What could make morality objective?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Do you think there are knowable things in the universe that humans don't know about - at the moment?

A yes or no answer will suffice. (I just want to make sure I understand what you wrote above about 'empirical-rational possible' things.)

Yes.

[Harbal]

Do you think there are knowable things in the universe that humans don't know about - at the moment?

Yes.

And what are they?

[Iwannaplato]

Do you think there are knowable things in the universe that humans don't know about - at the moment?

A yes or no answer will suffice. (I just want to make sure I understand what you wrote above about 'empirical-rational possible' things.)

Yes.

Well, that sure sounds like they are, at this moment, mind independent, though perhaps they will not be later. You think they exist and we don't know about them.

[Iwannaplato]

Do you think there are knowable things in the universe that humans don't know about - at the moment?

Yes.

And what are they?

LOL

[Skepdick]

Yes.

Well, that sure sounds like they are, at this moment, mind independent, though perhaps they will not be later. You think they exist and we don't know about them.

So you don’t have a single example of whatever it is you are talking about?

[Peter Holmes]

Do you think there are knowable things in the universe that humans don't know about - at the moment?

A yes or no answer will suffice. (I just want to make sure I understand what you wrote above about 'empirical-rational possible' things.)

Yes.

Okay. It follows that there were knowable things in the universe before humans appeared.

And this is a philosophical/ontological realist position. These knowable things we're talking about are the features of reality that I refer to. And, as you agree, 'being known' isn't a necessary condition for their existence.

And these things aren't 'things-in-themselves' - noumena - to use Kant's silly term. I have no idea what a thing-in-itself can possibly be. It's a contentless, useless fiction - a sort of ghost that's haunted philosophy ever since Kant invented it.

[Skepdick]

Yes.

Okay. It follows that there were knowable things in the universe before humans appeared.

Huh? Who were these knowable things knowable to?

And this is a philosophical/ontological realist position. These knowable things we're talking about are the features of reality that I refer to. And, as you agree, 'being known' isn't a necessary condition for their existence.

So ontological realists are NOT talking about humans? Ontological realists are (for some reason) excluding humans from the features of reality they are talking about?

Why the special pleading?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Aug 22, 2023 6:05 am
Do you think there are knowable things in the universe that humans don't know about - at the moment?

A yes or no answer will suffice. (I just want to make sure I understand what you wrote above about 'empirical-rational possible' things.)
Yes.

Yes.

Well, that sure sounds like they are, at this moment, mind independent, though perhaps they will not be later. You think they exist and we don't know about them.
[/quote]
PH wrote "knowable' but I qualified "empirical-rational possible' things" which can be speculated.
These "empirical-rational possible' things" are realizable as conditioned upon a human based FSK.
In this case, when realized they CANNOT be mind-independent.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Yes.

Okay. It follows that there were knowable things in the universe before humans appeared.

That is a strawman
I did not state "there were knowable things in the universe before humans appeared."

It is presumed you are referring to "empirical-rational possible things" meaning they are merely possibilities while there are humans and are only realized upon a human based FSK.

And this is a philosophical/ontological realist position. These knowable things we're talking about are the features of reality that I refer to. And, as you agree, 'being known' isn't a necessary condition for their existence.

The philosophical/ontological realist's position is things [known and knowable] exist absolutely mind-independent, i.e. they exist even if there are no humans.

And these things aren't 'things-in-themselves' - noumena - to use Kant's silly term. I have no idea what a thing-in-itself can possibly be. It's a contentless, useless fiction - a sort of ghost that's haunted philosophy ever since Kant invented it.

When philosophical realists claim that reality and things exist absolutely mind-independent to the extreme that the moon pre-existed humans and will continue to exists even when humans are extinct, these are literally things-in-themselves.
Kant is literally correct is using the term thing-in-itself or things-in-themselves, i.e. they exist independent of humans and the human conditions.

The philosophical realists' stance is an evolutionary default which led to theists claiming an absolutely mind independent soul that can survive physical death and a mind-independent God.
This evolutionary default leads to illusions albeit a useful illusions to drive Science forward and provide psychological comfort to theists at present.

The anti-philosophical_realists' [kantian] view is reality and things CANNOT exist in-themselves or by-themselves; somehow things exist in connection to the human conditions.

As Kant asserted,
Mind-Independent Things; a Scandal [Insult] to Philosophy
viewtopic.php?t=40182

To date, no philosopher had been able to prove that absolutely mind-independent things exist as real.

[Peter Holmes]

Okay. It follows that there were knowable things in the universe before humans appeared.

That is a strawman
I did not state "there were knowable things in the universe before humans appeared."

It is presumed you are referring to "empirical-rational possible things" meaning they are merely possibilities while there are humans and are only realized upon a human based FSK.

And this is a philosophical/ontological realist position. These knowable things we're talking about are the features of reality that I refer to. And, as you agree, 'being known' isn't a necessary condition for their existence.

The philosophical/ontological realist's position is things [known and knowable] exist absolutely mind-independent, i.e. they exist even if there are no humans.

And these things aren't 'things-in-themselves' - noumena - to use Kant's silly term. I have no idea what a thing-in-itself can possibly be. It's a contentless, useless fiction - a sort of ghost that's haunted philosophy ever since Kant invented it.

When philosophical realists claim that reality and things exist absolutely mind-independent to the extreme that the moon pre-existed humans and will continue to exists even when humans are extinct, these are literally things-in-themselves.
Kant is literally correct is using the term thing-in-itself or things-in-themselves, i.e. they exist independent of humans and the human conditions.

The philosophical realists' stance is an evolutionary default which led to theists claiming an absolutely mind independent soul that can survive physical death and a mind-independent God.
This evolutionary default leads to illusions albeit a useful illusions to drive Science forward and provide psychological comfort to theists at present.

The anti-philosophical_realists' [kantian] view is reality and things CANNOT exist in-themselves or by-themselves; somehow things exist in connection to the human conditions.

As Kant asserted,
Mind-Independent Things; a Scandal [Insult] to Philosophy
viewtopic.php?t=40182

To date, no philosopher had been able to prove that absolutely mind-independent things exist as real.

Oh, no! You seemed to have made a breakthrough, but you didn't notice. You agree that there are knowable things in the universe that humans don't know about yet. So those things must be (human) mind-independent. There's no way out - unless you think there's some other kind of mind involved.

[Skepdick]

Oh, no! You seemed to have made a breakthrough, but you didn't notice. You agree that there are knowable things in the universe that humans don't know about yet. So those things must be (human) mind-independent. There's no way out - unless you think there's some other kind of mind involved.

Where's the "independence" exactly?

You seem rather mindful of things you don't know about.

[Peter Holmes]

To date, no philosopher had been able to prove that absolutely mind-independent things exist as real.

So why do you think there are knowable things in the universe that humans don't know about yet?

[Skepdick]

So why do you think there are knowable things in the universe that humans don't know about yet?

Because we don't know about them yet. Duuuh.

Which is very different from there being unknowable things in the universe that we don't know about yet. Because they are unknowable.

[Peter Holmes]

To date, no philosopher had been able to prove that absolutely mind-independent things exist as real.

So why do you think there are knowable things in the universe that humans don't know about yet?

[Skepdick]

So why do you think there are knowable things in the universe that humans don't know about yet?

1. Because we don't know about them yet. Duuuh.
2. You seem rather mindful of things we don't know about yet.

Almost like you can't talk about knowledge without talking about minds.