Humans are Intricately Part & Parcel of Reality

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

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12247
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Humans are Intricately Part & Parcel of Reality

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

My Point: Morality is Objective.

A What is Being Realistic:
  • Reality is All-there-is.
    All-there-is includes all human beings.
    Therefore, Reality cannot be absolutely independent of humans*.
    or
    Therefore, Humans are Intricately Part & Parcel of Reality [all there is]
* i.e. the human conditions.

B: Philosophical Realism
Philosophical Realism is .... about a certain kind of thing is the thesis that this kind of thing has mind*-independent existence, i.e. that it is not just a mere appearance in the eye of the beholder.[1][2][3]
This includes a number of positions within epistemology and metaphysics which express that a given thing instead exists independently of knowledge, thought, or understanding.
Realism can also be a view about the properties of reality in general, holding that reality exists independent of the mind.
Realists tend to believe that whatever we believe now is only an approximation of reality but that the accuracy and fullness of understanding can be improved.

Metaphysical Realism maintains that "whatever exists does so, and has the properties and relations it does, independently of deriving its existence or nature from being thought of or experienced."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism
* for those who are pedantic with the term 'mind' refer the alternative, i.e. human conditions.

Since Philosophical Realism claims that reality is independent of human conditions, it contradict A above, thus Philosophical Realism is not realistic, i.e. illusory in the ultimate sense.

Realists like PH & Gang adopt the ideology of Philosophical Realism [illusory], they believe that objective facts exist independent of the human conditions [for others, it is mind-independence].

To them all moral matters are opinions, beliefs and judgments which are connected with the human conditions [i.e. mind-dependent].
Since these moral matters are not independent of the human conditions, they [all] cannot be objective moral facts.
As such, morality cannot be objective. [C]

Since PH's claim 'morality cannot be objective' [C] is based on an illusory premise, his claim is 'morality cannot be objective', thus unsound.

On the other hand, I claim,
  • 1. Humans are Intricately Part & Parcel of Reality [all there is]
    2. All facts of reality are conditioned upon a specific FSK sustained by a collective of subjects not ONE subject - thus objective.
    3. Moral facts are conditioned upon a moral FSK.
    4. Therefore, morality is objective.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3711
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Humans are Intricately Part & Parcel of Reality

Post by Peter Holmes »

VA's accusation of straw-manning is a projection, derived from Kant's spurious distinction between noumena and phenomena. It's spurious because, if (as Kant says, and VA and I agree) there are no noumena, then there are also no phenomena. In other words, if there are no things-in-themselves, there can be no appearances of things-in-themselves.

Kant's noumenon is a ghost or bogeyman that has haunted philosophy down to this day - as VA's invalid argument demonstrates. I have no idea what a thing-in-itself could possibly be, so I certainly don't claim that such a thing exists. Yet VA claims that to say that what we call reality - of which we're a part - consists of facts which have nothing to do with knowledge or description is, necessarily, to say that there are noumena. And that is to straw man my argument.

The other straw man is that I must, necessarily, subscribe to a correspondence or truth maker/bearer theory of truth - which, like Rorty, I definitely don't. I reject all philosophical foundationalisms as demonstrably incorrect.

Sadly, all of this is beyond VA's comprehension, which is why we get a seemingly endless repetition of the nonsense.
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 9452
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: Humans are Intricately Part & Parcel of Reality

Post by Harbal »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Mar 13, 2023 7:56 am
4. Therefore, morality is objective.
Moral values and attitudes aren't objective.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6592
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: Humans are Intricately Part & Parcel of Reality

Post by Iwannaplato »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Mar 13, 2023 7:56 am 4. Therefore, morality is objective.
Which morality?
I mean, no one is contesting that a variety of moralities exist.

Is it the morality that focuses on the part of the brain you focus on
or is it some other morality that wants to enhance other parts/patterns in the human brain?

If we encounter an intelligent, sentient, alien race, do we base any morality on their brains or ours?

What if they are insect in habit? Will it become moral to eat our young in times of food scarcity?
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12247
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Humans are Intricately Part & Parcel of Reality

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Mon Mar 13, 2023 9:36 am VA's accusation of straw-manning is a projection, derived from Kant's spurious distinction between noumena and phenomena. It's spurious because, if (as Kant says, and VA and I agree) there are no noumena, then there are also no phenomena. In other words, if there are no things-in-themselves, there can be no appearances of things-in-themselves.

Kant's noumenon is a ghost or bogeyman that has haunted philosophy down to this day - as VA's invalid argument demonstrates. I have no idea what a thing-in-itself could possibly be, so I certainly don't claim that such a thing exists.
Yet VA claims that to say that what we call reality - of which we're a part - consists of facts which have nothing to do with knowledge or description is, necessarily, to say that there are noumena. And that is to straw man my argument.
You are the one who is 'strawmaning'.

Note 'phenomena' is FSK dependent ;
  • phenomena: a fact, occurrence, or circumstance observed or observable:
What I am asserting above is this;
What we call reality [all there is] - of which we're a part of - consists of facts which cannot be absolutely independent of the human conditions.
These facts are phenomena which emerged as entangled with its specific FSK [observed, verified and justified].
These facts are subsequently known and described.

On the other hand, you believes the following;
What we call reality consists of facts [features of reality] which are absolutely independent of the human conditions [opinions, beliefs and judgment].
Such facts exist as things which are 'just-is'.
These 'just-is' facts are things-in-themselves, i.e. absolutely independent of the human conditions.
They [those things] cannot be phenomena because phenomena are conditioned upon the human conditions.

It is because you insist, there must be facts [feature of reality] that represent the phenomena, that Kant agreed [tentatively] to name these facts-in-themselves as noumena.
This is valid at the level of common sense logic and its dualism. [Cause and Effect, Newton's third law, etc.].

Kant never claimed the noumenon exists per se in the positive sense.
To Kant, the noumenon is merely a logical or intelligible object to accommodate the philosophical realist's fiction.

Your fact as feature of reality which is 'just is' aka fact-in-itself as absolutely independent of the human conditions [mind] is a noumenon is opposition to phenomenon [FSK & mind-dependent].

Your problem is you are not aware [a human default] you are part and parcel of reality [all there is].
By default and common sense, perception and the-perceived are independent, but fundamentally and ultimately there is NEVER any independence between Reality and the human conditions [mind].
The process of perception within the human conditions and the-perceived [facts] are intertwined within a 'soup' of the common denominators of fundamental particles.
Therefore, you cannot claim facts are absolutely independent of the human conditions.
If you insist they are independent of of the human conditions, then [within a higher perspective] your 'facts' are actually illusions, i.e. facts-in-themselves which are merely thoughts but cannot exist as really real like phenomena.
The other straw man is that I must, necessarily, subscribe to a correspondence or truth maker/bearer theory of truth - which, like Rorty, I definitely don't. I reject all philosophical foundationalisms as demonstrably incorrect.

Sadly, all of this is beyond VA's comprehension, which is why we get a seemingly endless repetition of the nonsense.
You will deny to escape embarrassments.

Have you read Rorty's Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature.
When you claim your 'fact' feature of reality [just is] is absolutely independent of the human conditions [mind], it is so obvious there is a REALITY-GAP between what you perceived and the-perceived. [see the blue arrow below]
To close that REALITY-GAP, the only way is via representation, correspondence theory, mirroring and picturing.

Image
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Humans are Intricately Part & Parcel of Reality

Post by Skepdick »

Harbal wrote: Mon Mar 13, 2023 11:31 am Moral values and attitudes aren't objective.
Everything's objective. Everything that exists - exists. Even if it "only" exists in the heads of humans.

This is the default position until humans invent the objective/subjective distinction, conceptually split everything into two and then and commit the special pleading fallacy with respect to moral values and attitudes..
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Humans are Intricately Part & Parcel of Reality

Post by Skepdick »

Peter Holmes wrote: Mon Mar 13, 2023 9:36 am VA's accusation of straw-manning is a projection, derived from Kant's spurious distinction between noumena and phenomena. It's spurious because, if (as Kant says, and VA and I agree) there are no noumena, then there are also no phenomena. In other words, if there are no things-in-themselves, there can be no appearances of things-in-themselves.
So the "spurious" distinction is not spurious.

What a fucking dumb cunt :lol: :lol: :lol:
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 9452
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: Humans are Intricately Part & Parcel of Reality

Post by Harbal »

Skepdick wrote: Tue Mar 14, 2023 6:48 am
Harbal wrote: Mon Mar 13, 2023 11:31 am Moral values and attitudes aren't objective.
Everything's objective. Everything that exists - exists. Even if it "only" exists in the heads of humans.

This is the default position until humans invent the objective/subjective distinction, conceptually split everything into two and then and commit the special pleading fallacy with respect to moral values and attitudes..
That doesn't really clarify anything.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Humans are Intricately Part & Parcel of Reality

Post by Skepdick »

Harbal wrote: Tue Mar 14, 2023 7:59 am
Skepdick wrote: Tue Mar 14, 2023 6:48 am
Harbal wrote: Mon Mar 13, 2023 11:31 am Moral values and attitudes aren't objective.
Everything's objective. Everything that exists - exists. Even if it "only" exists in the heads of humans.

This is the default position until humans invent the objective/subjective distinction, conceptually split everything into two and then and commit the special pleading fallacy with respect to moral values and attitudes..
That doesn't really clarify anything.
When did "clarity" become a relevant concern on matters of truth?

It's true that the universe exists. That doesn't clarify anything either.

What is it supposed to clarify? Perhaps you have some preconceptions you aren't telling us about?
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 9452
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: Humans are Intricately Part & Parcel of Reality

Post by Harbal »

Skepdick wrote: Tue Mar 14, 2023 8:05 am
Harbal wrote: Tue Mar 14, 2023 7:59 am

That doesn't really clarify anything.
When did "clarity" become a relevant concern on matters of truth?
I can't give you a precise date. :|
It's true that the universe exists. That doesn't clarify anything either.
We've already established that clarification isn't your thing.
What is it supposed to clarify? Perhaps you have some preconceptions you aren't telling us about?
I suppose that's a possibility.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Humans are Intricately Part & Parcel of Reality

Post by Skepdick »

Harbal wrote: Tue Mar 14, 2023 8:56 am We've already established that clarification isn't your thing.
We? Maybe you've established that.

Mean while I've established that clarifying what's unclear to you isn't your thing.

Help me help you.
Harbal wrote: Tue Mar 14, 2023 8:56 am
What is it supposed to clarify? Perhaps you have some preconceptions you aren't telling us about?
I suppose that's a possibility.
Well, can you make it an explicit certainty? If you don't know - who must?
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 9452
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: Humans are Intricately Part & Parcel of Reality

Post by Harbal »

Skepdick wrote: Tue Mar 14, 2023 8:59 am
Help me help you.
Wouldn't it be easier just to accept that our differing views on morality are irreconcilable?
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Humans are Intricately Part & Parcel of Reality

Post by Skepdick »

Harbal wrote: Tue Mar 14, 2023 9:15 am Wouldn't it be easier just to accept that our differing views on morality are irreconcilable?
There are no such things as irreconcilable views. There's only unwillingness to reconcile.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aumann%27 ... nt_theorem

If we are in a game of ease then it's alway easiest to be uncompromising.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6592
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: Humans are Intricately Part & Parcel of Reality

Post by Iwannaplato »

Skepdick wrote: Tue Mar 14, 2023 9:36 am
Harbal wrote: Tue Mar 14, 2023 9:15 am Wouldn't it be easier just to accept that our differing views on morality are irreconcilable?
There are no such things as irreconcilable views. There's only unwillingness to reconcile.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aumann%27 ... nt_theorem

If we are in a game of ease then it's alway easiest to be uncompromising.
Does this mean that PH and VA share common priors?
(and I'm a little hazy on what priors are, so if you could expand on that. But reading the description of the theorum it seemed like certain core beliefs have to be or come into line and it seems like they disagree on a core belief or two)
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Humans are Intricately Part & Parcel of Reality

Post by Skepdick »

Iwannaplato wrote: Tue Mar 14, 2023 9:56 am
Skepdick wrote: Tue Mar 14, 2023 9:36 am
Harbal wrote: Tue Mar 14, 2023 9:15 am Wouldn't it be easier just to accept that our differing views on morality are irreconcilable?
There are no such things as irreconcilable views. There's only unwillingness to reconcile.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aumann%27 ... nt_theorem

If we are in a game of ease then it's alway easiest to be uncompromising.
Does this mean that PH and VA share common priors?
(and I'm a little hazy on what priors are, so if you could expand on that. But reading the description of the theorum it seemed like certain core beliefs have to be or come into line and it seems like they disagree on a core belief or two)
It doesn't matter if they do or don't. Assume you disagree about your priors and recursively iterate to reconcile those.

There are a number of strategies. Easiest one is to simply start with the principle of maximum entropy: Zero a priori knowledge/belief.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle ... um_entropy

When done reconciling priors. Re-focus on reconciling views.

Either I am more wrong and you'll sway me to your view; or you are more wrong and I'll sway you to mine.
Or we'll abandon both our views and synthesise a new one we both land at.

But, of course - it's much easier to be uncompromising than it is to reconcile views.
Post Reply