What could make morality objective?

[Skepdick]

Any interpretative context is of necessity a subjective experience for there is no meaning in the absence of a conscious subject

Yada, yada, yada.

Do interpretative context exist. Objectively? Yes, they do!
Is the subject/object distinction an interpretative context/framework? Yes, it is!

indeed there is nothing in the absence of a conscious subject.

The subject/object distinction is just an interpretative framework.

Once you erradicate the framework the truth is staring you in the face. The subject is an object!

The fact that you are an object in the physical world changes nothing, objects are always experienced subjectively by you yourself, or others.

It changes everything! I am a subject AND an object. My experiences are objects.

But you've already fallen into the very trap you warn us about. The subjetive/objective distinction is precisely the interpretative context in which you've trapped yourself.

In the absence of an object/the physical world, there is no consciousness, in the absence of a conscious subject there is no object/physical world.

Nonsense. That's just an artefact of your framework.

Subject or object. Conscious or unconscious - you aren't going anywhere. Neither is the world.

All distinctions are horseshit!

The world is real.
The world is not real.

Both sentences describe the exact same fucking world! Redescriptions and connotations change absolutely nothing!

If the physical world can only be known on a subjective level

There's no difference between knowing the physical world on a subjective level; and knowing the physical world on an objective level.

It's just language playing tricks on you.

, how could one ever prove that the physical world even exists? It is all in the relations of energy forms and reality is weirder than one can imagine.

You really really don't get it. Philosophy is stupid! When all you are doing is metaphysics there are no privileged descriptions of reality.

The description "Reality exist" is as good as the description "Reality doesn't exist".

Nothing changes in practice!

[popeye1945]

Any interpretative context is of necessity a subjective experience for there is no meaning in the absence of a conscious subject

Yada, yada, yada.

Do interpretative context exist. Objectively? Yes, they do!
Is the subject/object distinction an interpretative context/framework? Yes, it is!

indeed there is nothing in the absence of a conscious subject.

The subject/object distinction is just an interpretative framework.

Once you erradicate the framework the truth is staring you in the face. The subject is an object!

The fact that you are an object in the physical world changes nothing, objects are always experienced subjectively by you yourself, or others.

It changes everything! I am a subject AND an object. My experiences are objects.

But you've already fallen into the very trap you warn us about. The subjetive/objective distinction is precisely the interpretative context in which you've trapped yourself.

In the absence of an object/the physical world, there is no consciousness, in the absence of a conscious subject there is no object/physical world.

Nonsense. That's just an artefact of your framework.

Subject or object. Conscious or unconscious - you aren't going anywhere. Neither is the world.

All distinctions are horseshit!

The world is real.
The world is not real.

Both sentences describe the exact same fucking world! Redescriptions and connotations change absolutely nothing!

If the physical world can only be known on a subjective level

There's no difference between knowing the physical world on a subjective level; and knowing the physical world on an objective level.

It's just language playing tricks on you.

, how could one ever prove that the physical world even exists? It is all in the relations of energy forms and reality is weirder than one can imagine.

You really really don't get it. Philosophy is stupid! When all you are doing is metaphysics there are no privileged descriptions of reality.

The description "Reality exist" is as good as the description "Reality doesn't exist".

Nothing changes in practice!

You are more self-assured than you have a right to be. Subject and object stand or fall together, take one away and the other ceases to be, if you can never step out of the confines of your own subjectivity how do you know what is and is not? Take one away, and nothing exists subjectively.

[Skepdick]

You are more self-assured than you have a right to be.

That's a silly, dualist dance.

From where I am looking I am way less self-assured than I have a right to be.

Subject and object stand or fall together

They do! The distinction blows up the moment I point out the obvious fact that I am a subject AND an object. I could be neither; I could be both.

If pragmatist philosophers achieved anything worth while in the last 200 years - it's to get rid of this stupid distinction.

take one away and the other ceases to be

Yes! The distinction ceases to be. The concepts of "subject" and "object" evaporate. The referents of those words don't go anywhere!

The connotation vanishes - the denotation remains.

I am still here. You are still here. The universe is still here.

Lets us not waste any of our precious time making up stupid categories like "subjective" and "objective"; and waste centuries trying to figure out what goes into them.

if you can never step out of the confines of your own subjectivity how do you know what is and is not? Take one away and nothing exists subjectively.

I thought we already settled this! NOTHING EXISTS.

You don't exist.
I don't exist.
The universe doesn't exist.

Now. What do you want to DO about this pervasive and all-encompasing non-existence we find ourselves in?

And just like that "existence" and "non-existence" are identical!

[popeye1945]

Explain how nothing exists and how at the same time it is the same as that which does exist. I am all ears for a rational explanation.

[Skepdick]

Explain how nothing exists and how at the same time it is the same as that which does exist. I am all ears for a rational explanation.

What is it that you don't understand?

Pragmatists accepts the fact that there are NO privileged descriptions of ontologies.

So whether we describe the referent as "existence" or "non-existence" there is no practical difference. One isn't better; or worse than the other.

Strip away the silly connotation of those words and both existence and non-existence denote the exact same referent.

[popeye1945]

Explain how nothing exists and how at the same time it is the same as that which does exist. I am all ears for a rational explanation.

What is it that you don't understand?

Pragmatists accepts the fact that there are NO privileged descriptions.

So whether we describe the referent as "existence" or "non-existence" there is no practical difference. One isn't better; or worse than the other.

So whether we strip away the silly connotation of those words both existence and non-existence denote the exact same referent.

All words are qualifications and/or limitations, what is being qualified what is being limited? The word is not the thing, or in your case, the un-thing. It's babble my friend. If you are trying to say that subject and object are one, there is no argument here, but subjectively they are mutually dependent. For the purpose of discussing the nature of the reality we are present with, we must necessarily speak in terms of the two mutual aspects of one thing just as one speaks of male and female to discuss humanity.

[Skepdick]

All words are qualifications and/or limitations, what is being qualified what is being limited?

Really? What is being qualified/limited by the word "existence"

The word is not the thing, or in your case, the un-thing.

What the hell is a "thing" show me one!

It's babble my friend.

You really seem confused about who is doing what in this conversation.

YOU are the one babbling about the distinction between existence and non-existence. Things and un-things.

Metaphysics babble. All bullshit.

[popeye1945]

All words are qualifications and/or limitations, what is being qualified what is being limited?

Really? What is being qualified/limited by the word "existence"

The word is not the thing, or in your case, the un-thing.

What the hell is a "thing" show me one!

It's babble my friend.

You really seem confused about who is doing what in this conversation.

YOU are the one babbling about the distinction between existence and non-existence. Things and un-things.

Metaphysics babble. All bullshit.

I am open to a rational explanation, if that is not forthcoming, this dialogue is finished. As far as things ago things are objects, when you have energy that is not manifest this is termed ultimate reality as the physicist state, a place of no things.

[Skepdick]

I am open to a rational explanation, if that is not forthcoming

The rational explanation forthcame - you missed it. It explained that there is nothing to explain.

This (waves hands and gestures at everything) is the unexplained and the unexplainable. a.k.a reality. a.k.a existence. a.k.a non-existence.

Whatever you call it; and however you describe it. Here it is. Here we are.

Now what?

this dialogue is finished.

You are a so confused as a person you don't even know what you want.

On the one hand you want a better answer, on the other hand you want answers without dialogue.

As far as things ago things are objects

You are digging even deeper into the shithole of metaphysics.

What or where is a thing? Show me one.
What or where is an object? Show me one.

when you have energy that is not manifest this is termed ultimate reality as the physicist state, a place of no things.

Notice how you are talking about the way things are "termed". You are talking about terminology. Not what the terms refer to.

Stop babbling. Get out of the cave already!

[Belinda]

All words are qualifications and/or limitations, what is being qualified what is being limited?

Really? What is being qualified/limited by the word "existence"

The word is not the thing, or in your case, the un-thing.

What the hell is a "thing" show me one!

It's babble my friend.

You really seem confused about who is doing what in this conversation.

YOU are the one babbling about the distinction between existence and non-existence. Things and un-things.

Metaphysics babble. All bullshit.

The meaning of a word is its use so what is being qualified by the word 'existence' is the fluid state of the social situation in which the man used the word. I gather from Popeye useage of a word sets parameters which when the speaker is amiable, not cantankerous, are hypothetical parameters.
As soon as a word is used in a communication the social situation is altered. Clearly when you have a dictatorial or a jargon situation meanings are arbitrarily set by elites but when speech is free meanings of words are more subjective.

When a new word such as 'un-things' is coined the word is apt or not:- relative to the imaginative skill of the receiver.

[Belinda]

Skepdick wrote:

Now. What do you want to DO about this pervasive and all-encompasing non-existence we find ourselves in?

Me, I want to retain my faith that reality is extramental and that there is a common denominator that includes first person experience and 3rd person experience. But I don't want the common denominator to be the old style Deity.

Faith in extramental reality will keep me more alive and make me happier than would nihil.

[Skepdick]

The meaning of a word is its use so what is being qualified by the word 'existence' is the fluid state of the social situation in which the man used the word.

That's not true for philosophers/metaphysicians.

Words like "reality", "existence", "the universe", "everything", "nature" etc. are all-encompassing.

I gather from Popeye useage of a word sets parameters which when the speaker is amiable, not cantankerous, are hypothetical parameters.

To speak of all-encompassing words as "limiting" or "qualifying" is a misnomer though.

The word "reality" is not a limiting concept. It's an unlimiting concept. We use it precisely so that we don't have to enumerate every damn thing there is.

As soon as a word is used in a communication the social situation is altered. Clearly when you have a dictatorial or a jargon situation meanings are arbitrarily set by elites but when speech is free meanings of words are more subjective.

When a new word such as 'un-things' is coined the word is apt or not:- relative to the imaginative skill of the receiver.

There is no need for imagination here. We are trying to agree on the unbounded yet synonymous meaning of all-encompasing terms like "reality", "existence", "the universe", "everything", "nature" etc.

Ultimately, all leading to the point that we can use the term "existence" and "non-existence" equivalently and synonymously and it changes nothing; nor does it hinder communication.

[Skepdick]

Skepdick wrote:

Now. What do you want to DO about this pervasive and all-encompasing non-existence we find ourselves in?

Me, I want to retain my faith that reality is extramental and that there is a common denominator that includes first person experience and 3rd person experience. But I don't want the common denominator to be the old style Deity.

Faith in extramental reality will keep me more alive and make me happier than would nihil.

And what if the solipsists are right?

Questions and answers pertaining to the "true nature of reality" (even if the answers are "right") make absolutely no difference to our quality of life...

And even if the nihilists are right (which they seem to be). So what? I can choose to ignore them and create and pursue my own meaning, purpose and values etc.

[Belinda]

The meaning of a word is its use so what is being qualified by the word 'existence' is the fluid state of the social situation in which the man used the word.

That's not true for philosophers/metaphysicians.

Words like "reality", "existence", "the universe", "everything", "nature" etc. are all-encompassing.

I gather from Popeye useage of a word sets parameters which when the speaker is amiable, not cantankerous, are hypothetical parameters.

To speak of all-encompassing words as "limiting" or "qualifying" is a misnomer though.

The word "reality" is not a limiting concept. It's an unlimiting concept. We use it precisely so that we don't have to enumerate every damn thing there is.

As soon as a word is used in a communication the social situation is altered. Clearly when you have a dictatorial or a jargon situation meanings are arbitrarily set by elites but when speech is free meanings of words are more subjective.

When a new word such as 'un-things' is coined the word is apt or not:- relative to the imaginative skill of the receiver.

There is no need for imagination here. We are trying to agree on the unbounded yet synonymous meaning of all-encompasing terms like "reality", "existence", "the universe", "everything", "nature" etc.

Ultimately, all leading to the point that we can use the term "existence" and "non-existence" equivalently and synonymously and it changes nothing; nor does it hinder communication.

I agree that grand theories of existence read as if the author is utterly convinced they are right.

"Words like "reality", "existence", "the universe", "everything", "nature" etc. are all-encompassing" because the transmitter intends them to be so. We frail creatures can't experience the above except by analogies, although I gather physicists make a good effort to encapsulate the above in words. Mathematicians can do so I guess, but does mathematics do more than be very very explicit?

The word "reality" is not a limiting concept. It's an unlimiting concept. We use it precisely so that we don't have to enumerate every damn thing there is.

Yes. However ordinary language is not good for ontology. I sometimes wonder if there is a mathematical language that would be more explicit and at the same time not too scary. What about set theory with nice diagrams?

[Skepdick]

The meaning of a word is its use so what is being qualified by the word 'existence' is the fluid state of the social situation in which the man used the word.

That's not true for philosophers/metaphysicians.

Words like "reality", "existence", "the universe", "everything", "nature" etc. are all-encompassing.

I gather from Popeye useage of a word sets parameters which when the speaker is amiable, not cantankerous, are hypothetical parameters.

To speak of all-encompassing words as "limiting" or "qualifying" is a misnomer though.

The word "reality" is not a limiting concept. It's an unlimiting concept. We use it precisely so that we don't have to enumerate every damn thing there is.

As soon as a word is used in a communication the social situation is altered. Clearly when you have a dictatorial or a jargon situation meanings are arbitrarily set by elites but when speech is free meanings of words are more subjective.

When a new word such as 'un-things' is coined the word is apt or not:- relative to the imaginative skill of the receiver.

There is no need for imagination here. We are trying to agree on the unbounded yet synonymous meaning of all-encompasing terms like "reality", "existence", "the universe", "everything", "nature" etc.

Ultimately, all leading to the point that we can use the term "existence" and "non-existence" equivalently and synonymously and it changes nothing; nor does it hinder communication.

I agree that grand theories of existence read as if the author is utterly convinced they are right.

"Words like "reality", "existence", "the universe", "everything", "nature" etc. are all-encompassing" because the transmitter intends them to be so. We frail creatures can't experience the above except by analogies, although I gather physicists make a good effort to encapsulate the above in words. Mathematicians can do so I guess, but does mathematics do more than be very very explicit?

The word "reality" is not a limiting concept. It's an unlimiting concept. We use it precisely so that we don't have to enumerate every damn thing there is.

Yes. However ordinary language is not good for ontology. I sometimes wonder if there is a mathematical language that would be more explicit and at the same time not too scary. What about set theory with nice diagrams?

Mathematics adds nothing.

It allows us to speak about things; and the relationships between things, Mathematics allows us to talk about structure, but all-encompasing reality doesn't relate to anything. It has no particular structure.

It just is. All of it.