But from where I am looking you are an object.popeye1945 wrote: ↑Mon May 22, 2023 8:51 am Think! All meaning is the property of a conscious subject never the object.
So as an object you must be devoid of all meaning.
But from where I am looking you are an object.popeye1945 wrote: ↑Mon May 22, 2023 8:51 am Think! All meaning is the property of a conscious subject never the object.
I have always claimed that the ultimate of what is reality is subjective, thus subjectivity; there are are many perspectives to subjectivity and objectivity.popeye1945 wrote: ↑Mon May 22, 2023 8:51 amThink! All meaning is the property of a conscious subject never the object. We know the physical world only on a subjective level; experience is knowledge and meaning, which is then bestowed upon a meaningless world. If morality were to be objective it would be lying around on the ground like fallen apples. Morality is a concept of a subjective sentiment, a meaning, which is then bestowed upon a meaningless world, for in the absence of a conscious subject there is nothing, and in the absence of object, consciousness itself ceases to exist. Ask yourself this, in your belief in the objectivity of morality, can it be known on any other level than that of subjectivity?Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon May 22, 2023 5:47 amCan't be if considered within philosophy. Note,popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sun May 21, 2023 7:30 pm What could make morality objective? Answer: A conscious subject.
Note the critical "a" i.e. ONE sentient being,
- In philosophy, objectivity is the concept of truth independent from individual subjectivity (bias caused by one's perception, emotions, or imagination). A proposition is considered to have objective truth when its truth conditions are met without bias caused by the mind of asentient being. Scientific objectivity refers to the ability to judge without partiality or external influence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy)
this will cover individual[s] is a loosely, i.e. not in organized groups.
As such "A" conscious subject does not equate with 'moral objectivity'.
Rather, moral objectivity is always conditioned upon a human-based moral FSK comprising a sufficient large group of conscious subjects with shared-truths.
This is not true. There is absolutely no compulsion to respect or accept them. And no possible prohibition to fighting against them. There are many options for doing that last: you can point out contradicitons in their own values and see if this will get them to stop believing X is good or bad, you can try to convince others based on your values, third parties, the not convinced, swing voters metaphorically.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon May 22, 2023 9:26 am If you insist morality is not objective but subjective, it will not promote moral progress since being subjective is to each their own. You will have to respect the subjective views of others whose subjective morality is where genocides, mass murders, mass rapes is permissible.
There's no magical seal you can stamp on laws, facts, or truth either to make people bow down to them.Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon May 22, 2023 11:45 am There's no magical seal of objectivity one can put on morals so that people around the world will bow down to it.
One really has to wonder sometimes, what kind of sadistic cult VA spent most of his life in, that he never even heard of the human conscience?Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon May 22, 2023 9:26 am If you insist morality is not objective but subjective, it will not promote moral progress since being subjective is to each their own. You will have to respect the subjective views of others whose subjective morality is where genocides, mass murders, mass rapes is permissible.
To the individual truth/fact is experience, but to the group it is the collective personal experiences in agreement which is truth/fact. This means it is a necessary product of the formation of groups or societies whether large or small. The individual in isolation has no need for morality. The agreement of the group is simply the collective subjectivity of the many, and is less likely to error than the individual judgment.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon May 22, 2023 9:26 amI have always claimed that the ultimate of what is reality is subjective, thus subjectivity; there are are many perspectives to subjectivity and objectivity.popeye1945 wrote: ↑Mon May 22, 2023 8:51 amThink! All meaning is the property of a conscious subject never the object. We know the physical world only on a subjective level; experience is knowledge and meaning, which is then bestowed upon a meaningless world. If morality were to be objective it would be lying around on the ground like fallen apples. Morality is a concept of a subjective sentiment, a meaning, which is then bestowed upon a meaningless world, for in the absence of a conscious subject there is nothing, and in the absence of object, consciousness itself ceases to exist. Ask yourself this, in your belief in the objectivity of morality, can it be known on any other level than that of subjectivity?Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon May 22, 2023 5:47 am
Can't be if considered within philosophy. Note,
Note the critical "a" i.e. ONE sentient being,
- In philosophy, objectivity is the concept of truth independent from individual subjectivity (bias caused by one's perception, emotions, or imagination). A proposition is considered to have objective truth when its truth conditions are met without bias caused by the mind of asentient being. Scientific objectivity refers to the ability to judge without partiality or external influence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy)
this will cover individual[s] is a loosely, i.e. not in organized groups.
As such "A" conscious subject does not equate with 'moral objectivity'.
Rather, moral objectivity is always conditioned upon a human-based moral FSK comprising a sufficient large group of conscious subjects with shared-truths.
Thus when I argue with theists, I will rely on this principle to ensure that is no way an independent 'objective' God can exists by itself. God is in a way a human construct of an illusion.
But when it comes to other pragmatic matters, the principle of ultimate subjectivity is not effective.
To be effective we have to invoke the principle that objectivity is intersubjectivity, i.e. conditioned upon the shared-collective-thoughts of subjects.
If you insist morality is not objective but subjective, it will not promote moral progress since being subjective is to each their own. You will have to respect the subjective views of others whose subjective morality is where genocides, mass murders, mass rapes is permissible.
If you banked on subjectivity, you will end up with this;
- goodness, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.
If I think something is Good, it is.
If you think it's bad, it is.
Personal [subjective] opinion is the measure of morality.
To suppose that there are Moral standards independent of such opinion--well, that's just wishful thinking, or an expression of arrogance.
Clearly, morality is something that we [individual subjects] made for ourselves.
Others have come to different conclusions about how to live their lives.
Who are we to say that they are mistaken with their permissible genocides, mass murders, mass rapes?
We need morality to be objective to facilitate the effectiveness of moral progress within humanity, note my post above.
All facts, truths, knowledge and Objectivity are conditioned upon a specific Framework and System of Knowledge or Reality which has to be on a collective basis.popeye1945 wrote: ↑Mon May 22, 2023 11:47 pmTo the individual truth/fact is experience, but to the group it is the collective personal experiences in agreement which is truth/fact. This means it is a necessary product of the formation of groups or societies whether large or small. The individual in isolation has no need for morality. The agreement of the group is simply the collective subjectivity of the many, and is less likely to error than the individual judgment.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon May 22, 2023 9:26 am I have always claimed that the ultimate of what is reality is subjective, thus subjectivity; there are are many perspectives to subjectivity and objectivity.
Thus when I argue with theists, I will rely on this principle to ensure that is no way an independent 'objective' God can exists by itself. God is in a way a human construct of an illusion.
But when it comes to other pragmatic matters, the principle of ultimate subjectivity is not effective.
To be effective we have to invoke the principle that objectivity is intersubjectivity, i.e. conditioned upon the shared-collective-thoughts of subjects.
If you insist morality is not objective but subjective, it will not promote moral progress since being subjective is to each their own. You will have to respect the subjective views of others whose subjective morality is where genocides, mass murders, mass rapes is permissible.
If you banked on subjectivity, you will end up with this;
- goodness, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.
If I think something is Good, it is.
If you think it's bad, it is.
Personal [subjective] opinion is the measure of morality.
To suppose that there are Moral standards independent of such opinion--well, that's just wishful thinking, or an expression of arrogance.
Clearly, morality is something that we [individual subjects] made for ourselves.
Others have come to different conclusions about how to live their lives.
Who are we to say that they are mistaken with their permissible genocides, mass murders, mass rapes?
We need morality to be objective to facilitate the effectiveness of moral progress within humanity, note my post above.
This sort of collective subjectivity with shared-beliefs is what we call Objectivity, i.e. independent of individual[s] beliefs, opinions, judgments.The agreement of the group is simply the collective subjectivity of the many, and is less likely to error than the individual judgment.
But that's just your moral opinion.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue May 23, 2023 8:27 am Moral realists and objective are just wrong. The end. (Or is it?)
Thoughts? You mean sentences, right? Thoughts don't exist (according to you).
That's not true. If there's no moral significance to getting answers or decisions right or wrong then why does it ever matter whether anybody is right or wrong?Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu May 25, 2023 8:34 am 1 The expressions the right answer and the wrong decision need not - and usually don't - have any moral meaning or significance whatsoever.
That's not true. There's the meaning intended by the speaker and the meaning understood by the listener(s).Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu May 25, 2023 8:34 am 2 Words and other signs can mean only what we use them to mean.
Yeh. It has to do with metaphysics.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu May 25, 2023 8:34 am 3 The existence and nature of things have nothing to do with language whatsoever.
As usual your thinking is too shallow, narrow and dogmatic as from a philosophy gnat.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu May 25, 2023 8:34 am Some thoughts for the day.
1 The expressions the right answer and the wrong decision need not - and usually don't - have any moral meaning or significance whatsoever.
2 Words and other signs can mean only what we use them to mean.
3 The existence and nature of things have nothing to do with language whatsoever.
Yes, but only as conditioned within a human-based FSK.2 Words and other signs can mean only what we use them to mean.
Existence is not a predicate; exists or "is" is merely a copula and what exists must be predicated upon conditions [13.7 billions years of conditions] within a human-based FSK.3 The existence and nature of things have nothing to do with language whatsoever.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu May 25, 2023 10:29 am This is already ongoing within humanity where the majority of humans do not have an impulse to kill human arbitrary despite having the inherent drive to kill.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu May 25, 2023 10:29 amAny talk of right or wrong in relation to morality is a secondary issue and has no more relevance when the majority or all humans are totally indifferent to any evil acts, like killing another human.
If there were no humans there would be nobody to use the term "reality"; or any terms. For any purpose whatsoever.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon May 29, 2023 12:26 pm I think VA's kind of anti-realist mistake is as follows.
Premise: If there were no humans, then there would be no reality-as-it-is-perceived-known-and-described-by-humans.
In one way, this claim is trivially true and so inconsequential. But lurking inside it is an empiricist skepticism of the kind exploited by Berkeley with his idealist esse est percipi - and maybe also picked up by Quine with his 'to be is to be the value of a bound variable in a quantification'.
Perhaps this skepticism can be summarised by the claim: ontology is epistemology. And this is what VA's drone - 'a fact emerges from and exists only within a framework and system of knowledge' - amounts to.
But the following conclusion is a mistake:
If there were no humans, then there would be no reality.
A question for VA: is the above what you claim?