What could make morality objective?

[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.

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.

Solipsism can't be right because each and every experience is contextual.

The thing about subjective(1st person)experience is that there is always another besides oneself; even Robinson Crusoe, before Man Friday appeared, had the firm attitude that an other was somewhere not nowhere.

(I did not know the nihilists seem to be right. ) Anyway, I heartily agree I can live as if I can create my own meaning, purpose, and values etc.

[Skepdick]

Solipsism can't be right because each and every experience is contextual.

The thing about subjective(1st person)experience is that there is always another besides oneself; even Robinson Crusoe, before Man Friday appeared, had the firm attitude that an other was somewhere not nowhere.

There is no way to dismiss the possibility that all the contexts; and all the "others" are constructions of your own mind.

It suffices to assume that there are parts of your psyche/imagination outside of your control.

(I did not know the nihilists seem to be right. ) Anyway, I heartily agree I can live as if I can create my own meaning, purpose, and values etc.

Which is precisely why connotational debates are pointless. You can characterise anything, however you want. Subjec to choice.

I choose to characterise the nihilists as "right" - nothing has intrinsic value.
I choose to characterise the nihilists as "wrong" - you are intrinsically valuable because I intrinsically you.

It's the sort of dialogue that leads to understanding of other people's emotions, but not understanding of how to exploit reality to improve our quality of life.

[Belinda]

How can all-encompassing reality be unless it is structure? There can be no entity that is not also structure.

I am fond of arguing for the apophatic idea of God. God is indefinable. Not the top of a vertical hierarchy but the Archimedean central (dimension-less) point of a network. Cosmology has nihil which is necessary and sufficient to structure existence.

[Skepdick]

How can all-encompassing reality be unless it is structure? There can be no entity that is not also structure.

Any talk of structure immediately dualises the discussion into sub-structures and their relationship to the super-structure - the all-encompasing.

I am fond of arguing for the apophatic idea of God. God is indefinable. Not the top of a vertical hierarchy but the Archimedean central (dimension-less) point of a network. Cosmology has nihil which is necessary and sufficient to structure existence.

The whole notion of structure is way too rigid, too boxed in. Existence is quite smooth, fluid, continuous.

[Belinda]

How can all-encompassing reality be unless it is structure? There can be no entity that is not also structure.

Any talk of structure immediately dualises the discussion into sub-structures and their relationship to the super-structure - the all-encompasing.

I am fond of arguing for the apophatic idea of God. God is indefinable. Not the top of a vertical hierarchy but the Archimedean central (dimension-less) point of a network. Cosmology has nihil which is necessary and sufficient to structure existence.

The whole notion of structure is way too rigid, too boxed in. Existence is quite smooth, fluid, continuous.

Oh yes, I forgot about that .Well, back to the drawing board. However there remains the possibility of a common denominator for reality , one that covers either fluidity or rigidity or both.

[promethean75]

yo I ain't avoiding u skep... i just prolly shouldn't'a said anything because i ended up not saying enough (lazy posting) and it's possible we're not, or wouldn't, disagree, if i had the patience to apply myself and explain why and to what i object.

in fact my initial comment - when i butted in the discussion - was just a trivial defense of holmesboy's position, which I agree most with and which could maybe even be summarized as a variation of the fact/value distinction in epistemology. the bit about moral valuations being expressions of subjective preferences and attitudes, not objective facts and features in or about the world.

but then like an arse i replied again half-assedly and gave you hell about your thesis being subject to that self-referential contradiction... that what you say is true only and if i decide to accept 'the definition', etc.

now we're off on a tangent and goddamn man it's a chore to have to explain yourself. i know, I know; why r u at a debate forum then, dumbass? Cuz I'm an OG forum addict dude. I've done enough debatin for you and me boaf.

my thing is i don't do any social media... no Instagram, Twitter, never even had a facebook page. had my space for a minute back in 03. anyway i end up doing my internet socializing at philosophy forums and using the place like my own personal vlog. if the spirit moves me i maybe do a little philosophy once in a while... but my sole purpose here is to try and get y'all on the good foot

no but you aren't kidding, there are at least 20 different theories of Troof. and putting a position together for the sake of a debate at a forum is some hard work skep. imagine how much you'd have to post to be merely thorough... then u run the risk of creating a product that is tldr.

[CHNOPS]

Pretty much every account of your own experiences! Those are memories of expriences, not experiences themselves.

I had a tasty sip of coffee.

It's not happening right now, but it happened 1 second ago.

But that is your 1st person experience, where an imagination of the past ocurrs.

I dont know what 3rd person experience is.

You are super confused.

1st person experience of the memory of sipping tasty coffe is different to the 1st person experience of sipping tasty coffee.

Your experience of remembering is 1st person.
Your experience of the tastiness of coffee isn't.

Why equivocate?

Why the "experience of tastiness of cofee" isnt 1st person?

Experience a tastiness cofee is something you percieve. Is a content of your perception, in the same way an imagination of the past or future is a content of your perception.

[Skepdick]

But that is your 1st person experience, where an imagination of the past ocurrs.

I dont know what 3rd person experience is.

You are super confused.

1st person experience of the memory of sipping tasty coffe is different to the 1st person experience of sipping tasty coffee.

Your experience of remembering is 1st person.
Your experience of the tastiness of coffee isn't.

Why equivocate?

Why the "experience of tastiness of cofee" isnt 1st person?

Experience a tastiness cofee is something you percieve. Is a content of your perception, in the same way an imagination of the past or future is a content of your perception.

You seem to be struggling with basic reasoning.

In isolation you can define experiencing tasty coffee (in the moment) as 1st person; or remembering the tastiness of coffee (after the fact) as "1st person" - it doesn't matter. It's just a definition!
But when you are considering both then you can't define both as being 1st person! Because the one is not like the other.

If you define experiencing in the moment as 1st person, then remembering the experience later is not 1st person.
If you define remembering an experience later as 1st person, then experiencing in the moment is not 1st person.

Pick one; or are you being an intentional obscurantist?

[Skepdick]

yo I ain't avoiding u skep... i just prolly shouldn't'a said anything because i ended up not saying enough (lazy posting) and it's possible we're not, or wouldn't, disagree, if i had the patience to apply myself and explain why and to what i object.

in fact my initial comment - when i butted in the discussion - was just a trivial defense of holmesboy's position, which I agree most with and which could maybe even be summarized as a variation of the fact/value distinction in epistemology. the bit about moral valuations being expressions of subjective preferences and attitudes, not objective facts and features in or about the world.

Potato, potatoh.

My state of mind is a feature of the world. Reporting on my state of mind is me reporting about an objective feature of reality - a fact. It is an objective fact about reality THAT I find this coffee tasty.

The fact/value distinction serves only to diminish and dismiss the factuality of my state of mind - it's just a terrible case of special pleading.

but then like an arse i replied again half-assedly and gave you hell about your thesis being subject to that self-referential contradiction... that what you say is true only and if i decide to accept 'the definition', etc.

now we're off on a tangent and goddamn man it's a chore to have to explain yourself. i know, I know; why r u at a debate forum then, dumbass? Cuz I'm an OG forum addict dude. I've done enough debatin for you and me boaf.

Good thing I don't participate in debates then? Debating is waste of fucking time. From the lens of game theory debating amounts to a zero-sum game.

Those types of games are profoundly stupid.

[CHNOPS]

You are super confused.

1st person experience of the memory of sipping tasty coffe is different to the 1st person experience of sipping tasty coffee.

Your experience of remembering is 1st person.
Your experience of the tastiness of coffee isn't.

Why equivocate?

Why the "experience of tastiness of cofee" isnt 1st person?

Experience a tastiness cofee is something you percieve. Is a content of your perception, in the same way an imagination of the past or future is a content of your perception.

You seem to be struggling with basic reasoning.

In isolation you can define experiencing tasty coffee (in the moment) as 1st person; or remembering the tastiness of coffee (after the fact) as "1st person" - it doesn't matter. It's just a definition!
But when you are considering both then you can't define both as being 1st person! Because the one is not like the other.

If you define experiencing in the moment as 1st person, then remembering the experience later is not 1st person.
If you define remembering an experience later as 1st person, then experiencing in the moment is not 1st person.

Pick one; or are you being an intentional obscurantist?

You seem to be struggling with basic dogmatism.


The activity of eating an apple I name it "eating".
The activity of eating an banana I name it "eating".

And you are telling me that I need to call "eating" the first but not the second activity. That is nonsense.

For me, remembering an experience is just another experience, another fruit...


I am experiencing in first person a remember of me doing exercise.

I am experiencing in first person me doing exercise.


If you dont agree, then explain why "remembering" make the experience NOT first person.

[Skepdick]

Why the "experience of tastiness of cofee" isnt 1st person?

Experience a tastiness cofee is something you percieve. Is a content of your perception, in the same way an imagination of the past or future is a content of your perception.

You seem to be struggling with basic reasoning.

In isolation you can define experiencing tasty coffee (in the moment) as 1st person; or remembering the tastiness of coffee (after the fact) as "1st person" - it doesn't matter. It's just a definition!
But when you are considering both then you can't define both as being 1st person! Because the one is not like the other.

If you define experiencing in the moment as 1st person, then remembering the experience later is not 1st person.
If you define remembering an experience later as 1st person, then experiencing in the moment is not 1st person.

Pick one; or are you being an intentional obscurantist?

You seem to be struggling with basic dogmatism.


The activity of eating an apple I name it "eating".
The activity of eating an banana I name it "eating".

And you are telling me that I need to call "eating" the first but not the second activity. That is nonsense.

I am saying no such thing. Stop projecting your strawman onto me.

For me, remembering an experience is just another experience, another fruit...

I am experiencing in first person a remember of me doing exercise.
I am experiencing in first person me doing exercise.

That's called equivocation.

If you dont agree, then explain why "remembering" make the experience NOT first person.

Because remembering the experience of drinking water doesn't quench thirst.

[CHNOPS]

Because remembering the experience of drinking water doesn't quench thirst.

Of course, but because of that you are saying that that experience is not 1st person experience ¿?

Nonsense.

[Skepdick]

Because remembering the experience of drinking water doesn't quench thirst.

Of course, but because of that you are saying that that experience is not 1st person experience ¿?

Nonsense.

Why do you say "Nonsense" when you clearly agree with me that remembering 1st person thirst-quenching is not 1st person thirst-quenching! The memory clearly fails to meet the necessary condition of actually quenching thirst.

They can't both be 1st person because they are NOT the same. The difference falsifies your false equivalence.

[CHNOPS]

remembering 1st person thirst-quenching is not 1st person thirst-quenching

That is right.

What I am saying is "remembering thirst-quenching is 1st person experience, and thirst-quenching is 1st person experience too".


See the difference?

[Skepdick]

remembering 1st person thirst-quenching is not 1st person thirst-quenching

That is right.

What I am saying is "remembering thirst-quenching is 1st person experience, and thirst-quenching is 1st person experience too".


See the difference?

Is English your first language?

You are not pointing out a difference. You are pointing out a similarity!

You are taking two different things (experiencing thirst-quenching; remembering experiencing thirst-quenching): and you are equating them both as "1st person experience".

You are ERASING the difference and willingly ignoring the fact that the memory fails to quench thirst in order to manufacture a false equivalence!