[/quote] I agree with the above in general.
However, it is not "until a conscious subject bestows .." which imply conscious subjects acting upon a pre-existing meaningless world.
In my case, it has to be more subtle to avoid treading into
philosophical realism, so whatever the realization and meaning of reality it is an emergence that implied the entanglement of the human conditions.
All meaning is derived by the effects of the physical world upon the body of a conscious subject and enables the survival of the organism.
Same point above. The "upon" above implies there are two separate things, i.e. the physical world and the conscious subject where both are independent of each other.
Why I raise the OP in this Ethic section is to counter
Peter Holmes' OP i.e.
What could make morality objective?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=24601
therein he insisted dogmatically "there are no moral facts" period! based on his narrow and shallow views of what is morality and supporting his claims with the typical definitions of
what-is-fact,
prepositions and
states-of-affairs which I show in the OP are groundless.
[/quote]
Veritas,
Part to part, part to the whole, and the whole to each of its parts. Subject and object can never be two entities but only one holds the property of meanings the subject, which it bestows upon its outer world as the meaning of apparent reality.