What could make morality objective?

[Atla]

When did I say I wanted to be ignored? I just don't want to be bothered by those who are not interested in ideas and are only interested in judging other people.

So you don't like people who act like you?

Oh Atla!

The fact is, I would absolutely detest having to spend my time with anyone exactly like me. I cannot imagine anything more tedious or boring.

I love people with different views and different lives and life styles. Examine the recent exchange between Peter Holmes and me on this thread. We very much disagree which is what makes the conversation interesting. This is something else you will not understand. It is our differences that make our conversation interesting, not our agreements. Disagreement does not mean confrontation and nothing is at stake but each individual's own knowledge and understanding.

Another holy speech, but you're the one who keeps freaking out when your wrong convictions actually get criticized.

You really don't understand anything I say be it the ideas, the science, or the ad homs. Or maybe you do but must never admit. I'm going to spell it out for you, there is no actual confrontation here, I'm just making fun of you, it's rare to see someone who is so thoroughly dishonest with himself and then projects shit onto others. I will admit though that I despise willful mental weakness, especially if the same person pretends to be the role model.

[Age]

Age, or anyone else. Please.

Is the claim 'a fact is a matter of opinion' a fact, or a matter of opinion?

You do NOT answer questions posed to you, BUT, you EXPECT others to answer your questions.

WHEN, and IF, you EVER UNDERSTAND what 'facts' are FUNDAMENTALLY BASED UPON, which you WOULD, IF, and WHEN, you answer my questions posed to you Honestly, then you will ALSO SEE and UNDERSTAND what a 'fact' ACTUALLY and IRREFUTABLY IS.

Which, WHEN DONE, PROVES IRREFUTABLY True what I have SAID and CLAIMED from the beginning here.

Also, did I SAY or CLAIM 'a fact is a matter of opinion'?

If yes, then COPY and PASTE my ACTUAL WORDS here, and also provide us with the ACTUAL POST, then we CAN LOOK AT and SEE in what CONTEXT I wrote that, and then, if ANY one is Truly INTERESTED I CAN and WILL SHOW EXACTLY what I MEAN.

1 I've answered all of your questions, either explicitly or implicitly, many times.

So, when I have asked you, 'What are 'facts' based upon, EXACTLY?' your response was what EXACTLY?

Also, absolutely ANY one can read back and SEE that you have NOT answered ALL of my questions, just once, let alone "many times".

2 I've explained how I use the words 'fact', 'truth' and 'objectivity' many times.

And I have explained that how you have CHOSEN to use those words is from a 'subjective' point of view. Therefore, they are NOT 'objective' uses.

Also, it has been POINTED OUT and SHOWN a couple of times ALREADY how you CONTRADICT "yourself" in regards to the use of these words.

3 If you don't think a fact is an opinion, I agree.

If you do NOT want to UNDERSTAND 'things' from ANOTHER'S perspective, and instead just want to make ASSUMPTIONS, and jump to CONCLUSIONS, then so be it. But just be REMINDED that YOUR ASSUMPTIONS and CONCLUSIONS are NOT ALWAYS right NOR correct.

If you STILL do NOT YET KNOW how 'facts' come about, then I AGREE.

But, if you do KNOW how 'facts' come about, then will you EXPLAIN?

If no, then WHY NOT?

4 I say there are no moral facts, but only moral opinions, which is why morality isn't and can't be objective.

But you do NOT YET understand FULLY how 'objectivity' is REACHED.

ALSO;

1. We KNOW you say, and BELIEVE, "There are NO moral facts". The fact that you WHOLEHEARTEDLY BELIEVE this is true is VERY CLEAR. In fact the very reason WHY you start these threads, under the PRETENSE of asking questions about 'could morality be objective', for example, is because you BELIEVE SO STRONGLY that "There are NO moral facts". You are also NOT OPEN AT ALL to ANY 'thing' contrary, and so create these threads as to go 'fishing', or 'trolling', for those with the OPPOSITE OPINION as what YOUR OPINION IS.

2 Just because you SAY, "There are NO moral facts", and, "There are ONLY moral opinions", is NOT the reason WHY 'morality is not and can not be objective'.

3. The reason WHY 'morality is not and can not be objective', TO YOU, is SOLELY BECAUSE this is just what you currently BELIEVE is true.

4. Your REFUSAL to just CONSIDER opposing points of views SHOWS and REVEALS just how MUCH you BELIEVE "There are NO moral facts". And, it is because of this BELIEF, of YOURS, WHY you are NOT YET ABLE to SEE what others have been SAYING and POINTING OUT, TO YOU, here.

NOW, just as EASILY and as SIMPLY as you can say, "Morality isn't and can't be objective, because you say there are not moral facts, but only moral opinions", someone else can say, 'Morality is and can be objective, because I say there are moral facts'. Which, hopefully, you can now SEE the ABSURDITY in your number 4 CLAIM here.

Your number 4 is just an 'opinion' ONLY. Or, would you like to CLAIM that it is a 'fact'?

If you would like to CLAIM 'it' as a 'fact', then WILL you PROVIDE a 'sound AND valid argument' for this CLAIM?

If no, then WHY NOT?

Also, REMEMBER because of what you have said previously, you can NOT resort to the CLAIM of "english speaking consensus" to say that because of the way YOU use words, then whatever you CLAIM makes 'it' a 'fact'. The way you USE words just YOUR OPINION, ONLY, and NOT a 'fact'.

And, what can be CLEARLY SEEN by the 'author' of this thread's opening post is that this 'author' came to this thread with the BELIEF ALREADY that "There are NO moral facts", and will say just about ANY thing in order to 'TRY TO' back up and support the CLAIM that what they say is a 'fact'.

This one does this WITHOUT even KNOWING how 'facts' ARE OBTAINED.

This 'one', just like EVERY other 'poster' here, will put their OWN definitions and meanings onto the words they use, in an ATTEMPT to 'TRY TO' make what they CLAIM to be true, right, and/or correct.

As can be CLEARLY SEEN, EVIDENCED, and PROVED True, right, AND correct throughout this thread and forum here.

And, as is OBVIOUS, one's OWN definitions and meanings come from OPINIONS, ONLY. Just like saying, "There are NO moral facts", comes from one's OPINION, ONLY. That CLAIM therefore is just AN OPINION, and just one's OPINION ONLY. And, thus according to this one here, NOT a 'fact' AT ALL.

[RCSaunders]

You really don't understand anything I say ...

No doubt true. But don't worry about it, I can live with that ignorance.

[Atla]

You really don't understand anything I say ...

No doubt true. But don't worry about it, I can live with that ignorance.

If you could you would stop replying.

[Peter Holmes]

You do NOT answer questions posed to you, BUT, you EXPECT others to answer your questions.

WHEN, and IF, you EVER UNDERSTAND what 'facts' are FUNDAMENTALLY BASED UPON, which you WOULD, IF, and WHEN, you answer my questions posed to you Honestly, then you will ALSO SEE and UNDERSTAND what a 'fact' ACTUALLY and IRREFUTABLY IS.

Which, WHEN DONE, PROVES IRREFUTABLY True what I have SAID and CLAIMED from the beginning here.

Also, did I SAY or CLAIM 'a fact is a matter of opinion'?

If yes, then COPY and PASTE my ACTUAL WORDS here, and also provide us with the ACTUAL POST, then we CAN LOOK AT and SEE in what CONTEXT I wrote that, and then, if ANY one is Truly INTERESTED I CAN and WILL SHOW EXACTLY what I MEAN.

1 I've answered all of your questions, either explicitly or implicitly, many times.

So, when I have asked you, 'What are 'facts' based upon, EXACTLY?' your response was what EXACTLY?

Also, absolutely ANY one can read back and SEE that you have NOT answered ALL of my questions, just once, let alone "many times".

2 I've explained how I use the words 'fact', 'truth' and 'objectivity' many times.

And I have explained that how you have CHOSEN to use those words is from a 'subjective' point of view. Therefore, they are NOT 'objective' uses.

Also, it has been POINTED OUT and SHOWN a couple of times ALREADY how you CONTRADICT "yourself" in regards to the use of these words.

3 If you don't think a fact is an opinion, I agree.

If you do NOT want to UNDERSTAND 'things' from ANOTHER'S perspective, and instead just want to make ASSUMPTIONS, and jump to CONCLUSIONS, then so be it. But just be REMINDED that YOUR ASSUMPTIONS and CONCLUSIONS are NOT ALWAYS right NOR correct.

If you STILL do NOT YET KNOW how 'facts' come about, then I AGREE.

But, if you do KNOW how 'facts' come about, then will you EXPLAIN?

If no, then WHY NOT?

4 I say there are no moral facts, but only moral opinions, which is why morality isn't and can't be objective.

But you do NOT YET understand FULLY how 'objectivity' is REACHED.

ALSO;

1. We KNOW you say, and BELIEVE, "There are NO moral facts". The fact that you WHOLEHEARTEDLY BELIEVE this is true is VERY CLEAR. In fact the very reason WHY you start these threads, under the PRETENSE of asking questions about 'could morality be objective', for example, is because you BELIEVE SO STRONGLY that "There are NO moral facts". You are also NOT OPEN AT ALL to ANY 'thing' contrary, and so create these threads as to go 'fishing', or 'trolling', for those with the OPPOSITE OPINION as what YOUR OPINION IS.

2 Just because you SAY, "There are NO moral facts", and, "There are ONLY moral opinions", is NOT the reason WHY 'morality is not and can not be objective'.

3. The reason WHY 'morality is not and can not be objective', TO YOU, is SOLELY BECAUSE this is just what you currently BELIEVE is true.

4. Your REFUSAL to just CONSIDER opposing points of views SHOWS and REVEALS just how MUCH you BELIEVE "There are NO moral facts". And, it is because of this BELIEF, of YOURS, WHY you are NOT YET ABLE to SEE what others have been SAYING and POINTING OUT, TO YOU, here.

NOW, just as EASILY and as SIMPLY as you can say, "Morality isn't and can't be objective, because you say there are not moral facts, but only moral opinions", someone else can say, 'Morality is and can be objective, because I say there are moral facts'. Which, hopefully, you can now SEE the ABSURDITY in your number 4 CLAIM here.

Your number 4 is just an 'opinion' ONLY. Or, would you like to CLAIM that it is a 'fact'?

If you would like to CLAIM 'it' as a 'fact', then WILL you PROVIDE a 'sound AND valid argument' for this CLAIM?

If no, then WHY NOT?

Also, REMEMBER because of what you have said previously, you can NOT resort to the CLAIM of "english speaking consensus" to say that because of the way YOU use words, then whatever you CLAIM makes 'it' a 'fact'. The way you USE words just YOUR OPINION, ONLY, and NOT a 'fact'.

And, what can be CLEARLY SEEN by the 'author' of this thread's opening post is that this 'author' came to this thread with the BELIEF ALREADY that "There are NO moral facts", and will say just about ANY thing in order to 'TRY TO' back up and support the CLAIM that what they say is a 'fact'.

This one does this WITHOUT even KNOWING how 'facts' ARE OBTAINED.

This 'one', just like EVERY other 'poster' here, will put their OWN definitions and meanings onto the words they use, in an ATTEMPT to 'TRY TO' make what they CLAIM to be true, right, and/or correct.

As can be CLEARLY SEEN, EVIDENCED, and PROVED True, right, AND correct throughout this thread and forum here.

And, as is OBVIOUS, one's OWN definitions and meanings come from OPINIONS, ONLY. Just like saying, "There are NO moral facts", comes from one's OPINION, ONLY. That CLAIM therefore is just AN OPINION, and just one's OPINION ONLY. And, thus according to this one here, NOT a 'fact' AT ALL.

To save our time and effort, please complete the following sentences as simply and clearly as you can, preferably without block caps.

1 What we call a fact is ...
2 We can discover facts by ...
3 Facts are different from opinions because ...
4 There are moral facts because ...

Until you do this, I have no interest in what you have to say or ask. And I'll respond to your blather with 'WOT' - 'waste of time'.

[Age]

1 I've answered all of your questions, either explicitly or implicitly, many times.

So, when I have asked you, 'What are 'facts' based upon, EXACTLY?' your response was what EXACTLY?

Also, absolutely ANY one can read back and SEE that you have NOT answered ALL of my questions, just once, let alone "many times".

2 I've explained how I use the words 'fact', 'truth' and 'objectivity' many times.

And I have explained that how you have CHOSEN to use those words is from a 'subjective' point of view. Therefore, they are NOT 'objective' uses.

Also, it has been POINTED OUT and SHOWN a couple of times ALREADY how you CONTRADICT "yourself" in regards to the use of these words.

3 If you don't think a fact is an opinion, I agree.

If you do NOT want to UNDERSTAND 'things' from ANOTHER'S perspective, and instead just want to make ASSUMPTIONS, and jump to CONCLUSIONS, then so be it. But just be REMINDED that YOUR ASSUMPTIONS and CONCLUSIONS are NOT ALWAYS right NOR correct.

If you STILL do NOT YET KNOW how 'facts' come about, then I AGREE.

But, if you do KNOW how 'facts' come about, then will you EXPLAIN?

If no, then WHY NOT?

4 I say there are no moral facts, but only moral opinions, which is why morality isn't and can't be objective.

But you do NOT YET understand FULLY how 'objectivity' is REACHED.

ALSO;

1. We KNOW you say, and BELIEVE, "There are NO moral facts". The fact that you WHOLEHEARTEDLY BELIEVE this is true is VERY CLEAR. In fact the very reason WHY you start these threads, under the PRETENSE of asking questions about 'could morality be objective', for example, is because you BELIEVE SO STRONGLY that "There are NO moral facts". You are also NOT OPEN AT ALL to ANY 'thing' contrary, and so create these threads as to go 'fishing', or 'trolling', for those with the OPPOSITE OPINION as what YOUR OPINION IS.

2 Just because you SAY, "There are NO moral facts", and, "There are ONLY moral opinions", is NOT the reason WHY 'morality is not and can not be objective'.

3. The reason WHY 'morality is not and can not be objective', TO YOU, is SOLELY BECAUSE this is just what you currently BELIEVE is true.

4. Your REFUSAL to just CONSIDER opposing points of views SHOWS and REVEALS just how MUCH you BELIEVE "There are NO moral facts". And, it is because of this BELIEF, of YOURS, WHY you are NOT YET ABLE to SEE what others have been SAYING and POINTING OUT, TO YOU, here.

NOW, just as EASILY and as SIMPLY as you can say, "Morality isn't and can't be objective, because you say there are not moral facts, but only moral opinions", someone else can say, 'Morality is and can be objective, because I say there are moral facts'. Which, hopefully, you can now SEE the ABSURDITY in your number 4 CLAIM here.

Your number 4 is just an 'opinion' ONLY. Or, would you like to CLAIM that it is a 'fact'?

If you would like to CLAIM 'it' as a 'fact', then WILL you PROVIDE a 'sound AND valid argument' for this CLAIM?

If no, then WHY NOT?

Also, REMEMBER because of what you have said previously, you can NOT resort to the CLAIM of "english speaking consensus" to say that because of the way YOU use words, then whatever you CLAIM makes 'it' a 'fact'. The way you USE words just YOUR OPINION, ONLY, and NOT a 'fact'.

And, what can be CLEARLY SEEN by the 'author' of this thread's opening post is that this 'author' came to this thread with the BELIEF ALREADY that "There are NO moral facts", and will say just about ANY thing in order to 'TRY TO' back up and support the CLAIM that what they say is a 'fact'.

This one does this WITHOUT even KNOWING how 'facts' ARE OBTAINED.

This 'one', just like EVERY other 'poster' here, will put their OWN definitions and meanings onto the words they use, in an ATTEMPT to 'TRY TO' make what they CLAIM to be true, right, and/or correct.

As can be CLEARLY SEEN, EVIDENCED, and PROVED True, right, AND correct throughout this thread and forum here.

And, as is OBVIOUS, one's OWN definitions and meanings come from OPINIONS, ONLY. Just like saying, "There are NO moral facts", comes from one's OPINION, ONLY. That CLAIM therefore is just AN OPINION, and just one's OPINION ONLY. And, thus according to this one here, NOT a 'fact' AT ALL.

To save our time and effort, please complete the following sentences as simply and clearly as you can, preferably without block caps.

1 What we call a fact is ...
2 We can discover facts by ...
3 Facts are different from opinions because ...
4 There are moral facts because ...

Until you do this, I have no interest in what you have to say or ask. And I'll respond to your blather with 'WOT' - 'waste of time'.

As suspected YOUR Dishonesty, and ATTEMPT to DEFLECT and RUN AWAY is LOUD and CLEAR here.

You will NOT answer, What a 'fact' is based upon?, because if you DID, then you would have to CONTRADICT what you have been previously STATING and CLAIMING.

Here is ANOTHER EXAMPLE of one who STARTS a thread, based on NOTHING but their OWN opinions or BELIEFS, and FAILS, absolutely, in backing up and supporting their CLAIM.

Now, EVERY time I POINTED OUT and SHOWED WHERE, HOW, and WHY what you have said is False, Wrong, or Incorrect you have FAILED to counter it. Also, YOUR CONTRADICTIONS have been POINTED OUT ALREADY for "others" to read and SEE.

As I have mentioned to "others", I suggest that BEFORE you make a CLAIM public, you make sure you can back up and support the CLAIM FIRST, with ACTUAL PROOFS.

[Age]

1 I've answered all of your questions, either explicitly or implicitly, many times.

So, when I have asked you, 'What are 'facts' based upon, EXACTLY?' your response was what EXACTLY?

Also, absolutely ANY one can read back and SEE that you have NOT answered ALL of my questions, just once, let alone "many times".

2 I've explained how I use the words 'fact', 'truth' and 'objectivity' many times.

And I have explained that how you have CHOSEN to use those words is from a 'subjective' point of view. Therefore, they are NOT 'objective' uses.

Also, it has been POINTED OUT and SHOWN a couple of times ALREADY how you CONTRADICT "yourself" in regards to the use of these words.

3 If you don't think a fact is an opinion, I agree.

If you do NOT want to UNDERSTAND 'things' from ANOTHER'S perspective, and instead just want to make ASSUMPTIONS, and jump to CONCLUSIONS, then so be it. But just be REMINDED that YOUR ASSUMPTIONS and CONCLUSIONS are NOT ALWAYS right NOR correct.

If you STILL do NOT YET KNOW how 'facts' come about, then I AGREE.

But, if you do KNOW how 'facts' come about, then will you EXPLAIN?

If no, then WHY NOT?

4 I say there are no moral facts, but only moral opinions, which is why morality isn't and can't be objective.

But you do NOT YET understand FULLY how 'objectivity' is REACHED.

ALSO;

1. We KNOW you say, and BELIEVE, "There are NO moral facts". The fact that you WHOLEHEARTEDLY BELIEVE this is true is VERY CLEAR. In fact the very reason WHY you start these threads, under the PRETENSE of asking questions about 'could morality be objective', for example, is because you BELIEVE SO STRONGLY that "There are NO moral facts". You are also NOT OPEN AT ALL to ANY 'thing' contrary, and so create these threads as to go 'fishing', or 'trolling', for those with the OPPOSITE OPINION as what YOUR OPINION IS.

2 Just because you SAY, "There are NO moral facts", and, "There are ONLY moral opinions", is NOT the reason WHY 'morality is not and can not be objective'.

3. The reason WHY 'morality is not and can not be objective', TO YOU, is SOLELY BECAUSE this is just what you currently BELIEVE is true.

4. Your REFUSAL to just CONSIDER opposing points of views SHOWS and REVEALS just how MUCH you BELIEVE "There are NO moral facts". And, it is because of this BELIEF, of YOURS, WHY you are NOT YET ABLE to SEE what others have been SAYING and POINTING OUT, TO YOU, here.

NOW, just as EASILY and as SIMPLY as you can say, "Morality isn't and can't be objective, because you say there are not moral facts, but only moral opinions", someone else can say, 'Morality is and can be objective, because I say there are moral facts'. Which, hopefully, you can now SEE the ABSURDITY in your number 4 CLAIM here.

Your number 4 is just an 'opinion' ONLY. Or, would you like to CLAIM that it is a 'fact'?

If you would like to CLAIM 'it' as a 'fact', then WILL you PROVIDE a 'sound AND valid argument' for this CLAIM?

If no, then WHY NOT?

Also, REMEMBER because of what you have said previously, you can NOT resort to the CLAIM of "english speaking consensus" to say that because of the way YOU use words, then whatever you CLAIM makes 'it' a 'fact'. The way you USE words just YOUR OPINION, ONLY, and NOT a 'fact'.

And, what can be CLEARLY SEEN by the 'author' of this thread's opening post is that this 'author' came to this thread with the BELIEF ALREADY that "There are NO moral facts", and will say just about ANY thing in order to 'TRY TO' back up and support the CLAIM that what they say is a 'fact'.

This one does this WITHOUT even KNOWING how 'facts' ARE OBTAINED.

This 'one', just like EVERY other 'poster' here, will put their OWN definitions and meanings onto the words they use, in an ATTEMPT to 'TRY TO' make what they CLAIM to be true, right, and/or correct.

As can be CLEARLY SEEN, EVIDENCED, and PROVED True, right, AND correct throughout this thread and forum here.

And, as is OBVIOUS, one's OWN definitions and meanings come from OPINIONS, ONLY. Just like saying, "There are NO moral facts", comes from one's OPINION, ONLY. That CLAIM therefore is just AN OPINION, and just one's OPINION ONLY. And, thus according to this one here, NOT a 'fact' AT ALL.

To save our time and effort, please complete the following sentences as simply and clearly as you can, preferably without block caps.

1 What we call a fact is ...
2 We can discover facts by ...
3 Facts are different from opinions because ...
4 There are moral facts because ...

Until you do this, I have no interest in what you have to say or ask. And I'll respond to your blather with 'WOT' - 'waste of time'.

As suspected YOUR Dishonesty, and ATTEMPT to DEFLECT and RUN AWAY is LOUD and CLEAR here.

You will NOT answer, What a 'fact' is based upon?, because if you DID, then you would have to CONTRADICT what you have been previously STATING and CLAIMING.

Here is ANOTHER EXAMPLE of one who STARTS a thread, based on NOTHING but their OWN opinions or BELIEFS, and FAILS, absolutely, in backing up and supporting their CLAIM.

Now, EVERY time I POINTED OUT and SHOWED WHERE, HOW, and WHY what you have said is False, Wrong, or Incorrect you have FAILED to counter it. Also, YOUR CONTRADICTIONS have been POINTED OUT ALREADY for "others" to read and SEE.

As I have mentioned to "others", I suggest that BEFORE you make a CLAIM public, you make sure you can back up and support the CLAIM FIRST, with ACTUAL PROOFS.

[Age]

To be ABLE to LEARN and UNDERSTAND, FULLY, what ACTUALLY makes 'morality' 'objective', one has to FIRST NOT be CLOSED to this POSSIBILITY.

[Peter Holmes]

So, when I have asked you, 'What are 'facts' based upon, EXACTLY?' your response was what EXACTLY?

Also, absolutely ANY one can read back and SEE that you have NOT answered ALL of my questions, just once, let alone "many times".



And I have explained that how you have CHOSEN to use those words is from a 'subjective' point of view. Therefore, they are NOT 'objective' uses.

Also, it has been POINTED OUT and SHOWN a couple of times ALREADY how you CONTRADICT "yourself" in regards to the use of these words.



If you do NOT want to UNDERSTAND 'things' from ANOTHER'S perspective, and instead just want to make ASSUMPTIONS, and jump to CONCLUSIONS, then so be it. But just be REMINDED that YOUR ASSUMPTIONS and CONCLUSIONS are NOT ALWAYS right NOR correct.

If you STILL do NOT YET KNOW how 'facts' come about, then I AGREE.

But, if you do KNOW how 'facts' come about, then will you EXPLAIN?

If no, then WHY NOT?



But you do NOT YET understand FULLY how 'objectivity' is REACHED.

ALSO;

1. We KNOW you say, and BELIEVE, "There are NO moral facts". The fact that you WHOLEHEARTEDLY BELIEVE this is true is VERY CLEAR. In fact the very reason WHY you start these threads, under the PRETENSE of asking questions about 'could morality be objective', for example, is because you BELIEVE SO STRONGLY that "There are NO moral facts". You are also NOT OPEN AT ALL to ANY 'thing' contrary, and so create these threads as to go 'fishing', or 'trolling', for those with the OPPOSITE OPINION as what YOUR OPINION IS.

2 Just because you SAY, "There are NO moral facts", and, "There are ONLY moral opinions", is NOT the reason WHY 'morality is not and can not be objective'.

3. The reason WHY 'morality is not and can not be objective', TO YOU, is SOLELY BECAUSE this is just what you currently BELIEVE is true.

4. Your REFUSAL to just CONSIDER opposing points of views SHOWS and REVEALS just how MUCH you BELIEVE "There are NO moral facts". And, it is because of this BELIEF, of YOURS, WHY you are NOT YET ABLE to SEE what others have been SAYING and POINTING OUT, TO YOU, here.

NOW, just as EASILY and as SIMPLY as you can say, "Morality isn't and can't be objective, because you say there are not moral facts, but only moral opinions", someone else can say, 'Morality is and can be objective, because I say there are moral facts'. Which, hopefully, you can now SEE the ABSURDITY in your number 4 CLAIM here.

Your number 4 is just an 'opinion' ONLY. Or, would you like to CLAIM that it is a 'fact'?

If you would like to CLAIM 'it' as a 'fact', then WILL you PROVIDE a 'sound AND valid argument' for this CLAIM?

If no, then WHY NOT?

Also, REMEMBER because of what you have said previously, you can NOT resort to the CLAIM of "english speaking consensus" to say that because of the way YOU use words, then whatever you CLAIM makes 'it' a 'fact'. The way you USE words just YOUR OPINION, ONLY, and NOT a 'fact'.

And, what can be CLEARLY SEEN by the 'author' of this thread's opening post is that this 'author' came to this thread with the BELIEF ALREADY that "There are NO moral facts", and will say just about ANY thing in order to 'TRY TO' back up and support the CLAIM that what they say is a 'fact'.

This one does this WITHOUT even KNOWING how 'facts' ARE OBTAINED.

This 'one', just like EVERY other 'poster' here, will put their OWN definitions and meanings onto the words they use, in an ATTEMPT to 'TRY TO' make what they CLAIM to be true, right, and/or correct.

As can be CLEARLY SEEN, EVIDENCED, and PROVED True, right, AND correct throughout this thread and forum here.

And, as is OBVIOUS, one's OWN definitions and meanings come from OPINIONS, ONLY. Just like saying, "There are NO moral facts", comes from one's OPINION, ONLY. That CLAIM therefore is just AN OPINION, and just one's OPINION ONLY. And, thus according to this one here, NOT a 'fact' AT ALL.

To save our time and effort, please complete the following sentences as simply and clearly as you can, preferably without block caps.

1 What we call a fact is ...
2 We can discover facts by ...
3 Facts are different from opinions because ...
4 There are moral facts because ...

Until you do this, I have no interest in what you have to say or ask. And I'll respond to your blather with 'WOT' - 'waste of time'.

As suspected YOUR Dishonesty, and ATTEMPT to DEFLECT and RUN AWAY is LOUD and CLEAR here.

You will NOT answer, What a 'fact' is based upon?, because if you DID, then you would have to CONTRADICT what you have been previously STATING and CLAIMING.

Here is ANOTHER EXAMPLE of one who STARTS a thread, based on NOTHING but their OWN opinions or BELIEFS, and FAILS, absolutely, in backing up and supporting their CLAIM.

Now, EVERY time I POINTED OUT and SHOWED WHERE, HOW, and WHY what you have said is False, Wrong, or Incorrect you have FAILED to counter it. Also, YOUR CONTRADICTIONS have been POINTED OUT ALREADY for "others" to read and SEE.

As I have mentioned to "others", I suggest that BEFORE you make a CLAIM public, you make sure you can back up and support the CLAIM FIRST, with ACTUAL PROOFS.

WOT

[Peter Holmes]

I'm afraid you have confused me. On the one hand you say, "non-physical or abstract things: truth, knowledge, causation, identity, mind, consciousness, and so on ,,, aren't things of any kind, physical or non-physical.

It appears to me that you have used the word, "thing," with two very different definitions: in the first instance a kind of generic meaning identifying "whatever is," or, "just anythig." In the second instance you seem to meam, "entity," implying that anything that is not an entity does really exists. I agree that only entities exist as independent existents, but attributes, relationships, and events (the action of entities) certainly exist, though cannot exist except as the attributes of, relationships between, and behavior of entities. I only that which is an entity exists, there are no attributes, relationships, or events--you would have to say force, charge, velocity, acceleration, temperature, polarity, momentum and mass, "aren't things of any kind, physical or non-physical," which of course they aren't if, "thing," means entity, but they certainly are not nothing, are they.

You're going to have to tell me what you mean by, "thing," before I can make head or tail of what you are saying. Just for the record, I do not say life, consciousness, or mind are things, as independently existing entities. An entity is whatever its attributes are, but its attributes are not things (entities or substances) and do not exist independently of the entities they are the attributes of. Life, consciousness, and mind are not entities, they are the attributes of some entities called organisms.

1 My apologies. When I use the modifier 'non-physical', I should always add 'supposed'. So non-physical things are supposed non-physical things.

2 I think the word 'entity' is just a posh word for 'thing'. (The word 'object' is fondly imagined to be similarly up-market.)

3 I maintain that the attributes, relationships and actions of physical things (what we call events) are physical things, which can therefore be sensed.

For example, the relationship 'taller than' is what we call a relationship between two physical things. That relationship isn't a supposed non-physical thing - what used to be called a universal. (That's a Platonist or neo-Platonist delusion.)

And what we call an event occurs in space-time, which is a sine qua non for physicalism. (I think the claim that supposed non-physical things or events exist entails belief in non-space-time existence, which is irrational.)

For some time, my standing question has been: what and where are supposed non-physical (or abstract) things, and in what way do they exist? And I'm looking for an answer that doesn't equivocate on the words 'thing' and 'exist'. Just calling them 'real' doesn't answer the question.

Of course, my aim is to expose a deep and persistent delusion which, as I say, comes from our mistaking what we say for the way things are.

You have no idea how much I'm tempted to respond to your last sentence with--"Unless, of course, if you say it," because you have just described how you think things are. But I'm not saying that, because our real difference is epistemological and what we mean by concepts.

Touche. Trouble is, we have to use words to talk about anything. And I don't think the claim 'things are the way they are' is a description of the way thing are. I think it's the starting point of any kind of realism.

In spite of the fact you correctly repudiate the absurd, "realism," of plato, you do seem to have a view of universals that is some kind of nominalism [I'm guessing, based on your assertion that, "attributes, relationships and actions ... are physical things."] The immediate problem with that view to me is it makes those things exist independently, as though there were free, "heaviness," "tallness," or "spinning," floating around without any heavy, tall, or spinning things. A physical entity can be what it is without contingency, but a relationship, attribiute, or an action cannot. There cannot just be tallness, a thing can only be tall relative to another thing, and there cannot just be heaviness, there must be a heavy thing, and there cannot just be action, there must be something that acts. Of course these relationships, attributes, and actions are physical, but to think of them as physical things in the same sense as apples, planets, stars, and galaxies are physical things is exactly the kind of platonic realism you deplore. They have no independent physical existence.

I think the Platonist/nominalist debate over so-called universals is instructive. It seems to me they both mistake talk about, say, heaviness for talk about some kind of thing - a so-called universal - then argue about whether that supposed thing does or doesn't exist. The original problem is, as it were, a nomenclaturist view of language: the expression 'heavier than' names something - now what is that thing, and does it exist? The answer is: of course heaviness doesn't exist in the way that apples, etc, exist. But to conclude heaviness must be a non-physical or abstract thing is absurd.

Now I'm going to say something you will really disagree with. There is no such thing as, "space-time," except as a concept. I agree with Einstein that space-time is just a way of picturing relationships between actual physical things, their positions, motions, and accelerations. There is no, "stuff," "space-time," but it is an excellent way of picturing the true properties and behavior of physical entities, and it may be the best possible, but it certainly is not the only one.

And that also answers the question: "what and where are supposed non-physical (or abstract) things, and in what way do they exist?" Ask that about your supposed, "space-time?" What are its physical attributes ("what," and, "how," does it exist) and were does it exist (everywhere)? There is certainly a concept for, "space-time," and as the identification of certain physical relations and behavior it works very well, but it only exists as a concept, a mental identification of a collection of propositions describing some phenomena in a conscious mind, but sans a conscious mind does not exist at all.

I think the claim that a thing can exist as a concept in a mind is a wonderful demonstration of the tangle we get into when we mistake what we say about things for the way things are. Far from answering my question - what and where are supposed non-physical (or abstract) things, and in what way do they exist? - it merely assumes their existence, which begs the question and explains absolutely nothing.

Mentalist talk - about minds containing mental things and events - is and has always been metaphorical. And in its normal context it's unproblematic. But look what happens when we take the metaphor literally: outside minds, what we call space-time (physical reality) doesn't exist. Voila: we're down the rabbit hole with the craziest idealists.

Not looking for agreement, just enjoying exploring the conflicts in our views, and your always reasonable and interesting discussion. As Robert Heinlein said, "I have never learned anything from anyone who agrees with me."

Agreed.

[RCSaunders]

[You know everything that came before ...]

In spite of the fact you correctly repudiate the absurd, "realism," of plato, you do seem to have a view of universals that is some kind of nominalism [I'm guessing, based on your assertion that, "attributes, relationships and actions ... are physical things."] The immediate problem with that view to me is it makes those things exist independently, as though there were free, "heaviness," "tallness," or "spinning," floating around without any heavy, tall, or spinning things. A physical entity can be what it is without contingency, but a relationship, attribiute, or an action cannot. There cannot just be tallness, a thing can only be tall relative to another thing, and there cannot just be heaviness, there must be a heavy thing, and there cannot just be action, there must be something that acts. Of course these relationships, attributes, and actions are physical, but to think of them as physical things in the same sense as apples, planets, stars, and galaxies are physical things is exactly the kind of platonic realism you deplore. They have no independent physical existence.

I think the Platonist/nominalist debate over so-called universals is instructive. It seems to me they both mistake talk about, say, heaviness for talk about some kind of thing - a so-called universal - then argue about whether that supposed thing does or doesn't exist. The original problem is, as it were, a nomenclaturist view of language: the expression 'heavier than' names something - now what is that thing, and does it exist? The answer is: of course heaviness doesn't exist in the way that apples, etc, exist. But to conclude heaviness must be a non-physical or abstract thing is absurd

Then we need a new word for, "thing," because there certainly is a relationship between physical entities which are different in weight and one that weighs more than another is called, "heavy." Heaviness is only a collective term meaning all cases of one thing being heavier than another. It is a concept for a collection of concepts, not things as you seem to mean, but certainly not nothing.

I certainly understand why you object to calling such collective concepts things. Perhaps part of the difficulty is the fact epistemologists do not seem to understand (or fail to emphasize the fact) all concepts that do not identify actual physical phenomena are metaphorical and must use some concepts of the physical for those metaphors. The word, "in," describes a physical relationship, but the concept, "in," is used metaphorically to identify context all the time where there is no physical relationship at all as, "in the field of pedagogy, language is important," for example. No one thinks that language is some kind of, "thing," inside another, "thing," called pedagogy.

I think the claim that a thing can exist as a concept in a mind is a wonderful demonstration of the tangle we get into when we mistake what we say about things for the way things are.

Well I hope I've explained that, "in," in the phrase, "a concept in a mind," has nothing to do with a geographical location or physical position or implies the, "mind," is some kind physical container. It only means a concept only exists withing the context of a mind (whatever you think a mind actually is), and sans minds, there are no concepts.

I think the claim that a thing can exist as a concept in a mind is a wonderful demonstration of the tangle we get into when we mistake what we say about things for the way things are. Far from answering my question - what and where are supposed non-physical (or abstract) things, and in what way do they exist? - it merely assumes their existence, which begs the question and explains absolutely nothing.

Of course, because they do not exist in some physical location, but they are not just assumed to exist because you just used a whole parcel of them.

Mentalist talk - about minds containing mental things and events - is and has always been metaphorical. And in its normal context it's unproblematic. But look what happens when we take the metaphor literally: outside minds, what we call space-time (physical reality) doesn't exist. Voila: we're down the rabbit hole with the craziest idealists.

Exactly. I totally agree. The problem is hypostatization (reification). To a very great extent, its the source and ground of all forms of idealsim, mysticism, and superstition.

As for, "space-time," as the explanation and description of all actual physical phenomena, the physical phenomena it explains exists without any contingency, and within the limits of current knowledge is correct, but as for the explanation itself, (all the math. measurements, "pictures," and models) to attribute independent existence to that is reification.

I don't think we're that far apart, Peter. We are at least in total agreement, I think, in our rejection of all things idealist and mystic.

[RCSaunders]

Thought you might be interested on this old post about spacetime on another thread.

What Is Spacetime Really Made Of?

[Peter Holmes]

[You know everything that came before ...]

In spite of the fact you correctly repudiate the absurd, "realism," of plato, you do seem to have a view of universals that is some kind of nominalism [I'm guessing, based on your assertion that, "attributes, relationships and actions ... are physical things."] The immediate problem with that view to me is it makes those things exist independently, as though there were free, "heaviness," "tallness," or "spinning," floating around without any heavy, tall, or spinning things. A physical entity can be what it is without contingency, but a relationship, attribiute, or an action cannot. There cannot just be tallness, a thing can only be tall relative to another thing, and there cannot just be heaviness, there must be a heavy thing, and there cannot just be action, there must be something that acts. Of course these relationships, attributes, and actions are physical, but to think of them as physical things in the same sense as apples, planets, stars, and galaxies are physical things is exactly the kind of platonic realism you deplore. They have no independent physical existence.

I think the Platonist/nominalist debate over so-called universals is instructive. It seems to me they both mistake talk about, say, heaviness for talk about some kind of thing - a so-called universal - then argue about whether that supposed thing does or doesn't exist. The original problem is, as it were, a nomenclaturist view of language: the expression 'heavier than' names something - now what is that thing, and does it exist? The answer is: of course heaviness doesn't exist in the way that apples, etc, exist. But to conclude heaviness must be a non-physical or abstract thing is absurd

Then we need a new word for, "thing," because there certainly is a relationship between physical entities which are different in weight and one that weighs more than another is called, "heavy." Heaviness is only a collective term meaning all cases of one thing being heavier than another. It is a concept for a collection of concepts, not things as you seem to mean, but certainly not nothing.

I certainly understand why you object to calling such collective concepts things. Perhaps part of the difficulty is the fact epistemologists do not seem to understand (or fail to emphasize the fact) all concepts that do not identify actual physical phenomena are metaphorical and must use some concepts of the physical for those metaphors. The word, "in," describes a physical relationship, but the concept, "in," is used metaphorically to identify context all the time where there is no physical relationship at all as, "in the field of pedagogy, language is important," for example. No one thinks that language is some kind of, "thing," inside another, "thing," called pedagogy.

I think the claim that a thing can exist as a concept in a mind is a wonderful demonstration of the tangle we get into when we mistake what we say about things for the way things are.

Well I hope I've explained that, "in," in the phrase, "a concept in a mind," has nothing to do with a geographical location or physical position or implies the, "mind," is some kind physical container. It only means a concept only exists withing the context of a mind (whatever you think a mind actually is), and sans minds, there are no concepts.

I think the claim that a thing can exist as a concept in a mind is a wonderful demonstration of the tangle we get into when we mistake what we say about things for the way things are. Far from answering my question - what and where are supposed non-physical (or abstract) things, and in what way do they exist? - it merely assumes their existence, which begs the question and explains absolutely nothing.

Of course, because they do not exist in some physical location, but they are not just assumed to exist because you just used a whole parcel of them.

Mentalist talk - about minds containing mental things and events - is and has always been metaphorical. And in its normal context it's unproblematic. But look what happens when we take the metaphor literally: outside minds, what we call space-time (physical reality) doesn't exist. Voila: we're down the rabbit hole with the craziest idealists.

Exactly. I totally agree. The problem is hypostatization (reification). To a very great extent, its the source and ground of all forms of idealsim, mysticism, and superstition.

As for, "space-time," as the explanation and description of all actual physical phenomena, the physical phenomena it explains exists without any contingency, and within the limits of current knowledge is correct, but as for the explanation itself, (all the math. measurements, "pictures," and models) to attribute independent existence to that is reification.

I don't think we're that far apart, Peter. We are at least in total agreement, I think, in our rejection of all things idealist and mystic.

Thanks. I can only repeat that, saying so-called abstract or non-physical things exist as concepts in minds explains a mystery by appealing to two more mysteries. It explains nothing and merely begs the question. Since mentalist talk - about minds containing mental things and events - is metaphorical - including the metaphor 'in' - we haven't moved from the metaphorical to the literal. Here's what you say.

'Well I hope I've explained that, "in," in the phrase, "a concept in a mind," has nothing to do with a geographical location or physical position or implies the, "mind," is some kind physical container. It only means a concept only exists withing the context of a mind (whatever you think a mind actually is), and sans minds, there are no concepts.'

Forgive me, but I think this is mantra-mumbling. It sounds reasonable or informative, but under the lightest critical examination, it crumbles. It's magical thinking thinly disguised.

[RCSaunders]

Thanks. I can only repeat that, saying so-called abstract or non-physical things exist as concepts in minds explains a mystery by appealing to two more mysteries.

Ahhh, dawn breaks on Marblehead. I never thought of it that way.

I never thought that when a grade-school teacher tried to explain to some of the denser children that, "wishes," "nouns," and, "bright ideas," were not the same kind of things as, "wind," "rocks," and the, "afternoon sun," are not the same kind of things the teacher was attempting to explain any mystery but simply pointing out exactly what you say. A metaphorical expressions like "fictional things only exist in your head," was not meant as an ontological explanation, but an emphasis on the fact they were fictions. There was never any implication they were some kind of metaphysical things existing in some ontological state.

I agree that saying concepts are, "non-physical things that only exist as minds," does not solve any ontological or epistemological mystery. But that leaves me with my own mystery, what exactly is the mystery you think they are supposed to solve?

It explains nothing, and merely begs the question. Since mentalist talk - about minds containing mental things and events - is metaphorical - including the metaphor 'in' - we haven't moved from the metaphorical to the literal. Here's what you say.

'Well I hope I've explained that, "in," in the phrase, "a concept in a mind," has nothing to do with a geographical location or physical position or implies the, "mind," is some kind physical container. It only means a concept only exists within the context of a mind (whatever you think a mind actually is), and sans minds, there are no concepts.'

But that's not an, "explanation," of what concepts or minds are, but an emphasis on what they aren't. They aren't metaphysical things that exist on their own. There are no metaphysical numbers, hopes, logic, values, or purposes floating around in space and no science or physical method will ever discover any.

Forgive me, but I think this is mantra-mumbling. It sounds reasonable or informative, but under the lightest critical examination, it crumbles. It's magical thinking thinly disguised.

Forgive you for what. Saying what you believe? We just see these things differently.

I think it is important, especially in light of every superstitious notion dominating philosophy that such things as, "maths," "morality," "meaning," and, "purpose," have some kind of mystic ontological existence, to make explicit that only that which exists materially exists at all. Our difference is in what we think the material includes.

I am conscious. I don't need to, "explain," it. I have knowledge which I am conscious of. My knowledge is not something anyone else can possibly be conscious of in any way, but it exists. If you want to call that, "magical," your own knowledge is just as magical as mine, if you claim any, because you cannot demonstrate it directly to my my observation.

I share your abhorrence of all forms rationalism, idealism, and mysticism and agree that most so-called philosophical explanations of both the ontological and epistemological are exactly as you describe them, "magical," thinking. But I think denying evidence is just as magical and that denying conscious knowledge only exists as conscious knowledge is just such a magical denial.

If you think that needs an explanation, it must first be admitted it is something to be explained, else you can just accept Skinner's behaviorism [which is exactly where I believe a consistent physicalist must logically end up].

[Peter Holmes]

Thanks. I can only repeat that, saying so-called abstract or non-physical things exist as concepts in minds explains a mystery by appealing to two more mysteries.

Ahhh, dawn breaks on Marblehead. I never thought of it that way.

I never thought that when a grade-school teacher tried to explain to some of the denser children that, "wishes," "nouns," and, "bright ideas," were not the same kind of things as, "wind," "rocks," and the, "afternoon sun," are not the same kind of things the teacher was attempting to explain any mystery but simply pointing out exactly what you say. A metaphorical expressions like "fictional things only exist in your head," was not meant as an ontological explanation, but an emphasis on the fact they were fictions. There was never any implication they were some kind of metaphysical things existing in some ontological state.

I agree that saying concepts are, "non-physical things that only exist as minds," does not solve any ontological or epistemological mystery. But that leaves me with my own mystery, what exactly is the mystery you think they are supposed to solve?

It explains nothing, and merely begs the question. Since mentalist talk - about minds containing mental things and events - is metaphorical - including the metaphor 'in' - we haven't moved from the metaphorical to the literal. Here's what you say.

'Well I hope I've explained that, "in," in the phrase, "a concept in a mind," has nothing to do with a geographical location or physical position or implies the, "mind," is some kind physical container. It only means a concept only exists within the context of a mind (whatever you think a mind actually is), and sans minds, there are no concepts.'

But that's not an, "explanation," of what concepts or minds are, but an emphasis on what they aren't. They aren't metaphysical things that exist on their own. There are no metaphysical numbers, hopes, logic, values, or purposes floating around in space and no science or physical method will ever discover any.

Forgive me, but I think this is mantra-mumbling. It sounds reasonable or informative, but under the lightest critical examination, it crumbles. It's magical thinking thinly disguised.

Forgive you for what. Saying what you believe? We just see these things differently.

I think it is important, especially in light of every superstitious notion dominating philosophy that such things as, "maths," "morality," "meaning," and, "purpose," have some kind of mystic ontological existence, to make explicit that only that which exists materially exists at all. Our difference is in what we think the material includes.

I am conscious. I don't need to, "explain," it. I have knowledge which I am conscious of. My knowledge is not something anyone else can possibly be conscious of in any way, but it exists. If you want to call that, "magical," your own knowledge is just as magical as mine, if you claim any, because you cannot demonstrate it directly to my my observation.

I share your abhorrence of all forms rationalism, idealism, and mysticism and agree that most so-called philosophical explanations of both the ontological and epistemological are exactly as you describe them, "magical," thinking. But I think denying evidence is just as magical and that denying conscious knowledge only exists as conscious knowledge is just such a magical denial.

If you think that needs an explanation, it must first be admitted it is something to be explained, else you can just accept Skinner's behaviorism [which is exactly where I believe a consistent physicalist must logically end up].

Thanks again. I'm not denying that we, along with some other species, experience what we call consciousness. I'm saying there's no reason to think that what we call consciousness is a non-physical (or abstract) thing or experience. And its physical privacy is irrelevant; that doesn't make it non-physical. No one else can experience my having my leg cut off either.

How can a physical cause (for example, neural activity) have a supposed non-physical effect? What is the causal mechanism?

I think this question exposes the delusion just as surely as does the related question: how can a supposed non-physical cause have a physical effect?

Both claims invoke the idea of something non-physical. And just as the second exposes supernaturalism as merely an appeal to magic - a childish superstition - so does the first.

I think the shock of behaviourism - and not just Skinner's - was its scary rejection of the legacy dualism that still plagues psychology. How can you study the mind - the psyche - if you reject the claim (the ancient, supernaturalist delusion) that the mind is a separate, identifiable and observable thing?

As I say, the myth of so-called abstract (or non-physical) things runs deep and strong through our explanations.