What could make morality objective?

[popeye1945]

If objectivism is a meaning and the conscious subject is the source of all meaning, then how could morality be objective in and of itself? All meaning is bestowed upon the physical world by a conscious subject and manifesting its sentiments in the forms of structures and systems in service to those sentiments. Sentiments are the functions of feelings and thoughts about all matters relative to one's own biology. "Know thy self."

Just because objectivity is a subjective social construct doesn't in anyway hinder our ability to make objective claims about reality.

Everybody understand what it means when we say that, gravity exists objectively. Even though gravity is just an illusion.

Skepdick,

There is no such thing as objective or objectivity all meaning is relative to biology. All there is out there is energy, and the way that energy affects our biology gives us apparent reality, in other words, apparent reality is a biological readout, or apparent reality is biological reactions. Gravity is said to be bent space, it matters little what it is in fact, what matters is what is experienced, we do not experience the contours of bent space, we experience weight, one form of energy affecting another form of energy. Gravity is not an illusion unless we can say that apparent reality is an illusion, all meaning is experience/reaction. Objective claims of about reality are related biological/subjective experiences.


,

[Skepdick]

If objectivism is a meaning and the conscious subject is the source of all meaning, then how could morality be objective in and of itself? All meaning is bestowed upon the physical world by a conscious subject and manifesting its sentiments in the forms of structures and systems in service to those sentiments. Sentiments are the functions of feelings and thoughts about all matters relative to one's own biology. "Know thy self."

Just because objectivity is a subjective social construct doesn't in anyway hinder our ability to make objective claims about reality.

Everybody understand what it means when we say that, gravity exists objectively. Even though gravity is just an illusion.

Skepdick,

There is no such thing as objective or objectivity all meaning is relative to biology.

I think you got this exactly backwards. There is no such thing as subjectivity. Everything that exists - exists objectively.

The subject/obejct distinction is the sort of stuff that we, humans introduce into the equation and confuse ourselves over.

All there is out there is energy

Out where? All there is is EVERYTHING. We are part of it. Everything about us is part of it - including those things we call 'subjective".

Gravity is said to be bent space

You are utterly confused. If you are talking about curvatures and spacetime then you are in a framework in which gravity doesn't exist.

All the usual observables - falling apples, lensing light, gravitational waves. All those phenomena are a consequence of spacetime's curvature. Not "gravity".

it matters little what it is in fact, what matters is what is experienced

But spacetime isn't experienced - it's just a theoretical/conceptual construct. What is experienced is the consequencs of its curvature.

Gravity is not an illusion unless we can say that apparent reality is an illusion, all meaning is experience/reaction.

Metaphysical hogwash.

Objective claims of about reality are related biological/subjective experiences.

Yada, yada, yada, yada. Nonsense. Everything that exists - exists objectively.

Our "subjective" experiences exist objectively. Subjectivity is made up, not objectivity.

[popeye1945]

Skepdick,

Wow!! You've gotten way over my head, but I'll stick around and see what I might learn.

[Belinda]

Just because objectivity is a subjective social construct doesn't in anyway hinder our ability to make objective claims about reality.

Everybody understand what it means when we say that, gravity exists objectively. Even though gravity is just an illusion.

Skepdick,

There is no such thing as objective or objectivity all meaning is relative to biology.

I think you got this exactly backwards. There is no such thing as subjectivity. Everything that exists - exists objectively.

The subject/obejct distinction is the sort of stuff that we, humans introduce into the equation and confuse ourselves over.

All there is out there is energy

Out where? All there is is EVERYTHING. We are part of it. Everything about us is part of it - including those things we call 'subjective".

Gravity is said to be bent space

You are utterly confused. If you are talking about curvatures and spacetime then you are in a framework in which gravity doesn't exist.

All the usual observables - falling apples, lensing light, gravitational waves. All those phenomena are a consequence of spacetime's curvature. Not "gravity".

it matters little what it is in fact, what matters is what is experienced

But spacetime isn't experienced - it's just a theoretical/conceptual construct. What is experienced is the consequencs of its curvature.

Gravity is not an illusion unless we can say that apparent reality is an illusion, all meaning is experience/reaction.

Metaphysical hogwash.

Objective claims of about reality are related biological/subjective experiences.

Yada, yada, yada, yada. Nonsense. Everything that exists - exists objectively.

Our "subjective" experiences exist objectively. Subjectivity is made up, not objectivity.

I'd rather paraphrase " Our subjective experiences exist extramentally.
Subjectivity is a mental construct within the master set of mental constructs.The master set of objective constructs is extramental."

[Belinda]

Just because objectivity is a subjective social construct doesn't in anyway hinder our ability to make objective claims about reality.

Everybody understand what it means when we say that, gravity exists objectively. Even though gravity is just an illusion.

Skepdick,

There is no such thing as objective or objectivity all meaning is relative to biology.

I think you got this exactly backwards. There is no such thing as subjectivity. Everything that exists - exists objectively.

The subject/obejct distinction is the sort of stuff that we, humans introduce into the equation and confuse ourselves over.

All there is out there is energy

Out where? All there is is EVERYTHING. We are part of it. Everything about us is part of it - including those things we call 'subjective".

Gravity is said to be bent space

You are utterly confused. If you are talking about curvatures and spacetime then you are in a framework in which gravity doesn't exist.

All the usual observables - falling apples, lensing light, gravitational waves. All those phenomena are a consequence of spacetime's curvature. Not "gravity".

it matters little what it is in fact, what matters is what is experienced

But spacetime isn't experienced - it's just a theoretical/conceptual construct. What is experienced is the consequencs of its curvature.

Gravity is not an illusion unless we can say that apparent reality is an illusion, all meaning is experience/reaction.

Metaphysical hogwash.

Objective claims of about reality are related biological/subjective experiences.

Yada, yada, yada, yada. Nonsense. Everything that exists - exists objectively.

Our "subjective" experiences exist objectively. Subjectivity is made up, not objectivity.

I'd rather paraphrase " Our subjective experiences exist extramentally.
' Subjectivity' is a mental construct within the master set of mental constructs.The master set of all mental constructs is extramental."

sorry I edited my previous message and it came out as two separate posts don't know why.

[Skepdick]

I'd rather paraphrase " Our subjective experiences exist extramentally.
Subjectivity is a mental construct within the master set of mental constructs.The master set of objective constructs is extramental."

All the confusion goes away once we recognize the interpretative context.

Experiences viewed 1st person perspective are "subjective".
Experiences viewed from 3rd person perspective are "objective".

Self-reflection objectifies experience.

[Dimebag]

I'd rather paraphrase " Our subjective experiences exist extramentally.
Subjectivity is a mental construct within the master set of mental constructs.The master set of objective constructs is extramental."

All the confusion goes away once we recognize the interpretative context.

Experiences viewed 1st person perspective are "subjective".
Experiences viewed from 3rd person perspective are "objective".

Self-reflection objectifies experience.

What is a 3rd person experience? Can you offer an example?

[Skepdick]

What is a 3rd person experience? Can you offer an example?

Pretty much every account of your own experiences! Those are memories of expriences, not experiences themselves.

I had a tasty sip of coffee.

It's not happening right now, but it happened 1 second ago.

[Belinda]

I'd rather paraphrase " Our subjective experiences exist extramentally.
Subjectivity is a mental construct within the master set of mental constructs.The master set of objective constructs is extramental."

All the confusion goes away once we recognize the interpretative context.

Experiences viewed 1st person perspective are "subjective".
Experiences viewed from 3rd person perspective are "objective".

Self-reflection objectifies experience.

I appreciate and accept your gloss on the uses of 'objective' and 'subjective'.
Also that self reflection objectifies experience. Your explanation replaces mine.

Nonetheless, 'subjectivity ' usually in a context of a specifically (objective, 3rd person aspect)mental construct; whereas 'subjective' is usually in a context of extramental + mental (1st person aspect). This matters because we need to find the lowest common denominator of reality.

[CHNOPS]

What is a 3rd person experience? Can you offer an example?

Pretty much every account of your own experiences! Those are memories of expriences, not experiences themselves.

I had a tasty sip of coffee.

It's not happening right now, but it happened 1 second ago.

But that is your 1st person experience, where an imagination of the past ocurrs.

I dont know what 3rd person experience is.

[Skepdick]

What is a 3rd person experience? Can you offer an example?

Pretty much every account of your own experiences! Those are memories of expriences, not experiences themselves.

I had a tasty sip of coffee.

It's not happening right now, but it happened 1 second ago.

But that is your 1st person experience, where an imagination of the past ocurrs.

I dont know what 3rd person experience is.

You are super confused.

1st person experience of the memory of sipping tasty coffe is different to the 1st person experience of sipping tasty coffee.

Your experience of remembering is 1st person.
Your experience of the tastiness of coffee isn't.

Why equivocate?

[promethean75]

Skep D, to the list of things being true or false if we merely choose to 'accept or reject the definition', you can add your own thesis... but if you did that, you couldn't implore me to believe you were right. and if you couldn't do that, you wouldn't waste your time asserting the thesis. ergo, the values of 'true' and 'false' do not depend on the acceptance or rejection of how they are defined... and if they did, you might simply decide that what was true was false, and what was false, true. on what would you base this decision? what inclined you to accept or reject the thesis?

it can't just be a matter of subjective authority to accept or reject definitions. a clue is, you're already embedded in and using a language that only makes sense because of its rules. and these rules, these things that guide your thinking in the-making-sense-of some proposition... let's sat the proposition 'a statement is true or false depending on whether you accept of reject it'... exist objectively for all intents and purposes because you cannot get outside or around them for making sense.

[Skepdick]

Skep D, to the list of things being true or false if we merely choose to 'accept or reject the definition', you can add your own thesis... but if you did that, you couldn't implore me to believe you were right. and if you couldn't do that, you wouldn't waste your time asserting the thesis. ergo, the values of 'true' and 'false' do not depend on the acceptance or rejection of how they are defined... and if they did, you might simply decide that what was true was false, and what was false, true. on what would you base this decision? what inclined you to accept or reject the thesis?

I am not trying to imprlore you to believe I am "right"; or "wrong". I am imploring you to acquire some skills in self-reflection.

You are invoking "true" and "false" as if those concepts have some agreed-upon, universal meaning. They don't. There's like 20+ theories of truth.

it can't just be a matter of subjective authority to accept or reject definitions.

And yet you have somehow accepted some definitions for "true" and "false". Probably the correspondence theory.

In accordance with correspondence theory - is it true that I am experiecning tastiness when I am drinking coffee? Yes - it's true. Why is it true? Because the sentence corresponds to reality! I am, in fact, experiencing what I say that I am experiencing.

a clue is, you're already embedded in and using a language that only makes sense because of its rules

What rules? Definition/defining is a verb. I can (re)derfine the rules as I go along.

. and these rules, these things that guide your thinking in the-making-sense-of some proposition... let's sat the proposition 'a statement is true or false depending on whether you accept of reject it'... exist objectively for all intents and purposes because you cannot get outside or around them for making sense.

Perhaps the key difference betwee you and me is that you lack meta-linguistic awareness?

The "rules" allow for self-reference, self-evaluation, self-modification and self-modification.

In accordance with the correspondence AND coherence theory of truth the color of this definition is green.

[popeye1945]

In all subjective experiences, the color blind are not color blind they just see frequencies in different colors than the common herd does. Biology again, said one energy form to another.

[popeye1945]

I'd rather paraphrase " Our subjective experiences exist extramentally.
Subjectivity is a mental construct within the master set of mental constructs.The master set of objective constructs is extramental."

All the confusion goes away once we recognize the interpretative context.

Experiences viewed 1st person perspective are "subjective".
Experiences viewed from 3rd person perspective are "objective".

Self-reflection objectifies experience.

Any interpretative context is of necessity a subjective experience for there is no meaning in the absence of a conscious subject, indeed there is nothing in the absence of a conscious subject. The fact that you are an object in the physical world changes nothing, objects are always experienced subjectively by you yourself, or others. In the absence of an object/the physical world, there is no consciousness, in the absence of a conscious subject there is no object/physical world. If the physical world can only be known on a subjective level, how could one ever prove that the physical world even exists? It is all in the relations of energy forms and reality is weirder than one can imagine.