What could make morality objective?

[Peter Holmes]

All meaning belongs to a conscious subject, it is quite impossible for meaning to be found in the outside world which is not bestowed upon it by a conscious subject. Any idea that moral facts/ objective meaning can exist in the absence of a conscious subject is non-sense. Thanks for the heads up, I never realized the absurd nature of the question.

I replied:

(I think we've been here already, but...)

I agree that morality isn't and can't be objective, but I don't agree with your reason for thinking that. Your claim - 'all meaning belongs to a conscious subject' - objectifies what we call 'meaning' as a thing of some kind that can therefore belong to someone. And that's a metaphysical delusion, in my opinion.

popeye1945 replied:

Peter,

Explain to me then how object can have meaning independent of a conscious subject. Apparent reality itself is a biological readout in that biology is the measure of all things. As Schopenhaure stated long ago, subject and object stands or falls together, meaning take one away and the other ceases to be. Things can only be known cognitively, therefore all of apparent reality is a subjective experience, that experience/knowledge is then bestowed upon a meaningless physical world.

My current reply:

(For clarity, I've tried to fix the ascriptions above. Hope that's okay.)

Sorry for the delay. I've been mulling over what you say - and thanks for the Schopenhauer reference, which points to why your position is mistaken, in my opinion.

Talk about subjects and objects - dividing reality into one or the other - as though a subject can't be an object, or an object a subject- is a nice demonstration of how, as I say, a metaphor can both be useful and lead us astray.

A subject (not sure why 'conscious' matters) is an object - a physical feature of reality. (Unless, of course, with Schopenhauer, we recycle Cartesian dualism and think of the subject as a mind - supposedly a non-physical thing.)

So it follows that an object (such as a human being) can be a subject - an observer/perceiver of objects - and, as above, a subject is an object. And the claim that, if there are no subjects (such as humans), there would be no objects in the universe, is patently ridiculous. Are you a Berkeleyan idealist?

The subject/object distinction is just a way of talking, with a rational use in the right context. Metaphysical conclusions from it come from mistaking what we say about things for the way things are.

Other things you refer to, such as 'apparent reality' and how 'things can only be known cognitively' (a tautology), so that 'all of apparent reality is a subjective experience' just deepen the mire of confusion, in my opinion. An incoherent premise tends to produce an incoherent conclusion.

If there really is sharp distinction between subject and object, what's the difference between apparent reality and reality? What is the 'meaningless physical world' - the 'object' - that the subject observes/perceives/describes?

Meanwhile, given my methodological taxonomy - features of reality/what we believe and know about them/what we say about them - I completely agree that, outside language, what we call reality - the existence and nature of things - has nothing to do with language and therefore meaning. Reality doesn't consist of the meanings of our linguistic expressions.

[FlashDangerpants]

Do we all agree that saying something is so doesn't make it so?

For example, saying water is H2O doesn't make water H2O. Water's being H2O has nothing to do with what anyone says or believes. For example, water was H2O before humans appeared, and will be H2O after we disappear.

Given the way we (English speakers) use those signs in context, 'water is H2O' is a true factual assertion. And, given the same condition, 'water is not H2O' is a false factual assertion.

Does anyone disagree so far? And if so, please explain why you disagree.

Water was not H2O until Mendeleev invented chemistry, and until the designations "H" and "O" were specified as "atom with one proton" and "atom with eight protons".

Water is and will always be water. In the context of the language in which water is water.
Water is and will always be H2O. In the context of the language of chemistry.
Water is and will always be a complex wave equation. In the context of the language of Quantim Physics.

Assuming the chemistry perspective is neither here nor there.

Water is H2O.
Steam is H2O.
Ice is H2O.

So then in the context of the language of chemistry (and by the law of transitivity) Water is steam; steam is ice; and ice is water. And that's just not true!

If we are going to be describing water using the language of some incomplete, reductionist scientific discipline then why did you choose chemistry in particualar?
Why did you choose a language in which atoms are considered elementary?
Why didn't you choose a language where quarks, bosons, leptons and electrons are considered elementary?

Dfferent descriptive contexts exist for the exact same thing. If a description is true in one context, and false in another context then you have to tell us why you've chosen the context that you've chosen!

All great points, and questions, again.

No they aren't. They do nothing to counter Pete's point and the blatant application of transitive law to non transitive relationships is just typical Skepdick bullshit that only fools like you can't see through.

[Skepdick]

No they aren't. They do nothing to counter Pete's point and the blatant application of transitive law to non transitive relationships is just typical Skepdick bullshit that only fools like you can't see through.

So many geniuses that "see right through my bullshit" who can't see through their own.

The fucking word "model" is in the phrase "Standard Model of Physics".

If you are going to come singing us a song about "relationships" the least you can do for us is tell us what relates to what. What sort of relationship is the relationship between water and H2O? Will be super-exciting in light of you preaching to understand Rorty's "Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature".

If you are going to be biased favouring the abstractions of chemistry, and disfavouring the abstractions of particle physics the least you can do is tell us why this abstraction-level is your favourite.

[Atla]

Because I ALREADY KNOW what WORKS, WILL BENEFIT EVERY one, and because of HOW MUCH 'it' IS Truly WANTED.

I ALSO KNOW HOW MUCH a LOT of 'you' will 'try to' FIGHT AGAINST 'it', BUT thee Truth ALWAYS comes OUT, 'in the end'.


LOL
LOL
LOL

'you' are SO BLINDED by YOUR OWN BELIEFS can 'you' NOT even just STOP and LOOK and CLARIFY, BEFORE 'you' JUMP to ASSUMPTIONS and CONCLUSIONS.

'you', ONCE MORE, VERY CLEARLY and OBVIOUSLY are NOT comprehending NOR understanding absolutely ANY thing in regards to what I am ACTUALLY SAYING and MEANING.

Now, WHOSE FAULT is 'this'?


WHY did 'you' go OFF ANOTHER completely Wrong 'tangent', ONCE AGAIN?

'you', adult human beings, in the days when this was being written, REALLY did NEED to CHANGE the WAY 'you' LOOK AT and SEE 'things'.

WHEN 'you' DO, then 'you' can START to SEE what thee ACTUAL of 'things' IS, EXACTLY.

You're the one clueless about human nature, about the past and the present.

Are you BRAVE enough to put your CLAIM here to the test?

If yes, then go ahead.

Until then you are AGAIN here saying NOTHING AT ALL, REALLY.

You sound, literally, like the Truly clueless one here, You say, "you're the one who is clueless", but then provide absolutely NOTHING AT ALL to back up and support YOUR CLAIM.

And, whenever I question or challenge you over YOUR CLAIM, you provide absolutely NOTHING AT ALL.

So, what IS 'human nature', which you CLAIM I am CLUELESS about. Let us SEE just how MUCH of a CLUE you have, or how CLUELESS it is YOU who REALLY IS here.

Also, what is 'it', which you CLAIM I am CLUELESS about in regards to 'the past' and 'the present'?

AGAIN, let us SEE if you REALLY do have ANY CLUE, AT ALL.

Your lack of answering AND clarifying, by the way, REVEALS the True extent of YOUR OWN UNDERSTANDING and KNOWING here.

Your teaching about the future is just empty wishful thinking, anyone can do that.

Can they?

Let us SEE you try and do it.

By the way, are you REALLY that STILL that STUPID.

WHEN did I EVER even BEGIN to START 'teaching' about 'the future'?

Also, let NOT the readers FORGET your complete and utter LACK OF ALL ABILITY to answer and clarify the CLARIFYING questions that I have ALREADY posed to you, PREVIOUSLY.

There are no readers, and even if there were, you would be clueless about their nature too. You require clarification for everything obvious and already said, and you're the one who keeps developing amnesia, but the average reader isn't this dumb or dishonest and will see right through you.

[Skepdick]

There are no readers, and even if there were, you would be clueless about their nature too. You require clarification for everything obvious and already said, and you're the one who keeps developing amnesia, but the average reader isn't this dumb or dishonest and will see right through you.

Well, if honesty is a criterion for being average then you are certainly not average...

[popeye1945]

My current reply:
Peter,

(For clarity, I've tried to fix the ascriptions above. Hope that's okay.)

Sorry for the delay. I've been mulling over what you say - and thanks for the Schopenhauer reference, which points to why your position is mistaken, in my opinion.
Talk about subjects and objects - dividing reality into one or the other - as though a subject can't be an object, or an object a subject- is a nice demonstration of how, as I say, a metaphor can both be useful and lead us astray. quote

A conscious subject's body is out there in the physical world and it is through this body that the mind becomes conscious of all objects including the subject's own. Certainly, a conscious subject is an object in the physical world, but an object in the physical world is not necessarily a conscious subject. The physical world is meaningless and only aquires meaning when it is bestowed upon it by a conscious subject.

A subject (not sure why 'conscious' matters) is an object - a physical feature of reality. (Unless, of course, with Schopenhauer, we recycle Cartesian dualism and think of the subject as a mind - supposedly a non-physical thing. So it follows that an object (such as a human being) can be a subject - an observer/perceiver of objects - and, as above, a subject is an object. And the claim that, if there are no subjects (such as humans), there would be no objects in the universe, is patently ridiculous. Are you a Berkeleyan idealist? quote

The world is only known on a cognitive level, thus, the need for a conscious subject for apparent reality to be known. Schopenhauer's, subject and object stand or fall together means, take away the physical world and the mind ceases to be, take away the mind and the physical world ceases to be. Again the world is only known to us on a cognitive level there is no other way.

The subject/object distinction is just a way of talking, with a rational use in the right context. Metaphysical conclusions from it come from mistaking what we say about things for the way things are. Other things you refer to, such as 'apparent reality' and how 'things can only be known cognitively' (a tautology), so that 'all of apparent reality is a subjective experience' just deepen the mire of confusion, in my opinion. An incoherent premise tends to produce an incoherent conclusion. quote---

You just need to spend more time with it.

If there really is sharp distinction between subject and object, what's the difference between apparent reality and reality? What is the 'meaningless physical world' - the 'object' - that the subject observes/perceives/describes? Meanwhile, given my methodological taxonomy - features of reality/what we believe and know about them/what we say about them - I completely agree that, outside language, what we call reality - the existence and nature of things - has nothing to do with language and therefore meaning. Reality doesn't consist of the meanings of our linguistic expressions.
[/quote]

There is no separation of subject and object, that is what Schopenhauer's statement means, subject and object stand or fall together. Apparent reality is what our body tells us there is, Ultimate reality is the whole bag of what can and cannot be sensed by us.

[Atla]

Well, if honesty is a criterion for being average then you are certainly not average...

I agree, I'm more honest than most. Hey best buddy thanks for the compliment.

How are things, did your "define X" movement save the world yet?

[Peter Holmes]

A bit ago I posted the following:


Do we all agree that saying something is so doesn't make it so?

For example, saying water is H2O doesn't make water H2O. Water's being H2O has nothing to do with what anyone says or believes. For example, water was H2O before humans appeared, and will be H2O after we disappear.

Given the way we (English speakers) use those signs in context, 'water is H2O' is a true factual assertion. And, given the same condition, 'water is not H2O' is a false factual assertion.

Does anyone disagree so far? And if so, please explain why you disagree.


The condition 'given the way we use those signs in context' deals with whingeing about the context-dependence of any description and therefore truth-claim - which is obvious.

So - does anyone - (any other moral objectivist?) - disagree with what I'm describing as a fact: something that just is or was the case, such as that water is H2O?

[Age]

Water was not H2O until Mendeleev invented chemistry, and until the designations "H" and "O" were specified as "atom with one proton" and "atom with eight protons".

Water is and will always be water. In the context of the language in which water is water.
Water is and will always be H2O. In the context of the language of chemistry.
Water is and will always be a complex wave equation. In the context of the language of Quantim Physics.

Assuming the chemistry perspective is neither here nor there.

Water is H2O.
Steam is H2O.
Ice is H2O.

So then in the context of the language of chemistry (and by the law of transitivity) Water is steam; steam is ice; and ice is water. And that's just not true!

If we are going to be describing water using the language of some incomplete, reductionist scientific discipline then why did you choose chemistry in particualar?
Why did you choose a language in which atoms are considered elementary?
Why didn't you choose a language where quarks, bosons, leptons and electrons are considered elementary?

Dfferent descriptive contexts exist for the exact same thing. If a description is true in one context, and false in another context then you have to tell us why you've chosen the context that you've chosen!

All great points, and questions, again.

No they aren't. They do nothing to counter Pete's point and the blatant application of transitive law to non transitive relationships is just typical Skepdick bullshit that only fools like you can't see through.

Is there absolutely ANY POSSIBILITY AT ALL that within the WHOLE of the Universe that it is 'you', "flashdangerpants", who could be the one being FOOLED here?

Or, is this just NOT a POSSIBILITY, AT ALL, to you?

Now, how about you PROVIDE "pete's" ACTUAL point/s, which you CLAIMED have NOT been 'countered', by what "skepdick" has said here, and then EXPLAIN WHY they have NOT be 'countered', to you.

Until then, they are all great points, and questions, to me. And, I await the response to those points, and answers and CLARIFICATIONS to those questions.

By the way, did I mention ANYWHERE that "pete's" points were 'countered'?

If yes, then WHERE, EXACTLY?

Now, let us NOT FORGET that it was YOU who has made a CLAIM here. So, let us SEE if YOU can back up and support YOUR CLAIM. Or, will we, ONCE AGAIN, receive absolutely NOTHING from YOU?

[Age]

You're the one clueless about human nature, about the past and the present.

Are you BRAVE enough to put your CLAIM here to the test?

If yes, then go ahead.

Until then you are AGAIN here saying NOTHING AT ALL, REALLY.

You sound, literally, like the Truly clueless one here, You say, "you're the one who is clueless", but then provide absolutely NOTHING AT ALL to back up and support YOUR CLAIM.

And, whenever I question or challenge you over YOUR CLAIM, you provide absolutely NOTHING AT ALL.

So, what IS 'human nature', which you CLAIM I am CLUELESS about. Let us SEE just how MUCH of a CLUE you have, or how CLUELESS it is YOU who REALLY IS here.

Also, what is 'it', which you CLAIM I am CLUELESS about in regards to 'the past' and 'the present'?

AGAIN, let us SEE if you REALLY do have ANY CLUE, AT ALL.

Your lack of answering AND clarifying, by the way, REVEALS the True extent of YOUR OWN UNDERSTANDING and KNOWING here.

Your teaching about the future is just empty wishful thinking, anyone can do that.

Can they?

Let us SEE you try and do it.

By the way, are you REALLY that STILL that STUPID.

WHEN did I EVER even BEGIN to START 'teaching' about 'the future'?

Also, let NOT the readers FORGET your complete and utter LACK OF ALL ABILITY to answer and clarify the CLARIFYING questions that I have ALREADY posed to you, PREVIOUSLY.

There are no readers, and even if there were, you would be clueless about their nature too. You require clarification for everything obvious and already said, and you're the one who keeps developing amnesia, but the average reader isn't this dumb or dishonest and will see right through you.

1. You say and claim; "There are NO readers", BUT THEN also claim, "the average reader isn't ...". So, are there readers or NOT?

2. You say and claim; I "would be clueless about the nature of 'readers', IF there are some". Which amounts to this being YOUR argument: "You are clueless. I am not. Therefore, I am right and you are wrong". The "maturity" of this type of "arguing/name calling" speaks for itself. And, this is without even mentioning the STUPIDITY of saying, "There are NO readers", but, "If there were, ...".

3. You FAIL EVERY time to CLARIFY. The reason for this is becoming MORE and MORE OBVIOUS, for the 'readers'.

4. You make the CLAIM that I "keep developing amnesia". Now, is it even possible to "keep" "developing" "amnesia"? Is it NOT the case that either one 'has' amnesia or one does not?

5. You, ONCE AGAIN, just ALLUDE ONLY to some 'thing' WITHOUT EVER actually NAMING what 'it' IS, EXACTLY. This time you make the CLAIM that the 'reader' (which let us NOT forget you first said, "There is NONE of"), is NOT "dumb" or "dishonest". But, what are you ALLUDING TO that the 'reader' is SUPPOSEDLY NOT "dumb" 'to' nor "dishonest" 'about' EXACTLY? I, literally, have ABSOLUTELY NO CLUE AT ALL in regards to what 'it' IS you are referring to EXACTLY. And, from previous experiences you are NEVER going to INFORM us, readers, what 'it' IS, EITHER, correct?

6. What does, "see right through you", even referring to, EXACTLY.

Now, your ABILITY, or LACK there of, to CLARIFY here will SAY and SHOW far MORE about 'you', than it does about 'me'. So, please proceed.

[Age]

All meaning belongs to a conscious subject, it is quite impossible for meaning to be found in the outside world which is not bestowed upon it by a conscious subject. Any idea that moral facts/ objective meaning can exist in the absence of a conscious subject is non-sense. Thanks for the heads up, I never realized the absurd nature of the question.

I replied:

(I think we've been here already, but...)

I agree that morality isn't and can't be objective, but I don't agree with your reason for thinking that. Your claim - 'all meaning belongs to a conscious subject' - objectifies what we call 'meaning' as a thing of some kind that can therefore belong to someone. And that's a metaphysical delusion, in my opinion.

popeye1945 replied:

Peter,

Explain to me then how object can have meaning independent of a conscious subject. Apparent reality itself is a biological readout in that biology is the measure of all things. As Schopenhaure stated long ago, subject and object stands or falls together, meaning take one away and the other ceases to be. Things can only be known cognitively, therefore all of apparent reality is a subjective experience, that experience/knowledge is then bestowed upon a meaningless physical world.

My current reply:

(For clarity, I've tried to fix the ascriptions above. Hope that's okay.)

Sorry for the delay. I've been mulling over what you say - and thanks for the Schopenhauer reference, which points to why your position is mistaken, in my opinion.

Talk about subjects and objects - dividing reality into one or the other - as though a subject can't be an object, or an object a subject- is a nice demonstration of how, as I say, a metaphor can both be useful and lead us astray.

A subject (not sure why 'conscious' matters) is an object - a physical feature of reality.

The 'subject' here being referred to is just the 'object' 'human being'. WHY 'conscious' matters is because what was SAID was; "All meaning belongs to a conscious subject".

What WAS being talked about was 'meaning', itself. And, what was being explained to you here was that 'meaning', itself, exists ONLY within 'conscious beings', namely; the 'human being'.

(Unless, of course, with Schopenhauer, we recycle Cartesian dualism and think of the subject as a mind - supposedly a non-physical thing.)

I think you have gone way-off-track here now.

So it follows that an object (such as a human being) can be a subject - an observer/perceiver of objects - and, as above, a subject is an object.

The word 'subject' refers to what 'it' is that is being talked about/referred to.

The word 'object' refers to an 'actual thing', if you like.

So, a 'human being', is an 'object'. And, because 'it' (the 'human being') can be talked about, then 'it' can be the 'subject' of a discussion, or topic.

Also, and not to become confused with this 'subject' about the 'object' 'human being' is the Fact that ALL human beings are 'subjective objects', in that 'you' ALL have your OWN 'subjective' VIEWS on 'things'.

Now, WHY do 'you' say that an 'object can be a subject'? Does your own view DIFFER from the explanation I just gave? If yes, then HOW, EXACTLY?

OF COURSE, 'human beings' are 'observing/perceiving' 'things', and this is WHY the word 'conscious' 'matters' and was being used before. The word 'conscious' was referring to the observing and perceiving 'subject', 'human being'. That is; ALL meaning belongs to 'you', human beings. There is NO 'meaning' absolutely ANYWHERE else in the Universe.

Furthermore, if ANY one of 'you', human beings, want to talk about, or refer to, a 'mind', then I suggest 'you' have a DEFINITION for 'it' PRIOR to talking about 'it'. That way this will reduce the CONFUSION among 'you', human beings, SIGNIFICANTLY.

And the claim that, if there are no subjects (such as humans), there would be no objects in the universe, is patently ridiculous.

Did ANY one here CLAIM this?

If yes, then WHO, EXACTLY, and WHAT was the CLAIM, EXACTLY?

I, however, did SEE and NOTICE the inferred CLAIM that if there are NO 'human beings', then there is NO 'meaning' AT ALL. Which is VERY DIFFERENT from "if there are NO 'human beings', then there are NO 'objects', in the Universe.

Are you a Berkeleyan idealist?

The subject/object distinction is just a way of talking, with a rational use in the right context.

And, the Right way to talk about the 'subjective thinking' 'object' 'human being' is just notice that ANY talk about this 'the human being' 'subject' is ALWAYS 'subjectively', but which can be spoken about from the Truly 'objective' viewpoint.

But in order for this Right way to talk about 'things' to become possible and achieved, one just has to first learn how to make 'things' 'objective'.

Once one KNOWS HOW TO make 'things', like 'morality', 'objective', then one can LOOK AT and SEE ALL 'things' 'objectively', and then they can SPEAK from the Truly 'objective' VIEWPOINT.

But this ALL comes about later on.

Metaphysical conclusions from it come from mistaking what we say about things for the way things are.

And how ARE 'the way things are' DIFFERENT from the way 'you' 'speak or say about things', EXACTLY?

And can you REALLY NOT SEE the HYPOCRISY and CONTRADICTION just seeing and saying 'this'?

Other things you refer to, such as 'apparent reality' and how 'things can only be known cognitively' (a tautology), so that 'all of apparent reality is a subjective experience' just deepen the mire of confusion, in my opinion. An incoherent premise tends to produce an incoherent conclusion.

Which 'you', "yourself", "peter holmes", have provided a great many EXAMPLES OF, for us to LOOK AT and PONDER over.

1. There is A 'Reality' and One of ONLY.

2. Come to an AGREEMENT on what the word 'Reality' means or refers to, EXACTLY, and then 'you' are, at least, one step closer to SEEING and UNDERSTANDING what that One True Reality IS, EXACTLY.

3. ALL 'things' are "known" cognitively OR subjectively, but this does NOT take away from the Fact that there is AN 'objectivity' from which thee One and ONLY Truth is GRASPED and KNOWN from.

4. Once one learns and KNOWS HOW-TO SEE 'things' from thee One and ONLY Truly OBJECTIVE VIEWPOINT, then thee One and ONLY ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth becomes UNDERSTOOD, and KNOWN.

5. Once one reaches this 'understanding' and 'knowing', then there is NO MORE of the CONFUSION, which 'you', human beings, are HELD UP IN and TIED UP WITH in the days when this was being written.

If there really is sharp distinction between subject and object, what's the difference between apparent reality and reality?

The so-called 'sharp distinction' between 'subject' and 'object' I have ALREADY PROVIDED ABOVE. And, the difference between 'apparent reality' and 'Reality', Itself. Is 'apparent reality' is just what one ASSUMES is 'Reality' but does NOT YET KNOW FOR SURE, whilst 'Reality', Itself, is IRREFUTABLE. Like, for example, the 'Reality' IS 'you', human beings, do NOT 'need' money to live, and, 'you', adult human beings, were ALL abused as children.

And, an example, of 'apparent reality' IS "human beings do NEED money to live", and, "I was NOT abused as a child".

What is the 'meaningless physical world' - the 'object' - that the subject observes/perceives/describes?

WHATEVER 'you' want 'it' to be.

That is the BEAUTY of being a completely individually FREE observing/perceiving/describing 'subjective thinking' human being.

Because absolutely EVERY thing is 'relative' to the 'observer', then absolutely ANY 'thing' 'can be' absolutely ANYTHING 'you' WANT 'it' TO BE.

Meanwhile, given my methodological taxonomy - features of reality/what we believe and know about them/what we say about them - I completely agree that, outside language, what we call reality - the existence and nature of things - has nothing to do with language and therefore meaning. Reality doesn't consist of the meanings of our linguistic expressions.

Okay.

[Age]

No they aren't. They do nothing to counter Pete's point and the blatant application of transitive law to non transitive relationships is just typical Skepdick bullshit that only fools like you can't see through.

So many geniuses that "see right through my bullshit" who can't see through their own.

People, in the days when this was being written, looked MORE at how "others" are (or more correctly 'might be' being) FOOLED but rarely if ever LOOKED AT how 'they', "themselves", WERE BEING FOOLED, and DECEIVED.

The fucking word "model" is in the phrase "Standard Model of Physics".

If you are going to come singing us a song about "relationships" the least you can do for us is tell us what relates to what. What sort of relationship is the relationship between water and H2O? Will be super-exciting in light of you preaching to understand Rorty's "Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature".

If you are going to be biased favouring the abstractions of chemistry, and disfavouring the abstractions of particle physics the least you can do is tell us why this abstraction-level is your favourite.

GREAT POINTS, ONCE AGAIN.

We will WAIT for the 'response', or lack there of, to the ACTUAL points.

[Age]

My current reply:
Peter,

(For clarity, I've tried to fix the ascriptions above. Hope that's okay.)

Sorry for the delay. I've been mulling over what you say - and thanks for the Schopenhauer reference, which points to why your position is mistaken, in my opinion.
Talk about subjects and objects - dividing reality into one or the other - as though a subject can't be an object, or an object a subject- is a nice demonstration of how, as I say, a metaphor can both be useful and lead us astray. quote

A conscious subject's body is out there in the physical world and it is through this body that the mind becomes conscious of all objects including the subject's own. Certainly, a conscious subject is an object in the physical world, but an object in the physical world is not necessarily a conscious subject. The physical world is meaningless and only aquires meaning when it is bestowed upon it by a conscious subject.

A subject (not sure why 'conscious' matters) is an object - a physical feature of reality. (Unless, of course, with Schopenhauer, we recycle Cartesian dualism and think of the subject as a mind - supposedly a non-physical thing. So it follows that an object (such as a human being) can be a subject - an observer/perceiver of objects - and, as above, a subject is an object. And the claim that, if there are no subjects (such as humans), there would be no objects in the universe, is patently ridiculous. Are you a Berkeleyan idealist? quote

The world is only known on a cognitive level, thus, the need for a conscious subject for apparent reality to be known. Schopenhauer's, subject and object stand or fall together means, take away the physical world and the mind ceases to be, take away the mind and the physical world ceases to be. Again the world is only known to us on a cognitive level there is no other way.

The subject/object distinction is just a way of talking, with a rational use in the right context. Metaphysical conclusions from it come from mistaking what we say about things for the way things are. Other things you refer to, such as 'apparent reality' and how 'things can only be known cognitively' (a tautology), so that 'all of apparent reality is a subjective experience' just deepen the mire of confusion, in my opinion. An incoherent premise tends to produce an incoherent conclusion. quote---

You just need to spend more time with it.

If there really is sharp distinction between subject and object, what's the difference between apparent reality and reality? What is the 'meaningless physical world' - the 'object' - that the subject observes/perceives/describes? Meanwhile, given my methodological taxonomy - features of reality/what we believe and know about them/what we say about them - I completely agree that, outside language, what we call reality - the existence and nature of things - has nothing to do with language and therefore meaning. Reality doesn't consist of the meanings of our linguistic expressions.

There is no separation of subject and object, that is what Schopenhauer's statement means, subject and object stand or fall together.

In that there ALL meaning, and EVERY definition, of 'objects' is HELD UP WITHIN the 'subjective conscious being' (that is; the human being), then when the 'human being' species falls/becomes extinct, then the meaning/definition of 'objects' fall ALSO. But OBVIOUSLY, the 'objects', themselves, REMAIN the SAME, no matter if 'you', human beings, are around to experience/perceive them or NOT.

Apparent reality is what our body tells us there is, Ultimate reality is the whole bag of what can and cannot be sensed by us.

I say; the human body, itself, like ALL bodies, are SENSING and TELLING 'you', the 'being' WITHIN the human body, EXACTLY what the One and ONLY so-called 'Utimate' 'Reality' is REALLY-LIKE. Obviously, the body, itself, can ONLY 'experience/sense' what ACTUALLY and ONLY exists. Then through ANY of the five senses of the human body that 'experience' or 'information' is relayed to the human brain, where then 'thoughts' ABOUT that 'outside world' are made. When who and what the 'you', the 'individual person', IS, EXACTLY, is learned and/or becomes KNOWN, then it IS DISCOVERED that it is NOT the 'body' that is TELLING 'you' ANY so-called "apparent reality". The body, through the five senses, TELLS or INFORMS 'you' of what thee One and ONLY ACTUAL 'Reality' IS, EXACTLY. But, it is 'you', who CHANGES thee ACTUAL Truth around to "FIT IN" with your OWN individual PERCEIVED, RELATIVE VIEW, which if 'it' does NOT correspond with 'Reality', Itself, is therefore just an "apparent reality".

And, by the work, how to work out what is just "the apparent reality", from what IS JUST thee ABSOLUTE and IRREFUTABLE Reality' is an EXTREMELY VERY SIMPLE and VERY EASY thing to do. That is; once 'you' learn and KNOW HOW-TO do it.

[Age]

A bit ago I posted the following:


Do we all agree that saying something is so doesn't make it so?

For example, saying water is H2O doesn't make water H2O. Water's being H2O has nothing to do with what anyone says or believes. For example, water was H2O before humans appeared, and will be H2O after we disappear.

Given the way we (English speakers) use those signs in context, 'water is H2O' is a true factual assertion. And, given the same condition, 'water is not H2O' is a false factual assertion.

Does anyone disagree so far? And if so, please explain why you disagree.


The condition 'given the way we use those signs in context' deals with whingeing about the context-dependence of any description and therefore truth-claim - which is obvious.

So - does anyone - (any other moral objectivist?) - disagree with what I'm describing as a fact: something that just is or was the case, such as that water is H2O?

I am NOT a so-called "moral objectivist", and NOT SURE WHY 'you' are ONLY LOOKING for "them", but anyway I have ALREADY DISAGREED with what you are describing as "fact".

Now, if you would like to respond, then please do. But, if you can NOT counter what I SHOWED and POINTED OUT above here, then just leave it be, like you have so far.

[popeye1945]

Peter,

A tree falls in the forest, if there is no one there to hear it does it make a noise. Well, the answer is no it doesn't make a noise, for in order for there to be noise an ear drum is of necessity. Now, apply that same reasoning to the world as object, or all the contents of the physical world. Meaning is defined by how the physical world affects the biology of a subject, again, the physical world is known only cognitively, there is no other means.