Re: What could make morality objective?
Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2024 2:22 pm
I think that one feature common to the many and various versions of epistemological skepticism, including the many and various kinds of antirealism, is the foundational myth of 'the observer' or 'the subject' or 'the conscious subject' or 'the mind'.
In different ways, the idea is always that there's an 'I' - variously defined - that's radically cut off from everything else, including every other 'I'. For example, the one who calls herself/himself/itself 'Age' thinks that the following is a deal-breaking truth: ' Absolutely every thing is relative to the observer, and thus is subjective to the observer.'
Why is every thing relative to 'the observer'? Who or what is 'the observer'? Is an amoeba 'an observer'? What does 'relative to' mean here? Does it really and merely mean that an observer has to observe things in a certain way? (No argument.) Or does it mean that, if there were no observer - for example, before life evolved in the universe - there would be nothing? (Patent nonsense.)
And if the foundational myth of the isolated 'knower' is correct, who came up with this myth? Or: is it a fact that there are no facts, but only opinions - which entails an immediate contradiction? Or is it an opinion, and if so whose - and why give it credence?
The remedy is to abandon the subject/object - perceiver/perceived - observer/observed - experiencer/experienced - mind/body - epistemological myth, because it's a conceptual distortion with ancient, supernaturalist baggage.
Suppose 'knowing' can be just one kind of object coming into contact with another kind of object. Suppose an amoeba knows there's a food item within reach of its enveloping arms. Suppose trees expel leaves because they know winter is coming.
In different ways, the idea is always that there's an 'I' - variously defined - that's radically cut off from everything else, including every other 'I'. For example, the one who calls herself/himself/itself 'Age' thinks that the following is a deal-breaking truth: ' Absolutely every thing is relative to the observer, and thus is subjective to the observer.'
Why is every thing relative to 'the observer'? Who or what is 'the observer'? Is an amoeba 'an observer'? What does 'relative to' mean here? Does it really and merely mean that an observer has to observe things in a certain way? (No argument.) Or does it mean that, if there were no observer - for example, before life evolved in the universe - there would be nothing? (Patent nonsense.)
And if the foundational myth of the isolated 'knower' is correct, who came up with this myth? Or: is it a fact that there are no facts, but only opinions - which entails an immediate contradiction? Or is it an opinion, and if so whose - and why give it credence?
The remedy is to abandon the subject/object - perceiver/perceived - observer/observed - experiencer/experienced - mind/body - epistemological myth, because it's a conceptual distortion with ancient, supernaturalist baggage.
Suppose 'knowing' can be just one kind of object coming into contact with another kind of object. Suppose an amoeba knows there's a food item within reach of its enveloping arms. Suppose trees expel leaves because they know winter is coming.