Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Nov 28, 2022 8:47 am
Age wrote: ↑Mon Nov 28, 2022 3:26 am
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Nov 27, 2022 10:39 am
Why is it redundant?
BECAUSE if EVERY claim is ALWAYS contextual and conventional, then there is NO use distinguishing ANY claim.
By the way, why did you NOT say nor show WHEN and/nor WHERE you allegedly previously wrote 'that'?
Do you have some thing to HIDE here?
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Nov 27, 2022 10:39 am
A truth-claim is one kind of claim.
OF COURSE it is, that was the POINT of my clarifying question posed to you, depending on your answer.
If ALL claims are ALWAYS contextual and conventional, then there is NO use expressing EACH different kind of claim as being ALWAYS contextual and conventional.
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Nov 27, 2022 10:39 am
And, since we're discussing the truth-aptness of moral assertions (claims) - whether a moral assertion is indeed a truth-claim at all - it seems pertinent to focus on the nature of truth-claims.
But if you want to use the EXCUSE that truth-claims can NEVER be 'objective' because they are ALWAYS contextual and conventional, then this EXCUSE, OBVIOUSLY, ALWAYS APPLIES to ALL claims AS WELL.
Including the claim that 'water' is 'h2o', correct?
Or, are you trying to claim some thing else here?
If yes, then will you explain more?
Also, what would you like to claim is the 'nature' of truth-claims, and does this 'nature' of truth-claims differentiate from the 'nature' of other claims?
If yes, then HOW, EXACTLY? And, which claims are different in this regard?
Ah, perhaps we're at cross purposes here. Here are my explanations of term.
Objectivity is independence from opinion when considering the facts.
AND, we have ALREADY gone through this.
Considering the Fact that absolutely EVERY 'thought' expressed verbally, signed, and/or written IS just an 'opinion', then, to 'you', "peter holmes", there is NO 'objectivity' AT ALL.
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Nov 28, 2022 8:47 am
So the terms 'objective' and 'factual' or 'fact-based' are often synonymous.
SO WHAT if they are 'often' synonymous. Which is ALSO just YOUR opinion.
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Nov 28, 2022 8:47 am
A fact is a feature of reality that is or was the case, regardless of opinion, such as the chemical constitution of water.
BUT, ALL of that just comes from AGREED UPON 'opinion'. For all 'you' KNOW some thing ELSE could be going on, which then OVERRIDES this supposed and alleged 'fact', which 'you' talk about here, through and FROM YOUR OPINIONS.
ALSO, 'reality', itself, is VERY DEPENDENT UPON 'opinion'. For example, what you call 'reality' "others" do NOT. So, which one is Right?
Furthermore, saying and CLAIMING, " A fact is a feature of 'reality' ", does NOT mean that you KNOW, OBJECTIVELY, what 'reality' IS, EXACTLY.
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Nov 28, 2022 8:47 am
A factual assertion is one that claims a feature of reality is or was the case, such as 'water is H2O'.
you REALLY can NOT move beyond this, can you?
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Nov 28, 2022 8:47 am
It's true if the feature of reality is or was the case, regardless of opinion, and false if it isn't or wasn't.
ANOTHER 'feature of reality' is 'you', human beings, INSTINCTIVELY, and OBJECTIVELY, KNOW what IS Right and what is Wrong in Life. Therefore, what IS 'morally' Right AND Wrong in Life, is ALSO OBJECTIVELY KNOWN, contrary to YOUR OWN OPINION and BELIEF.
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Nov 28, 2022 8:47 am
BUT, a factual assertion - and therefore a truth-claim - is always contextual and conventional: 'given the way we use these signs in this context'.
But 'you' CLAIM that ALL CLAIMS are ALWAYS contextual and conventional.
And, who and/or what does the 'we' word refer to here, in YOUR OPINION.
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Nov 28, 2022 8:47 am
That a description is always dependent on a context is trivially true and so inconsequential. And it in no way compromises or undermines objectivity.
And what IS 'objectivity', to you?
Also, what DOES the word 'objectivity' refer to, to you?
By the way, it is NOTED that you did NOT respond to the questions I posed and asked you. Why was this?
WHY do 'you' REFUSE to answer the questions posed to 'you' by "skepdick" and 'I'?