What could make morality objective?

[Peter Holmes]

What sort of moron would think that logical rules, which deal with language, have anything to do with reality or thought? Oh, wait... Perhaps the sort of moron who thinks a predicate is a property? Perhaps the sort of dick-for-brains that used to preen itself on dismissing logic altogether, but now is a born-again dumb fucking philosopher?

[Peter Holmes]

Okay. More than one million hits, with 9600 replies, on 641 pages.

I want to thank my production team, my co-stars, and, most of all, my wonderful wife and family, without whose patience and support, none of this would have been possible.

And a big thank you to the largely civilised contributors to this discussion, from whom I've learnt a very great deal.

Oh, and by the way. There are no moral facts, but only moral opinions held by people, among whom the egotists think their own moral opinions are facts, and among which egotists the most dangerous can be those who think their own team's invented god's invented moral opinions are facts.

[Skepdick]

What sort of moron would think that logical rules, which deal with language, have anything to do with reality or thought? Oh, wait... Perhaps the sort of moron who thinks a predicate is a property? Perhaps the sort of dick-for-brains that used to preen itself on dismissing logic altogether, but now is a born-again dumb fucking philosopher?

What sort of moron thinks that "Does existence exist?" is a coherent question?

Oh yea...Precisely the sort of moron who doesn't know that "the universe" and "existence" are synonymous phrases.

[Skepdick]

Okay. More than one million hits, with 9600 replies, on 641 pages.

I want to thank my production team, my co-stars, and, most of all, my wonderful wife and family, without whose patience and support, none of this would have been possible.

Almost as popular as Mia Khalifa. Only less talanted.

[Veritas Aequitas]

It is a strawman to refer to the term 'dependent' and I have explained that many times.
Existence is not a predicate.

This is a silly claim. The word existence and its cognates can be respectable grammatical predicates, as in 'dogs exist'. And the verb can be operated, as in 'dogs don't exist' and 'do dogs exist?' So the expression 'the universe existed long before humans evolved' is perfectly coherent and meaningful.

The claim - 'existence is not a predicate' - was probably supposed to mean 'existence is not a property' - in the sense that, if we describe something by listing its properties, 'it exists' wouldn't usually be one of them, and nor would 'it doesn't exist'. Given a suitable explanation of 'exists', a thing either does or doesn't exist - and, of course, that's a (qualified) realist claim.

To call a predicate (a linguistic expression) a property is to mistake what we say for the way things are - the original philosophical delusion.

I forgot to quality, i.e.
"Existence" is not a REAL predicate, it is merely a LOGICAL predicate.
What is logical, i.e. merely forms and abstraction do not confirm objective reality.

'Exist' in "Dogs exist" is a logical predicate not a real predicate.

We need to add a real predicate to 'dogs exists', i.e.
Dog exists [as concluded within a science-biology FSRK] which is the most credible and objective, i.e. of objective reality.

That dog exists [because it is logical or PH said so] is is of very low credibility and objectivity.

Get it??

To validify [sic] the existence of anything, it must be predicated upon [sic] an embodied FSRK.

And here's the delusion at work - mixed up in an extraordinary conceptual mess. Wtf is 'an embodied framework and system of reality and knowledge'? And how can a thing that exists be 'predicated upon' it. This is throwing a word goulash at the wall and hoping something sticks.

Did you read this thread?
Embodied Realism vs Disembodied Realism
viewtopic.php?t=41832

• Embodied Realism:
  Mind: Seen as fundamentally embodied, meaning it is shaped by and inseparable from the body and its interactions with the environment.
  Thought: Considered as largely unconscious and grounded in embodied experiences like sensorimotor activities and emotions.
  Knowledge: Arises from embodied interactions, with basic-level concepts (e.g., chair, hot) being directly linked to bodily experiences.
  Metaphors: Seen as not just linguistic but also as fundamental structures of thought, shaping how we categorize, reason, and understand the world.

More details is needed for the above but Effectively it meant reality that emerged is inevitably influenced or related to the human factors; this is in contrast to disembodied realism of absolute independence from humans beliefs [yours].

The most credible FSRK is the embodied scientific FSRK.
It is crucial to consider the emergence and realization of reality [FSR] before the perceiving and knowing of reality [FSK].

This is irrelevant.

You are merely brushing it off out of ignorance.
You need to understand [not agree with] my point thoroughly because it is very critical to my argument.
Can you give a summary of what you understood [not agree with] the emergence and realization of reality [FSR] before the perceiving and knowing of reality [FSK].

Logically and deductively, whatever the fact is, it must be related to the human factor and there is no whatever the fact [in whatever ways] can be absolutely independent of the human elements. Since philosophical realism claims the latter, p-realism is not tenable as objective reality.

To repeat. Human knowing and saying - which is where logic comes in - that the universe existed long before humans evolved is, of course, not independent from humans in any way whatsoever - never mind completely or absolutely. This is trivially true. We have to perceive, know and describe reality in human ways.

But that the universe existed long before humans evolved is a raw fact of reality that has nothing to do with humans or a fantasy 'embodied FSRK', scientific or otherwise.

You are just relying on brute facts without any justifications at all.
At most you are relying on logic which cannot lead to what is really real, i.e. objective real.

You are no different from the theists who claim 'God exists' as a brute fact of reality, and many theists had relied on scientific facts to argue their case.
But surely you want the theists to bring the real evidence to support their God exists as real rather than claiming it is an obvious-brute-fact. [theists insist atheists are fools not to believe the evident God]
To do so, you would expect theists to bring evidences of God that can be verified and justified by science, i.e. the scientific-FSRK as the most reliable, credible and objective.

It is the same with your claim of reality, you just cannot claim it is a brute fact [because it is so, it just so].
To confirm your brute fact is fact it will need to be verified and justified by science, i.e. the scientific-FSRK as the most reliable, credible and objective. You deny this?

This comes back to my

• 1. The human-based [embodied] scientific FSRK is not absolutely independent of human influence [conditions].
  2. The human-based scientific FSRK generate scientific facts.
  3. The inference "all the evidence we have indicates that the universe existed long before humans evolved" is a scientific fact.
  4. Therefore the claim "all the evidence we have indicates that the universe existed long before humans evolved" cannot be absolutely independent of human influence [conditions] [1].

Do you have a counter to the above?
also, Can you give a summary of what you understood [not agree with] the emergence and realization of reality [FSR] before the perceiving and knowing of reality [FSK].

[Veritas Aequitas]

Okay. More than one million hits, with 9600 replies, on 641 pages.

I want to thank my production team, my co-stars, and, most of all, my wonderful wife and family, without whose patience and support, none of this would have been possible.

And a big thank you to the largely civilised contributors to this discussion, from whom I've learnt a very great deal.

Oh, and by the way. There are no moral facts, but only moral opinions held by people, among whom the egotists think their own moral opinions are facts, and among which egotists the most dangerous can be those who think their own team's invented god's invented moral opinions are facts.

No wonder with people like you on the above, philosophy is accused as mental masturbation.
Did you get an orgasm from the above?

This thread is merely a dumpster full of shits with few bits of gems.
Don't revert to such childish and immature thoughts in a philosophy-proper forum.

[Peter Holmes]

Okay. More than one million hits, with 9600 replies, on 641 pages.

I want to thank my production team, my co-stars, and, most of all, my wonderful wife and family, without whose patience and support, none of this would have been possible.

And a big thank you to the largely civilised contributors to this discussion, from whom I've learnt a very great deal.

Oh, and by the way. There are no moral facts, but only moral opinions held by people, among whom the egotists think their own moral opinions are facts, and among which egotists the most dangerous can be those who think their own team's invented god's invented moral opinions are facts.

No wonder with people like you on the above, philosophy is accused as mental masturbation.
Did you get an orgasm from the above?

This thread is merely a dumpster full of shits with few bits of gems.
Don't revert to such childish and immature thoughts in a philosophy-proper forum.

I was joking. But, to be serious, I've never come across someone as stupid, self-important and self-deluded as you. You're incapable of reasoning and arguing intelligently, of actually addressing falsifications and refutations of your silly claims and the moral and metaphysical theory you just mindlessly repeat. The end.

[Skepdick]

I've never come across someone as stupid, self-important and self-deluded as you. You're incapable of reasoning and arguing intelligently, of actually addressing falsifications and refutations of your silly claims and the moral and metaphysical theory you just mindlessly repeat. The end.

And now Peter "Dumb Cunt" Holmes has blessed us with a self-portrait.

The gift that keeps on giving!

[promethean75]

"Oh yea...Precisely the sort of moron who doesn't know that "the universe" and "existence" are synonymous phrases."

Then they are interchangeable and the former can be substituted for the latter. Here are three examples.

'We don't have a case, your honor. The universe of the evidence is questionable.'

'I'm overwhelmed with anomie, Marcy. I just don't think my universe means anything. Hey do u have any books by Camus?'

'The wall should stay standing for at least fifty years due to the universe of its solid foundation.'

[Veritas Aequitas]

Okay. More than one million hits, with 9600 replies, on 641 pages.

I want to thank my production team, my co-stars, and, most of all, my wonderful wife and family, without whose patience and support, none of this would have been possible.

And a big thank you to the largely civilised contributors to this discussion, from whom I've learnt a very great deal.

Oh, and by the way. There are no moral facts, but only moral opinions held by people, among whom the egotists think their own moral opinions are facts, and among which egotists the most dangerous can be those who think their own team's invented god's invented moral opinions are facts.

No wonder with people like you on the above, philosophy is accused as mental masturbation.
Did you get an orgasm from the above?

This thread is merely a dumpster full of shits with few bits of gems.
Don't revert to such childish and immature thoughts in a philosophy-proper forum.

I was joking. But, to be serious, I've never come across someone as stupid, self-important and self-deluded as you. You're incapable of reasoning and arguing intelligently, of actually addressing falsifications and refutations of your silly claims and the moral and metaphysical theory you just mindlessly repeat. The end.

I have given my valid and sound arguments supported with loads of references from 'shoulders of giants'.

I am the one who is asking for your arguments, justification and references.
So far you have given none.
Show me if you have linked any references [if any it would be very rare] to support your claim.
All you claim is 'it is just is'.
So far I have cornered you from every angle you have tried to run.

Thus, you are the stupid, self-important, dogmatic and self-deluded one.

I am still waiting for you to prove and demonstrate your 'what is fact' is a feature of reality that is 'just is', that is the case, or a state of affairs and what are they predicated upon.
Show me some references to justify your argument, if not, you are likely to be speaking from your arse.

[Peter Holmes]

Elsewhere, IWP sets out very clearly an argument about what we call objectivity, as follows.

'I don't think the problem with objectivity is that it is fallible. I think it's not a description of what is actually happening, which are intersubjective conclusions. The processes that get labelled objective are founded on subjective (empirical) experiences - observations - which are batched intersubjectively.

Yes, I think there's a problem if someone says that it was objective to conclude that X was the case...though it turned out to be false. A problem that does not arise when you say that conclusions are intersubjective and we followed methodology X.

But the main thing for me is that it simply is the case the what gets called being objective or an objective process is justified via intersubjectivity.

There's no 'merely' in this. I am not saying it is merely intersubjective. Nor am I denying an external reality or that objects need us to exist, etc.

But when I look at any process called objective or when I see someone told they are or are not being objective, these judgments are justified based on intersubjective experiences and intersubjective criteria and intersubjective processes.

Homo sapian intersubjectivities, ta boot.

It seems to me that there are several problems with this position, as follows.

1 If what we call objectivity is not 'merely intersubjective', then the rest of it seems to be what we say it is: reliance on or attention to facts.

2 To say objectivity is intersubjectivity or 'batched subjectivity' seems to mistake how we come to a conclusion for the nature of the conclusion. Judgement about what constitutes a fact - and justification of the judgement - is not the same as the fact itself.

3 The whole point of objectivity and facts - what we mean when we talk about them - is that facts are independent from beliefs, judgements and opinions - individual or collective/consensus.

For example, the fact that the universe began billions of years ago has nothing to do with intersubjective consensus - which until very recently concluded that it's only a few thousand years old. That we get the facts wrong sometimes isn't a problem with facts.

4 To deny even the possibility of what we call objectivity seems to entail acceptance of a consensus theory of truth, which is demonstrably incorrect - in my opinion.

5 The point about the source of empirical conclusions is interesting: 'The processes that get labelled objective are founded on subjective (empirical) experiences - observations - which are batched intersubjectively.'

But, to have any value, a description of those experiences has to be factual/objective - perhaps to do with electrochemical processes in our brains/bodies. We describe what we call subjectivity objectively.

PS What is an 'intersubjective experience'? Whence empiricist skepticism?

[Skepdick]

1 If what we call objectivity is not 'merely intersubjective', then the rest of it seems to be what we say it is: reliance on or attention to facts.

2 To say objectivity is intersubjectivity or 'batched subjectivity' seems to mistake how we come to a conclusion for the nature of the conclusion. Judgement about what constitutes a fact - and justification of the judgement - is not the same as the fact itself.

Dumb philosopher is dumb. What is "the nature" of a "fact itself"? Do facts exist independently of human minds?

Not according to the English definition of the word "fact".

fact
/fakt/
noun
a thing that is known or proved to be true

Absent a knower to know; or absent a prover to prove true - what is the nature of a fact?

[Peter Holmes]

Here's a respectably rational assertion: 'We don't know all the facts.'

So, being known isn't a necessary condition for being a fact.

Born-again dictionary-fascist: 'Ha. A dictionary says a fact is a thing that is known... And that's a fact.'

[Skepdick]

Here's a respectably rational assertion: 'We don't know all the facts.'

I thought facts are mind-independent. Why do you keep bringing the asserter into frame?

Remove the asserter from the frame and answer the question: What is the nature of an unknown fact?

[Peter Holmes]

What is the nature of an unknown fact?

A fact is a feature of reality that is or was the case. So an unknown fact is a feature of reality that is or was the case that nobody knows about. Hence the possibility that we don't know all the facts. Hence the provisionality of scientific conclusions. Hence the so-called problem of induction.

Advice on sucking eggs also available for the hard of understanding.