What could make morality objective?

[Peter Holmes]

To ask someone to explain how they use the word explain is to know how to use the word explain. How else can the question be asked?

That explanations come to an end is why we can ask for explanations.

[Belinda]

To ask someone to explain how they use the word explain is to know how to use the word explain. How else can the question be asked?

That explanations come to an end is why we can ask for explanations.

How do you recognise the end of all explanations of how to boil an egg?

[Peter Holmes]

To ask someone to explain how they use the word explain is to know how to use the word explain. How else can the question be asked?

That explanations come to an end is why we can ask for explanations.

How do you recognise the end of all explanations of how to boil an egg?

I don't need all such explanations - if such an idea makes sense. I just need one, in order to boil the egg. That we can always say more does not mean we can never say enough. The existence of what are we denying?

[Belinda]

To ask someone to explain how they use the word explain is to know how to use the word explain. How else can the question be asked?

That explanations come to an end is why we can ask for explanations.

How do you recognise the end of all explanations of how to boil an egg?

I don't need all such explanations - if such an idea makes sense. I just need one, in order to boil the egg. That we can always say more does not mean we can never say enough. The existence of what are we denying?

I think what you, Peter, deny what I assert: uncertainty, relativism,ambiguity, and infinity that does have a spacial boundary and infinite temporal possibilities within that spatial boundary.

You assert certainty, positivism, and a universe that is in time rather than times are within that universe. You are stuck in Newtonian time.

[Peter Holmes]

How do you recognise the end of all explanations of how to boil an egg?

I don't need all such explanations - if such an idea makes sense. I just need one, in order to boil the egg. That we can always say more does not mean we can never say enough. The existence of what are we denying?

I think what you, Peter, deny what I assert: uncertainty, relativism,ambiguity, and infinity that does have a spacial boundary and infinite temporal possibilities within that spatial boundary.

You assert certainty, positivism, and a universe that is in time rather than times are within that universe. You are stuck in Newtonian time.

I'm not a positivist. I think aesthetic and moral assertions can have powerful and important meanings.
Are you sure about the meanings of the words 'certainty', 'relativism', 'ambiguity' and 'infinity'? If so - how?
Doubt exists only against a background of certainty.
The expression 'certain knowledge' is a misattribution or transferred epithet. Knowledge isn't certain or doubtful. We are or can be.
All truth-claims are relative to a descriptive context. But that doesn't mean there's no such thing as truth. What are we denying?
Ambiguity exists only against a background of non-ambiguity.
I think you're lost in mysticism - which is fine. Newton was too.

[Belinda]

I don't need all such explanations - if such an idea makes sense. I just need one, in order to boil the egg. That we can always say more does not mean we can never say enough. The existence of what are we denying?

I think what you, Peter, deny what I assert: uncertainty, relativism,ambiguity, and infinity that does have a spacial boundary and infinite temporal possibilities within that spatial boundary.

You assert certainty, positivism, and a universe that is in time rather than times are within that universe. You are stuck in Newtonian time

I'm not a positivist. I think aesthetic and moral assertions can have powerful and important meanings.
Are you sure about the meanings of the words 'certainty', 'relativism', 'ambiguity' and 'infinity'? If so - how?
Doubt exists only against a background of certainty.
The expression 'certain knowledge' is a misattribution or transferred epithet. Knowledge isn't certain or doubtful. We are or can be.
All truth-claims are relative to a descriptive context. But that doesn't mean there's no such thing as truth. What are we denying?
Ambiguity exists only against a background of non-ambiguity.
I think you're lost in mysticism - which is fine. Newton was too.

Peter. you wrote

That explanations come to an end is why we can ask for explanations.

Explanations come to an end for you if you say so: your decision your choice.
I am agnostic about eternal truth and trust to relative truth only, i.e. explanations are infinite, therefore I am denying that you can know any other truth but relative truth. That you can explain to your satisfaction how to boil an egg is true for you and for people who agree with you.
You obviously misapprehend my reference to Newtonian time. Newtonian time is an absolute frame of reference. That Newton was interested in the occult is irrelevant to Newtonian time. Do you even know what Special Relativity is?

[FlashDangerpants]

That explanations come to an end is why we can ask for explanations.

That's Philosophy Now folks, the place to go if you want paraphrase Wittgenstein but still get called Positivist.

[Peter Holmes]

I think what you, Peter, deny what I assert: uncertainty, relativism,ambiguity, and infinity that does have a spacial boundary and infinite temporal possibilities within that spatial boundary.

You assert certainty, positivism, and a universe that is in time rather than times are within that universe. You are stuck in Newtonian time

I'm not a positivist. I think aesthetic and moral assertions can have powerful and important meanings.
Are you sure about the meanings of the words 'certainty', 'relativism', 'ambiguity' and 'infinity'? If so - how?
Doubt exists only against a background of certainty.
The expression 'certain knowledge' is a misattribution or transferred epithet. Knowledge isn't certain or doubtful. We are or can be.
All truth-claims are relative to a descriptive context. But that doesn't mean there's no such thing as truth. What are we denying?
Ambiguity exists only against a background of non-ambiguity.
I think you're lost in mysticism - which is fine. Newton was too.

Peter. you wrote

That explanations come to an end is why we can ask for explanations.

Explanations come to an end for you if you say so: your decision your choice.
I am agnostic about eternal truth and trust to relative truth only, i.e. explanations are infinite, therefore I am denying that you can know any other truth but relative truth. That you can explain to your satisfaction how to boil an egg is true for you and for people who agree with you.
You obviously misapprehend my reference to Newtonian time. Newtonian time is an absolute frame of reference. That Newton was interested in the occult is irrelevant to Newtonian time. Do you even know what Special Relativity is?

Yes, I know what Newtonian time is, thanks very much.

And yes, I know what special relativity is. And both its and QM's descriptions of reality, though unintuitive and hard for laypeople to understand, don't conclude in mysticism and deepities. Contradictions are 'speakings-against', and since outside language, reality isn't linguistic, there can be no contradictions in reality - even if quantum indeterminacy turns out to be fundamental.

I have no idea what 'eternal truth' could be, so I have no idea what it could be that you deny exists. I've explained in what sense all truth-claims are relative - but you choose to ignore that explanation. Wafting around with the fairies suits you better. I'll put on some Bach and read Larkin's 'At Grass' again, to shiver over the enjambment between the penultimate stanza and the last. That'll be me being spiritual.

[Terrapin Station]

To ask someone to explain how they use the word explain is to know how to use the word explain. How else can the question be asked?

That explanations come to an end is why we can ask for explanations.

I think it's worth examining just what's to count as an explanation and why, but in the context of (especially counter-)arguments that hinge on denying that something is an explanation when it was clearly intended as an explanation.

[Terrapin Station]

How do you recognise the end of all explanations of how to boil an egg?

I don't need all such explanations - if such an idea makes sense. I just need one, in order to boil the egg. That we can always say more does not mean we can never say enough. The existence of what are we denying?

I think what you, Peter, deny what I assert: uncertainty, relativism,ambiguity, and infinity that does have a spacial boundary and infinite temporal possibilities within that spatial boundary.

You assert certainty, positivism, and a universe that is in time rather than times are within that universe. You are stuck in Newtonian time.

I don't get what that has to do with "the end of all explanations" of how to boil an egg.

[Terrapin Station]

If someone explains to one how to boil an egg, and it's a conventional explanation of this in a language that one speaks, but one doesn't get it as an explanation, it's probably worth considering that one is just stupid. We can't ignore that as a possibility, because some people are just stupid. This may not be pc, but that doesn't change the facts.

[Skepdick]

I don't get what that has to do with "the end of all explanations" of how to boil an egg.

It's the halting problem in computer science.
It's the myth of Sisyphus

Given any task you undertake, how do you know when to stop?

[Skepdick]

If someone explains to one how to boil an egg, and it's a conventional explanation of this in a language that one speaks, but one doesn't get it as an explanation, it's probably worth considering that one is just stupid. We can't ignore that as a possibility, because some people are just stupid. This may it be pc, but that doesn't change the facts.

Of course, that's is always the uncharitable interpretation.

The charitable interpretation is that your explanation is ambiguous. Insufficient. Presumptuous or any other interpretation which would point at a problem with the explainer not the listener. If you fail to communicate to another person HOW to boil an egg, then it's a perfectly reasonable hypothesis that you aren't, in fact, speaking a "language that they understand". Because they are busy NOT understanding you!

I could be a shitty student OR you could be a shitty teacher. Which fact determines the case?

[Belinda]

I'm not a positivist. I think aesthetic and moral assertions can have powerful and important meanings.
Are you sure about the meanings of the words 'certainty', 'relativism', 'ambiguity' and 'infinity'? If so - how?
Doubt exists only against a background of certainty.
The expression 'certain knowledge' is a misattribution or transferred epithet. Knowledge isn't certain or doubtful. We are or can be.
All truth-claims are relative to a descriptive context. But that doesn't mean there's no such thing as truth. What are we denying?
Ambiguity exists only against a background of non-ambiguity.
I think you're lost in mysticism - which is fine. Newton was too.

Peter. you wrote

That explanations come to an end is why we can ask for explanations.

Explanations come to an end for you if you say so: your decision your choice.
I am agnostic about eternal truth and trust to relative truth only, i.e. explanations are infinite, therefore I am denying that you can know any other truth but relative truth. That you can explain to your satisfaction how to boil an egg is true for you and for people who agree with you.
You obviously misapprehend my reference to Newtonian time. Newtonian time is an absolute frame of reference. That Newton was interested in the occult is irrelevant to Newtonian time. Do you even know what Special Relativity is?

Yes, I know what Newtonian time is, thanks very much.

And yes, I know what special relativity is. And both its and QM's descriptions of reality, though unintuitive and hard for laypeople to understand, don't conclude in mysticism and deepities. Contradictions are 'speakings-against', and since outside language, reality isn't linguistic, there can be no contradictions in reality - even if quantum indeterminacy turns out to be fundamental.

I have no idea what 'eternal truth' could be, so I have no idea what it could be that you deny exists. I've explained in what sense all truth-claims are relative - but you choose to ignore that explanation. Wafting around with the fairies suits you better. I'll put on some Bach and read Larkin's 'At Grass' again, to shiver over the enjambment between the penultimate stanza and the last. That'll be me being spiritual.

An eternal truth is a timeless truth. As timeless, an eternal truth does not change therefore an eternal truth is not the same as an everlasting truth as an eternal truth has no beginning. God is supposed to be both eternal and good which means that good is the background of both temporal and eternal being.

I daresay you deny God without even understanding eternity or what 'infinitely good' might mean for you . Imagination is not 'spirituality' and emotional lability (regarding your "shivers")is neither here nor there when you exercise imagination . Imagination is what enables men to be creatively adaptable to changing and often dangerous circumstances.
In order to adapt you have to be able to invent novel hypotheses. Very practical people such as engineers, and epidemiologists, are most successful when they have imagination.
You references to Bach, and a poem by Larkins, sounds sarcastic, so I recommend you look up the important difference between mystery and mystification.

[Skepdick]

And yes, I know what special relativity is. And both its and QM's descriptions of reality, though unintuitive and hard for laypeople to understand, don't conclude in mysticism and deepities. Contradictions are 'speakings-against', and since outside language, reality isn't linguistic, there can be no contradictions in reality - even if quantum indeterminacy turns out to be fundamental.

Special pleading.

Outside of language reality isn't linguistic. Inside of reality, language is real.

If contradictions don't exist in reality, then then there can be no such thing as contradictions in language, now without committing the special pleading fallacy. So make up your damn mind!

Is the LNC descriptive or reality; or prescriptive upon language?