What could make morality objective?

[Peter Holmes]

Things existed before humans turned up, and will exist after we're gone.

That's not true!

There is no such a thing as "thing" without humans abstractly conceptualising "thingness".

Convince yourself by trying (and failing) to show us a "thing". Just one example of a "thing" will suffice.

Actuality is undifferentiated stuff, infinite in all directions, at all scales, forever.

Reality is a sub-set of Actuality that is accessible to a mind, and is where all Things begin and end, because there are no beginnings or ends in Actuality.

It makes no more sense to say that everything is the same - 'undifferentiated stuff' - before we think and use language to talk about reality, than it does to say everything is differentiated only because we think and talk about reality. What a fatuously anthropocentric idea.

[Advocate]

[quote="Peter Holmes" post_id=570943 time=1651842546 user_id=15099]
[quote=Advocate post_id=570933 time=1651840666 user_id=15238]
[quote=Skepdick post_id=570929 time=1651839605 user_id=17350]

That's not true!

There is no such a thing as "thing" without humans abstractly conceptualising "thingness".

Convince yourself by trying (and failing) to show us a "thing". Just one example of a "thing" will suffice.
[/quote]

Actuality is undifferentiated stuff, infinite in all directions, at all scales, forever.

Reality is a sub-set of Actuality that is accessible to a mind, and is where all Things begin and end, because there are no beginnings or ends in Actuality.
[/quote]
It makes no more sense to say that everything is the same - 'undifferentiated stuff' - before we think and use language to talk about reality, than it does to say everything is differentiated only because we think and talk about reality. What a fatuously anthropocentric idea.
[/quote]

Undifferentiated does not imply sameness, which would be senseless, but it does mean it's indistinguishable from sameness. The difference does not occur in our minds, but the differentiation is what Things are, and difference-to-us certainly does. That constraint encompasses all ideas in all minds, it's mind-centric. Differentiation is the first and most important thing a mind does.

[Peter Holmes]

Actuality is undifferentiated stuff, infinite in all directions, at all scales, forever.

Reality is a sub-set of Actuality that is accessible to a mind, and is where all Things begin and end, because there are no beginnings or ends in Actuality.

It makes no more sense to say that everything is the same - 'undifferentiated stuff' - before we think and use language to talk about reality, than it does to say everything is differentiated only because we think and talk about reality. What a fatuously anthropocentric idea.

Undifferentiated does not imply sameness, which would be senseless, but it does mean it's indistinguishable from sameness. The difference does not occur in our minds, but the differentiation is what Things are, and difference-to-us certainly does. That constraint encompasses all ideas in all minds, it's mind-centric. Differentiation is the first and most important thing a mind does.

Metaphysical claptrap, mistaking words like identity, sameness and difference for things that, somehow, exist outside or beyond language.

And the mind is a fiction, or a metaphor - a way of talking about our selves and experience.

[henry quirk]

Actuality is undifferentiated stuff

The apple on my table is discrete from the table it sits on which, itself, is discrete from the floor it stands on.

Man notices existing discreteness, he doesn't create the discreteness by noticing.

[Advocate]

[quote="henry quirk" post_id=570948 time=1651843485 user_id=472]
[quote]Actuality is undifferentiated stuff[/quote]

The apple on my table is discrete from the table it sits on which, itself, is discrete from the floor [i]it[/i] stands on.

Man [i]notices[/i] existing discreteness, he doesn't [i]create[/i] the discreteness by noticing.
[/quote]

The distinction between apple and table is not in relation to the tightness of or type of molecules in areas of physical space, but in that we intend to use those patterns differently. There are innumerable other such distinctions that don't get made because they're patterns we don't care about. Those potential things never exist except as undifferentiated stuff. The molecule-stuff in them never exists as molecules. The appleness of the stuff never gets related to appledom. The table-stuff is never other-than-apple-stuff.

Things are patterns in a mind which exist without regard to whether there is a physical/external correlate. Some of those patterns have a more or less direct correlation with external patterns in the stuff.

[henry quirk]

The distinction between apple and table is not in relation to the tightness of or type of molecules in areas of physical space

The apple, the table: two different things...not cuz we say they are, but becuz they are.

There are innumerable other such distinctions that don't get made because they're patterns we don't care about. Those potential things never exist except as undifferentiated stuff.

Examples, please.

The appleness of the stuff never gets related to appledom.

That we never taste the apple doesn't mean it ain't sweet.

Things are patterns in a mind which exist without regard to whether there is a physical/external correlate. Some of those patterns have a more or less direct correlation with external patterns in the stuff.

Jibber-jabber.

[Belinda]

Actuality is undifferentiated stuff

The apple on my table is discrete from the table it sits on which, itself, is discrete from the floor it stands on.

Man notices existing discreteness, he doesn't create the discreteness by noticing.

At what point is the oxygen Henry inhales a part of Henry?

[Advocate]

[quote=Belinda post_id=571024 time=1651872790 user_id=12709]
[quote="henry quirk" post_id=570948 time=1651843485 user_id=472]
[quote]Actuality is undifferentiated stuff[/quote]

The apple on my table is discrete from the table it sits on which, itself, is discrete from the floor [i]it[/i] stands on.

Man [i]notices[/i] existing discreteness, he doesn't [i]create[/i] the discreteness by noticing.
[/quote]
At what point is the oxygen Henry inhales a part of Henry?
[/quote]

All things are distinguished from all other things according to purpose. When do you want it to be a part of Henry? There is no ultimate answer.

[Veritas Aequitas]

1 Kant's whole enterprise came from his agreement that Hume and the empiricists were right, and his attempt to find a way to redeem rationalism.

2 Perhaps you don't understand a correspondence theory of truth. A fact/state-of-affairs/feature of reality doesn't correspond to anything. It just is. And a correspondence theory says that a factual assertion is true if it corresponds with a fact/state-of-affairs/feature of reality. So the assertion 'snow is white' is true if what we call snow is what we call white. Notice the tautology? X is Y because we call X, 'Y'.

Correspondence theories demonstrate our mistaking what we say about things for the way things are - the original mistake of and in philosophy.

Earlier Kant was a true and true rationalist and never an empiricist.
Kant admitted Hume woken him from his dogmatic rationalist slumber but he never converted to be an empiricist.
Rather Kant took the middle way ending without pure rationalism nor empiricism.

PH: "A fact/state-of-affairs/feature of reality doesn't correspond to anything. It just is."
That is the problem that Kant denounced.
To Kant there is no fact-in-itself, i.e. a fact just is and is independent of human entanglement.

Reality is all there is where humans are intricately part and parcel of of reality.
There is no way humans can extricate themselves from reality which they are part and parcel of.
So fact is not "just is" a fact as I had claimed has to be conditioned to a specific FSK which is ultimately entangled with the human conditions, e.g. the scientific FSK generating scientific facts being the most credible at present.

Whatever exists or claimed as real must be entangled with a humanly entangled FSK, whatever real cannot exists independently of human entanglements.

You may denial the Correspondence Theory of Truth for its obvious objections but your stance that fact 'just is' subtly incorporate its essence of independence from human minds.

Things existed before humans turned up, and will exist after we're gone. So the claim that whatever exists depends on humans is patent nonsense.

And I suggest you investigate refutations of idealism, because you've been duped by an ancient dualism, that Descartes repackaged and Kant never questioned, and that takes metaphorical mentalist talk - about minds containing mental things and events - literally.

It is very intuitive that there is something independent out there because all [living] humans have evolved evolutionary to focus on things external to them [food, threats, partners] to facilitate survival and this is hardwired in the human brain. This is an existential issue.

But note Kant's deep insight Copernican Revolution;

Hitherto it has been assumed that all our Knowledge must conform to Objects.
But all attempts to extend our Knowledge of Objects by establishing something in regard to them a priori, by means of Concepts, have, on this assumption, ended in Failure.
We must therefore make trial whether we may not have more success in the tasks of Metaphysics, if we suppose that Objects must conform to our Knowledge.
This would agree better with what is desired, namely, that it should be Possible to have Knowledge of Objects a priori, determining something in regard to them prior to their being Given.

We should then be proceeding precisely on the lines of Copernicus' primary Hypothesis. 1
Failing of satisfactory progress of explaining the movements of the heavenly bodies on the supposition that they all revolved round the spectator, he tried whether he might not have better success if he made the spectator to revolve and the stars to remain at rest. [Bxvii]

A similar experiment can be tried in Metaphysics, as regards the Intuition of Objects.

If Intuition [of Objects] must conform to the constitution of the Objects [as Things-in-themselves], I do not see how we could know anything of the latter [the objects as Things-in-Themselves] a priori
but if the Object (as Object of the Senses) must conform to the constitution of our Faculty of Intuition, I have no difficulty in conceiving such a possibility
CPR Bxvi

Kant went on to challenge this scandal of a claim of an external world;

However harmless Idealism may be considered in respect of the essential aims of Metaphysics (though, in fact, it is not thus harmless),
it still remains a scandal to Philosophy and to Human Reason-in-General that the Existence of Things outside us (from which we derive the whole Material of Knowledge, even for our Inner Sense) must be accepted merely on Faith,
and that if anyone thinks good to doubt their Existence, we are unable to counter his doubts by any satisfactory proof.
B54

G E Moore took up the challenge and failed.

And I suggest you investigate refutations of idealism, because you've been duped by an ancient dualism, that Descartes repackaged and Kant never questioned, and that takes metaphorical mentalist talk - about minds containing mental things and events - literally.

Yours is based on pure ignorance and not understanding [not necessary agree with] Kant's view thoroughly.

Actually you are referring to yourself in a way that [1] minds containing mental things and events - literally in addition to [2] things existing independent of mind which in a way 1 and 2 must be corresponded with.

What Kant advocated is to direct humanity to understand the existential issue and not be a slave to it in focus on independent external world which has been a failure.

What Kant directed is to focus on facts that are derived from FSK that are empirically-based supported with philosophical reasonings.
Prove he is wrong on this. It is not likely because you would never read, even if you read you don't have the competence to grasp the essence of his works.

Btw, I agree with Skepdick's view on the above which is simple and straight to the point.

[Peter Holmes]

What Kant directed is to focus on facts that are derived from FSK that are empirically-based supported with philosophical reasonings.

What constitutes an empirically-based fact? (You say Kant was never an empiricist.)

[Veritas Aequitas]

What Kant directed is to focus on facts that are derived from FSK that are empirically-based supported with philosophical reasonings.

What constitutes an empirically-based fact? (You say Kant was never an empiricist.)

Note what is 'empiricism' thus an empiricist.

• In philosophy, empiricism is a theory that states that knowledge comes only or primarily from sensory experience.
  wiki

An empirically-based fact is a fact that is soundly based on empirical evidence but supported by the necessary philosophical reasoning.

For example, I claim my moral fact is heavily supported by empirical based scientific fact but I qualify they are at best merely polished conjectures based on the limitations of induction and other philosophical reasonings.

An empiricist will claim knowledge comes only or primarily from sensory experience, period! without further philosophical qualifications.

Kant explained his empirical based fact in his CPR [extensive with complex arguments] which took me 3 years full time to grasp his views thoroughly.

OTOH, most empiricists or analytic philosopher [like you] will jump to the conclusions of their views driven by an existential crisis. This psychological element is crucial which you must not ignore.

[henry quirk]

Actuality is undifferentiated stuff

The apple on my table is discrete from the table it sits on which, itself, is discrete from the floor it stands on.

Man notices existing discreteness, he doesn't create the discreteness by noticing.

At what point is the oxygen Henry inhales a part of Henry?

When I incorporate them oxy-molecules into my tissues and not before. Simply bein' inside my lungs isn't enough.

[Belinda]

The apple on my table is discrete from the table it sits on which, itself, is discrete from the floor it stands on.

Man notices existing discreteness, he doesn't create the discreteness by noticing.

At what point is the oxygen Henry inhales a part of Henry?

All things are distinguished from all other things according to purpose. When do you want it to be a part of Henry? There is no ultimate answer.

I purpose that even Henry can come to see that no man is an island sufficient unto himself.

[Belinda]

The apple on my table is discrete from the table it sits on which, itself, is discrete from the floor it stands on.

Man notices existing discreteness, he doesn't create the discreteness by noticing.

At what point is the oxygen Henry inhales a part of Henry?

When I incorporate them oxy-molecules into my tissues and not before. Simply bein' inside my lungs isn't enough.

That's an honest reply anyway.

[henry quirk]

At what point is the oxygen Henry inhales a part of Henry?

All things are distinguished from all other things according to purpose. When do you want it to be a part of Henry? There is no ultimate answer.

I purpose that even Henry can come to see that no man is an island sufficient unto himself.

Don't bet on it.