What could make morality objective?

[Peter Holmes]

He says there are two senses of the word reality

What VA has been saying all these years is that there are only two philosophies: naive realism and Kantian naive anti-realism. And that he's super smart because he knows that the second one beats the first one.

Kant told him that the "naive" (direct) part is always a must, it can't be any other way. So that's what VA will insist on forever.

That may be the right diagnosis. And I'm sure that Kant's disastrous noumena/phenomena distinction is at the root of it. What I'm still not sure about is why indirect (non-naive?) realism gest off the hook that direct realism is supposed to be on. Do you know why?

[Atla]

That may be the right diagnosis. And I'm sure that Kant's disastrous noumena/phenomena distinction is at the root of it.

The distinction by itself is actually fairly useful, it's only disastrous when we do what Kant did and claim that the noumenon is 100% unknowable. That's actually an insane guess. According to this guess, as a result, only "naive" philosophies are possible. So that's what VA will insist on forever, because Kant said so.

What I'm still not sure about is why indirect (non-naive?) realism gest off the hook that direct realism is supposed to be on. Do you know why?

Well because direct realism was refuted by Kant, by science, by psychology, so like refuted in every way?

[Peter Holmes]

That may be the right diagnosis. And I'm sure that Kant's disastrous noumena/phenomena distinction is at the root of it.

The distinction by itself is actually fairly useful, it's only disastrous when we do what Kant did and claim that the noumenon is 100% unknowable. That's actually an insane guess. According to this guess, as a result, only "naive" philosophies are possible. So that's what VA will insist on forever, because Kant said so.

What I'm still not sure about is why indirect (non-naive?) realism gest off the hook that direct realism is supposed to be on. Do you know why?

Well because direct realism was refuted by Kant, by science, by psychology, so like refuted in every way?

But why don't they refute indirect realism? (I should say, I don't think any of them 'refute' realism.)

[Atla]

That may be the right diagnosis. And I'm sure that Kant's disastrous noumena/phenomena distinction is at the root of it.

The distinction by itself is actually fairly useful, it's only disastrous when we do what Kant did and claim that the noumenon is 100% unknowable. That's actually an insane guess. According to this guess, as a result, only "naive" philosophies are possible. So that's what VA will insist on forever, because Kant said so.

What I'm still not sure about is why indirect (non-naive?) realism gest off the hook that direct realism is supposed to be on. Do you know why?

Well because direct realism was refuted by Kant, by science, by psychology, so like refuted in every way?

But why don't they refute indirect realism?

Refute it how? Science and psychology are consistent with indirect realism. Showing both Kant and direct realism wrong.

Unless someone can show otherwise of course.

[Peter Holmes]

The distinction by itself is actually fairly useful, it's only disastrous when we do what Kant did and claim that the noumenon is 100% unknowable. That's actually an insane guess. According to this guess, as a result, only "naive" philosophies are possible. So that's what VA will insist on forever, because Kant said so.


Well because direct realism was refuted by Kant, by science, by psychology, so like refuted in every way?

But why don't they refute indirect realism?

Refute it how?

That's what I'm asking. You claim three things refute direct realism: Kant, science and psychology. And then you say science and psychology refute Kant. So I'm confused.

Perhaps you could set out the premise(s) of indirect realism - to clear it up.

[Atla]

But why don't they refute indirect realism?

Refute it how?

That's what I'm asking. You claim three things refute direct realism: Kant, science and psychology. And then you say science and psychology refute Kant. So I'm confused.

Perhaps you could set out the premise(s) of indirect realism - to clear it up.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_an ... ct_realism

There's nothing confusing about what I'm saying - you could have switched to indirect realism many years ago, the question is why do you reject it.

[Peter Holmes]

Refute it how?

That's what I'm asking. You claim three things refute direct realism: Kant, science and psychology. And then you say science and psychology refute Kant. So I'm confused.

Perhaps you could set out the premise(s) of indirect realism - to clear it up.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_an ... ct_realism

There's nothing confusing about what I'm saying

I beg to differ. Here's part of the link you suggest:

'Indirect realism is broadly equivalent to the scientific view of perception that subjects do not experience the external world as it really is, but perceive it through the lens of a conceptual framework...'

That's pure Kant. It's got 'the external world' - meaning subjects have an internal world - and wtf is that? - and it's got 'the subject' - as though that's dichotomous with 'the object' - and it's got the always completely unexplained 'lens of a conceptual framework' - which is pure VA. And it's got 'the world as it really is' - which is Kant's noumenon, invoked.

Sorry - but this is claptrap. And btw you wrote this earlier:

'The distinction [noumenon/phenomenon] by itself is actually fairly useful, it's only disastrous when we do what Kant did and claim that the noumenon is 100% unknowable.'

There's the rub. The distinction is the very heart of the issue: there is a thing-in-itself in the first place. And what on earth does it mean to say it's only less than 100% knowable? Which bit of it is knowable, and why? It's a stupid idea, that crumbles under the slightest scrutiny.

[Atla]

That's what I'm asking. You claim three things refute direct realism: Kant, science and psychology. And then you say science and psychology refute Kant. So I'm confused.

Perhaps you could set out the premise(s) of indirect realism - to clear it up.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_an ... ct_realism

There's nothing confusing about what I'm saying

I beg to differ. Here's part of the link you suggest:

'Indirect realism is broadly equivalent to the scientific view of perception that subjects do not experience the external world as it really is, but perceive it through the lens of a conceptual framework...'

That's pure Kant. It's got 'the external world' - meaning subjects have an internal world - and wtf is that? - and it's got 'the subject' - as though that's dichotomous with 'the object' - and it's got the always completely unexplained 'lens of a conceptual framework' - which is pure VA. And it's got 'the world as it really is' - which is Kant's noumenon, invoked.

Sorry - but this is claptrap. And btw you wrote this earlier:

'The distinction [noumenon/phenomenon] by itself is actually fairly useful, it's only disastrous when we do what Kant did and claim that the noumenon is 100% unknowable.'

There's the rub. The distinction is the very heart of the issue: there is a thing-in-itself in the first place. And what on earth does it mean to say it's only less than 100% knowable? Which bit of it is knowable, and why? It's a stupid idea, that crumbles under the slightest scrutiny.

Crumbles under what slightest scrutiny? It's entirely consistent with both modern science and modern psychology, it's direct realism that has crumbled long ago.

Let's skip your usual pathological liar routine and get to the point. What is the actual reason you don't want to admit that you exist?

[Peter Holmes]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_an ... ct_realism

There's nothing confusing about what I'm saying

I beg to differ. Here's part of the link you suggest:

'Indirect realism is broadly equivalent to the scientific view of perception that subjects do not experience the external world as it really is, but perceive it through the lens of a conceptual framework...'

That's pure Kant. It's got 'the external world' - meaning subjects have an internal world - and wtf is that? - and it's got 'the subject' - as though that's dichotomous with 'the object' - and it's got the always completely unexplained 'lens of a conceptual framework' - which is pure VA. And it's got 'the world as it really is' - which is Kant's noumenon, invoked.

Sorry - but this is claptrap. And btw you wrote this earlier:

'The distinction [noumenon/phenomenon] by itself is actually fairly useful, it's only disastrous when we do what Kant did and claim that the noumenon is 100% unknowable.'

There's the rub. The distinction is the very heart of the issue: there is a thing-in-itself in the first place. And what on earth does it mean to say it's only less than 100% knowable? Which bit of it is knowable, and why? It's a stupid idea, that crumbles under the slightest scrutiny.

Crumbles under what slightest scrutiny? It's entirely consistent with both modern science and modern psychology, it's direct realism that has crumbled long ago.

Let's skip your usual pathological liar routine and get to the point. What is the actual reason you don't want to admit that you exist?

What? I'm a pathological liar. And Kant's distinction between noumena and phenomena is 'entirely consistent with both modern science and modern psychology'. And I don't want to admit that I exist.

Wtf are you talking about? Frankly, if this is what you've got, do one. Not interested.

Come to think of it, you could be moron dick-for-brains in one of its troll disguises. That may explain the explosion of abuse. More fool me.

[Atla]

I beg to differ. Here's part of the link you suggest:

'Indirect realism is broadly equivalent to the scientific view of perception that subjects do not experience the external world as it really is, but perceive it through the lens of a conceptual framework...'

That's pure Kant. It's got 'the external world' - meaning subjects have an internal world - and wtf is that? - and it's got 'the subject' - as though that's dichotomous with 'the object' - and it's got the always completely unexplained 'lens of a conceptual framework' - which is pure VA. And it's got 'the world as it really is' - which is Kant's noumenon, invoked.

Sorry - but this is claptrap. And btw you wrote this earlier:

'The distinction [noumenon/phenomenon] by itself is actually fairly useful, it's only disastrous when we do what Kant did and claim that the noumenon is 100% unknowable.'

There's the rub. The distinction is the very heart of the issue: there is a thing-in-itself in the first place. And what on earth does it mean to say it's only less than 100% knowable? Which bit of it is knowable, and why? It's a stupid idea, that crumbles under the slightest scrutiny.

Crumbles under what slightest scrutiny? It's entirely consistent with both modern science and modern psychology, it's direct realism that has crumbled long ago.

Let's skip your usual pathological liar routine and get to the point. What is the actual reason you don't want to admit that you exist?

What? I'm a pathological liar. And Kant's distinction between noumena and phenomena is 'entirely consistent with both modern science and modern psychology'. And I don't want to admit that I exist.

Wtf are you talking about? Frankly, if this is what you've got, do one. Not interested.

Still more of the same routine, deliberately misunderstanding what I say (what I repeat), ignoring fields of science, ignoring psychology in general, playing the victim, running away etc.

This is weak. Will you tell us one day, what the actual reason is why you don't want to admit that you exist?

What do you expect from coming to such a philosophy forum? That people will assure you that you indeed don't exist?

[Peter Holmes]

Crumbles under what slightest scrutiny? It's entirely consistent with both modern science and modern psychology, it's direct realism that has crumbled long ago.

Let's skip your usual pathological liar routine and get to the point. What is the actual reason you don't want to admit that you exist?

What? I'm a pathological liar. And Kant's distinction between noumena and phenomena is 'entirely consistent with both modern science and modern psychology'. And I don't want to admit that I exist.

Wtf are you talking about? Frankly, if this is what you've got, do one. Not interested.

Still more of the same routine, deliberately misunderstanding what I say (what I repeat), ignoring fields of science, ignoring psychology in general, playing the victim, running away etc.

This is weak. Will you tell us one day, what the actual reason is why you don't want to admit that you exist?

What do you expect from coming to such a philosophy forum? That people will assure you that you indeed don't exist?

Yep. Dick-for-brains, for sure. Note to everyone: don't bother with Atla any more.

[Atla]

What? I'm a pathological liar. And Kant's distinction between noumena and phenomena is 'entirely consistent with both modern science and modern psychology'. And I don't want to admit that I exist.

Wtf are you talking about? Frankly, if this is what you've got, do one. Not interested.

Still more of the same routine, deliberately misunderstanding what I say (what I repeat), ignoring fields of science, ignoring psychology in general, playing the victim, running away etc.

This is weak. Will you tell us one day, what the actual reason is why you don't want to admit that you exist?

What do you expect from coming to such a philosophy forum? That people will assure you that you indeed don't exist?

Yep. Dick-for-brains, for sure. Note to everyone: don't bother with Atla any more.

Why should people listen to you when you don't even exist?

[Peter Holmes]

Come to think of it, when there's a troll like moron dick-for-brains around, anyone could be it. I could be. Anyway, I'm done. Or am I?

[Atla]

Come to think of it, when there's a troll like moron dick-for-brains around, anyone could be it. I could be. Anyway, I'm done. Or am I?

Yeah yeah but what's the actual reason you don't want to admit that you exist?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Claim: If there were no humans, there would have been and be no universe.

Nonsense.

Strawman as usual.
You should counter my full argument instead of merely the conclusion.
You are relying on your premise which is illusory to distort my b]human-based FSERC[/b] premises.

My argument proper is this;
If there were no humans, there would have been and be no human-based FSERC universe.

You need to have intellectual integrity.
At least repeat or paraphrase my intended premise before you critique and condemned it.