The Objective Realm

[Sculptor]

Obviously not.
Whilst it is true that the world we construct of realithy within ourselves, it must be understood that it is constructed primarily from our contact with the objective realm.

Always Hypothetically... Objectivity is the wall of human knowledge, awareness, and consciousness. Trying to approach the wall, only expands it away.

We can extend our understanding into the Noumenal world. That requires observation, reason and careful interpretation.
Such is science through which we can see the edge of the universe, rather than the narrow earthe centred fiction of the Catholic mind.

[Harbal]

The decisions you mention can be made without reference to religion, and should be made without reference to it. Religion is about an elite minority controlling the bahaviour of society according to their own preferences.

How is that wrong though?

I have no idea about what God thinks is morally acceptable, so I would have to ask somebody who supposedly does know. People who claim to know what God wants are invariably not fit to give anyone moral advice.

Without moral guidance, humans revert back into animals, and behave as such... so what's your alternative?
POST A REPLY

I think you would be amazed at how civilised I am out in the real world, and I don't need "guidance". Most of the people I know are not religious, and none of them tends to run amok.

[Harbal]

some religions tell you what you can do...

every government tells you what you must do under threat of punishment

-Imp

Right on

Would you prefer a state of anarchy, with no rules and everyone doing what they like? If you live in a democracy, you have some control over what governments dare and dare not do, but God doesn't operate a democracy.

[LuckyR]

Uummm... not quite. You are correct that science analyzes situations but does not draw conclusions whereas religion has conclusions in the absence of analysis (dogma). However when each individual human subjectively decides on their personal moral code they each use their own personal blend of dogma, psychological tendances, observations (including scientific analysis) and peer pressure. Thus neither has a uniform advantage, that is some weight dogma more, other weight their observations/life experience more (which can include science).

You helped my main point though. It is about peer pressure. And there's lots of Christians-Jews-Muslims in the world... or politically, there's a lot of Democrats-Republicans in the country...

Well your conclusion (in the post I addressed) was:

"This is why Science has no answers and no authority, in matters of 'objective' morality."

So mine made two points, which I guess you agree with, based on your response.

1. Morality isn't objective, since we all choose our own personal blend of criteria to determine our moral code.

2. Science and religion can both be participating factor in those criteria.

Also we're both right that many (I would say lazy) folks abdicate their freedom to calculate their own moral code and succumb to peer pressure and merely adopt (at least externally) the moral code of the religion of their parents.

[Veritas Aequitas]

But I am still curious what your response is to the content of my post.

99.9% of Politics is Subjective, not Objective.

My principle is,
Reality, knowledge, truths, facts, objectivity are conditioned upon a specific human-based Framework & System of Realization [FSR] and Knowledge [FSK] of which the science-FSK is most credible, reliable and objective.

I also defined objectivity as intersubjectivity within a FSK.

Politics is conditioned upon a human-based political FSK grounded on its specific constitution; as defined above whatever facts from a political FSK is objective.
It is the same with the legal, economics, financial, and various social human-based FSK with different degrees of objectivity.

You cannot deny it is a political fact and it is objective that Biden is the 46th president of the United States, Trump the 45th and so on, as conditioned upon the US Political FSK.
But underlying the above objectivity there is the fundamental element of subjectivity because only appx half of all voters and not all the population of people voted for the respective Presidents as conditioned upon a human-based political FSK.

The individual political facts has different degrees of objectivity depending on their % acceptance within the house & senate and political laws.

So, 100% of politics is objective but that is conditioned upon its specific political FSK, with different degrees of objectivity but this objectivity is ultimately grounded on subjectivity [intersubjectivity] because it is human-based.

Note the degrees objectivity of the political FSK as compared to the science FSK [at its best].

[Veritas Aequitas]

1. Morality isn't objective, since we all choose our own personal blend of criteria to determine our moral code.

The general understanding is 'Morality is not Objective'.

However based on my definition of what is objectivity as conditioned upon a human FSK, morality is objective but the question to what degree of objectivity.

In most cases in the present, morality is dealing with what are right and wrong actions based on opinions, beliefs and judgments of individuals and group; this is highly subjective and has low degrees of objectivity.

However, I argued my proposed Morality-proper within a credible moral-FSK has a high degree of objectivity which is as close to that of scientific objectivity, because most of the inputs of my proposed morality-FSK are scientific facts from the science-FSK.
There are Moral Facts
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=34619

Analogy:
That one ought to breathe is a biological fact.
I argue 'that one ought not kill humans' is a moral fact grounded on biological facts.
It is too complicated to explain here.

Actually, Christianity 'thou shall not kill' is intuitively referenced from an inherent biological and moral fact, but it is unfortunately grounded on an illusory God, thus has low degree of objectivity.
Henry's 'Slavery is Wrong' period! is intuitively right on target but that is based on his own personal FSK and unjustified beliefs.

For detailed discussion on whether Morality is Objective or Subjective, note this thread.
Is morality objective or subjective?
viewtopic.php?t=24531

and this;
viewtopic.php?t=24601

[Wizard22]

You are too hasty in concluding what is 'objectivity is outside all human or animal conscious awareness" without consideration that are many valid alternative and opposing views to the above.

I've done my philosophical homework, Veritas.

Originally, 'objective' is related to 'object' which is claimed to exist as absolutely mind-independent.

• object = a thing, person, or matter to which thought or action is directed:

The the idea of a mind-independent object is problematic and proven to be illusory by many philosophers, i.e.
-Berkeley refuted mind-independent 'materialism'
-Hume refuted a person is without a real personal identity but rather is a bundle of activities.
-Kant refuted the mind-independent thing-in-itself
-Russel doubted "perhaps there is no external table at all?"
-Modern Physics claimed "the moon does not exist if no humans look at it"

Science has given up the idea of a mind independent object but resort to 'physicalism', so it should be 'physicality' instead of 'objectivity'??

Kind of, I believe Kant got closest to "mind-independent objectivism" when it came to his proposed philosophical 'Metaphysics'.

I think it has to do with a priori knowledge of mathematical concepts. It has to do with very, very powerful intellect. Access to "outer realms", no less Objectivity or Metaphysics, would be the result of heightened and evolved intellect, not the inverse. Simple animals and simple consciousness, doesn't 'need' to be objective. Being subjective, is the default of life-itself. Objectivity therefore, is the inverse, a reaching-toward new areas of awareness, experience, consciousness, knowledge, existence, physics, the Universe.

The old meaning of objectivity [confined to objects] has morphed into a view that is independent of human bias, generally "a" person's opinion, beliefs, judgment and idea.
e.g.
Journalistic objectivity is the reporting of facts and news with minimal personal bias or in an impartial or politically neutral manner.

but more importantly is 'scientific objectivity'
Scientific Objectivity
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39286
which is independent a scientist's but rather scientific objectivity is conditioned upon the specific human-based scientific Framework and System of Realization and Knowledge [FSR-FSK].

What is FSR-FSK an acronym for? Spell it out for me.

This mean the "Law of Motion" is true and objective not because Newton said so, but rather the Newtonian FSR-FSK supported by a community of scientists said so. It is the same with the Theory of General Gravity or QM's principles, or Principles from Chemistry, Biology and other scientific fields.

I think Newton and the major philosophers would rather posit that it's a matter of "pure logic" that Natural Laws align with human scientific and philosophical theories. It does require intuition. It requires suppression of confirmation bias. Hence why Science/Empiricism is so important.

As such, the modern view of 'objective' and 'objectivity' of any claim of reality is conditioned upon a human-based FSR-FSK supported by a community of adherents, i.e. not one person or a disorganized loose group of people.

Because the FSR-FSK is human-based, whatever that follows [objectivity, reality, beliefs, etc.] CANNOT be absolutely mind-independent.
There is no objective realm that is independent of the human conditions.
Whatever is objective must be coupled with the human conditions.

I try not to think of it as different Static-realms. It's not as-if there is Objectivity in spite of human intention...rather it's an active process by which humans move toward Objectivity.

'Object' implies Direction, movement, a compass, relative to any and every subject.

I then go to Nietzsche here...the Subject-Object relation is a Great Becoming.

It is a verb, not a noun.

So, whatever the claim, as long as it is a organized or institutionalized human-based FSR-FSK supported by a community of adherents, the claims are objective.

But there are degrees to 'what is objective reality' ranging from 0.001% to 99.99% depending on the credibility and reliability of the said FSR-FSK.

To date, the human-based scientific FSR-FSK [in its best] is the most credible and reliable among all other FSR-FSK in terms of its objectivity and claims of reality.
What Source of Knowledge is More Credible than Science?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40044
Scientific Knowledge is the Most Credible & Trustworthy?
Why the Scientific FSK is the Most Credible and Reliable
viewtopic.php?f=12&t=39585

In this case the scientific FSK is the standard all other FSKs are compared with.

Organized Theism as a religion is definitely an organized or institutionalized human-based FSR-FSK supported by a community of adherents, thus it claims are qualified to be objective.

But in contrast to the objectivity of the scientific FSK, the theistic FSK has 0.0001 degrees of objectivity because it is grounded on a God which is illusory.
It is Impossible for God to be Real
viewtopic.php?t=40229

As argued, there is no Objective Realm that is absolutely mind-independent which exists even if there are no humans around.

Well, based on my definitions and prepositions, it has to be the case...Objectivity must be mind-independent, and therefore exist 'outside' human perception, consciousness, and awareness. Objectivity is both 'higher' than human subjectivity, and perhaps, 'lower' than, as well.

Representing what is Unconscious (sleep/coma) along with what is outside waking Consciousness.

Outside Subjectivity.

[Wizard22]

My principle is,
Reality, knowledge, truths, facts, objectivity are conditioned upon a specific human-based Framework & System of Realization [FSR] and Knowledge [FSK] of which the science-FSK is most credible, reliable and objective.

I also defined objectivity as intersubjectivity within a FSK.

Politics is conditioned upon a human-based political FSK grounded on its specific constitution; as defined above whatever facts from a political FSK is objective.
It is the same with the legal, economics, financial, and various social human-based FSK with different degrees of objectivity.

You cannot deny it is a political fact and it is objective that Biden is the 46th president of the United States, Trump the 45th and so on, as conditioned upon the US Political FSK.

Don't get me started... Harbal and Sculptor already learned the hard way.

Yes...yes we can deny that Biden is the 46th President of the United States.

When votes are 50-50, there are many questions of political legitimacy.

But underlying the above objectivity there is the fundamental element of subjectivity because only appx half of all voters and not all the population of people voted for the respective Presidents as conditioned upon a human-based political FSK.

The individual political facts has different degrees of objectivity depending on their % acceptance within the house & senate and political laws.

So, 100% of politics is objective but that is conditioned upon its specific political FSK, with different degrees of objectivity but this objectivity is ultimately grounded on subjectivity [intersubjectivity] because it is human-based.

Note the degrees objectivity of the political FSK as compared to the science FSK [at its best].

I think political "Objectivity" revolves more around core questions of Legitimacy, Justice, and the nature of Authority.

[Wizard22]

We can extend our understanding into the Noumenal world. That requires observation, reason and careful interpretation.
Such is science through which we can see the edge of the universe, rather than the narrow earthe centred fiction of the Catholic mind.

Most of the greatest European scientists across our history have been Catholics...

[Wizard22]

I have no idea about what God thinks is morally acceptable, so I would have to ask somebody who supposedly does know. People who claim to know what God wants are invariably not fit to give anyone moral advice.

Without moral guidance, humans revert back into animals, and behave as such... so what's your alternative?
POST A REPLY

I think you would be amazed at how civilised I am out in the real world, and I don't need "guidance". Most of the people I know are not religious, and none of them tends to run amok.

You and Iwanna are quite self-centered... it's not about you, it's about 99% of everybody else.

Human individuality is rare, not the norm.

Would you prefer a state of anarchy, with no rules and everyone doing what they like? If you live in a democracy, you have some control over what governments dare and dare not do, but God doesn't operate a democracy.

I think American, US liberty, politics, history, is the best system Earth has come up with thus far...doesn't mean it's perfect.

I always think humanity can do better than the present, always.

[Wizard22]

Well your conclusion (in the post I addressed) was:

"This is why Science has no answers and no authority, in matters of 'objective' morality."

So mine made two points, which I guess you agree with, based on your response.

1. Morality isn't objective, since we all choose our own personal blend of criteria to determine our moral code.

Morality is objective in the sense that there are better/superior "modes of being" relative to average human life... higher meaning or purpose in life, for example.

2. Science and religion can both be participating factor in those criteria.

Also we're both right that many (I would say lazy) folks abdicate their freedom to calculate their own moral code and succumb to peer pressure and merely adopt (at least externally) the moral code of the religion of their parents.

The "trust the experts" (pro-"science") were seen during the Covid pandemic. I don't think there's anything close to consensus on those matters.

Florida and Scandinavia, did objectively better with Disease than most the rest of the world. Didn't they?

[Sculptor]

We can extend our understanding into the Noumenal world. That requires observation, reason and careful interpretation.
Such is science through which we can see the edge of the universe, rather than the narrow earthe centred fiction of the Catholic mind.

Most of the greatest European scientists across our history have been Catholics...

Funny guy.

Every single one of them, few as they are, have had to fight to orthodoxy of the RCC.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Kind of, I believe Kant got closest to "mind-independent objectivism" when it came to his proposed philosophical 'Metaphysics'.

I think it has to do with a priori knowledge of mathematical concepts. It has to do with very, very powerful intellect. Access to "outer realms", no less Objectivity or Metaphysics, would be the result of heightened and evolved intellect, not the inverse. Simple animals and simple consciousness, doesn't 'need' to be objective. Being subjective, is the default of life-itself. Objectivity therefore, is the inverse, a reaching-toward new areas of awareness, experience, consciousness, knowledge, existence, physics, the Universe.

To Kant, what is objective is NEVER absolutely mind-independent.
To conceive of absolutely mind-independent objectivity is reifying an illusion as real.
If you have done your homework, where is your reference from Kant that support your claim.
Btw, I claim to have an above average knowledge of Kantian philosophy [having done the necessary homework].

The old meaning of objectivity [confined to objects] has morphed into a view that is independent of human bias, generally "a" person's opinion, beliefs, judgment and idea.
e.g.
Journalistic objectivity is the reporting of facts and news with minimal personal bias or in an impartial or politically neutral manner.

but more importantly is 'scientific objectivity'
Scientific Objectivity
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39286
which is independent a scientist's but rather scientific objectivity is conditioned upon the specific human-based scientific Framework and System of Realization and Knowledge [FSR-FSK].

What is FSR-FSK an acronym for? Spell it out for me.

It is explicit in the above. Can you see that.

This mean the "Law of Motion" is true and objective not because Newton said so, but rather the Newtonian FSR-FSK supported by a community of scientists said so. It is the same with the Theory of General Gravity or QM's principles, or Principles from Chemistry, Biology and other scientific fields.

I think Newton and the major philosophers would rather posit that it's a matter of "pure logic" that Natural Laws align with human scientific and philosophical theories. It does require intuition. It requires suppression of confirmation bias. Hence why Science/Empiricism is so important.

It is argued by ANTI-Philosophical_Realists that there are no pre-existing Natural Laws awaiting Scientists to discover or align with their scientific theories.

Van Fraasen: There are No [pre-existing] Laws of Nature
viewtopic.php?t=40451

As such, the modern view of 'objective' and 'objectivity' of any claim of reality is conditioned upon a human-based FSR-FSK supported by a community of adherents, i.e. not one person or a disorganized loose group of people.

Because the FSR-FSK is human-based, whatever that follows [objectivity, reality, beliefs, etc.] CANNOT be absolutely mind-independent.
There is no objective realm that is independent of the human conditions.
Whatever is objective must be coupled with the human conditions.

I try not to think of it as different Static-realms. It's not as-if there is Objectivity in spite of human intention...rather it's an active process by which humans move toward Objectivity.

'Object' implies Direction, movement, a compass, relative to any and every subject.

I then go to Nietzsche here...the Subject-Object relation is a Great Becoming.

It is a verb, not a noun.

If I read your points correctly, I counter there is no 'objectivity' that we are moving toward.

Objectivity emerged spontaneously with humans within a human-based FSR-FSK.

So, whatever the claim, as long as it is a organized or institutionalized human-based FSR-FSK supported by a community of adherents, the claims are objective.

But there are degrees to 'what is objective reality' ranging from 0.001% to 99.99% depending on the credibility and reliability of the said FSR-FSK.

To date, the human-based scientific FSR-FSK [in its best] is the most credible and reliable among all other FSR-FSK in terms of its objectivity and claims of reality.
What Source of Knowledge is More Credible than Science?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40044
Scientific Knowledge is the Most Credible & Trustworthy?
Why the Scientific FSK is the Most Credible and Reliable
viewtopic.php?f=12&t=39585

In this case the scientific FSK is the standard all other FSKs are compared with.

Organized Theism as a religion is definitely an organized or institutionalized human-based FSR-FSK supported by a community of adherents, thus it claims are qualified to be objective.

But in contrast to the objectivity of the scientific FSK, the theistic FSK has 0.0001 degrees of objectivity because it is grounded on a God which is illusory.
It is Impossible for God to be Real
viewtopic.php?t=40229

As argued, there is no Objective Realm that is absolutely mind-independent which exists even if there are no humans around.

Well, based on my definitions and prepositions, it has to be the case...Objectivity must be mind-independent, and therefore exist 'outside' human perception, consciousness, and awareness. Objectivity is both 'higher' than human subjectivity, and perhaps, 'lower' than, as well.

Representing what is Unconscious (sleep/coma) along with what is outside waking Consciousness.

Outside Subjectivity.

There is the human-based objectivity in the sense like scientific facts are independent of any individual scientist but conditioned to the human-based scientific FSR-FSK.
Because it is human-based, logically it follows, however and whatever the scientific facts CANNOT be absolutely* mind-independent. * 'absolute' is a critical term term here.

It is only common sense that we sense that things are relatively mind-independent to facilitate survival, but realistically, reality cannot be absolutely mind-independent.
Before reality and things are perceive, known and described there is a process of realization which is human based [FSR] that realizes reality and things.

The common view of external objects and external reality which is absolutely mind-independent [ any small child can understand] is an evolutionary default to facilitate survival.

"Philosophical Realism" [absolute mind-independence] is an Evolutionary Default.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39975

[Wizard22]

Funny guy.

Every single one of them, few as they are, have had to fight to orthodoxy of the RCC.

That observation doesn't help your argument.

Because "Science" isn't morally objective anyway.

[Wizard22]

To Kant, what is objective is NEVER absolutely mind-independent.
To conceive of absolutely mind-independent objectivity is reifying an illusion as real.
If you have done your homework, where is your reference from Kant that support your claim.
Btw, I claim to have an above average knowledge of Kantian philosophy [having done the necessary homework].

It's his Critique of Pure Reason.
In order to access "Objectivity", Pure Reason would be required.

It is explicit in the above. Can you see that.

No, I don't know what you mean by those acronyms. I don't have time to read your hyper-links right now.

It is argued by ANTI-Philosophical_Realists that there are no pre-existing Natural Laws awaiting Scientists to discover or align with their scientific theories.

Van Fraasen: There are No [pre-existing] Laws of Nature
viewtopic.php?t=40451

In the same way there is no "mind-independent Objectivity"... that should be obvious.

If I read your correctly, there is no 'objectivity' that we are moving toward.

Objectivity emerged spontaneously with humans within a human-based FSR-FSK.

You did not read me correctly then.

Objectivity is the only direction human intellect can possibly move toward.

Objectivity is the direction of your mind, or anybody's mind for that matter.

There is the human-based objectivity in the sense like scientific facts are independent of any individual scientist but conditioned to the human-based scientific FSR-FSK.
Because it is human-based, logically it follows, however and whatever the scientific facts CANNOT be absolutely* mind-independent. * 'absolute' is a critical term term here.

It is only common sense that we sense that things are relatively mind-independent to facilitate survival, but realistically, reality cannot be absolutely mind-independent.
Before reality and things are perceive, known and described there is a process of realization which is human based [FSR] that realizes reality and things.

The common view of external objects and external reality which is absolutely mind-independent [ any small child can understand] is an evolutionary default to facilitate survival.

"Philosophical Realism" [absolute mind-independence] is an Evolutionary Default.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39975

I agree, because Consciousness evolved, on behalf of life & survival, to orient itself, its direction "Outward".

Outward toward what? Objectivity.