Is morality objective or subjective?

[Atla]

Objective reality is an absolute assumption, what additional "point" should it have?

It's almost like connotation of the phrase "absolute assumption" nulified the denotational gravitas of "objective reality".

You didn't know that objective reality is just an assumption? So is non-objective reality btw.

[Peter Holmes]

Just to say, this 'what is a red square?' issue is a nice example of what happens when we mistake what we say about things for the way things are - when we say that facts are true or false. What the square is has no truth-value. Truth and falsehood are attributes of factual assertions, which are (typically) linguistic expressions.

Skepdick argues that the red square could just as well be a blue circle - which conflates the two radically different uses of the word fact. The truth of the factual assertion 'this is a red square' does depend completely on agreement over the use of signs. So 'this is a blue circle' could just as easily be true. But the thing itself is what it is, and that has nothing to do with language.

[Skepdick]

Objective reality is an absolute assumption, what additional "point" should it have?

It's almost like connotation of the phrase "absolute assumption" nulified the denotational gravitas of "objective reality".

You didn't know that objective reality is just an assumption? So is non-objective reality btw.

I know that very well.

It's deductively implied in the context of undecidability. Both possibilities are possible with no way to decide which one is true.

I don't know how to explain this to somebody who doesn't understand how to process context.

[Atla]

It's almost like connotation of the phrase "absolute assumption" nulified the denotational gravitas of "objective reality".

You didn't know that objective reality is just an assumption? So is non-objective reality btw.

I know that very well.

It's deductively implied in the context of undecidability. Both possibilities are possible with no way to decide which one is true.

I don't know how to explain this to somebody who doesn't understand how to process context.

Again that's another topic. I know all about undecidability in philosophy.

[Harbal]

I'm sorry if this is "off topic", but I would just like to register that I am sick of seeing this effing thing.

[Skepdick]

Again that's another topic. I know all about undecidability in philosophy.

It's still exactly the same topic.

Epistemology in the context of undecidability.

Given the assumption of objective reality there's a reality in which the color is objectively red; and there's a reality in which the color is objectively blue.

Given the assumption of inherent Morality there's a reality which is inherently moral; and a reality in which is inherently immoral.

How do we know which reality we live in?

[Atla]

Again that's another topic. I know all about undecidability in philosophy.

It's still exactly the same topic.

Epistemology in the context of undecidability.

Given the assumption of objective reality there's a reality in which the color is objectively red; and there's a reality in which the color is objectively blue.

Given the assumption of inherent Morality there's a reality which is inherently moral; and a reality in which is inherently immoral.

How do we know which reality we live in?

I don't "know" for sure. I investigate the world I have access to, and come up with the most likely (according to me) explanation.

If you want to talk about such things why don't you open a topic for it?

[Skepdick]

I don't "know" for sure. I investigate the world I have access to, and come up with the most likely (according to me) explanation.

If you want to talk about such things why don't you open a topic for it?

Buddy, do you actually understand how context works?

There's an explanation which explains that the color is red and there's an explanation which explains that the color is blue.

In the context of undecidability which explaination is most likely?

[Atla]

I don't "know" for sure. I investigate the world I have access to, and come up with the most likely (according to me) explanation.

If you want to talk about such things why don't you open a topic for it?

Buddy, do you actually understand how context works?

There's an explanation which explains that the color is red and there's an explanation which explains that the color is blue.

In the context of undecidability which explaination is most likely?

Red is more likely. I won't write a pages long novel for you why I think that is the case, so don't ask.

[Skepdick]

Red is more likely.

How do you figure that?

From where I am looking it's 50/50 on red/blue; and 33.33.../33.33.../33.33... on red/blue/green

You know... in the context of undecidability.

[Atla]

Red is more likely.

How do you figure that?

From where I am looking it's 50/50 on red/blue; and 33.33.../33.33.../33.33... on red/blue/green

You know... in the context of undecidability.

By actually coming up with a useful treatment of philosophical undecidibility, instead of saying "well everything is totally random, so there's nothing we can say, wow I'm so smart".

[Skepdick]

By actually coming up with a useful treatment of philosophical undecidibility, instead of saying "well everything is totally random, so there's nothing we can say, wow I'm so smart".

Yes... tell us all about it.

How has your "useful treatment of philosophical undecidability" skewed the random distribution in favour of "red" and against "blue"?

[Atla]

By actually coming up with a useful treatment of philosophical undecidibility, instead of saying "well everything is totally random, so there's nothing we can say, wow I'm so smart".

Yes... tell us all about it.

How has your "useful treatment of philosophical undecidability" skewed the random distribution in favour of "red" and against "blue"?

I won't write a pages long novel for you why I think that is the case, so don't ask.

[Skepdick]

By actually coming up with a useful treatment of philosophical undecidibility, instead of saying "well everything is totally random, so there's nothing we can say, wow I'm so smart".

Yes... tell us all about it.

How has your "useful treatment of philosophical undecidability" skewed the random distribution in favour of "red" and against "blue"?

I won't write a pages long novel for you why I think that is the case, so don't ask.

The don't write a novel. Just tell us what evidence swayed you off the middle ground.

[Peter Holmes]

If, by agreement on the use of signs, we call one colour 'red' and another colour 'blue', it isn't a matter of probability that the one colour is red and the other is blue. It isn't - excepting some 'halfway blend' between the colours - undecidable which is red and which is blue. The names are arbitrary, but so what? The categories or identities could be different, but so what? We could play a different game - but so what?

'How can I know what you're seeing when you say a colour is red?' Well, how do you know that what you're seeing is red? You've learnt how to use a word. Can we make mistakes when playing a language game? Of course.

That, outside language, there are no linguistic categories or identities - sameness and difference - in reality doesn't mean there aren't different things in reality. We could categorise rocks and trees as 'the same' - but so what? The idea that reality conforms to our ways of talking about it is a delusion - a projection. And the so-called symbol-grounding problem is a product of that delusion.