Is morality objective or subjective?

[Veritas Aequitas]

It is obvious you do not understand Kant at all.

The distinction between intelligible objects vs sensible objects and their respective intuitions are explained in Kant's CPR extensively in the Transcendent Aesthetic and the Transcendental Logic.

You can get an idea of the distinction in the Chapter on Phenomena vs Noumena I presented herein
viewtopic.php?t=40170
viewtopic.php?t=39987
CPR B294-315

You keep blabbering, introduce something substantial why you think Kant is wrong in relation to the above?

To repeat, Kant's invention of the noumenon - a thing-in-itself - is a silly tease required to establish the silly claim that all we can have access to - and therefore all we can know - are phenomena, or things as they appear to our senses.

As I had stated, there are two senses of reality, i.e.

• 1. The human-based FSR-FSK-ed sense of reality [scientific-FSK - the Standard]
  
  2. The philosophical realism mind-independent sense of reality.

Philosophical realism [2] is a very dogmatic ideology [ism] which was invented from an evolutionary default of a sense of external-ness existence of things outside to facilitate basic survival for all organism since 3.5 billion years ago.

What is phenomena is what is experienced thus basically related to the internal-ness of the human-body, brain and mind.

Because the external-ness of existence of things outside are a default thus instinctualized and habitualized, it is natural for all humans to think there must be something external that represent what is internal [phenomena as experienced]. [note dualism]
It is very natural [based on Pure Reason*] to think of such logically for every human beings is habitualized with that evolutionary default of external_ness.

So Kant went along and accept the term 'noumenon' to represent that supposedly external thing in contrast to phenomena but with very strong qualifications as stipulated in his chapter on Noumena vs Phenomena.
* that is why Kant's Critique of Pure Reason.

BUT the problem is the philosophical realists insist on this habitualized default of external-ness on a dogmatic ideological level. In this sense, the philosophical realists are insisting on what is supposed [assumed] noumenon to be really real, thus chasing an illusion.

To Kant, what is rally real are the 'phenomena'.
Phenomena [sensibility] in this case, is not what is perceived, known and described.
To paraphrase Kant, what is phenomena is the emergence and realization of a thing prior to its perception, knowing and describing it.

Thus, the phenomena [sensibilty] is the realized reality [conditioned upon 13.7 billion years of forces since the BB].
In contrast, the thinking of the noumena is merely a thought via the intellect, thus it is an intelligible object.

intelligible [philosophy] = able to be understood only by the intellect, not by the senses [nb: sensibility not merely 5 senses].

To reify a noumenon as really real as claim by p-realists is chasing an illusion.

So Kant repackaged empiricist skepticism, in order to find a way around the supposed 'scandal' that we can't 'prove' the existence of the so-called external world. Hence his so-called Copernican revolution in epistemology.

The analogy with the Copernican Revolution is;
Human with their evolutionary default of external-ness are focus on the outside and as such habitualized to assume the earth and flat and the external Sun which is so obvious move from East to West.
When the philosophical realist cling to this externalness that the Sun moved, it brought along all sort of philosophical problems of what is reality.
Kant [stated, fuck the focus on external_ness as an ideology] but rather do a paradigm shift [Copernican Revolution] to focus on the internalness of the human being in its interaction with reality as a whole.

Here are some questions. Try answering them without simply quoting Kant.

If there are no noumena, then of what are phenomena phenomena?

To what is the so-called external world supposedly external?

What and where is a so-called intelligible thing - or, in upmarket posh, object or entity? Please give an example.

It is not that there is no noumena.
The point is, there no p-realist's version of what-is-noumena as absolutely mind-independent clung dogmatically an ideology, which then is an illusion if reified.

Anti-p-realists can accept the idea of the noumena, but insist it is not absolutely mind-independent in the p-realist sense.
If the noumena is to be recognized as 'something' that it has to be in the Negative Sense as some sort of limitation; read Kant's chapter on Phenomena vs Noumena.
It is delusional to insist the noumena is a really real thing that is mind-independent.

There is an external world within common sense, but it is subsumed within the human conditions, thus there is no external world which is absolutely mind-independent as the p-realists are claiming.

What and where is a so-called intelligible thing
intelligible [philosophy] = able to be understood only by the intellect, not by the senses [nb: sensibility not merely 5 senses].

Thus anything that can thought but not realizable as a real things via sensibility is an intelligible object.
The noumenon is an intelligible object and can never be realized as a real sensible object that can be justified via a human-based FSK like the science FSK.

You claimed to have read Kant, but you are displaying extensive ignorance and understanding [not necessary agree with] of Kant's CPR.

[Veritas Aequitas]

A point for information;

Kant never rejected the idea of the noumena;

• Re: Kant Phenomena vs Noumena
  viewtopic.php?p=637284#p637284
  
  6. If by 'Noumenon' we mean a Thing so far as it is not an Object of our Sensible Objectifying-Faculty, and so abstract from our Mode of Sensing it, {then} this is a Noumenon in the negative sense of the term.
  
  8. The Doctrine of Sensibility is likewise the Doctrine of the Noumenon in the negative sense, that is, of Things which the Intellect must think without this reference to our Mode of Objectifying-Faculty, therefore not merely as Appearances but as Things-in-Themselves. B308

There are many other points in that chapter that support the above points.

Kant never rejected the idea of the noumena when used properly as regulative; Kant condemned p-realists as delusional in insisting the noumena is constitutively real as a mind-independent thing.

[Veritas Aequitas]

For Information:

Kant or my philosophy has nothing to do with PANPSYCHISM.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panpsychism

In the 19th century, panpsychism was at its zenith. Philosophers such as Arthur Schopenhauer, ..... all promoted panpsychist ideas.[4]

Arthur Schopenhauer argued for a two-sided view of reality as both Will and Representation (Vorstellung). According to Schopenhauer, "All ostensible mind can be attributed to matter, but all matter can likewise be attributed to mind"

In his "Critique of the Kantian Philosophy" [very severe and harsh] appended to The World as Will and Representation (1818), Arthur Schopenhauer agreed with the critics that the manner in which Kant had introduced the thing-in-itself was inadmissible,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thing-in- ... hopenhauer

If Schopenhauer supported Panpsychism, then, Kant ideas which I agree with cannot be that of Panpsychism.

[Iwannaplato]

For Information:

Kant or my philosophy has nothing to do with PANPSYCHISM.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panpsychism

In the 19th century, panpsychism was at its zenith. Philosophers such as Arthur Schopenhauer, ..... all promoted panpsychist ideas.[4]

Arthur Schopenhauer argued for a two-sided view of reality as both Will and Representation (Vorstellung). According to Schopenhauer, "All ostensible mind can be attributed to matter, but all matter can likewise be attributed to mind"

In his "Critique of the Kantian Philosophy" [very severe and harsh] appended to The World as Will and Representation (1818), Arthur Schopenhauer agreed with the critics that the manner in which Kant had introduced the thing-in-itself was inadmissible,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thing-in- ... hopenhauer

If Schopenhauer supported Panpsychism, then, Kant ideas which I agree with cannot be that of Panpsychism.

Why not simply say you don't believe in panpsychism? Instead of saying that S disagreed with Kant in relation to the thinginitself so then you can't agree with him about panpsychism via a deduction involving your belief in all of Kant's ideas.

But the reason I bring up panpsychism is in your belief system
1 there is no mind indpendent reality and you also spoke of cocreating reality
2 this means that a facet of everything that is real is mind
3 To rephrase 2: there will always be mind present as a face of anything real.
4 Therefore there is nowhere and nothing without mind
5 4 is panpsychism

or to put this another way. There are only phenomena, no noumena. All phenomena have mind present. Mind is always present in reality. Mind is everywhere. Panpsychism.

Views?

[Veritas Aequitas]

I wrote above;

my philosophy has nothing to do with PANPSYCHISM.

Philosophical Realism insist reality is mind-independent.
As an anti-philosophical-realism [mine = Kantian] I do not agree with whatever the philosophical realists' claim.

To understand what is Kantian anti-philosophical-realism one will need to understand thoroughly [not necessary agree with] what is in Kant's CPR which is very complex.

[Iwannaplato]

I wrote above;

my philosophy has nothing to do with PANPSYCHISM.

Philosophical Realism insist reality is mind-independent.
As an anti-philosophical-realism [mine = Kantian] I do not agree with whatever the philosophical realists' claim.

To understand what is Kantian anti-philosophical-realism one will need to understand thoroughly [not necessary agree with] what is in Kant's CPR which is very complex.

Panpsychism is not realism. It could be a position in antirealism or realism. Though very, very few realists would believe in panpsychism. Most would scoff at it.

What I am pointing out is that it seems to be entailed by your antirealism. It is entailed.
I absolutely believe that you do not believe in panpschism.
The question is: why not? given what seems to be entailed by your antirealism. Or your idealism, since you have also called yourself this.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Whilst PANPSYCHISM is centered on mind,
it believes in an ultimate mind or reality [thing-in-itself] that is independent by itself that grounds all of reality. This is the Bottom-UP approach.

E.g. Schopenhauer believes in the thing-in-itself as the most real thing which is ultimately independent from all things, else it cannot be termed a thing-in-itself.

Meanwhile, Kant stated the thing-in-itself when insisted to be real is an illusion.
Kant adopted the TOP-DOWN approach to reality.

The BOTTOM-UP approach cannot be the TOP-DOWN approach.

[Iwannaplato]

Whilst PANPSYCHISM is centered on mind,
it believes in an ultimate mind or reality [thing-in-itself] that is independent by itself that grounds all of reality. This is the Bottom-UP approach.

E.g. Schopenhauer believes in the thing-in-itself as the most real thing which is ultimately independent from all things, else it cannot be termed a thing-in-itself.

Meanwhile, Kant stated the thing-in-itself when insisted to be real is an illusion.
Kant adopted the TOP-DOWN approach to reality.

The BOTTOM-UP approach cannot be the TOP-DOWN approach.

It looks like you are right. I dove in again into panpsychism and it seems they see it as a kind of realism, without mentioning it. I think the term should not necessarily commit to either realism or antirealism, but that seems to be just my take, so far in my search.

Let me then shift from mentioning an -ism.
In antirealism -
1 - Consciousness is a facet of any phenomenon.
2 - Only phenomena are real
3 - There are, thus, only conscious phenomena (or you could call this experiencing)
4 - in realism we separate out mind, perception and object. Most objects in realism are not conscious. And the consciousness via the medium of perception is aware of this or that object.
5 - in antirealism however we just have phenomena. No ding an sich, no self separate from the experiencing. There is just experiencing, just the phenomena. No hypothesized separate self, no hypothesized object that is somehow the source of the phenomenon.
6 - There is just this experiencing, which is not between a fantasy self or a fantasy object. It is all there is. The phenomenon is the only AND it is conscious. There is no phenomenon that is not experiencing.

And when I use 'experiencing', it is intransitive, not transitive. Not experiencing something. It is an experiencing, a conscious phenomenon.

It's a bit like some forms of idealism, but I'd prefer to remove the word 'mind' in this schema, because it seem like we are talking about a person an sich, which is a part of realism.

[Veritas Aequitas]

There are many forms of realism.
The term antirealism is not specific for my purpose.

My focus is that of specifically Philosophical_Realism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism
Thus my view is that of ANTI-Philosophical_Realism [specifically Kantian] or in short anti-p-realism [not philosophical antirealism].

Re Kantian anti-p-realism,
Reality, facts, truths, knowledge and objectivity are conditioned upon a human-based FSR-FSK of which the scientific FSK is the standard of credibility, reliability and objectivity.

Because it is human-based, consciousness is one critical element of the FSR-FSK.
Phenomena are experienced via consciousness, but phenomena-in-general are not by themselves conscious [except the self-consciousness by the self].

In Kantian anti-p-realism, there is a very extensive complex process of emergence and realization before conscious experiencing, perceiving, knowing and describing.
see Reality: Emergence & Realization Prior to Perceiving, Knowing & Describing
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40145
Kant labeled it merely as 'given' due to his ignorance of the details.

• That an Object be Given (if this expression be taken, not as referring to some merely mediate process, but as signifying immediate presentation in Intuition),
  means simply that the Representation through which the Object is Thought relates to actual or Possible Experience. Kant CPR A156 B195

[Iwannaplato]

Phenomena are experienced via consciousness, but phenomena-in-general are not by themselves conscious [except the self-consciousness by the self].

So, there are these two things
consciousness
and
phenomena

So, we can have consciousness without phenomena? Sounds like a ding an sich.

When is consciousness present without a phenomenon?
And what part of a phenomenon is consciousness and what part is not consciousness?

[popeye1945]

subject and object stand or fall together. In the absence of consciousness, the object ceases to be, subjectively; in the absence of object consciousness ceases to be. Apparent reality is the unity of both subject and object.

[Peter Holmes]

See, mysticism is always lurking down the rabbit hole.

'Reality is the unity of subject and object'. Or
'Reality is experience.' Or
'The world is the totality of facts, not of things.' Or
'Reality cannot be mind-independent'.

Look at the different - and all perfectly explicable - ways we use the word reality, and its cognates and related words, such as real and unreal. Then compare those uses with what philosophers do.

'The word reality is the name of something. But what is that thing? What does it really mean to say something is real? What we need is a theory of reality or being. And let's give it a cool name: ontology or metaphysics.'

It's the same delusion with every so-called problem in philosophy. At the bottom, there's a mysterious reification of an abstract 'entity': knowledge, truth, identity, justice, beauty, mind, consciousness, goodness, and on and on.

[popeye1945]

See, mysticism is always lurking down the rabbit hole.

Subject and object standing or falling together is hardly mysticism. It is the basis of reality. Metaphysics perhaps, but very rational thought, the waters can always be clouded with unnecessary semantics.

'Reality is the unity of subject and object'. Or
'Reality is experience.' Or
'The world is the totality of facts, not of things.' Or
'Reality cannot be mind-independent. [/quote]

You do understand that you only know apparent reality on a subjective level----yes. If you do not get that, I would ask you not to respond to my posts on the subject. Just entertain yourself with your love of mudding the waters of understanding.

Look at the different - and all perfectly explicable - ways we use the word reality, and its cognates and related words, such as real and unreal. Then compare those uses with what philosophers do.
'The word reality is the name of something. But what is that thing? What does it really mean to say something is real? What we need is a theory of reality or being. And let's give it a cool name: ontology or metaphysics.' [/quote]

Let us start then, with what do you mean by look, define different, and then fine sir we will move on to explicable, what a pretentious lot of bullshit.

It's the same delusion with every so-called problem in philosophy. At the bottom, there's a mysterious reification of an abstract 'entity': knowledge, truth, identity, justice, beauty, mind, consciousness, goodness, and on and on.
[/quote]

You are hypnotized by your own verbiage, and have become rather good at pretending to understand something.

[Iwannaplato]

subject and object stand or fall together. In the absence of consciousness, the object ceases to be, subjectively;

According to VA, objectively.

But more importantly, how do you know what is consciousness and what is object. They only exist (for you) at the same time. Which part of the experiencing is the object and which part is the consciousness?

in the absence of object consciousness ceases to be. Apparent reality is the unity of both subject and object.

Then having two words is misleading. There is just experiencing.

[popeye1945]

subject and object stand or fall together. In the absence of consciousness, the object ceases to be, subjectively. /Quote]
According to VA, objectively.

But more importantly, how do you know what is consciousness and what objects are? They only exist (for you) at the same time. Which part of the experiencing is the object and which part is the consciousness?

Your outside world is the world as an object/s, and you come to know it through the alterations it/they make to your biological constitution. In other words, you come to know it through your body, and your subjective consciousness. In the relationship between subject and object only the subject is conscious, the subject, however, could be any organism, for it is life that bestows meaning upon a meaningless world. Again, in the absence of a conscious subject the world is utterly meaningless, even non-existent on a subjective level, but a subjective level is the nature of our consciousness. We only know the world through our biological experiences and our experiences are the effects of object/s. So, we do not actually experience the source for what it is in and of itself, but how that source affects us- - - and we call it apparent reality.

in the absence of object consciousness ceases to be. Apparent reality is the unity of both subject and object.

Then having two words is misleading. There is just experiencing.

Organisms you might say are those that experience, and what organisms experience is bestowed upon the world as meaning, for objects are not conscious, and meaning is biologically dependent. So, two terms, subject/life forms, and object/s, the world at large.