VA vs. PH - Morality is Objective

[Veritas Aequitas]

P1 in that state isn't even a premise. It's a rambling preamble with a non-sequitur about "enabling objectivity" tacked on at the end. But crucially, the argument can never be valid unless that is "entailing" or "creating". Mere enabling is insufficient to the logical task.

I don't see much reason to bother fixing P1 though if that's what you are relying on for a P2.

Agreed. But knocking VA's P1 into shape may help to show why it's false or at least not shown to be true. Here are some suggestions.

P1 There are no facts of reality 'outside' or 'beyond' what we know and our ways of describing them.

P1 Facts of reality 'outside' or 'beyond' what we know and the ways we describe them are illusions.

P1 Facts of reality exist only 'within' a 'framework and system of knowledge'.

To stand any chance, it will have to be converted from a premise to a prior argument. So I guess that would be something like.
P1. What we know as 'Objectivity' is a psychological phenomenon triggered by sharing of belief among many persons.
P2. These FSK/FSR things are the method by which we construct the form of consensus knows as 'objectivity'
Therefore: If we can construct an FSK, we can construct a corresponding 'objective' viewpoint.

I'll take and buy the above as an argument to substantiate and support the state of objectivity within a human-based FSK.

But there is a whole load of sub-arguments for each of the variables combined in P1 to enable me to proceed to P2.

Then he can drop that stupid "Morality is part of reality" shit show and just try to make the question of whether we can construct a morality FSK thing an inductive question (answer: sure, why not?) and then he can move to the conclusion that under the assumptions that come with three nested levels of this FSK stuff: Therefore a self supporting FSK of morality can meaningfully assert factual moral claims.

• P2 Morality is part of reality.
  C Therefore, there are moral facts, and morality is objective.

What's is wrong with "Morality is part of reality" which can be verified and justified empirically.
It is evident 'morality-in-general' in various forms is embedded in human nature.

Within my P1,
Since morality is a part of reality, it has to be conditioned within a FSK to be realistic.
A FSK enables objectivity - in various degrees.
A FSK enables FSK-ed facts.
Thus morality that is conditioned upon a FSK, has moral fact and they are objective.

The rest of your views are bias to your dogmatic and fundamentalistic ideology of mind-independent linguistic facts which are grounded on a illusion.
Thus you don't have the credibility to insist your 'what is fact' is the ONLY 'what is fact' and other claims of 'what is fact' are automatically fictitious.

[FlashDangerpants]

Agreed. But knocking VA's P1 into shape may help to show why it's false or at least not shown to be true. Here are some suggestions.

P1 There are no facts of reality 'outside' or 'beyond' what we know and our ways of describing them.

P1 Facts of reality 'outside' or 'beyond' what we know and the ways we describe them are illusions.

P1 Facts of reality exist only 'within' a 'framework and system of knowledge'.

To stand any chance, it will have to be converted from a premise to a prior argument. So I guess that would be something like.
P1. What we know as 'Objectivity' is a psychological phenomenon triggered by sharing of belief among many persons.
P2. These FSK/FSR things are the method by which we construct the form of consensus knows as 'objectivity'
Therefore: If we can construct an FSK, we can construct a corresponding 'objective' viewpoint.

I'll take and buy the above as an argument to substantiate and support the state of objectivity within a human-based FSK.

But there is a whole load of sub-arguments for each of the variables combined in P1 to enable me to proceed to P2.

Should you take and buy it though? Can you not see a trap there?

It's a downgrade to say that 'objectivity' is reduced to merely a widely held belief that a statement is particularly well supported. It's not the same as dividing objuective into things whihch we confirm by looking at an external object and any properties it has that can be seen by many observers... versus 'subjective' being things which we verify only by interrogating our own beliefs. You have converted objectivity into just a subjective thing with extra steps, crucially none of which invoves that observation I just mentioned.... even though your paradigm of a reliable FSK thing is science BECAUSE it incorporates the thing I just mentioned and without that science would be junk of the same stature as astrology.

This is an eternal weakness for your argument and you will never shake it off. You can only describe science asd being good in terms that would work equally well for astrology because you cannot rely on the inductive observation of objective phenomena to describe what is good about science.

Then he can drop that stupid "Morality is part of reality" shit show and just try to make the question of whether we can construct a morality FSK thing an inductive question (answer: sure, why not?) and then he can move to the conclusion that under the assumptions that come with three nested levels of this FSK stuff: Therefore a self supporting FSK of morality can meaningfully assert factual moral claims.

• P2 Morality is part of reality.
  C Therefore, there are moral facts, and morality is objective.

What's is wrong with "Morality is part of reality" which can be verified and justified empirically.
It is evident 'morality-in-general' in various forms is embedded in human nature.

What does it even mean to say "Morality is part of reality"? In real terms, what does it even mean to assert that morality is one thing rather than a loosely defined category of human emotions, beliefs and discourses? Is morality a part of reality in any way that customs, manners and fashions aren't?

Is it an objective fact that the Japanese shouldn't slurp their noodles because in Europe that would be bad table manners?
Is it an objective truth fact that purple corduroy flares are the worst trouser ever made, or is it just your lame opinion because you have no taste?

Having tastes and preferences for certain experiences and flavours built into our biological makeup is mechanistic. It's no basis from which to arrive at a conclusion that X is good, or X is morally desirable. It would be circular (viciously) to only accept those instincts which you value morally as a source for what constitutes the morality that is "embedded in human nature" when human nature contains so much that is morally undesirable, such as greed, cowardice and deception.

Within my P1,
Since morality is a part of reality, it has to be conditioned within a FSK to be realistic.
A FSK enables objectivity - in various degrees.
A FSK enables FSK-ed facts.
Thus morality that is conditioned upon a FSK, has moral fact and they are objective.

The rest of your views are bias to your dogmatic and fundamentalistic ideology of mind-independent linguistic facts which are grounded on a illusion.
Thus you don't have the credibility to insist your 'what is fact' is the ONLY 'what is fact' and other claims of 'what is fact' are automatically fictitious.

Since Table Manners is a part of reality, it has to be conditioned within a FSK to be realistic.
A FSK enables objectivity - in various degrees.
A FSK enables FSK-ed facts.
Thus Table Manners that is conditioned upon a FSK, has Table Manners fact and they are objective.

Now replace table manners with "songs about fucking", or "Per-Peri hot sauce"

[FlashDangerpants]

Obviously to me, my P1 is sound based on its FSK-ed truth.
To establish soundness, you have to understand [not agree...yet] my P1 which you have not bothered to, but simply waved it off due to your fundamentalist dogmatism.
Give one strong reason why my P1 cannot be really real as conditioned to its relevant human-based FSK, i.e. the human-based scientific FSK.

P1 in that state isn't even a premise. It's a rambling preamble with a non-sequitur about "enabling objectivity" tacked on at the end. But crucially, the argument can never be valid unless that is "entailing" or "creating". Mere enabling is insufficient to the logical task.

I don't see much reason to bother fixing P1 though if that's what you are relying on for a P2.

My P1 is a convenience, actually it is culmination of many sub-arguments for all the variables within P1 enabling or sustaining a state of objectivity.
I don't want to drag all these sub-arguments along, thus I have combined them into one premise P1.

I have gone through P1 in much details with PH which he understood and agreed is valid but do not agree the whole of it is sound.

"Entailing" or "creating" is a matter of semantic re logic. I have no issue if one want to use it. However I believe the use,
"enabling: give (someone) the authority or means to do something; make it possible for"
is still applicable.

For an argument to be DEDUCTIVELY sound it must be the case that if all the premises are true then the conclusion MUST be true.

So no, it's not semantics whther you say "Entailing" or "creating". Your argument leading to "C Therefore, there are moral facts, and morality is objective" strictly requires it to be an entailment in all such cases, otherwise the premises can be true and the conclusion still false.

And that means that the same entailment must apply to any other FSK thing. Any otherFSK thing at all. This has the followon effect that you must accept a lot of stuff that argues you into absurdity such as there being objective unicorn facts and objectively true donut holes.

[Atla]

There is more to it than your above.

Note this;
Reality: Emergence & Realization Prior to Perceiving, Knowing & Describing
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40145

All you need to know about the depths of VA's intellectual incompetence.
Argument: organisms tend to be hard wired to believe in objective reality, therefore there can be no objective reality.

[Veritas Aequitas]

To stand any chance, it will have to be converted from a premise to a prior argument. So I guess that would be something like.
P1. What we know as 'Objectivity' is a psychological phenomenon triggered by sharing of belief among many persons.
P2. These FSK/FSR things are the method by which we construct the form of consensus knows as 'objectivity'
Therefore: If we can construct an FSK, we can construct a corresponding 'objective' viewpoint.

I'll take and buy the above as an argument to substantiate and support the state of objectivity within a human-based FSK.

But there is a whole load of sub-arguments for each of the variables combined in P1 to enable me to proceed to P2.

Should you take and buy it though? Can you not see a trap there?

It is good for my purpose.

It's a downgrade to say that 'objectivity' is reduced to merely a widely held belief that a statement is particularly well supported. It's not the same as dividing objuective into things whihch we confirm by looking at an external object and any properties it has that can be seen by many observers... versus 'subjective' being things which we verify only by interrogating our own beliefs. You have converted objectivity into just a subjective thing with extra steps, crucially none of which invoves that observation I just mentioned.... even though your paradigm of a reliable FSK thing is science BECAUSE it incorporates the thing I just mentioned and without that science would be junk of the same stature as astrology.

I noted the modern idea of "what is objective" refer whether a claim is of credibility and reliability.

Something is objective if it can be confirmed independent of a mind.
If a claim is true even when considering it outside the viewpoint of a sentient being, then it is labelled objectively true.
Scientific objectivity is practicing science while intentionally reducing partiality, biases, or external influences.
Moral objectivity is the concept of moral or ethical codes being compared to one another through a set of universal facts or a universal perspective and not through differing conflicting perspectives.[4]
Journalistic objectivity is the reporting of facts and news with minimal personal bias or in an impartial or politically neutral manner.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjectiv ... hilosophy)

Note a is critical here. I have included beside that 'a loose group of people]'.

Scientific facts as objective are conditioned upon a human-based FSK and this 'objectivity' cannot be absolutely independent of the subjects [albeit collectively].
Therefore, scientific facts as objective must be grounded on intersubjectivity of subjects.
You deny the above claim?

As such, since objectivity is grounded on intersubjectivity, it can be extended to Astrology, theology, morality and whatever as long it is within an institutionalized human-based FSK.

The critical consideration of such an approach to objectivity is we need to consider the degrees of objectivity of which the scientific FSK is the standard [as argued elsewhere].

This is an eternal weakness for your argument and you will never shake it off. You can only describe science asd being good in terms that would work equally well for astrology because you cannot rely on the inductive observation of objective phenomena to describe what is good about science.

I don't see the relevance here.
According to Popper [generally true] scientific facts are at best 'polished conjectures' or 'polished hypothesis' and never the ultimate reality.
Astrology facts [FSK-ed] in this case are of much less polished-conjectures than that of science.
There are way to quantified the difference to some levels of acceptance.

Then he can drop that stupid "Morality is part of reality" shit show and just try to make the question of whether we can construct a morality FSK thing an inductive question (answer: sure, why not?) and then he can move to the conclusion that under the assumptions that come with three nested levels of this FSK stuff: Therefore a self supporting FSK of morality can meaningfully assert factual moral claims.

• P2 Morality is part of reality.
  C Therefore, there are moral facts, and morality is objective.

What's is wrong with "Morality is part of reality" which can be verified and justified empirically.
It is evident 'morality-in-general' in various forms is embedded in human nature.

What does it even mean to say "Morality is part of reality"? In real terms, what does it even mean to assert that morality is one thing rather than a loosely defined category of human emotions, beliefs and discourses? Is morality a part of reality in any way that customs, manners and fashions aren't?

Is it an objective fact that the Japanese shouldn't slurp their noodles because in Europe that would be bad table manners?
Is it an objective truth fact that purple corduroy flares are the worst trouser ever made, or is it just your lame opinion because you have no taste?

Having tastes and preferences for certain experiences and flavours built into our biological makeup is mechanistic. It's no basis from which to arrive at a conclusion that X is good, or X is morally desirable. It would be circular (viciously) to only accept those instincts which you value morally as a source for what constitutes the morality that is "embedded in human nature" when human nature contains so much that is morally undesirable, such as greed, cowardice and deception.

Yes, morality comes in many forms, but underlying those variations there is something invariant with morality traceable to the neuronal algorithm in the brain.
Just as you mentioned re tastes and preferences, what is invariant it the underlying invariant generic biological make up [all humans has generic tongue, taste buds and taste nerves] where the manifested tastes vary with environmental, social, etc. conditions.
What is invariant are the biological facts from the science-biology FSK.

Within my P1,
Since morality is a part of reality, it has to be conditioned within a FSK to be realistic.
A FSK enables objectivity - in various degrees.
A FSK enables FSK-ed facts.
Thus morality that is conditioned upon a FSK, has moral fact and they are objective.

The rest of your views are bias to your dogmatic and fundamentalistic ideology of mind-independent linguistic facts which are grounded on a illusion.
Thus you don't have the credibility to insist your 'what is fact' is the ONLY 'what is fact' and other claims of 'what is fact' are automatically fictitious.

Since Table Manners is a part of reality, it has to be conditioned within a FSK to be realistic.
A FSK enables objectivity - in various degrees.
A FSK enables FSK-ed facts.
Thus Table Manners that is conditioned upon a FSK, has Table Manners fact and they are objective.

Now replace table manners with "songs about fucking", or "Per-Peri hot sauce"

What you suggested are FSKs at the fringes relative the scientific FSK as the standard.
Table manners are different between groups of people.
As long as there is a large agreement of people agreeing to certain table manners, we have as human-based table-manner-X FSK.
What is objective [FSK-ed] in this case must be qualified only to table-manner-X FSK.
The question of what degrees of objectivity will depend on various factors.

Table manners with "songs about fucking", or "Per-Peri hot sauce" can be objectified within a FSK, but they do not have serious philosophical values in our present case.
What is critical to topic is related to FSK-ed Moral Objectivity, Scientific Objectivity, Theological Objectivity.

Another critical reason why FSK-ed objectivity is very effective is it ability to provide Completeness Control to ensure no one can give metaphysical excuses they are transcendent and beyond philosophical consideration.

Reminder:
There are two Senses of 'Objective'
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39326

My reference to objectivity is that of FSK-ed Objectivity not your Illusory Objectivity based on mind-independence.

[Iwannaplato]

Per definition above, whatever is conditioned upon a FSR-FSK is considered real and objective.
The question is to what degrees of realness and objectivity it is, taking into account the credibility of the FSR-FSK.
Thus whatever emerged from the Scientific FSK has high degrees of realness and objectivity while that, say, the theistic FSK has negligible degrees of realness and objectivity.

Me personally, I don't think degrees of realness makes any sense at all especially for an antrealist/idealist. Statements could be more true than others or less true. But real?
And to add to that 'really'. That word is derived, as I am sure you know, from 'real'. It's the adverb form. Is my car real or really real?

Because it's conditioned. If it wasn't conditioned, then it could be really real. But given it is dependent on an FSK it's just real or perhaps 'real'.

The 'realness' per se is not fully dependent on the said FSR-FSK.
There is already a prior 'realness' within humanity interaction with reality, the considered FSR-FSK merely reinforced additional degrees of realness and objectivity to what is prior, i.e. a priori real.

And there we have realism again

humanity interaction with reality

That is positing two 'things' that interact.
And then also the other point that FSK affect how we experience and what we experience. And not just all the confirmation biases that go with this. But we experience what we expect to experience (not completely, but to a very high degree) and our FSKs are also causal in our expectations. And this is extremely true at the level of ontological expectations. This can be in self-relations, expectations - Pygmalion Effect, Placebo Effects. This can affect what we see and don't see. How we label what we see. And so with all the senses. And given that antirealism/idealism are making experience THE reality, rather than anything beyond it, FSKs are not simply after the fact guesses to well-arrived at conclusions/epistemologies, but are causal in all we experience. Which should lead one to wonder how flexible- experiencing can be, given that many of our beliefs are not conscious beliefs, but even these can change and be changed.

We don't have FSK free experiences that we then check against some FSK.

The whole purpose of a human-based FSK is to enable 'objectivity' i.e. independent of an individual [or a loose group of people] opinions, beliefs and judgment.

All variables within reality [all there is] is conditioned upon a FSR-FSK - there is no exceptions. [note this is based on Kant's Copernican Revolution].

Since it is conditioned upon a FSK, it is obviously 'bias' to the FSK. Adopting a specific human-based FSK will definitely "color your experience, even create its whole cloth." This is not a problem as long as we know what FSK we are conditioned upon.

Every moden human is conditioned on a vast number of FSK, with contradictions. Any thorough introspection will at least notice the tip of the iceberg of this.

This is so obvious with say the human-based theological-FSK which will "color theists' experience, even create its whole cloth."
It is the same with any other FSK.

Exactly and if there is nothing beyond experience, then there is only the experiencing. If our beliefs make that, color it, change it.....how flexible is our experiencing? What is then not real? If person X experiences Y, how can we tell them they did not experience Y? On what grounds?

1) We did not experience their experience?
2) If there is no thing to check (some mind independent reality), then experience is the only reality. Experiencing which includes the experiencer and what we call the experienced. There is nothing else in metaphysical antirealism, nor in idealism. That is the reality. And if having different beliefs affects what one experiences, then reality is not a singular thing.

[FlashDangerpants]

I'll take and buy the above as an argument to substantiate and support the state of objectivity within a human-based FSK.

But there is a whole load of sub-arguments for each of the variables combined in P1 to enable me to proceed to P2.

Should you take and buy it though? Can you not see a trap there?

It is good for my purpose.

It's a downgrade to say that 'objectivity' is reduced to merely a widely held belief that a statement is particularly well supported. It's not the same as dividing objuective into things whihch we confirm by looking at an external object and any properties it has that can be seen by many observers... versus 'subjective' being things which we verify only by interrogating our own beliefs. You have converted objectivity into just a subjective thing with extra steps, crucially none of which invoves that observation I just mentioned.... even though your paradigm of a reliable FSK thing is science BECAUSE it incorporates the thing I just mentioned and without that science would be junk of the same stature as astrology.

I noted the modern idea of "what is objective" refer whether a claim is of credibility and reliability.

Something is objective if it can be confirmed independent of a mind.
If a claim is true even when considering it outside the viewpoint of a sentient being, then it is labelled objectively true.
Scientific objectivity is practicing science while intentionally reducing partiality, biases, or external influences.
Moral objectivity is the concept of moral or ethical codes being compared to one another through a set of universal facts or a universal perspective and not through differing conflicting perspectives.[4]
Journalistic objectivity is the reporting of facts and news with minimal personal bias or in an impartial or politically neutral manner.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjectiv ... hilosophy)

Note a is critical here. I have included beside that 'a loose group of people]'.

Scientific facts as objective are conditioned upon a human-based FSK and this 'objectivity' cannot be absolutely independent of the subjects [albeit collectively].
Therefore, scientific facts as objective must be grounded on intersubjectivity of subjects.
You deny the above claim?

Sorry but that's all junk. You are misreading your source. Being mind-dependent is not a matter of how many minds are being depended on. Claims which are true exclusively when considering the claim from the viewpoint of a sentient being are of the same type as those which are true exclusively when considering the claim from the viewpoint of multiple sentient beings. they stand in contrast to those claims which are true on the basis of being true of an external object.

The whole "a mind" thing you do is mere semantics. This is demonstrable by the fact you are relying entirely upon wikipedia all of a sudden when you want to make this argument. Why can't you find any other source? Here's the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy on the matter..

"The terms “objectivity” and “subjectivity,” in their modern usage, generally relate to a perceiving subject (normally a person) and a perceived or unperceived object. The object is something that presumably exists independent of the subject’s perception of it. In other words, the object would be there, as it is, even if no subject perceived it. Hence, objectivity is typically associated with ideas such as reality, truth and reliability."

The point I am making about types of claim being divided up according to the ways in which we confirm them is quite normal. One day you need to work out a proper approach to it if you want to be a real philosopher. Just calling people gnats isn't going to work for you.

As such, since objectivity is grounded on intersubjectivity, it can be extended to Astrology, theology, morality and whatever as long it is within an institutionalized human-based FSK.

The critical consideration of such an approach to objectivity is we need to consider the degrees of objectivity of which the scientific FSK is the standard [as argued elsewhere].

The problem here is that you have misunderstood what makes science so much better than those other things. It is what I have said above, that science uses objective data under my description of objectivity, and my description is much stricter than yours.

Astrology can be shown using scientific methods such as double blind studies, to be bullshit specifically because astrology is only objective in your inferior terms that nobody is ever going to accept.

Astrology would not become the equal of science if enough people believed in it. That would just be a lot of people believing that some unfounded nonsense was objective. They would just be a bunch of people who are mistaken.

This is an eternal weakness for your argument and you will never shake it off. You can only describe science asd being good in terms that would work equally well for astrology because you cannot rely on the inductive observation of objective phenomena to describe what is good about science.

I don't see the relevance here.
According to Popper [generally true] scientific facts are at best 'polished conjectures' or 'polished hypothesis' and never the ultimate reality.
Astrology facts [FSK-ed] in this case are of much less polished-conjectures than that of science.
There are way to quantified the difference to some levels of acceptance.

That you can describe science as good and astrology as less good without even suggesting that astrology just isn't objective at all shows why your argument is holed below the water line. That you can face this problem and choose to just double down only tells us what confidence level we should apply to your chances of eventually dealing with the issue.

There is an entirely obvious difference of type between the observations that drive scientific methods of hypothesis confirmation and those of making up nonsense for bored housewifes that drive astrology. You are mad if you think it makes sense to just put them on a scale where the number of people that find a method of investigation compelling or not is the difference maker.

What does it even mean to say "Morality is part of reality"? In real terms, what does it even mean to assert that morality is one thing rather than a loosely defined category of human emotions, beliefs and discourses? Is morality a part of reality in any way that customs, manners and fashions aren't?

Is it an objective fact that the Japanese shouldn't slurp their noodles because in Europe that would be bad table manners?
Is it an objective truth fact that purple corduroy flares are the worst trouser ever made, or is it just your lame opinion because you have no taste?

Having tastes and preferences for certain experiences and flavours built into our biological makeup is mechanistic. It's no basis from which to arrive at a conclusion that X is good, or X is morally desirable. It would be circular (viciously) to only accept those instincts which you value morally as a source for what constitutes the morality that is "embedded in human nature" when human nature contains so much that is morally undesirable, such as greed, cowardice and deception.

Yes, morality comes in many forms, but underlying those variations there is something invariant with morality traceable to the neuronal algorithm in the brain.
Just as you mentioned re tastes and preferences, what is invariant it the underlying invariant generic biological make up [all humans has generic tongue, taste buds and taste nerves] where the manifested tastes vary with environmental, social, etc. conditions.
What is invariant are the biological facts from the science-biology FSK.

Invariance of a subjective view doesn't make an objective one. Everyone agrees that it is nice to feel snug indoors in winter but that just makes it something that everyone agrees about, not an objective truth. If everyone agrees that death is scary that doesn't mean it's true for the universe that death is bad.

We should try to avoid naturalistic fallacies that we comit when we naturalise abstract evaluative terms onto basic physical substrates simply because we commonly experience the two together.

Since Table Manners is a part of reality, it has to be conditioned within a FSK to be realistic.
A FSK enables objectivity - in various degrees.
A FSK enables FSK-ed facts.
Thus Table Manners that is conditioned upon a FSK, has Table Manners fact and they are objective.

Now replace table manners with "songs about fucking", or "Per-Peri hot sauce"

What you suggested are FSKs at the fringes relative the scientific FSK as the standard.
Table manners are different between groups of people.
As long as there is a large agreement of people agreeing to certain table manners, we have as human-based table-manner-X FSK.
What is objective [FSK-ed] in this case must be qualified only to table-manner-X FSK.
The question of what degrees of objectivity will depend on various factors.

None of that makes sense. It is just compulsive sorting into meaningless categories.

Table manners with "songs about fucking", or "Per-Peri hot sauce" can be objectified within a FSK

What does that sentence mean?

but they do not have serious philosophical values in our present case.
What is critical to topic is related to FSK-ed Moral Objectivity, Scientific Objectivity, Theological Objectivity.

Your argument, if it is valid, applies to anything that can be made into one of these FSK things. And if songs about fucking can be one of these FSK things then you have got yourself into an absurd situation.

Another critical reason why FSK-ed objectivity is very effective is it ability to provide Completeness Control to ensure no one can give metaphysical excuses they are transcendent and beyond philosophical consideration.

You just failed to rule that there isn't an objective truth about table manners. Worse, you established Table Manners Relativism and so I will be using that any time I like to repurpose your own arguments to show that you are committed now to Moral Relativism. I don't think you have really won any grand prizes in return for that loss, given that transcendental thingies don't make stuff "beyond philosophical consideration" anyway.

Reminder:
There are two Senses of 'Objective'
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39326

My reference to objectivity is that of FSK-ed Objectivity not your Illusory Objectivity based on mind-independence.

Nobody cares about your weak version of objectivity. The truth is that everyone breaks it down into things that you look internally to confirm (subject) and things that you look externally to confirm (object) and it will probably stay that way.

[FlashDangerpants]

I dealt with the objectivity stuff above, but I am breaking this one outr seperately because it's the headshot.

Within my P1,
Since morality is a part of reality, it has to be conditioned within a FSK to be realistic.
A FSK enables objectivity - in various degrees.
A FSK enables FSK-ed facts.
Thus morality that is conditioned upon a FSK, has moral fact and they are objective.

The rest of your views are bias to your dogmatic and fundamentalistic ideology of mind-independent linguistic facts which are grounded on a illusion.
Thus you don't have the credibility to insist your 'what is fact' is the ONLY 'what is fact' and other claims of 'what is fact' are automatically fictitious.

Since Table Manners is a part of reality, it has to be conditioned within a FSK to be realistic.
A FSK enables objectivity - in various degrees.
A FSK enables FSK-ed facts.
Thus Table Manners that is conditioned upon a FSK, has Table Manners fact and they are objective.

Now replace table manners with "songs about fucking", or "Per-Peri hot sauce"

What you suggested are FSKs at the fringes relative the scientific FSK as the standard.
Table manners are different between groups of people.
As long as there is a large agreement of people agreeing to certain table manners, we have as human-based table-manner-X FSK.
What is objective [FSK-ed] in this case must be qualified only to table-manner-X FSK.

Moral Precepts are different between groups of people.
As long as there is a large agreement of people agreeing to certain Moral Precepts, we have as human-based Moral Precepts-X FSK.
What is objective [FSK-ed] in this case must be qualified only to Moral Precepts-X FSK.

So the set of moral precepts that are held in common by all the people where I live, who have a generally socially liberal background and are religiously non-believer or simply innactive in whatever faith they hold would be Moral Precepts-London-Liberal-Atheist FSK.

Within that FSK, it is objectively true that there is no such thing as a soul, that nothing of moral significance is attached to a 9 week old zygote, and that abortion is therefore not a morally problematic activity within the first X number of months of a pregnancy.

The set of moral precepts that are held in common between all the people who live in a small vilage halfway up a mountain in Afghanistan are much less metropolitan and include that it is an act of betrayal to your community to leave Islam. So that's a fact too, just in a different FSK.






Somebody should summon Dasein/dasein boy here to do a little victory jig around VA.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Per definition above, whatever is conditioned upon a FSR-FSK is considered real and objective.
The question is to what degrees of realness and objectivity it is, taking into account the credibility of the FSR-FSK.
Thus whatever emerged from the Scientific FSK has high degrees of realness and objectivity while that, say, the theistic FSK has negligible degrees of realness and objectivity.

Me personally, I don't think degrees of realness makes any sense at all especially for an antrealist/idealist. Statements could be more true than others or less true. But real?
And to add to that 'really'. That word is derived, as I am sure you know, from 'real'. It's the adverb form. Is my car real or really real?

There is no ultimate distinction between real, fact, exist, objective, and the like;

PH's 'Moral Facts' are Circular & Baseless
viewtopic.php?t=40729

What is most practical is to condition all the above within a human-based FSK and assess its degrees of credibility, reliability objectivity and in this case reality.

When one fall back or whether a thing is real or not, that is philosophical realism.

Because it's conditioned. If it wasn't conditioned, then it could be really real. But given it is dependent on an FSK it's just real or perhaps 'real'.

The 'realness' per se is not fully dependent on the said FSR-FSK.
There is already a prior 'realness' within humanity interaction with reality, the considered FSR-FSK merely reinforced additional degrees of realness and objectivity to what is prior, i.e. a priori real.

And there we have realism again

humanity interaction with reality

That is positing two 'things' that interact.

And then also the other point that FSK affect how we experience and what we experience. And not just all the confirmation biases that go with this. But we experience what we expect to experience (not completely, but to a very high degree) and our FSKs are also causal in our expectations. And this is extremely true at the level of ontological expectations. This can be in self-relations, expectations - Pygmalion Effect, Placebo Effects. This can affect what we see and don't see. How we label what we see. And so with all the senses. And given that antirealism/idealism are making experience THE reality, rather than anything beyond it, FSKs are not simply after the fact guesses to well-arrived at conclusions/epistemologies, but are causal in all we experience. Which should lead one to wonder how flexible- experiencing can be, given that many of our beliefs are not conscious beliefs, but even these can change and be changed.

We don't have FSK free experiences that we then check against some FSK.

Yes, we don't have FSK-free experience at all.
To get a FSK to check another FSK would be that of a God-eye-view FSK which is grounded on an illusion thus has low degrees of objectivity.

"humanity interaction with reality" this is on the basis of self-referencing and not on any independent X with another independent Y which is philosophical realism.

The whole purpose of a human-based FSK is to enable 'objectivity' i.e. independent of an individual [or a loose group of people] opinions, beliefs and judgment.

All variables within reality [all there is] is conditioned upon a FSR-FSK - there is no exceptions. [note this is based on Kant's Copernican Revolution].

Since it is conditioned upon a FSK, it is obviously 'bias' to the FSK. Adopting a specific human-based FSK will definitely "color your experience, even create its whole cloth." This is not a problem as long as we know what FSK we are conditioned upon.

Every moden human is conditioned on a vast number of FSK, with contradictions. Any thorough introspection will at least notice the tip of the iceberg of this.

There are no contradiction within a specific FSK.
We cannot have contradictions within the science physics FSK within itself; it is the same with any other FSK.
However, there may be contradictions between different FSKs, e.g. science FSK = no god, while theistic FSK=God exists.

This is so obvious with say the human-based theological-FSK which will "color theists' experience, even create its whole cloth."
It is the same with any other FSK.

Exactly and if there is nothing beyond experience, then there is only the experiencing. If our beliefs make that, color it, change it.....how flexible is our experiencing? What is then not real? If person X experiences Y, how can we tell them they did not experience Y? On what grounds?

1) We did not experience their experience?
2) If there is no thing to check (some mind independent reality), then experience is the only reality. Experiencing which includes the experiencer and what we call the experienced. There is nothing else in metaphysical antirealism, nor in idealism. That is the reality. And if having different beliefs affects what one experiences, then reality is not a singular thing.

Who is claiming reality as a singular thing?
What is reality is conditioned upon a specific human based FSK.
To avoid illusions, we should suspend judgment on any urge to confirm anything metaphysical beyond that.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Sorry but that's all junk. You are misreading your source. Being mind-dependent is not a matter of how many minds are being depended on. Claims which are true exclusively when considering the claim from the viewpoint of a sentient being are of the same type as those which are true exclusively when considering the claim from the viewpoint of multiple sentient beings. they stand in contrast to those claims which are true on the basis of being true of an external object.

I am confident my take on what is philosophical objectivity as linked above is correct.

I do not agree with your sense of objectivity that is leverage on "an external object".

I thought I linked my justifications;
Mind-Independent [external] Things; a Scandal [Insult] to Philosophy
viewtopic.php?t=40182

Hume: External World is a Fabrication
viewtopic.php?t=40791

The whole "a mind" thing you do is mere semantics. This is demonstrable by the fact you are relying entirely upon wikipedia all of a sudden when you want to make this argument. Why can't you find any other source? Here's the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy on the matter..

"The terms “objectivity” and “subjectivity,” in their modern usage, generally relate to a perceiving subject (normally a person) and a perceived or unperceived object. The object is something that presumably exists independent of the subject’s perception of it. In other words, the object would be there, as it is, even if no subject perceived it. Hence, objectivity is typically associated with ideas such as reality, truth and reliability."

The point I am making about types of claim being divided up according to the ways in which we confirm them is quite normal. One day you need to work out a proper approach to it if you want to be a real philosopher. Just calling people gnats isn't going to work for you.

The above is merely one perspective of 'what is objectivity' from the philosophical realists' perspective.
It is heavily contested by the ANTI-philosophical_realists claims re Hume, Kant and others.

• Here at 54:30
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISdBAf-ysI0
  Professor Jim Al-Khalili stated,
  "In some strange sense, it really does suggest the moon doesn't exists when we are not looking. It truly defies common sense."
  posting.php?mode=edit&p=624050

As such, since objectivity is grounded on intersubjectivity, it can be extended to Astrology, theology, morality and whatever as long it is within an institutionalized human-based FSK.

The critical consideration of such an approach to objectivity is we need to consider the degrees of objectivity of which the scientific FSK is the standard [as argued elsewhere].

The problem here is that you have misunderstood what makes science so much better than those other things. It is what I have said above, that science uses objective data under my description of objectivity, and my description is much stricter than yours.

Astrology can be shown using scientific methods such as double blind studies, to be bullshit specifically because astrology is only objective in your inferior terms that nobody is ever going to accept.

Astrology would not become the equal of science if enough people believed in it. That would just be a lot of people believing that some unfounded nonsense was objective. They would just be a bunch of people who are mistaken.

Note my point below re
Scientific facts are at best merely 'polished conjectures'.
I stated all claims of reality must be conditioned upon a human-based FSK; I did NOT state the Astrology is equal to Science; rather they can be objectified FSK-wise but have different degrees of objectivity.

This is an eternal weakness for your argument and you will never shake it off. You can only describe science asd being good in terms that would work equally well for astrology because you cannot rely on the inductive observation of objective phenomena to describe what is good about science.

I don't see the relevance here.
According to Popper [generally true] scientific facts are at best 'polished conjectures' or 'polished hypothesis' and never the ultimate reality.
Astrology facts [FSK-ed] in this case are of much less polished-conjectures than that of science.
There are way to quantified the difference to some levels of acceptance.

That you can describe science as good and astrology as less good without even suggesting that astrology just isn't objective at all shows why your argument is holed below the water line. That you can face this problem and choose to just double down only tells us what confidence level we should apply to your chances of eventually dealing with the issue.

There is an entirely obvious difference of type between the observations that drive scientific methods of hypothesis confirmation and those of making up nonsense for bored housewifes that drive astrology. You are mad if you think it makes sense to just put them on a scale where the number of people that find a method of investigation compelling or not is the difference maker.

That we can objectified every claim of reality with varying degrees of objectivity if effective in enabling Completeness Control.
Once we get Astrology, and the likes within the ambit of objectivity, there is no room for their claimants to eel their way out with excuses of metaphysical claims.

Once we can rate Astrology, theology at the extreme low end of the continuum in contrast the high objectivity of science, there is room for them to escape a checkmate.

On the other hand, with your approach, you allow these metaphysical claims to be out of the ambit of objectivity where they can tease you from a distance where you cannot touch them at all leaving them to all sort of metaphysical beliefs which in the long run is detrimental to humanity.

What does it even mean to say "Morality is part of reality"? In real terms, what does it even mean to assert that morality is one thing rather than a loosely defined category of human emotions, beliefs and discourses? Is morality a part of reality in any way that customs, manners and fashions aren't?

Is it an objective fact that the Japanese shouldn't slurp their noodles because in Europe that would be bad table manners?
Is it an objective truth fact that purple corduroy flares are the worst trouser ever made, or is it just your lame opinion because you have no taste?

Having tastes and preferences for certain experiences and flavours built into our biological makeup is mechanistic. It's no basis from which to arrive at a conclusion that X is good, or X is morally desirable. It would be circular (viciously) to only accept those instincts which you value morally as a source for what constitutes the morality that is "embedded in human nature" when human nature contains so much that is morally undesirable, such as greed, cowardice and deception.

Yes, morality comes in many forms, but underlying those variations there is something invariant with morality traceable to the neuronal algorithm in the brain.
Just as you mentioned re tastes and preferences, what is invariant it the underlying invariant generic biological make up [all humans has generic tongue, taste buds and taste nerves] where the manifested tastes vary with environmental, social, etc. conditions.
What is invariant are the biological facts from the science-biology FSK.

Invariance of a subjective view doesn't make an objective one. Everyone agrees that it is nice to feel snug indoors in winter but that just makes it something that everyone agrees about, not an objective truth. If everyone agrees that death is scary that doesn't mean it's true for the universe that death is bad.

We should try to avoid naturalistic fallacies that we comit when we naturalise abstract evaluative terms onto basic physical substrates simply because we commonly experience the two together.

The point is to trace the subjective variations to a common denominator that is generically physical within the human body.
Like I say earlier, human has different tastes there is a generic invariant in term of a common tongue, taste buds and taste nerves, neural algorithm that process basic taste before it veered off by other conditions.

Since Table Manners is a part of reality, it has to be conditioned within a FSK to be realistic.
A FSK enables objectivity - in various degrees.
A FSK enables FSK-ed facts.
Thus Table Manners that is conditioned upon a FSK, has Table Manners fact and they are objective.

Now replace table manners with "songs about fucking", or "Per-Peri hot sauce"

What you suggested are FSKs at the fringes relative the scientific FSK as the standard.
Table manners are different between groups of people.
As long as there is a large agreement of people agreeing to certain table manners, we have as human-based table-manner-X FSK.
What is objective [FSK-ed] in this case must be qualified only to table-manner-X FSK.
The question of what degrees of objectivity will depend on various factors.

None of that makes sense. It is just compulsive sorting into meaningless categories.

Of course it will not make sense because of your dogmatic and fundamentalistic ideology of mind-independence driven by an evolutionary default.
You should do research on how this evolutionary default has changed with time.

Table manners with "songs about fucking", or "Per-Peri hot sauce" can be objectified within a FSK

What does that sentence mean?

Note the subjectivity in diving contests, skating gymnastics, beauty contests which can be objectified.
The winners of these competitions are sporting facts; surely you do not deny this, e.g. Simone Biles won the all round 2023 US gymnastic competition within the US Gymnastic FSK.

Simone Biles wins 6th worlds all-around, sets medals mark.
https://www.espn.com/olympics/gymnastic ... edals-mark

but they do not have serious philosophical values in our present case.
What is critical to topic is related to FSK-ed Moral Objectivity, Scientific Objectivity, Theological Objectivity.

Your argument, if it is valid, applies to anything that can be made into one of these FSK things. And if songs about fucking can be one of these FSK things then you have got yourself into an absurd situation.

It is not absurd when it is soundly qualified and whatever is interpreted of it must take into account all the conditions of the said FSK.

Another critical reason why FSK-ed objectivity is very effective is it ability to provide Completeness Control to ensure no one can give metaphysical excuses they are transcendent and beyond philosophical consideration.

You just failed to rule that there isn't an objective truth about table manners. Worse, you established Table Manners Relativism and so I will be using that any time I like to repurpose your own arguments to show that you are committed now to Moral Relativism. I don't think you have really won any grand prizes in return for that loss, given that transcendental thingies don't make stuff "beyond philosophical consideration" anyway.

Again, you are relying on your sense of "what is objective" which argued is grounded on an illusion.

Reminder:
There are two Senses of 'Objective'
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39326

My reference to objectivity is that of FSK-ed Objectivity not your Illusory Objectivity based on mind-independence.

Nobody cares about your weak version of objectivity. The truth is that everyone breaks it down into things that you look internally to confirm (subject) and things that you look externally to confirm (object) and it will probably stay that way.

Mine is the only practical version of objectivity.

Your sense of objectivity as I had argued is grounded on an illusion.

Demonstrate to me that an absolutely mind-independent apple on the table exists as an objective reality.

Your problem [?] is this;
You suppose there is a state of affairs of what is an objective apple.
But a state-of-affairs of "apple" can only be qualified to time.
A state of affairs [t1] is like a picture taken at a certain moment is time where reality is all there is at that particular moment in time the picture is taken at say t1.
But there is no such sustainable or permanent state of affairs [t1] because the moment one click the camera, the apple is already in state-of-affairs [t2] and it keep changing until the apple is eaten or rot naturally.

What is most realistic is to present the above apple within a specific human-based FSK.

[FlashDangerpants]

Demonstrate to me that an absolutely mind-independent apple on the table exists as an objective reality.

That doesn't need doing. I explained years ago why the entire realism/antirealism debate doesn't matter at all.

Reality may refer to that which is super-ultra-specially-real, and exists independent of us, or failing that it is what seems exactly the way it would if it was super-ultra-specially-real and did exist independently of us. It makes no odds and I have no opinion on which is the case. But objectivity is about things external to us and how we interact with them. The undergarments of some obscure argument about absoluteness of reality are neither here nor there in this matter.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Demonstrate to me that an absolutely mind-independent apple on the table exists as an objective reality.

That doesn't need doing. I explained years ago why the entire realism/antirealism debate doesn't matter at all.

Reality may refer to that which is super-ultra-specially-real, and exists independent of us, or failing that it is what seems exactly the way it would if it was super-ultra-specially-real and did exist independently of us. It makes no odds and I have no opinion on which is the case. But objectivity is about things external to us and how we interact with them. The undergarments of some obscure argument about absoluteness of reality are neither here nor there in this matter.

You may want to be excluded from the realism/antirealism but your philosophical views above suck you into that whirlpool.
See:

Philosophical realism – usually not treated as a position of its own but as a stance towards other subject matters – is the view that a certain kind of thing (ranging widely from abstract objects like numbers to moral statements to the physical world itself) has mind-independent existence, i.e. that it exists even in the absence of any mind perceiving it or that its existence is not just a mere appearance in the eye of the beholder.[1][2][3] This includes a number of positions within epistemology and metaphysics which express that a given thing instead exists independently of knowledge, thought, or understanding.[4] This can apply to items such as the physical world, the past and future, other minds, and the self, though may also apply less directly to things such as universals, mathematical truths, moral truths, and thought itself. However, realism may also include various positions which instead reject metaphysical treatments of reality entirely.[5][6]

Realism can also be a view about the properties of reality in general, holding that reality exists independent of the mind, as opposed to non-realist views (like some forms of skepticism and solipsism) which question the certainty of anything beyond one's own mind. Philosophers who profess realism often claim that truth consists in a correspondence between cognitive representations and reality.[7]

Realists tend to believe that whatever we believe now is only an approximation of reality but that the accuracy and fullness of understanding can be improved.[8] In some contexts, realism is contrasted with idealism.

Today it [Philosophical realism] is more usually contrasted with anti-realism, for example in the philosophy of science.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

You just cannot run away from the realism vs antirealism dichotomy.

[Sculptor]

VA: There are moral facts, and morality is objective.


Obviously to me, my P1 is sound based on its FSK-ed truth.

That makes it relative to the FSK at best, but subjective to you personally.
QED not objective.

To establish soundness, you have to understand [not agree...yet] my P1 which you have not bothered to, but simply waved it off due to your fundamentalist dogmatism.
Give one strong reason why my P1 cannot be really real as conditioned to its relevant human-based FSK, i.e. the human-based scientific FSK.

P1 is wrong because that which is truly objective must stand alone regardless of your opinion (FSK)

There is more to it than your above.

Note this;
Reality: Emergence & Realization Prior to Perceiving, Knowing & Describing
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40145

P1 is wrong because that which is truly objective must stand alone regardless of your opinion (FSK)

We have gone through this many times.

... And you keep on igoring it.

The test for a scientific fact is simple.
Demonstrate it, and it is universally replicable anywhere on earth, (or beyond it).

So tell me one moral truth, that is purely objective.

[FlashDangerpants]

Demonstrate to me that an absolutely mind-independent apple on the table exists as an objective reality.

That doesn't need doing. I explained years ago why the entire realism/antirealism debate doesn't matter at all.

Reality may refer to that which is super-ultra-specially-real, and exists independent of us, or failing that it is what seems exactly the way it would if it was super-ultra-specially-real and did exist independently of us. It makes no odds and I have no opinion on which is the case. But objectivity is about things external to us and how we interact with them. The undergarments of some obscure argument about absoluteness of reality are neither here nor there in this matter.

You may want to be excluded from the realism/antirealism but your philosophical views above suck you into that whirlpool.
See:

Philosophical realism – usually not treated as a position of its own but as a stance towards other subject matters – is the view that a certain kind of thing (ranging widely from abstract objects like numbers to moral statements to the physical world itself) has mind-independent existence, i.e. that it exists even in the absence of any mind perceiving it or that its existence is not just a mere appearance in the eye of the beholder.[1][2][3] This includes a number of positions within epistemology and metaphysics which express that a given thing instead exists independently of knowledge, thought, or understanding.[4] This can apply to items such as the physical world, the past and future, other minds, and the self, though may also apply less directly to things such as universals, mathematical truths, moral truths, and thought itself. However, realism may also include various positions which instead reject metaphysical treatments of reality entirely.[5][6]

Realism can also be a view about the properties of reality in general, holding that reality exists independent of the mind, as opposed to non-realist views (like some forms of skepticism and solipsism) which question the certainty of anything beyond one's own mind. Philosophers who profess realism often claim that truth consists in a correspondence between cognitive representations and reality.[7]

Realists tend to believe that whatever we believe now is only an approximation of reality but that the accuracy and fullness of understanding can be improved.[8] In some contexts, realism is contrasted with idealism.

Today it [Philosophical realism] is more usually contrasted with anti-realism, for example in the philosophy of science.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

You just cannot run away from the realism vs antirealism dichotomy.

Our world can be described in terms of what we do know (realism) or of some speculative extra dimension of existence/non-existence about which we cannnot "truly" know (antirealism), but of which it is questionable whether we can speak. I don't care which description you choose to use, they both describe the same thing once you strip away the bullshit anyway. In either case, it has no bearing on ethics, and it never did.

There is a world. We live in it. We percieve objects that are not ourselves and objects that ourselves within this world we live in. When we speak of objectivity it is within this world that we do so.

[Veritas Aequitas]

That doesn't need doing. I explained years ago why the entire realism/antirealism debate doesn't matter at all.

Reality may refer to that which is super-ultra-specially-real, and exists independent of us, or failing that it is what seems exactly the way it would if it was super-ultra-specially-real and did exist independently of us. It makes no odds and I have no opinion on which is the case. But objectivity is about things external to us and how we interact with them. The undergarments of some obscure argument about absoluteness of reality are neither here nor there in this matter.

You may want to be excluded from the realism/antirealism but your philosophical views above suck you into that whirlpool.
See:

Philosophical realism – is the view that a certain kind of thing (ranging widely from abstract objects like numbers to moral statements to the physical world itself) has mind-independent existence, i.e. that it exists even in the absence of any mind perceiving it or that its existence is not just a mere appearance in the eye of the beholder.[1][2][3] This includes a number of positions within epistemology and metaphysics which express that a given thing instead exists independently of knowledge, thought, or understanding.[4] This can apply to items such as the physical world, the past and future, other minds, and the self, though may also apply less directly to things such as universals, mathematical truths, moral truths, and thought itself. However, realism may also include various positions which instead reject metaphysical treatments of reality entirely.[5][6]

Realism can also be a view about the properties of reality in general, holding that reality exists independent of the mind, as opposed to non-realist views (like some forms of skepticism and solipsism) which question the certainty of anything beyond one's own mind. Philosophers who profess realism often claim that truth consists in a correspondence between cognitive representations and reality.[7]
.......
Today it [Philosophical realism] is more usually contrasted with anti-realism, for example in the philosophy of science.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

You just cannot run away from the realism vs antirealism dichotomy.

Our world can be described in terms of what we do know (realism) or of some speculative extra dimension of existence/non-existence about which we cannnot "truly" know (antirealism), but of which it is questionable whether we can speak. I don't care which description you choose to use, they both describe the same thing once you strip away the bullshit anyway. In either case, it has no bearing on ethics, and it never did.

There is a world. We live in it. We perceive objects that are not ourselves and objects that ourselves within this world we live in. When we speak of objectivity it is within this world that we do so.

As I had argued,
There are Two Senses of 'Objectivity'
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39326
i.e.
1. Human independent or Mind-Independent View
2. The FSK-ed view

Your,
"There is a world. We live in it. We perceive objects that are not ourselves and objects that ourselves within this world we live in. When we speak of objectivity it is within this world that we do so."
is definitely the first sense of objectivity, i.e. Human independent or Mind-Independent View which is realism as defined.
and that you cannot accept the alternative views to 'realism' automatically put into into a realism vs antirealism state.

Realism and antirealism [many types, mine=Kantian] cannot be stripped down to the same thing.

A. Realism as your above "we perceive objects that are not ourselves" I supposed that refer to independence from humans in the absolute and not relative* sense.

B. ANTI-Realism basically is just being opposing [anti-] to the claims of realism.
Antirealists insist we cannot accept claim A above and thus must suspend judgment on this view. Note Hume and Kant. To Hume, it is "just SHUT-UP with claim A!"

That antirealists [many types] make certain claims that somehow the human conditions entangled with reality and objectivity is secondary which require specific considerations.

So, if you are not B, then you must be A.
I cannot see anything in between A and B in this case, if so, how?

Btw, re independent external objects;
how do you resolve this problem;

• The Veil of Perception. Indirect realism invokes the veil of perception. All we actually perceive is the veil that covers the world, a veil that consists of our sense data. What, then, justifies our belief that there is a world beyond that veil?
  https://iep.utm.edu/perc-obj/