceived phenomena ultimately leads to absolute idealism where the apparent reality of things as extended in space is created by mind.I think there is a way of making these compatible if you think , not of mind but of experience of both thoughts and material stuff(extension).
popeye1945
Posts: 2130
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by popeye1945 »

Belinda,

Interesting, give me a bit of time with that sounds like I need to re-visit Spinoza.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3732
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Question: If the noumena/phenomena distinction doesn't obtain, because there are no noumena, what about the subject/object distinction?
In other words, if subjects are just objects, what distinction do we make when we call something an object?

Some thoughts.

First, it's a good idea to think of ourselves as merely objects among all the other objects in the universe. It can help to counter our vanity, anthropocentrism, speciesism, and so on. I call it Wittgenstein's prophylactic.

Second: If - for lack of evidence for the existence of anything non-physical - we (rightly) no longer identify the subject with the mind-as-separate-substance - so that subjectivity/objectivity is no longer mind-dependence/mind-independence - then the old subject/object distinction, secularised and de-mystified, can still be useful.

The subject can then be what, in fact, it always was: a person who perceives, knows and describes things, such as objects - among which are other people - and who makes judgements and has beliefs and opinions. Given this, subjectivity is then '(what belongs to) the judgements, beliefs and opinions of a person or people'. And objectivity is then 'to do with facts which are independet from anyone's judgements, beliefs and opinions'.

Third: If we deny the possibility of objectivity, we can't have our cake and eat. We can't consistently both reject and invoke a distinction. If we think the distinction between subject and object, subjectivity and objectivity, no longer obtains, then the claim that morality is objective is incoherent. If there are no facts, then there can be no moral facts.
Skepdick
Posts: 14366
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Skepdick »

Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Jul 27, 2022 10:00 am Question: If the noumena/phenomena distinction doesn't obtain, because there are no noumena, what about the subject/object distinction?
In other words, if subjects are just objects, what distinction do we make when we call something an object?

Some thoughts.

First, it's a good idea to think of ourselves as merely objects among all the other objects in the universe. It can help to counter our vanity, anthropocentrism, speciesism, and so on. I call it Wittgenstein's prophylactic.

Second: If - for lack of evidence for the existence of anything non-physical - we (rightly) no longer identify the subject with the mind-as-separate-substance - so that subjectivity/objectivity is no longer mind-dependence/mind-independence - then the old subject/object distinction, secularised and de-mystified, can still be useful.

The subject can then be what, in fact, it always was: a person who perceives, knows and describes things, such as objects - among which are other people - and who makes judgements and has beliefs and opinions. Given this, subjectivity is then '(what belongs to) the judgements, beliefs and opinions of a person or people'. And objectivity is then 'to do with facts which are independet from anyone's judgements, beliefs and opinions'.

Third: If we deny the possibility of objectivity, we can't have our cake and eat. We can't consistently both reject and invoke a distinction. If we think the distinction between subject and object, subjectivity and objectivity, no longer obtains, then the claim that morality is objective is incoherent. If there are no facts, then there can be no moral facts.
They say that all philosophy is conducted in a state of mental muddle. And they aren't wrong.

When we reject the subject/object distinction and we simply think of ourselves as objects we are not denying the possibility of objectivity.
We are denying the possibility of subjectivity!

We are objects. We have objective properties - we have perceptions, knowledge, judgments, feelings, opinions. All of those things are held by us. All of our properties exist - objectively. You really need some more of this Wittgensteinian prophylactic. "What belongs to the judgments, beliefs and opinions" IS an anthropomorphism! My judgments, beliefs and opinions belong to me. Nothing belongs to my judgments, beliefs and opinions.

So, once again. What do you mean by "subjective" in a universe where everything about us is objective?

In so far as utility is concerned it may be useful to claim that humans are subjects; or it may be useful to claim that humans are objects.

What is unclear (and you seem rather unwilling to clarify!) is which claim about us, humans is "factual". Are we subjects; or objects; or both; or neither ?!?
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Belinda »

popeye1945 wrote: Wed Jul 27, 2022 5:56 am Belinda,

Interesting, give me a bit of time with that sounds like I need to re-visit Spinoza.
Spinoza actually studied Descartes and took from D the notion of extended matter and thought as separate substances. Then S turned D's theory inside out and sort of said "there is extended matter and there is thought, but these are aspects of the same Substance i.e. Nature."
Skepdick
Posts: 14366
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Skepdick »

Belinda wrote: Wed Jul 27, 2022 11:23 am Spinoza actually studied Descartes and took from D the notion of extended matter and thought as separate substances. Then S turned D's theory inside out and sort of said "there is extended matter and there is thought, but these are aspects of the same Substance i.e. Nature."
The number of substances is immaterial if all substances are capable of causal interraction.

If mind can alter nature and nature can alter minds then what does it even mean for mind and nature to be "separate"?

What is the essence of this separation/separator?
Post Reply