Is morality objective or subjective?

Should you think about your duty, or about the consequences of your actions? Or should you concentrate on becoming a good person?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Peter Holmes
Posts: 3732
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Jun 06, 2023 4:45 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Mon Jun 05, 2023 11:01 am Can there be a reality - or features of reality - that are not known by humans?

Was there a reality - or were there features of reality - before humans knew about them?

Would there have been a reality - or features of reality - had there been no humans?

What strange questions! And would 'no' be a rational answer to any of them? And do the eejits here who answer 'no' to them want to affirm the following conclusions?

1 There can be no reality that is not known by humans.
2 There was no reality before humans knew about it.
3 Had there been no humans, there would have been no reality.
You are the one who is putting yourself on a philosophy guillotine.

You insisted 'what is fact' is a feature of reality that is just-is, being-so, that is the case, a state of affairs ...

I am asking [a million times] what is that "feature of reality that is just-is, being-so, that is the case, a state of affairs" that is independent of the human opinions, beliefs and judgments.
You have cowardly run away and avoiding to answer above as based on your own definition of what is reality.

1 There can be no reality that is not known by humans.
The above is a strawman.
Rather,
Whatever is reality CANNOT be independent of the human factors in contrast to your claim.

I have no problem of being reality, i.e. to me,
What is reality, facts, truths, knowledge and objectivity are conditioned upon a specific human-based FSK-[FSR] of which the human-based science-FSK is the most credible and reliable.
Because the FSK are human-based whatever the resultant [reality, others] CANNOT be independent of the human factors and per your definition above.
(I know you are tempted, but note the prior emerging and realization.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40145)
Et voila. The dodge.

1 There can be no reality that is not known by humans.
2 There was no reality before humans knew about it.
3 Had there been no humans, there would have been no reality.

You can't give the straight, rational reaction to these claims.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Tue Jun 06, 2023 8:27 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Jun 06, 2023 4:45 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Mon Jun 05, 2023 11:01 am Can there be a reality - or features of reality - that are not known by humans?

Was there a reality - or were there features of reality - before humans knew about them?

Would there have been a reality - or features of reality - had there been no humans?

What strange questions! And would 'no' be a rational answer to any of them? And do the eejits here who answer 'no' to them want to affirm the following conclusions?

1 There can be no reality that is not known by humans.
2 There was no reality before humans knew about it.
3 Had there been no humans, there would have been no reality.
You are the one who is putting yourself on a philosophy guillotine.

You insisted 'what is fact' is a feature of reality that is just-is, being-so, that is the case, a state of affairs ...

I am asking [a million times] what is that "feature of reality that is just-is, being-so, that is the case, a state of affairs" that is independent of the human opinions, beliefs and judgments.
You have cowardly run away and avoiding to answer above as based on your own definition of what is reality.

1 There can be no reality that is not known by humans.
The above is a strawman.
Rather,
Whatever is reality CANNOT be independent of the human factors in contrast to your claim.

I have no problem of being reality, i.e. to me,
What is reality, facts, truths, knowledge and objectivity are conditioned upon a specific human-based FSK-[FSR] of which the human-based science-FSK is the most credible and reliable.
Because the FSK are human-based whatever the resultant [reality, others] CANNOT be independent of the human factors and per your definition above.
(I know you are tempted, but note the prior emerging and realization.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40145)
Et voila. The dodge.

1 There can be no reality that is not known by humans.
2 There was no reality before humans knew about it.
3 Had there been no humans, there would have been no reality.

You can't give the straight, rational reaction to these claims.
I stated that is your rhetoric STRAWMAN.
Why should I be bothered it?

I stated,
1. Whatever is reality CANNOT be independent of the human factors in contrast to your claim,
which is a counter to your claim of a brain-independence reality.
The onus is on you to prove your 'what fact,' a feature of reality which is just-is, being-so, that is the case and a state of affairs.

My claim of reality as proven is this;
What is reality, facts, truths, knowledge and objectivity are conditioned upon a specific human-based FSK-[FSR] of which the human-based science-FSK is the most credible and reliable.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3732
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Jun 07, 2023 2:47 am
What is reality, facts, truths, knowledge and objectivity are conditioned upon a specific human-based FSK-[FSR] of which the human-based science-FSK is the most credible and reliable.
Please pay close attention to what you claim here. You're saying that it's not just 'truths, knowledge and objectivity' that are, in a broad sense, 'human'.

You're saying that 'reality' is human, in the sense that it is 'conditioned upon a specific human-based framework and system of knowledge'.

You're leaping from the correct observation that humans have to perceive, know and describe reality - the whole universe, ffs! - in human ways - to the utterly unfounded claim that reality is and can only be the ways we perceive, know and describe it.

That's an absurd metaphysical claim, and it's certainly not what Kant argued. I suggest he'd have no difficulty with rejecting the following claims - which you simply can't address honestly.

1 There can be no reality that is not known by humans.
2 There was no reality before humans knew about it.
3 Had there been no humans, there would have been no reality.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Jun 07, 2023 7:35 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Jun 07, 2023 2:47 am
What is reality, facts, truths, knowledge and objectivity are conditioned upon a specific human-based FSK-[FSR] of which the human-based science-FSK is the most credible and reliable.
Please pay close attention to what you claim here. You're saying that it's not just 'truths, knowledge and objectivity' that are, in a broad sense, 'human'.

You're saying that 'reality' is human, in the sense that it is 'conditioned upon a specific human-based framework and system of knowledge'.

You're leaping from the correct observation that humans have to perceive, know and describe reality - the whole universe, ffs! - in human ways - to the utterly unfounded claim that reality is and can only be the ways we perceive, know and describe it.

That's an absurd metaphysical claim, and it's certainly not what Kant argued. I suggest he'd have no difficulty with rejecting the following claims - which you simply can't address honestly.

1 There can be no reality that is not known by humans.
2 There was no reality before humans knew about it.
3 Had there been no humans, there would have been no reality.
As I had stated your above syllogism is a strawman.
Protocol wise, why should I accept your invention.

I wrote earlier,
(I know you are tempted, but note the prior emerging and realization.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40145)
Reality: Emergence & Realization Prior to Perceiving, Knowing & Describing

When I forget to mention this, you jumped in with your;
You're leaping from the correct observation that humans have to perceive, know and describe reality - the whole universe, ffs! - in human ways - to the utterly unfounded claim that reality is and can only be the ways we perceive, know and describe it.

I am not leaping, as I had stated in the above, there is a prior process of emergence and realization before reality is perceived, known and described.

If you agree with the Embodied Mind thesis, then our mind in realization reality is conditioned upon the human body which is conditioned upon 13.7 billion years of conditions since the Big Bang.
There is big gap of knowledge you are ignorant of, but you are forced by your evolutionary default of mind-independence to ignore the above missing knowledge and insist merely an mind-independent reality [noumenal] to soothe your cognitive dissonances.

What I presented can be gleaned [quite sufficient] from the writings of Kant in the Chapter I posted in the Noumenal vs Phenomena.
Show me therein where my views do not fit in with Kant's in that Chapter.
viewtopic.php?t=39987
viewtopic.php?t=40170

Since you claim to have read and understood Kant, can you interpret the following paras;
  • Hitherto it has been assumed that all our Knowledge must conform to Objects.
    But all attempts to extend our Knowledge of Objects by establishing something in regard to them a priori, by means of Concepts, have, on this assumption, ended in Failure.
    We must therefore make trial whether we may not have more success in the tasks of Metaphysics, if we suppose that Objects must conform to our Knowledge.
    This would agree better with what is desired, namely, that it should be Possible to have Knowledge of Objects a priori, determining something in regard to them prior to their being Given.
    CPR Bxvi

    As regards Objects which are Thought solely through Reason, and indeed as necessary,
    but which can Never at least not in the manner in which Reason thinks them be Given in Experience,
    the attempts at thinking them (for they must admit of being thought) will furnish an excellent test of what we are adopting as our new method of thought,
    namely, that we can know a priori of Things only what we ourselves put into them.
    CPR Bxviii
  • 1. Thus the Order and Regularity in the Appearances, which we entitle Nature, we ourselves introduce.
    2. We could never find them in Appearances, had not we ourselves, or the Nature of our mind, originally set them there.
    3. For this Unity of Nature has to be a Necessary one, that is, has to be an a priori certain Unity of the Connection of Appearances;
    and such Synthetic Unity could not be established a priori
    if there were not Subjective Grounds of such Unity contained a priori in the Original Cognitive Powers of our mind, and
    if these Subjective Conditions, inasmuch as they are the Grounds of the Possibility of knowing any Object whatsoever in Experience, were not at the same time Objectively Valid.
    A126
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3732
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Jun 07, 2023 8:08 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Jun 07, 2023 7:35 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Jun 07, 2023 2:47 am
What is reality, facts, truths, knowledge and objectivity are conditioned upon a specific human-based FSK-[FSR] of which the human-based science-FSK is the most credible and reliable.
Please pay close attention to what you claim here. You're saying that it's not just 'truths, knowledge and objectivity' that are, in a broad sense, 'human'.

You're saying that 'reality' is human, in the sense that it is 'conditioned upon a specific human-based framework and system of knowledge'.

You're leaping from the correct observation that humans have to perceive, know and describe reality - the whole universe, ffs! - in human ways - to the utterly unfounded claim that reality is and can only be the ways we perceive, know and describe it.

That's an absurd metaphysical claim, and it's certainly not what Kant argued. I suggest he'd have no difficulty with rejecting the following claims - which you simply can't address honestly.

1 There can be no reality that is not known by humans.
2 There was no reality before humans knew about it.
3 Had there been no humans, there would have been no reality.
As I had stated your above syllogism is a strawman.
Protocol wise, why should I accept your invention.

I wrote earlier,
(I know you are tempted, but note the prior emerging and realization.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40145)
Reality: Emergence & Realization Prior to Perceiving, Knowing & Describing

When I forget to mention this, you jumped in with your;
You're leaping from the correct observation that humans have to perceive, know and describe reality - the whole universe, ffs! - in human ways - to the utterly unfounded claim that reality is and can only be the ways we perceive, know and describe it.

I am not leaping, as I had stated in the above, there is a prior process of emergence and realization before reality is perceived, known and described.

If you agree with the Embodied Mind thesis, then our mind in realization reality is conditioned upon the human body which is conditioned upon 13.7 billion years of conditions since the Big Bang.
There is big gap of knowledge you are ignorant of, but you are forced by your evolutionary default of mind-independence to ignore the above missing knowledge and insist merely an mind-independent reality [noumenal] to soothe your cognitive dissonances.

What I presented can be gleaned [quite sufficient] from the writings of Kant in the Chapter I posted in the Noumenal vs Phenomena.
Show me therein where my views do not fit in with Kant's in that Chapter.
viewtopic.php?t=39987
viewtopic.php?t=40170

Since you claim to have read and understood Kant, can you interpret the following paras;
  • Hitherto it has been assumed that all our Knowledge must conform to Objects.
    But all attempts to extend our Knowledge of Objects by establishing something in regard to them a priori, by means of Concepts, have, on this assumption, ended in Failure.
    We must therefore make trial whether we may not have more success in the tasks of Metaphysics, if we suppose that Objects must conform to our Knowledge.
    This would agree better with what is desired, namely, that it should be Possible to have Knowledge of Objects a priori, determining something in regard to them prior to their being Given.
    CPR Bxvi

    As regards Objects which are Thought solely through Reason, and indeed as necessary,
    but which can Never at least not in the manner in which Reason thinks them be Given in Experience,
    the attempts at thinking them (for they must admit of being thought) will furnish an excellent test of what we are adopting as our new method of thought,
    namely, that we can know a priori of Things only what we ourselves put into them.
    CPR Bxviii
  • 1. Thus the Order and Regularity in the Appearances, which we entitle Nature, we ourselves introduce.
    2. We could never find them in Appearances, had not we ourselves, or the Nature of our mind, originally set them there.
    3. For this Unity of Nature has to be a Necessary one, that is, has to be an a priori certain Unity of the Connection of Appearances;
    and such Synthetic Unity could not be established a priori
    if there were not Subjective Grounds of such Unity contained a priori in the Original Cognitive Powers of our mind, and
    if these Subjective Conditions, inasmuch as they are the Grounds of the Possibility of knowing any Object whatsoever in Experience, were not at the same time Objectively Valid.
    A126
1 Your blather about a prior process of emergence and realisation fools nobody. It's mystical claptrap.

2 Like Descartes, Kant inherited and repackaged an ancient, superstitious substance-dualism, which is why he refers to the mind, intellectual apprehension, and other such mentalist blather.

3 We've long been constructing philosophical theories of being, knowledge - and mind itself - on nothing more substantial than a metaphor. It's sweet that your quote one of them so solemnly, and take it so seriously.
Skepdick
Posts: 14366
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Skepdick »

Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Jun 07, 2023 10:55 am 1 Your blather about a prior process of emergence and realisation fools nobody. It's mystical claptrap.

2 Like Descartes, Kant inherited and repackaged an ancient, superstitious substance-dualism, which is why he refers to the mind, intellectual apprehension, and other such mentalist blather.

3 We've long been constructing philosophical theories of being, knowledge - and mind itself - on nothing more substantial than a metaphor. It's sweet that your quote one of them so solemnly, and take it so seriously.
Fucking idiot.

There is no difference between dualism and the alternatives. It's just philosophers inventing stuff to argue about.

Is it "dualism" to recognize two different colors?
They are the same (all colors are colors)
They are also different (they are different colors)

Any two things are the same - because they are both things.
Any two things are different - because there ae two of them.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3732
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

A theory of identity.

Two things are the same, because they're both things.
Two things are different, because there are two of them.

Mistaking what we say for the way things are.

Fucking moron.
Skepdick
Posts: 14366
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Skepdick »

Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Jun 07, 2023 9:04 pm A theory of identity.

Two things are the same, because they're both things.
Two things are different, because there are two of them.

Mistaking what we say for the way things are.

Fucking moron.
Which part of asserting difference is a theory of "identity" in your idiot-mind?
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Jun 07, 2023 10:55 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Jun 07, 2023 8:08 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Jun 07, 2023 7:35 am
Please pay close attention to what you claim here. You're saying that it's not just 'truths, knowledge and objectivity' that are, in a broad sense, 'human'.

You're saying that 'reality' is human, in the sense that it is 'conditioned upon a specific human-based framework and system of knowledge'.

You're leaping from the correct observation that humans have to perceive, know and describe reality - the whole universe, ffs! - in human ways - to the utterly unfounded claim that reality is and can only be the ways we perceive, know and describe it.

That's an absurd metaphysical claim, and it's certainly not what Kant argued. I suggest he'd have no difficulty with rejecting the following claims - which you simply can't address honestly.

1 There can be no reality that is not known by humans.
2 There was no reality before humans knew about it.
3 Had there been no humans, there would have been no reality.
As I had stated your above syllogism is a strawman.
Protocol wise, why should I accept your invention.

I wrote earlier,
(I know you are tempted, but note the prior emerging and realization.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40145)
Reality: Emergence & Realization Prior to Perceiving, Knowing & Describing

When I forget to mention this, you jumped in with your;
You're leaping from the correct observation that humans have to perceive, know and describe reality - the whole universe, ffs! - in human ways - to the utterly unfounded claim that reality is and can only be the ways we perceive, know and describe it.

I am not leaping, as I had stated in the above, there is a prior process of emergence and realization before reality is perceived, known and described.

If you agree with the Embodied Mind thesis, then our mind in realization reality is conditioned upon the human body which is conditioned upon 13.7 billion years of conditions since the Big Bang.
There is big gap of knowledge you are ignorant of, but you are forced by your evolutionary default of mind-independence to ignore the above missing knowledge and insist merely an mind-independent reality [noumenal] to soothe your cognitive dissonances.

What I presented can be gleaned [quite sufficient] from the writings of Kant in the Chapter I posted in the Noumenal vs Phenomena.
Show me therein where my views do not fit in with Kant's in that Chapter.
viewtopic.php?t=39987
viewtopic.php?t=40170

Since you claim to have read and understood Kant, can you interpret the following paras;
  • Hitherto it has been assumed that all our Knowledge must conform to Objects.
    But all attempts to extend our Knowledge of Objects by establishing something in regard to them a priori, by means of Concepts, have, on this assumption, ended in Failure.
    We must therefore make trial whether we may not have more success in the tasks of Metaphysics, if we suppose that Objects must conform to our Knowledge.
    This would agree better with what is desired, namely, that it should be Possible to have Knowledge of Objects a priori, determining something in regard to them prior to their being Given.
    CPR Bxvi

    As regards Objects which are Thought solely through Reason, and indeed as necessary,
    but which can Never at least not in the manner in which Reason thinks them be Given in Experience,
    the attempts at thinking them (for they must admit of being thought) will furnish an excellent test of what we are adopting as our new method of thought,
    namely, that we can know a priori of Things only what we ourselves put into them.
    CPR Bxviii
  • 1. Thus the Order and Regularity in the Appearances, which we entitle Nature, we ourselves introduce.
    2. We could never find them in Appearances, had not we ourselves, or the Nature of our mind, originally set them there.
    3. For this Unity of Nature has to be a Necessary one, that is, has to be an a priori certain Unity of the Connection of Appearances;
    and such Synthetic Unity could not be established a priori
    if there were not Subjective Grounds of such Unity contained a priori in the Original Cognitive Powers of our mind, and
    if these Subjective Conditions, inasmuch as they are the Grounds of the Possibility of knowing any Object whatsoever in Experience, were not at the same time Objectively Valid.
    A126
1 Your blather about a prior process of emergence and realisation fools nobody. It's mystical claptrap.
If you are not ignorant, then, seriously, I want to understand [not agree] why you think the concepts of emergence and realization is not realistic?

This experiment show a very crude example of the concept of emergence and realization that is not-mind-independent;

Hollow Mask to Convex Mask
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pH9dAbPOR6M

The wetness of water is an “emergent” property, then it is realized. This has been going on for 3.5 billion years and still is going on in the human brain.
  • The wetness of water is an example of an “emergent” property: a phenomenon that can't be explained by the fundamental properties of something's constituent parts, but rather manifests only when those parts are extremely numerous. Link
There are many examples of emergence and realization.

2 Like Descartes, Kant inherited and repackaged an ancient, superstitious substance-dualism, which is why he refers to the mind, intellectual apprehension, and other such mentalist blather.
From the above, it is obvious you do not have a good grasp of Kantian philosophy at all.

From Caygill;



3 We've long been constructing philosophical theories of being, knowledge - and mind itself - on nothing more substantial than a metaphor. It's sweet that your quote one of them so solemnly, and take it so seriously.
[/quote]
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Jun 07, 2023 10:55 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Jun 07, 2023 8:08 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Jun 07, 2023 7:35 am
Please pay close attention to what you claim here. You're saying that it's not just 'truths, knowledge and objectivity' that are, in a broad sense, 'human'.

You're saying that 'reality' is human, in the sense that it is 'conditioned upon a specific human-based framework and system of knowledge'.

You're leaping from the correct observation that humans have to perceive, know and describe reality - the whole universe, ffs! - in human ways - to the utterly unfounded claim that reality is and can only be the ways we perceive, know and describe it.

That's an absurd metaphysical claim, and it's certainly not what Kant argued. I suggest he'd have no difficulty with rejecting the following claims - which you simply can't address honestly.

1 There can be no reality that is not known by humans.
2 There was no reality before humans knew about it.
3 Had there been no humans, there would have been no reality.
As I had stated your above syllogism is a strawman.
Protocol wise, why should I accept your invention.

I wrote earlier,
(I know you are tempted, but note the prior emerging and realization.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40145)
Reality: Emergence & Realization Prior to Perceiving, Knowing & Describing

When I forget to mention this, you jumped in with your;
You're leaping from the correct observation that humans have to perceive, know and describe reality - the whole universe, ffs! - in human ways - to the utterly unfounded claim that reality is and can only be the ways we perceive, know and describe it.

I am not leaping, as I had stated in the above, there is a prior process of emergence and realization before reality is perceived, known and described.

If you agree with the Embodied Mind thesis, then our mind in realization reality is conditioned upon the human body which is conditioned upon 13.7 billion years of conditions since the Big Bang.
There is big gap of knowledge you are ignorant of, but you are forced by your evolutionary default of mind-independence to ignore the above missing knowledge and insist merely an mind-independent reality [noumenal] to soothe your cognitive dissonances.

What I presented can be gleaned [quite sufficient] from the writings of Kant in the Chapter I posted in the Noumenal vs Phenomena.
Show me therein where my views do not fit in with Kant's in that Chapter.
viewtopic.php?t=39987
viewtopic.php?t=40170

Since you claim to have read and understood Kant, can you interpret the following paras;
  • Hitherto it has been assumed that all our Knowledge must conform to Objects.
    But all attempts to extend our Knowledge of Objects by establishing something in regard to them a priori, by means of Concepts, have, on this assumption, ended in Failure.
    We must therefore make trial whether we may not have more success in the tasks of Metaphysics, if we suppose that Objects must conform to our Knowledge.
    This would agree better with what is desired, namely, that it should be Possible to have Knowledge of Objects a priori, determining something in regard to them prior to their being Given.
    CPR Bxvi

    As regards Objects which are Thought solely through Reason, and indeed as necessary,
    but which can Never at least not in the manner in which Reason thinks them be Given in Experience,
    the attempts at thinking them (for they must admit of being thought) will furnish an excellent test of what we are adopting as our new method of thought,
    namely, that we can know a priori of Things only what we ourselves put into them.
    CPR Bxviii
  • 1. Thus the Order and Regularity in the Appearances, which we entitle Nature, we ourselves introduce.
    2. We could never find them in Appearances, had not we ourselves, or the Nature of our mind, originally set them there.
    3. For this Unity of Nature has to be a Necessary one, that is, has to be an a priori certain Unity of the Connection of Appearances;
    and such Synthetic Unity could not be established a priori
    if there were not Subjective Grounds of such Unity contained a priori in the Original Cognitive Powers of our mind, and
    if these Subjective Conditions, inasmuch as they are the Grounds of the Possibility of knowing any Object whatsoever in Experience, were not at the same time Objectively Valid.
    A126
1 Your blather about a prior process of emergence and realisation fools nobody. It's mystical claptrap.
If you are not ignorant, then, seriously, I want to understand [not agree] why you think the concepts of emergence and realization are not realistic?

This experiment show a very crude example of the concept of emergence and realization that is not-mind-independent;

Hollow Mask to Convex Mask
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pH9dAbPOR6M

The wetness of water is an “emergent” property, then it is realized. This has been going on for 3.5 billion years and still is going on in the human brain.
  • The wetness of water is an example of an “emergent” property: a phenomenon that can't be explained by the fundamental properties of something's constituent parts, but rather manifests only when those parts are extremely numerous. Link
There are many examples of emergence and realization.

2 Like Descartes, Kant inherited and repackaged an ancient, superstitious substance-dualism, which is why he refers to the mind, intellectual apprehension, and other such mentalist blather.
From the above, it is obvious you do not have a good grasp of Kantian philosophy at all.

From Caygill;
Gemüt is a key term in Kant's philosophy and is variously translated as 'Mind'..
It does not mean 'mind' or 'soul' in the Cartesian sense of a thinking Substance, but denotes instead a Corporeal Awareness of Sensation and Self-Affection.
With this view of the Gemüt Kant sought to bypass many of the problems of mind-body relations bequeathed by Cartesian dualism.


Instead of your usual diatribe, it will reflect better on you if you were to give some rational indications with references to justify your point.

3 We've long been constructing philosophical theories of being, knowledge - and mind itself - on nothing more substantial than a metaphor. It's sweet that your quote one of them so solemnly, and take it so seriously.
Strawman. The above is irrelevant.
You are still harping on this despite your acceptance of 'Embodied Mind'.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3732
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

An update from elsewhere by VA.

Reality isn't and can't be independent from the human body, plus the various 'extensions' of the embodied mind proposed by the Extended Mind Theory. Such as books and computers, and so on. All of which are physical.

'No human body, with its embodied and extended mind = no reality.'

It's still claptrap. Here are the claims again.

1 There can be no reality that is not known by humans.
2 There was no reality before humans knew about it.
3 Had there been no humans, there would have been no reality.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Jun 08, 2023 8:22 am An update from elsewhere by VA.

Reality isn't and can't be independent from the human body, plus the various 'extensions' of the embodied mind proposed by the Extended Mind Theory. Such as books and computers, and so on. All of which are physical.

'No human body, with its embodied and extended mind = no reality.'

It's still claptrap. Here are the claims again.

1 There can be no reality that is not known by humans.
2 There was no reality before humans knew about it.
3 Had there been no humans, there would have been no reality.
Strawman!! the millionth time.

In my case, I would state;
1 There can be no human-based reality that is not realized by humans via specific human-based FSR-FSK.

On the other hand, you need to prove,
1. There is a mind-independent reality before it emerged and is realized by humans.
Skepdick
Posts: 14366
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Skepdick »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Jun 09, 2023 9:23 am On the other hand, you need to prove,
1. There is a mind-independent reality before it emerged and is realized by humans.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemological_solipsism
Epistemological solipsists claim that realism begs the question: assuming there is a universe that is independent of the agent's mind, the agent can only ever know of this universe through the agent's senses. How is the existence of the independent universe to be scientifically studied? ...
Were it not for the social stigma of the term "solipsism" one could end up agreeing with this...

But in a battle of words against an idiot-philosopher who is looking for any attack vector (and will happily weaponise the connotation of words) it's strategically disadvantageous to do so, for it would cost you the war.

It's pretty obvious that Peter "Dumb Cunt" Holmes just wants to fight.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Skepdick wrote: Fri Jun 09, 2023 9:49 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Jun 09, 2023 9:23 am On the other hand, you need to prove,
1. There is a mind-independent reality before it emerged and is realized by humans.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemological_solipsism
Epistemological solipsists claim that realism begs the question: assuming there is a universe that is independent of the agent's mind, the agent can only ever know of this universe through the agent's senses. How is the existence of the independent universe to be scientifically studied? ...
Were it not for the social stigma of the term "solipsism" one could end up agreeing with this...

But in a battle of words against an idiot-philosopher who is looking for any attack vector (and will happily weaponise the connotation of words) it's strategically disadvantageous to do so, for it would cost you the war.

It's pretty obvious that Peter "Dumb Cunt" Holmes just wants to fight.
Noted,

Great point;
"Epistemological solipsists claim that realism begs the question: .."

I have been insisting philosophical realism [mind-independence] begs the question, and are ignorantly into solipsism [as defined generally] themselves.

I do not agree with the idea of "solipsism';
Solipsism is Incoherent
https://iep.utm.edu/solipsis/#H7
'Solipsism' is merely is 'derogatory' term used by ignorant realists [philosophical] to condemn certain 'idealism' e.g. those of Berkeley's.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3732
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Jun 10, 2023 2:12 am
Skepdick wrote: Fri Jun 09, 2023 9:49 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Jun 09, 2023 9:23 am On the other hand, you need to prove,
1. There is a mind-independent reality before it emerged and is realized by humans.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemological_solipsism
Epistemological solipsists claim that realism begs the question: assuming there is a universe that is independent of the agent's mind, the agent can only ever know of this universe through the agent's senses. How is the existence of the independent universe to be scientifically studied? ...
Were it not for the social stigma of the term "solipsism" one could end up agreeing with this...

But in a battle of words against an idiot-philosopher who is looking for any attack vector (and will happily weaponise the connotation of words) it's strategically disadvantageous to do so, for it would cost you the war.

It's pretty obvious that Peter "Dumb Cunt" Holmes just wants to fight.
Noted,

Great point;
"Epistemological solipsists claim that realism begs the question: .."

I have been insisting philosophical realism [mind-independence] begs the question, and are ignorantly into solipsism [as defined generally] themselves.

I do not agree with the idea of "solipsism';
Solipsism is Incoherent
https://iep.utm.edu/solipsis/#H7
'Solipsism' is merely is 'derogatory' term used by ignorant realists [philosophical] to condemn certain 'idealism' e.g. those of Berkeley's.
A couple of dictionary definitions:

solipsism: the view or theory that the self is all that can be known to exist.

anti-realism: ...any position involving...the denial of an objective reality...

I'd say that, on balance, an anti-realism is more likely than a realism to lead to solipsism.
Post Reply