Is morality objective or subjective?

[Skepdick]

A mind can point outside itself to the noumenon.

Yes you didn't quite catch that, because you've been missing the obvious your whole life.

Yeeees, I bet you think the world comes pre-categorized.

All in nice, neat, discrete boxes for you to point out.

No, the world doesn't come pre-categorized. Try again

No way! So what things are you pointing out then?

[Atla]

Yeeees, I bet you think the world comes pre-categorized.

All in nice, neat, discrete boxes for you to point out.

No, the world doesn't come pre-categorized. Try again

No way! So what things are you pointing out then?

Noumenal things.

[Skepdick]

No, the world doesn't come pre-categorized. Try again

No way! So what things are you pointing out then?

Noumenal things.

Things as in plural?

Things that aren’t pre-categorized but there’s more than one category of them?

Yeah. That makes sense.

[Atla]

No way! So what things are you pointing out then?

Noumenal things.

Things as in plural?

Things that aren’t pre-categorized but there’s more than one category of them?

Yeah. That makes sense.

How should I know if it's one thing or more. They are noumenal.

[Skepdick]

How should I know if it's one thing or more. They are noumenal.

They. Plural. Lol.

But they aren't precategorized.

[Atla]

How should I know if it's one thing or more. They are noumenal.

They. Plural. Lol.

But they aren't precategorized.

It/they/whatever, it's noumenal. Do you understand now that you really are an idiot?

[Skepdick]

How should I know if it's one thing or more. They are noumenal.

They. Plural. Lol.

But they aren't precategorized.

It/they/whatever, it's noumenal. Do you understand now that you really are an idiot?

Then I am an idiot.

But at least I can count.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Sic.

'Whatever is believed to be is correlated with its being'. This is gibberish.

But perhaps the penny is edging - glacially slowly - towards the drop.

We have to perceive, know and describe things in human ways. But our perception, knowledge and description of a thing doesn't bring it into existence or, as you agree, change it.

I agree, our perception, knowledge and description of a thing doesn't bring it into existence like say an apple or table out there.

Perceiving, Knowing & Describing a Thing Does not bring it into Existence
viewtopic.php?t=40715

BUT
But before any real thing is perceived, known and described it has to emerge to be realized as real within a FSR_FSK which is subject interacted, thus cannot be absolutely human independent or 'mind-independent'.
Thus, there a prior emergence and realization process to be accounted for.

And this remains gibberish, how ever many times you repeat it. 'A thing has to emerge to be realised as real within a framework and system of reality-framework and system of knowledge, which is subject interacted, before it can be perceived, known and described.' Why?

'which is subject interacted' is confusing.

What I meant is things and reality emerged and are realized spontaneously grounded on a 13.5 billion years of physical history and 4.5 billion years of organic history. I believe this is that '500-pound-gorilla in the room' to you.

There is no pre-existing thing to be "interacted".

Did you read this where I explain the processes of emergence and realization
Emergence & Realization
viewtopic.php?t=40721

As for the stuff about analytic philosophy - mistaking what we say for what we think is as confusing as mistaking what we say for the reality outside language. There was a wrong-turn to language, in my opinion, beginning with Frege and the Tractatus.

If your focus is not on language, then your focus is on reality and things that exist absolutely independent of the human conditions, i.e. mind-independent which is Philosophical Realism.

There was indeed a Linguistic Turn [Rorty] where the whole meaning of reality and things is based on how language is used.

The Linguistic Turn was a major development in Western philosophy during the early 20th century, the most important characteristic of which is the focusing of philosophy primarily on the relations between language, language users, and the world.[1]

Very different intellectual movements were associated with the "linguistic turn", although the term itself is commonly thought to have been popularised by Richard Rorty's 1967 anthology The Linguistic Turn, in which he discusses the turn towards linguistic philosophy.
According to Rorty, who later dissociated himself from linguistic philosophy and analytic philosophy generally, the phrase "the linguistic turn" originated with philosopher Gustav Bergmann
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_turn

So far, you have not been specific on what grounds are your philosophical stances based on?

[Atla]

They. Plural. Lol.

But they aren't precategorized.

It/they/whatever, it's noumenal. Do you understand now that you really are an idiot?

Then I am an idiot.

But at least I can count.

You still don't get it. We can't count the noumenal so it doesn't matter if we use singular or plural. I liked the plural metaphor more in that sentence, that's all.

[Atla]

What I meant is things and reality emerged and are realized spontaneously grounded on a 13.5 billion years of physical history and 4.5 billion years of organic history. I believe this is that '500-pound-gorilla in the room' to you.

There is no pre-existing thing to be "interacted".

Grounded on a past that didn't exist. Very good.

[Lacewing]

Since there is no singular belief system arrived at from a vast range of confirmations all throughout humankind, isn't it reasonable to consider that the implication is that there's 'greater truth' larger than any/all of them?

Hmmm...well, you're making what's called "the bandwagon fallacy" again.

No, I'm not. I'm talking about the opposite -- which evidently you can't even fathom. This is not about people jumping on a bandwagon of belief or lack of belief... it's about the obvious indicators that people think and believe in all different kinds of ways, even when they share the same environment. And they may experience very profound confirmations for what they think and believe. These are no less significant than your own confirmations. This vast potential suggests there's something much broader at work than any particular ideas/stories (theist or otherwise).

Most Atheists, by becoming Atheists, have done their best to cut themselves off from such an opportunity at the very first post. They won't even consider the possibility that God could even exist, let alone that His intentions toward them could be beneficent and sincere.

If they became atheists after being theists, then they have already considered the possibility. Anyone who sees no reason to believe in a god is being perfectly reasonable not to endeavor to convince themselves of it. Theism is not all good, nor all bad. You have demonstrated dishonesty and nonsense associated with theism. I've known very energetically radiant Christians -- and I've also experienced (on an ongoing basis) such energetically radiant energy existing beyond the spirit and structure of theism.

You are the one who is 'cutting themselves off from such opportunity'. I think you darkly represent something else entirely.

[Immanuel Can]

Since there is no singular belief system arrived at from a vast range of confirmations all throughout humankind, isn't it reasonable to consider that the implication is that there's 'greater truth' larger than any/all of them?

Hmmm...well, you're making what's called "the bandwagon fallacy" again.

This is not about people jumping on a bandwagon of belief or lack of belief...

If that's what you think "bandwagon fallacy" means, you don't know what it actually means. But here: https://www.grammarly.com/blog/bandwagon-fallacy/

Most Atheists, by becoming Atheists, have done their best to cut themselves off from such an opportunity at the very first post. They won't even consider the possibility that God could even exist, let alone that His intentions toward them could be beneficent and sincere.

If they became atheists after being theists, then they have already considered the possibility.[/quote] That can happen, perhaps; but it's much less common, it seems, than people having a loose awareness or religion, or having been raised with a nominal association with a tradition, and going Atheist for their own reason. But Atheism is inherently irrational, since it cannot summon evidence for its own case. So it raises the question of why people seek out an irrational commitment, in any case.

Anyone who sees no reason to believe in a god is being perfectly reasonable not to endeavor to convince themselves of it.

That's like saying, "Anyone who sees no reason to believe in gravity is being perfectly reasonable not to endeavour to convince themselves of it." But they'd better do it before they step off any heights.

[Lacewing]

Hmmm...well, you're making what's called "the bandwagon fallacy" again.

This is not about people jumping on a bandwagon of belief or lack of belief...

If that's what you think "bandwagon fallacy" means, you don't know what it actually means. But here: ...

Maybe you need to re-read your own link. You're evidently applying your skewed interpretations again. It does not apply to what I said.

Atheism is inherently irrational, since it cannot summon evidence for its own case.

There doesn't need to be evidence for what we don't experience.

So it raises the question of why people seek out an irrational commitment, in any case.

That would apply to the claims of theism.

Anyone who sees no reason to believe in a god is being perfectly reasonable not to endeavor to convince themselves of it.

That's like saying, "Anyone who sees no reason to believe in gravity is being perfectly reasonable not to endeavour to convince themselves of it." But they'd better do it before they step off any heights.

It's nothing like that.

[Skepdick]

It/they/whatever, it's noumenal. Do you understand now that you really are an idiot?

Then I am an idiot.

But at least I can count.

You still don't get it. We can't count the noumenal so it doesn't matter if we use singular or plural. I liked the plural metaphor more in that sentence, that's all.

You can't count the things you are pointing out?

You are thpethial.

[Peter Holmes]

I agree, our perception, knowledge and description of a thing doesn't bring it into existence like say an apple or table out there.

Perceiving, Knowing & Describing a Thing Does not bring it into Existence
viewtopic.php?t=40715

BUT
But before any real thing is perceived, known and described it has to emerge to be realized as real within a FSR_FSK which is subject interacted, thus cannot be absolutely human independent or 'mind-independent'.
Thus, there a prior emergence and realization process to be accounted for.

And this remains gibberish, how ever many times you repeat it. 'A thing has to emerge to be realised as real within a framework and system of reality-framework and system of knowledge, which is subject interacted, before it can be perceived, known and described.' Why?

'which is subject interacted' is confusing.

What I meant is things and reality emerged and are realized spontaneously grounded on a 13.5 billion years of physical history and 4.5 billion years of organic history. I believe this is that '500-pound-gorilla in the room' to you.

If, as you agree, a thing exists before we perceive, know and describe it, then its existence is 'mind-independent'. And the '13.5 billion years of physical history and 4.5 billion years of organic history' - that you agree occurred - must have been 'mind-independent'. You demolish your own argument.

There is no pre-existing thing to be "interacted".

Did you read this where I explain the processes of emergence and realization
Emergence & Realization
viewtopic.php?t=40721

Yes, I read it - and it does nothing to establish the mind-dependence of physical processes. All your expression 'emergence and realisation' means is that the universe has developed and evolved over billions of years.

As for the stuff about analytic philosophy - mistaking what we say for what we think is as confusing as mistaking what we say for the reality outside language. There was a wrong-turn to language, in my opinion, beginning with Frege and the Tractatus.

If your focus is not on language, then your focus is on reality and things that exist absolutely independent of the human conditions, i.e. mind-independent which is Philosophical Realism.

There was indeed a Linguistic Turn [Rorty] where the whole meaning of reality and things is based on how language is used.

The Linguistic Turn was a major development in Western philosophy during the early 20th century, the most important characteristic of which is the focusing of philosophy primarily on the relations between language, language users, and the world.[1]

Very different intellectual movements were associated with the "linguistic turn", although the term itself is commonly thought to have been popularised by Richard Rorty's 1967 anthology The Linguistic Turn, in which he discusses the turn towards linguistic philosophy.
According to Rorty, who later dissociated himself from linguistic philosophy and analytic philosophy generally, the phrase "the linguistic turn" originated with philosopher Gustav Bergmann
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_turn

So far, you have not been specific on what grounds are your philosophical stances based on?

As I've explained, I begin with a methodological distinction between three things: features of reality that are or were the case; what we believe and know about them; and what we say about them - which, in classical logic, may be true or false, given our contextual and conventional use of signs.

I think this taxonomy - rigorously applied - unlocks the potential in the later Wittgenstein's insight into meaning as use - the 'right turn to language'. For example, it exposes the mistake of thinking that philosophy's true business is the analysis of thought or concepts.

And as for ontology, I reject claims about the existence and nature of supposed abstract or non-physical things, which, pending evidence, I think are irrational.