Is morality objective or subjective?

[Peter Holmes]

That 'water is H20' [ignoring isomers] is a scientific fact conditioned upon the science-chemistry FSK.
IF there is no science-chemistry FSK, there is no 'water is H20'.
You have not countered this as well.

If there were no humans, would there be no water?

[Veritas Aequitas]

That 'water is H20' [ignoring isomers] is a scientific fact conditioned upon the science-chemistry FSK.
IF there is no science-chemistry FSK, there is no 'water is H20'.
You have not countered this as well.

If there were no humans, would there be no water?

Within common sense there is definitely water [that "thing" which is critical for survival].

But what is 'water' within common sense of humans is what humans realized water as 'water'.
If there were no humans there would be no humans to realize 'common sense water'.
Note the term "realization" which is prior to experience.

TOP-DOWN Realization of Reality
The point is 'what is water' is based on what is realized and experienced as that fluid that is critical for survival. This 'realization' has been there from the start of organic life since 4.5 billion years ago.
This is the TOP-DOWN approach to reality which starts from what is realized and experienced.
The realization is prior to experienced, perceived, known and described.
See this thread;
Reality: Emergence & Realization Prior to Perceiving, Knowing & Describing
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40145


BOTTOM-UP Inference of Reality
The BOTTOM-UP merely ASSUMED [speculate] there is something-X pre-existing that we experienced then described as water.
This ASSUMPTION is post-hoc and after the fact of realization grounded on thinking, reasoning and inference from what is realized and experienced.

From the above, the TOP-DOWN Realization of Reality is most realistic & practical and humans [as with animals] can survive based on this realization of reality.

It is only upon evolution that humans are endowed with a higher form of intellect that enable humans to reflect and ASSUME [post-hoc] there is something more to what is realized and experienced.
While this intellectualizing* is more effective for survival, it does not reflect what is really real.
This is where Kant called it the intelligible-object not the empirical-object which is more real.

What is worst here is Philosophical Realists like you make the Bottom-Up approach an uncompromising ideology.
Some of your like [not you] will even kill those who oppose their ideology.

Your ideology also has an impact in hindering the potential expeditious future progress of morality within humanity because of the denial of objective moral facts based on the scientific Top-Down Approach.

[Skepdick]

If there were no humans, would there be no water?

Obviously! If there were no reductionists there would be no reductions such as "water".

[Peter Holmes]

Here's a deepity from a dumb fucking philosopher: If there were no describers, there would be no descriptions.

[Skepdick]

Here's a deepity from a dumb fucking philosopher: If there were no describers, there would be no descriptions.

Quick, somebody get Peter "Dumb Cunt" Holmes him a shovel! He keeps lying by omission.

"IF" is a computational statement.

If there were no describers, there would be no descriptions.
If there are describers, there would be descriptions.

There are describers and there are descriptions. And then?

What makes any given description "wrong"?

[Iwannaplato]

That 'water is H20' [ignoring isomers] is a scientific fact conditioned upon the science-chemistry FSK.
IF there is no science-chemistry FSK, there is no 'water is H20'.
You have not countered this as well.

If there were no humans, would there be no water?

I think the more important question is: Would there be a Veritas Aequitas without you?
I doubt it.

[Skepdick]

That 'water is H20' [ignoring isomers] is a scientific fact conditioned upon the science-chemistry FSK.
IF there is no science-chemistry FSK, there is no 'water is H20'.
You have not countered this as well.

If there were no humans, would there be no water?

I think the more important question is: Would there be a Veritas Aequitas without you?
I doubt it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hrmdd76WPzQ

Play stupid (language) games - win stupid prizes.

[Iwannaplato]

Play stupid (language) games - win stupid prizes.

Eminem is worth about 250 million bucks.

[Skepdick]

Play stupid (language) games - win stupid prizes.

Eminem is worth about 250 million bucks.

Good for him. Somebody had to show us that it's OK to air our dirty laundry and our thoughts without stern reprimand.

Cause I am, whatever you say I am. If I wasn't, then why would I say I am?

He has certainly grown up and dealt with his baggage, but then again - haven't we all?

[Iwannaplato]

Good for him. Somebody had to show us that it's OK to air our dirty laundry and our thoughts without stern reprimand.

He probably got some stern reprimands, even some death threats, but the plusses outweighed the negatives.

Cause I am, whatever you say I am. If I wasn't, then why would I say I am?

Quasi-circular....

He has certainly grown up and dealt with his baggage, but then again - haven't we all?

I've certainly dealt with some of it.

[Peter Holmes]

That 'water is H20' [ignoring isomers] is a scientific fact conditioned upon the science-chemistry FSK.
IF there is no science-chemistry FSK, there is no 'water is H20'.

If there were no humans, would there be no water?

Within common sense there is definitely water [that "thing" which is critical for survival].

But what is 'water' within common sense of humans is what humans realized water as 'water'.
If there were no humans there would be no humans to realize 'common sense water'.
Note the term "realization" which is prior to experience.

Absolute bollocks. The existence and nature of water - a feature of reality - has nothing to do with the human 'realisation' of water. You're off with the fairies - and the sad thing is, I think you know you are.

[Skepdick]

Absolute bollocks. The existence and nature of water - a feature of reality - has nothing to do with the human 'realisation' of water.

feature of reality that is or was the case; description of such a feature of reality - typically a linguistic expression.

Wait, so which linguistic description is the correct one?

"feature of reality"; or "water"; or "H2O" ?

[Veritas Aequitas]

If there were no humans, would there be no water?

Within common sense there is definitely water [that "thing" which is critical for survival].

But what is 'water' within common sense of humans is what humans realized water as 'water'.
If there were no humans there would be no humans to realize 'common sense water'.
Note the term "realization" which is prior to experience.

Absolute bollocks. The existence and nature of water - a feature of reality - has nothing to do with the human 'realisation' of water. You're off with the fairies - and the sad thing is, I think you know you are.

You are the ignorant one thus the handwaving.

Note I supported my argument with;
Reality: Emergence & Realization Prior to Perceiving, Knowing & Describing
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40145

What is Emergence & Realization
viewtopic.php?t=40721

FYI,
The human Sperm and egg comprised of a high % of "water" and the human fetus also comprised of a high % of "water" and the adult person is 60% "water".
As such, what is "water" is already "realized" as real from the stage of the fetus and the realization of "what is real" changes with age which is experienced, perceived, known and described later.

As you would insist and I agree "water" is just a label and a description and that is merely linguistic.
"That feature of reality" is that which is realized from the fetus to the baby to adulthood as conditioned to the human-based FSK.
There is no absolute permanence to "that feature of reality" [named water] that exists absolutely independent of the human conditions.

Realistically, water is not water but more precisely H20, then H20 is not H20.
see:
"Water is Not H20"
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39844

There is no way you can precisely and absolutely determined what is really that feature of reality called 'water' that exists absolutely independent by itself.

Your 'feature of reality' that is just-is, being-so, that is/are the case, states of affairs are merely thoughts inferred as intelligible objects which can never be verified as really real via the scientific FSK which rely on empirical evidences.


That is why;
PH's What is Fact is Illusory
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39577
Why Philosophical Realism is Illusory
viewtopic.php?t=40167
PH's Philosophical Realism is Illusory

You have not countered the above.

Instead of handwaving, give a rational counter to the above.

You're off with the fairies - and the sad thing is, I know you don't know you are.

[Atla]

Within common sense there is definitely water [that "thing" which is critical for survival].

But what is 'water' within common sense of humans is what humans realized water as 'water'.
If there were no humans there would be no humans to realize 'common sense water'.
Note the term "realization" which is prior to experience.

Absolute bollocks. The existence and nature of water - a feature of reality - has nothing to do with the human 'realisation' of water. You're off with the fairies - and the sad thing is, I think you know you are.

You are the ignorant one thus the handwaving.

Note I supported my argument with;
Reality: Emergence & Realization Prior to Perceiving, Knowing & Describing
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40145

What is Emergence & Realization
viewtopic.php?t=40721

FYI,
The human Sperm and egg comprised of a high % of "water" and the human fetus also comprised of a high % of "water" and the adult person is 60% "water".
As such, what is "water" is already "realized" as real from the stage of the fetus and the realization of "what is real" changes with age which is experienced, perceived, known and described later.

As you would insist and I agree "water" is just a label and a description and that is merely linguistic.
"That feature of reality" is that which is realized from the fetus to the baby to adulthood as conditioned to the human-based FSK.
There is no absolute permanence to "that feature of reality" [named water] that exists absolutely independent of the human conditions.

Realistically, water is not water but more precisely H20, then H20 is not H20.
see:
"Water is Not H20"
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39844

There is no way you can precisely and absolutely determined what is really that feature of reality called 'water' that exists absolutely independent by itself.

Your 'feature of reality' that is just-is, being-so, that is/are the case, states of affairs are merely thoughts inferred as intelligible objects which can never be verified as really real via the scientific FSK which rely on empirical evidences.


That is why;
PH's What is Fact is Illusory
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39577
Why Philosophical Realism is Illusory
viewtopic.php?t=40167
PH's Philosophical Realism is Illusory

You have not countered the above.

Instead of handwaving, give a rational counter to the above.

You're off with the fairies - and the sad thing is, I know you don't know you are.

More and more, your insistance to deny any objective reality, especially when it comes to the reality of other people, comes across to me as your vicious, violent compulsion to diminish and do away with other people. It sure isn't philosophical in origin, you haven't made any convincing arguments to back it up, nor are you able to. Looks like you simply hate other people more than anything and want to violently do away with them.

I wonder how your days go in the real world, as an obsessive, agressive schizoid-solipsistic asshole. Are you able to hold down a job? Are there any people in your life?

[Skepdick]

especially when it comes to the reality of other people

Heh, even you don't buy into the one-reality story You were almost good at pretending.

And you said you are a non-dualist so, not 1 reality. not 2 realities. You believe in at least 3 realities then

Being intellectually honest about your beliefs is very conducive to reducing conflict...