What could make morality objective?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Trees existed, would have existed, and probably will exist WITHOUT HUMANS, FULL STOP. There's nothing ideological or dogmatic or contingent about this fact. It just is the case.

You are using your kindi thinking to insist upon the above to generate consonances to soothe the real cognitive dissonance.
This is a serious issue that has been raised within philosophy since > 2500 years ago.

Philosophical skepticism is one important form of skepticism. It rejects knowledge claims that seem certain from the perspective of common sense. Radical forms of philosophical skepticism deny that "knowledge or rational belief is possible" and urge us to suspend judgment on many or all controversial matters. More moderate forms claim only that nothing can be known with certainty, or that we can know little or nothing about nonempirical matters, such as whether God exists, whether human beings have free will, or whether there is an afterlife.
In ancient philosophy, skepticism was understood as a way of life associated with inner peace.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skepticism

You are claiming nonsense to calm your inner peace, while the skeptics simply suspend judgment. The Kantians has other ways to address the cognitive dissonances.

Note this reality.

It is just the case, WITHOUT HUMANS, there is no way the conclusion "Trees existed, would have existed, and probably will exist" is possible at all.
How can you prove it is possible?

No Humans = No Human-based Reality
viewtopic.php?t=42291

I will address the other points later.

Here's the idiocy, again - beginning with a silly, incoherent, meaningless definition.

P1 Things that exist completely independent from humans are 'things-in-themselves'.
P2 There are no things-in-themselves.*
C Therefore, there are no things that exist completely independent from humans.

*PS Eastern mystical claptrap: reality-in-itself is nothingness.

Strawman as usual.
Don't be too arrogant with your ignorance, it only boomerangs to kick you in the back.

The proper argument should be;

• P1 Things [as claimed by PH] that exist completely [absolutely] independent from humans are 'things-in-themselves'.
  
  P2 As proven by Kant, there are no real things-in-themselves as claimed by PH. There are only things contingent upon a human-based FSERC.
  
  C Therefore, there are no things that exist completely [absolutely] independent from humans.

I have explained the above > a "million" times.
Do you understand [not necessary agree with] the above argument?

You deny 'things-in-themselves' but that you claim reality and things exist absolutely independent of humans is literally reality-in-itself or things-in-themselves, i.e. regardless of whether humans exists or not.

Accordingly,
your reality-in-itself is nothingness, i.e.
your reality-in-itself is no-thing[PH's]-ness,
it is nothingness because your thingy is illusory.
your ideologized absolute human independent thing [reality] is reified from an illusion.

Eastern philosophers achieve enlightenment when they realized had been duped by their old ideologized realist[p] thinking, therefrom abandoned it and adopt a more refined antirealist position.

[Peter Holmes]

Here's the idiocy, again - beginning with a silly, incoherent, meaningless definition.

P1 Things that exist completely independent from humans are 'things-in-themselves'.
P2 There are no things-in-themselves.*
C Therefore, there are no things that exist completely independent from humans.

*PS Eastern mystical claptrap: reality-in-itself is nothingness.

The proper argument should be;

• P1 Things [as claimed by PH] that exist completely [absolutely] independent from humans are 'things-in-themselves'.
  
  P2 As proven by Kant, there are no real things-in-themselves as claimed by PH. There are only things contingent upon a human-based FSERC.
  
  C Therefore, there are no things that exist completely [absolutely] independent from humans.

In substance, your version is identical to mine. You merely define (describe) things independent from humans as 'things-in-themselves', then deny that such things exist.

This is uselessly circular. We can't describe something into or out of existence.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Here's the idiocy, again - beginning with a silly, incoherent, meaningless definition.

P1 Things that exist completely independent from humans are 'things-in-themselves'.
P2 There are no things-in-themselves.*
C Therefore, there are no things that exist completely independent from humans.

*PS Eastern mystical claptrap: reality-in-itself is nothingness.

The proper argument should be;

• P1 Things [as claimed by PH] that exist completely [absolutely] independent from humans are 'things-in-themselves'.
  
  P2 As proven by Kant, there are no real things-in-themselves as claimed by PH. There are only things contingent upon a human-based FSERC.
  
  C Therefore, there are no things that exist completely [absolutely] independent from humans.

In substance, your version is identical to mine. You merely define (describe) things independent from humans as 'things-in-themselves', then deny that such things exist.

This is uselessly circular. We can't describe something into or out of existence.

You got it wrong.
My version is different from your version.
In a similar vein, replace things with God and PH with theists;

• P1 God [as claimed by theists - realists-p] exists as completely [absolutely] independent from humans i.e. 'God-in-itself'.
  
  P2 As proven by Kant [anti-p-realist], there are no real God-in-itself as claimed by realists. There are only things contingent upon a human-based FSERC. [detailed argument available as in the Critique of Pure Reason]
  
  C Therefore, there is no God-in-itself that exists completely [absolutely] independent from humans.

How can my version be the same as yours?

I am not describing something into or out of existence, but rather demonstrate by proof that your thing-in-itself cannot exists as real.

Point is, your "that" [the-described] which is not phenomena [the-description] is literally a thing-in-itself i.e. absolutely independent of the human conditions, it exists whether there are human or not. Your thing-in-itself is the fact, it is just is, it is the case; but as Kant has proven, your 'the-described' which is absolute independent of the human conditions is a mere speculations and is illusory.

Both you and theists are philosophical realists, clinging to an absolutely independent thing which for theists is the absolutely independent God, i.e. a God-in-itself that exists whether there are humans or not.

[Peter Holmes]

I am not describing something into or out of existence, but rather demonstrate by proof that your thing-in-itself cannot exists as real.

It's not my thing-in-itself - it's yours and Kant's. I have no idea what a thing-in-itself could possibly be, and nor do you. You just need it, because without it, your theory collapses.

Hence your silly definition: things that exist independent from humans are 'things-in-themselves' - which don't exist.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I am not describing something into or out of existence, but rather demonstrate by proof that your thing-in-itself cannot exists as real.

It's not my thing-in-itself - it's yours and Kant's. I have no idea what a thing-in-itself could possibly be, and nor do you. You just need it, because without it, your theory collapses.

Hence your silly definition: things that exist independent from humans are 'things-in-themselves' - which don't exist.

You are so ignorant??

The thing-in-itself aka noumenon is basically;

1. In Kantian philosophy, the thing-in-itself (German: Ding an sich) is the status of objects as they are, independent of representation and observation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thing-in-itself

2. So when you claim your fact [a feature of reality, that is the case, state of affairs, just-is] existing as absolutely independent of the human conditions, i.e. it exist regardless of whether there are humans or not,
it is exactly what Kant termed as thing-in-itself [see above] and of course can be referenced to Kant's CPR.

Kant merely elaborated and expanded on the basic essence [absolute human independence] with more details and exposure.

Show me how is 1. and 2. different in its basic meaning?

[Peter Holmes]

I am not describing something into or out of existence, but rather demonstrate by proof that your thing-in-itself cannot exists as real.

It's not my thing-in-itself - it's yours and Kant's. I have no idea what a thing-in-itself could possibly be, and nor do you. You just need it, because without it, your theory collapses.

Hence your silly definition: things that exist independent from humans are 'things-in-themselves' - which don't exist.

You are so ignorant??

The thing-in-itself aka noumenon is basically;

1. In Kantian philosophy, the thing-in-itself (German: Ding an sich) is the status of objects as they are, independent of representation and observation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thing-in-itself

2. So when you claim your fact [a feature of reality, that is the case, state of affairs, just-is] existing as absolutely independent of the human conditions, i.e. it exist regardless of whether there are humans or not,
it is exactly what Kant termed as thing-in-itself [see above] and of course can be referenced to Kant's CPR.

Kant merely elaborated and expanded on the basic essence [absolute human independence] with more details and exposure.

Show me how is 1. and 2. different in its basic meaning?

So, noumena or things-in-themselves are: 'objects as they are, independent of representation and observation'. Now, do a little thinking about that description.

First, notice that 'representation and observation' need not be by humans. The definition doesn't say 'human representation and observation', for the obvious reason that that would be narrowly anthropocentric. So it follows that the claim that things that exist can't be independent from humans is obviously false. If there were no humans, there could still be 'representation and observation' by another species.

But second, and more fundamentally, there is, anyway, no evidence for the claim that there can be no objects 'independent of representation and observation'.

So, to repeat, the definition of things that exist independent from humans as things-in-themselves - which don't exist - is silly.

[Veritas Aequitas]

It's not my thing-in-itself - it's yours and Kant's. I have no idea what a thing-in-itself could possibly be, and nor do you. You just need it, because without it, your theory collapses.

Hence your silly definition: things that exist independent from humans are 'things-in-themselves' - which don't exist.

You are so ignorant??

The thing-in-itself aka noumenon is basically;

1. In Kantian philosophy, the thing-in-itself (German: Ding an sich) is the status of objects as they are, independent of representation and observation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thing-in-itself

2. So when you claim your fact [a feature of reality, that is the case, state of affairs, just-is] existing as absolutely independent of the human conditions, i.e. it exist regardless of whether there are humans or not,
it is exactly what Kant termed as thing-in-itself [see above] and of course can be referenced to Kant's CPR.

Kant merely elaborated and expanded on the basic essence [absolute human independence] with more details and exposure.

Show me how is 1. and 2. different in its basic meaning?

So, noumena or things-in-themselves are: 'objects as they are, independent of representation and observation'. Now, do a little thinking about that description.

First, notice that 'representation and observation' need not be by humans. The definition doesn't say 'human representation and observation', for the obvious reason that that would be narrowly anthropocentric. So it follows that the claim that things that exist can't be independent from humans is obviously false. If there were no humans, there could still be 'representation and observation' by another species.

You are too hasty.

The above statement started with,
"1. In Kantian philosophy, ......."
The primary focus of "representation and observation" within Kantian philosophy is that of the human conditions down to the pure intuitions of space and time.
Also Kant's main theme is his Copernican Revolution which direct focus to the humans rather that an absolute independent reality out there.

You seem to embarrass yourself at every turn.
Btw, since we started discussing here, you have not corrected me even once on philosophical issues.
If so, where?

But second, and more fundamentally, there is, anyway, no evidence for the claim that there can be no objects 'independent of representation and observation'.

So, to repeat, the definition of things that exist independent from humans as things-in-themselves - which don't exist - is silly.

Kant is merely putting into words [defining] what you have conceptualize from illusions, i.e.
reality, fact and things that are absolutely independent of the human conditions, opinions, beliefs and judgments, i.e. they exists regardless of whether there are human or not.
You are calling yourself silly!
How can you deny the above?

[Peter Holmes]

You are so ignorant??

The thing-in-itself aka noumenon is basically;



2. So when you claim your fact [a feature of reality, that is the case, state of affairs, just-is] existing as absolutely independent of the human conditions, i.e. it exist regardless of whether there are humans or not,
it is exactly what Kant termed as thing-in-itself [see above] and of course can be referenced to Kant's CPR.

Kant merely elaborated and expanded on the basic essence [absolute human independence] with more details and exposure.

Show me how is 1. and 2. different in its basic meaning?

So, noumena or things-in-themselves are: 'objects as they are, independent of representation and observation'. Now, do a little thinking about that description.

First, notice that 'representation and observation' need not be by humans. The definition doesn't say 'human representation and observation', for the obvious reason that that would be narrowly anthropocentric. So it follows that the claim that things that exist can't be independent from humans is obviously false. If there were no humans, there could still be 'representation and observation' by another species.

You are too hasty.

No - you aren't bothering to think critically.

The above statement started with,
"1. In Kantian philosophy, ......."
The primary focus of "representation and observation" within Kantian philosophy is that of the human conditions down to the pure intuitions of space and time.
Also Kant's main theme is his Copernican Revolution which direct focus to the humans rather that an absolute independent reality out there.

What's extraordinary is your inability to address the actual point I'm making. I agree that Kant's blinkered focus is on humans - his position is uncritically human-exceptionalist and anthropocentric. And that's what undermines his and your claim that reality is dependent on humans.

You seem to embarrass yourself at every turn.
Btw, since we started discussing here, you have not corrected me even once on philosophical issues.
If so, where?

We've been correcting you for years. But you just haven't noticed or understood.

But second, and more fundamentally, there is, anyway, no evidence for the claim that there can be no objects 'independent of representation and observation'.

So, to repeat, the definition of things that exist independent from humans as things-in-themselves - which don't exist - is silly.

Kant is merely putting into words [defining] what you have conceptualize from illusions, i.e.
reality, fact and things that are absolutely independent of the human conditions, opinions, beliefs and judgments, i.e. they exists regardless of whether there are human or not.
You are calling yourself silly!
How can you deny the above?

To repeat, here's your silly argument, beginning with a mere definition - a linguistic description.

P1 Things that exist independent from humans are 'things-in-themselves'.
P2 Things-in-themselves don't exist.
C Therefore, nothing exists independent from humans.

Even if P1 made any sense - which it doesn't - the whole of the universe that existed before humans evolved falsifies this stupid conclusion.

[Veritas Aequitas]

So, noumena or things-in-themselves are: 'objects as they are, independent of representation and observation'. Now, do a little thinking about that description.

First, notice that 'representation and observation' need not be by humans. The definition doesn't say 'human representation and observation', for the obvious reason that that would be narrowly anthropocentric. So it follows that the claim that things that exist can't be independent from humans is obviously false. If there were no humans, there could still be 'representation and observation' by another species.

You are too hasty.

No - you aren't bothering to think critically.

The above statement started with,
"1. In Kantian philosophy, ......."
The primary focus of "representation and observation" within Kantian philosophy is that of the human conditions down to the pure intuitions of space and time.
Also Kant's main theme is his Copernican Revolution which direct focus to the humans rather that an absolute independent reality out there.

What's extraordinary is your inability to address the actual point I'm making. I agree that Kant's blinkered focus is on humans - his position is uncritically human-exceptionalist and anthropocentric. And that's what undermines his and your claim that reality is dependent on humans.

You seem to embarrass yourself at every turn.
Btw, since we started discussing here, you have not corrected me even once on philosophical issues.
If so, where?

We've been correcting you for years. But you just haven't noticed or understood.

That is merely an imagined and wishful thinking, it your kindi claims.
I have raised >200 threads to counter your claims.
Where is your evidence and valid & sound evidence plus argument?

But second, and more fundamentally, there is, anyway, no evidence for the claim that there can be no objects 'independent of representation and observation'.

So, to repeat, the definition of things that exist independent from humans as things-in-themselves - which don't exist - is silly.

Kant is merely putting into words [defining] what you have conceptualize from illusions, i.e.
reality, fact and things that are absolutely independent of the human conditions, opinions, beliefs and judgments, i.e. they exists regardless of whether there are human or not.
You are calling yourself silly!
How can you deny the above?

To repeat, here's your silly argument, beginning with a mere definition - a linguistic description.

P1 Things that exist independent from humans are 'things-in-themselves'. [p-realists' claim]
P2 Things-in-themselves don't exist. [antirealists' claim]
C Therefore, nothing [as in P1] exists independent from humans.

Even if P1 made any sense - which it doesn't - the whole of the universe that existed before humans evolved falsifies this stupid conclusion.

P1 is what you have been claiming as real things.
If you think it is stupid, it it your own stupidity where you claim there are things-in-themselves.
There is no way you can deny that.

PH: "the whole of the universe that existed before humans evolved"
are you absolutely certain that is the case??

You cannot be absolutely certain of the above.
You can rely on common sense, but common sense is not reliable.

The most credible source of knowledge you can rely on the above is science-cosmology, the supposed knowledge [above] are merely speculations based on inference contingent upon a human-based science-cosmological FSERC.

Since it is human-based, whatever the reality and description that is concluded cannot be absolutely independent of the human conditions.
As such there are no things-in-themselves existing independent of humans' opinion, beliefs and judgments.

You keep thinking it is obvious that
"the whole of the universe that existed before humans evolved"

but note the very obvious that did not turn out to be so-obvious, e.g.
-the flat earth theory
-the geocentric theory
-problem of causation, induction
-the observers' effect
-etc.

this so obvious,
"the whole of the universe that existed before humans evolved"
is also nuanced and is not 100% absolute,
but it is more subtle than the above which you do not have the cognitive ability to decipher.

[Peter Holmes]

P1 Things that exist independent from humans are 'things-in-themselves'. [p-realists' claim]
P2 Things-in-themselves don't exist. [antirealists' claim]
C Therefore, nothing [as in P1] exists independent from humans.

P1 is what you have been claiming as real things.
If you think it is stupid, it it your own stupidity where you claim there are things-in-themselves.
There is no way you can deny that.

I don't claim there are things-in-themselves. I have no idea what they could be, and nor do you, and nor did Kant. They're a fiction designed to justify a stupid argument.

And the only reason why you irrationally question the existence of the universe before humans evolved is that you feel the need to defend that stupid argument.

[Veritas Aequitas]

P1 Things that exist independent from humans are 'things-in-themselves'. [p-realists' claim]
P2 Things-in-themselves don't exist. [antirealists' claim]
C Therefore, nothing [as in P1] exists independent from humans.

P1 is what you have been claiming as real things.
If you think it is stupid, it it your own stupidity where you claim there are things-in-themselves.
There is no way you can deny that.

I don't claim there are things-in-themselves. I have no idea what they could be, and not do you, and nor did Kant. They're a fiction designed to justify a stupid argument.

I have already argued you claimed there are things-in-themselves [singular; thing-in-itself] when you insists;
a things [facts] are features of reality that are the case, states of affairs, just is which are independent of human's opinion, judgment and beliefs, i.e. things exist independently regardless of whether there are humans or not.

Your above definition of things in reality is what Kant recognize as things-in-themselves.
Kant defined the same things-in-themselves in various perspective for his purposes but the fundamental things-in-themselves in the same as you defined your things [facts]

And the only reason why you irrationally question the existence of the universe before humans evolved is that you feel the need to defend that stupid argument.

Nope.

As with Kant, the vision and mission for philosophy is;
1. What can we know" [epistemology]
2. What can we do? morality
3. What can we hope for? perpetual peace from 1 and 2.

To achieve the above [1-3] effectively, the most optimal is the anti-p-realism stance and rejecting the p-realists' human independent sense.
The p-realists' human independent sense leave humanity at the mercy of the independent reality [or an independent God], while the anti-p-realism afford humanity some degrees of control over the reality they are intricately part and parcel of.
Note Chaos Theory and the current dangers of climate change as partake [ignorant and deliberate] by humans.

[Peter Holmes]

P1 Things that exist independent from humans are 'things-in-themselves'. [p-realists' claim]
P2 Things-in-themselves don't exist. [antirealists' claim]
C Therefore, nothing [as in P1] exists independent from humans.

P1 is what you have been claiming as real things.
If you think it is stupid, it it your own stupidity where you claim there are things-in-themselves.
There is no way you can deny that.

I don't claim there are things-in-themselves. I have no idea what they could be, and not do you, and nor did Kant. They're a fiction designed to justify a stupid argument.

I have already argued you claimed there are things-in-themselves [singular; thing-in-itself] when you insists;
a things [facts] are features of reality that are the case, states of affairs, just is which are independent of human's opinion, judgment and beliefs, i.e. things exist independently regardless of whether there are humans or not.

Your above definition of things in reality is what Kant recognize as things-in-themselves.
Kant defined the same things-in-themselves in various perspective for his purposes but the fundamental things-in-themselves in the same as you defined your things [facts]

Kant didn't recognise things-in-themselves. He invented them, in order to define them out of existence. And you've been suckered by this trick.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I don't claim there are things-in-themselves. I have no idea what they could be, and not do you, and nor did Kant. They're a fiction designed to justify a stupid argument.

I have already argued you claimed there are things-in-themselves [singular; thing-in-itself] when you insists;
a things [facts] are features of reality that are the case, states of affairs, just is which are independent of human's opinion, judgment and beliefs, i.e. things exist independently regardless of whether there are humans or not.

Your above definition of things in reality is what Kant recognize as things-in-themselves.
Kant defined the same things-in-themselves in various perspective for his purposes but the fundamental things-in-themselves in the same as you defined your things [facts]

Kant didn't recognise things-in-themselves. He invented them, in order to define them out of existence. And you've been suckered by this trick.

OK, the term "recognize" used wrongly here.

What Kant did was, he labelled what [the thing] the p-realists claimed ideologically as absolutely independent of the human condition, the thing-in-itself.
He then proved the thing-in-itself when claimed as real is actually an illusion.

Further, this thing-in-itself [absolutely independent thing] is claimed by theists as an entity with agency, i.e. an independent God.

I have argued, what you claimed as an independent things is a thing-in-itself.
Do you have a counter for this.
PH's (et. al.) Thing is a Thing-in-Itself
viewtopic.php?t=42433

Prove to me the thing you claim as existing absolutely independent of the human conditions is not what Kant termed as a thing-in-itself.
A thing-in-itself is literally the same as your definition, i.e. a thing existing absolutely independent of the human conditions; it exists regardless of whether there are humans or not.

[Peter Holmes]

I have already argued you claimed there are things-in-themselves [singular; thing-in-itself] when you insists;
a things [facts] are features of reality that are the case, states of affairs, just is which are independent of human's opinion, judgment and beliefs, i.e. things exist independently regardless of whether there are humans or not.

Your above definition of things in reality is what Kant recognize as things-in-themselves.
Kant defined the same things-in-themselves in various perspective for his purposes but the fundamental things-in-themselves in the same as you defined your things [facts]

Kant didn't recognise things-in-themselves. He invented them, in order to define them out of existence. And you've been suckered by this trick.

OK, the term "recognize" used wrongly here.

What Kant did was, he labelled what [the thing] the p-realists claimed ideologically as absolutely independent of the human condition, the thing-in-itself.
He then proved the thing-in-itself when claimed as real is actually an illusion.

Further, this thing-in-itself [absolutely independent thing] is claimed by theists as an entity with agency, i.e. an independent God.

I have argued, what you claimed as an independent things is a thing-in-itself.
Do you have a counter for this.
PH's (et. al.) Thing is a Thing-in-Itself
viewtopic.php?t=42433

Prove to me the thing you claim as existing absolutely independent of the human conditions is not what Kant termed as a thing-in-itself.
A thing-in-itself is literally the same as your definition, i.e. a thing existing absolutely independent of the human conditions; it exists regardless of whether there are humans or not.

1 Explain exactly what a thing-in-itself actually is.
2 Prove that things-in-themselves don't exist.

[Age]

I have already argued you claimed there are things-in-themselves [singular; thing-in-itself] when you insists;
a things [facts] are features of reality that are the case, states of affairs, just is which are independent of human's opinion, judgment and beliefs, i.e. things exist independently regardless of whether there are humans or not.

Your above definition of things in reality is what Kant recognize as things-in-themselves.
Kant defined the same things-in-themselves in various perspective for his purposes but the fundamental things-in-themselves in the same as you defined your things [facts]

Kant didn't recognise things-in-themselves. He invented them, in order to define them out of existence. And you've been suckered by this trick.

OK, the term "recognize" used wrongly here.

What Kant did was, he labelled what [the thing] the p-realists claimed ideologically as absolutely independent of the human condition, the thing-in-itself.
He then proved the thing-in-itself when claimed as real is actually an illusion.

Further, this thing-in-itself [absolutely independent thing] is claimed by theists as an entity with agency, i.e. an independent God.

I have argued, what you claimed as an independent things is a thing-in-itself.
Do you have a counter for this.
PH's (et. al.) Thing is a Thing-in-Itself
viewtopic.php?t=42433

Prove to me the thing you claim as existing absolutely independent of the human conditions is not what Kant termed as a thing-in-itself.
A thing-in-itself is literally the same as your definition, i.e. a thing existing absolutely independent of the human conditions; it exists regardless of whether there are humans or not.

So, by your own clarification here, and contrary to what you believe is absolutely true, 'things-in-themselves' actually do exist.

As you just admitted here.