Is morality objective or subjective?

[popeye1945]

Morality is subjective because the physical world as object is subjective, there is no such thing as objective reality thus no objective morality.

[Belinda]

Morality is subjective because the physical world as object is subjective, there is no such thing as objective reality thus no objective morality.

Hail Fellow, well met.

[promethean75]

Nay lady belinda, I beseech this man to answer my query.

"the physical world as object is subjective, there is no such thing as objective reality"

but is there anyone for whom such a statement as that would be false? shirley not, so that idea about which the statement speaks is at least one objective feature in/of the world since it is true for everyone, no?

[popeye1945]

Nay lady Belinda, I beseech this man to answer my query.

"the physical world as object is subjective, there is no such thing as objective reality"

but is there anyone for whom such a statement as that would be false? shirley not, so that idea about which the statement speaks is at least one objective feature in/of the world since it is true for everyone, no?

promethean,

It is true of all biological life, experience/knowledge is subjective for all organisms. No there is nothing objective even your own body is a subjective experience. Even if you assumed that apparent reality existed without you, you could only come to know it through the effects of the world of objects upon your biology. Modern physics however tells us that ultimate reality is a place of no things, just energies. If you accept that, then one must wonder where do objects come from. What I am saying is that the energies of ultimate reality's effects upon the body are objects. Biology is the measure and meaning of all things. The energies of ultimate reality are cause, biological reactions are apparent reality. Again there is no such thing as something being objective it is quite impossible, another organism is another object, as your own body is an object in the physical world. There is only energy equals mass times the speed of light squared, and as Albert said, apparent reality is an illusion a very persistent one. Perhaps a little more direct to your protest, NO, other organisms are subjective objects to you, as you are a subjective object to others, nothing is objective.

[Peter Holmes]

Nay lady Belinda, I beseech this man to answer my query.

"the physical world as object is subjective, there is no such thing as objective reality"

but is there anyone for whom such a statement as that would be false? shirley not, so that idea about which the statement speaks is at least one objective feature in/of the world since it is true for everyone, no?

promethean,

It is true of all biological life, experience/knowledge is subjective for all organisms. No there is nothing objective even your own body is a subjective experience. Even if you assumed that apparent reality existed without you, you could only come to know it through the effects of the world of objects upon your biology. Modern physics however tells us that ultimate reality is a place of no things, just energies. If you accept that, then one must wonder where do objects come from. What I am saying is that the energies of ultimate reality's effects upon the body are objects. Biology is the measure and meaning of all things. The energies of ultimate reality are cause, biological reactions are apparent reality. Again there is no such thing as something being objective it is quite impossible, another organism is another object, as your own body is an object in the physical world. There is only energy equals mass times the speed of light squared, and as Albert said, apparent reality is an illusion a very persistent one. Perhaps a little more direct to your protest, NO, other organisms are subjective objects to you, as you are a subjective object to others, nothing is objective.

Every fact you cite here is 'objective', in the sense that the factual assertions you make have a truth-value independent from opinion. So your argument that there is no such thing as objectivity or objective knowledge collapses. Even the factual assertion that 'apparent reality is an illusion' has a truth-value, which must therefore be independent from biology as 'the measure and meaning of all things'.

[popeye1945]

It is true of all biological life, experience/knowledge is subjective for all organisms. No there is nothing objective even your own body is a subjective experience. Even if you assumed that apparent reality existed without you, you could only come to know it through the effects of the world of objects upon your biology. Modern physics however tells us that ultimate reality is a place of no things, just energies. If you accept that, then one must wonder where do objects come from. What I am saying is that the energies of ultimate reality's effects upon the body are objects. Biology is the measure and meaning of all things. The energies of ultimate reality are cause, biological reactions are apparent reality. Again there is no such thing as something being objective it is quite impossible, another organism is another object, as your own body is an object in the physical world. There is only energy equals mass times the speed of light squared, and as Albert said, apparent reality is an illusion a very persistent one. Perhaps a little more direct to your protest, NO, other organisms are subjective objects to you, as you are a subjective object to others, nothing is objective.
[/quote]

Every fact you cite here is 'objective', in the sense that the factual assertions you make have a truth-value independent from opinion. So your argument that there is no such thing as objectivity or objective knowledge collapses. Even the factual assertion that 'apparent reality is an illusion' has a truth-value, which must therefore be independent from biology as 'the measure and meaning of all things'.
[/quote]

Peter,

There is nothing that is objective except energies. All words are qualifications and/or limitations, all biologically dependent, as are any interpretations thereof. You must keep in mind communication is not direct experience, it is secondhand knowledge of direct experience and only embraced because of confidence in the source, which is another like biology. I think I've already stated this but here goes, the physical world is utterly meaningless in the absence of a conscious subject and the only way we come to know the world is through the affects of the energies of the cosmos upon our bodies. All experience, all meaning, all knowledge is the sole property of a conscious biological subject. The only way we know the world is subjectively, there is no other possibility. "Truth values independent of opinion", think about it, your talking about secondhand experience here, how could it possibly be independent of opinion. Think about it, all meaning is subjective.

[Peter Holmes]

It is true of all biological life, experience/knowledge is subjective for all organisms. No there is nothing objective even your own body is a subjective experience. Even if you assumed that apparent reality existed without you, you could only come to know it through the effects of the world of objects upon your biology. Modern physics however tells us that ultimate reality is a place of no things, just energies. If you accept that, then one must wonder where do objects come from. What I am saying is that the energies of ultimate reality's effects upon the body are objects. Biology is the measure and meaning of all things. The energies of ultimate reality are cause, biological reactions are apparent reality. Again there is no such thing as something being objective it is quite impossible, another organism is another object, as your own body is an object in the physical world. There is only energy equals mass times the speed of light squared, and as Albert said, apparent reality is an illusion a very persistent one. Perhaps a little more direct to your protest, NO, other organisms are subjective objects to you, as you are a subjective object to others, nothing is objective.

Peter wrote:
Every fact you cite here is 'objective', in the sense that the factual assertions you make have a truth-value independent from opinion. So your argument that there is no such thing as objectivity or objective knowledge collapses. Even the factual assertion that 'apparent reality is an illusion' has a truth-value, which must therefore be independent from biology as 'the measure and meaning of all things'.

Popeye1945 wrote:
There is nothing that is objective except energies. All words are qualifications and/or limitations, all biologically dependent, as are any interpretations thereof. You must keep in mind communication is not direct experience, it is secondhand knowledge of direct experience and only embraced because of confidence in the source, which is another like biology. I think I've already stated this but here goes, the physical world is utterly meaningless in the absence of a conscious subject and the only way we come to know the world is through the affects of the energies of the cosmos upon our bodies. All experience, all meaning, all knowledge is the sole property of a conscious biological subject. The only way we know the world is subjectively, there is no other possibility. "Truth values independent of opinion", think about it, your talking about secondhand experience here, how could it possibly be independent of opinion. Think about it, all meaning is subjective.

My response:
Sorry, but you're not addressing the point I'm making. If no assertion has a truth-value independent from opinion, then neither does the assertion that no assertion has a truth-value independent from opinion.

[Belinda]

Peter Holmes wrote:

If no assertion has a truth-value independent from opinion, then neither does the assertion that no assertion has a truth-value independent from opinion.

Talking about language is called metalanguage and as such is exempt from the material under discussion.

[popeye1945]

All meaning is biologically dependent.

[Peter Holmes]

Peter Holmes wrote:

If no assertion has a truth-value independent from opinion, then neither does the assertion that no assertion has a truth-value independent from opinion.

Talking about language is called metalanguage and as such is exempt from the material under discussion.

A metalanguage is just another language. There's no language that isn't a language.

[popeye1945]

Peter Holmes wrote:

If no assertion has a truth-value independent from opinion, then neither does the assertion that no assertion has a truth-value independent from opinion.

Talking about language is called metalanguage and as such is exempt from the material under discussion.

A metalanguage is just another language. There's no language that isn't a language.

LOL!! Peter, Truth is experience/knowledge, a truth value statement is an opinion about a said experience at least once removed from experience not the experience itself. A truth value statement is communication and must be evaluated by another conscious being. Just as reading about life is not living the life. I think it was Byron not sure who said, "Those who know the most must mourn the deepest over the fatal truth, the tree of knowledge is not that of life." Experience is the holy grail!!! If you consider experience a metalanguage that is something to explore in another thread. It is a very abstract thought, not sure it's even sensible.

[Peter Holmes]

Peter Holmes wrote:



Talking about language is called metalanguage and as such is exempt from the material under discussion.

A metalanguage is just another language. There's no language that isn't a language.

LOL!! Peter, Truth is experience/knowledge, a truth value statement is an opinion about a said experience at least once removed from experience not the experience itself. A truth value statement is communication and must be evaluated by another conscious being. Just as reading about life is not living the life. I think it was Byron not sure who said, "Those who know the most must mourn the deepest over the fatal truth, the tree of knowledge is not that of life." Experience is the holy grail!!! If you consider experience a metalanguage that is something to explore in another thread. It is a very abstract thought, not sure it's even sensible.

LOL, popeye! 'Truth is experience/knowledge.' Codswallop. Experience is experience, and knowledge is knowledge. And what we call truth is an attribute of some factual assertions - typically linguistic expressions. Experience isn't a metalanguage, any more than it's a language. This is complete nonsense.

[popeye1945]

A metalanguage is just another language. There's no language that isn't a language.

LOL!! Peter, Truth is experience/knowledge, a truth value statement is an opinion about a said experience at least once removed from experience not the experience itself. A truth value statement is communication and must be evaluated by another conscious being. Just as reading about life is not living the life. I think it was Byron not sure who said, "Those who know the most must mourn the deepest over the fatal truth, the tree of knowledge is not that of life." Experience is the holy grail!!! If you consider experience a metalanguage that is something to explore in another thread. It is a very abstract thought, not sure it's even sensible.

LOL, popeye! 'Truth is experience/knowledge.' Codswallop. Experience is experience, and knowledge is knowledge. And what we call truth is an attribute of some factual assertions - typically linguistic expressions. Experience isn't a metalanguage, any more than it's a language. This is complete nonsense.

Peter,

Language/linguistics is a human creation, a manifestation of human nature or biological extension. Tell me of a considered absolute that does not depend upon biological consciousness. Any interpretation of the world or the objects within has meaning only to biology. Language will never excel experience, some literary attempts are most admirable in vividness but could never match the experience. Sorry if I got your back up, I apologize for that. Have you ever heard the phrase, the word is not the thing, it seems to me you wish to understand through this tool of language without giving credit to its agent. I am hoping we can find some common ground here and stop butting heads. All words are qualifications and/or limitations but they must speak to the reality of experience or its like a speculative philosophy that never touches the ground to check itself with reality.

[Belinda]

All meaning is biologically dependent.

Some meanings depend on culture beliefs and values.

[Belinda]

Peter Holmes wrote:

If no assertion has a truth-value independent from opinion, then neither does the assertion that no assertion has a truth-value independent from opinion.

Talking about language is called metalanguage and as such is exempt from the material under discussion.

A metalanguage is just another language. There's no language that isn't a language.

That is a useless tautological claim. There are special discourse styles for different occasions, as anyone who has learnt a bit of sociolinguistics is aware.

Occasionally we need to talk about language. Academically the discipline is linguistics.

'Meta' is a useful prefix; for instance we have 'metahistory' when we want to talk about history.