Metaethics

[Fairy]

''Metaethics explores as well the connection between values, reasons for action, and human motivation, asking how it is that moral standards might provide us with reasons to do or refrain from doing as they demand, and it addresses many of the issues commonly bound up with the nature of freedom and its significance (or not) for moral responsibility.''


Moral realism asserts that objective moral truths exist independently of human beliefs or cultural conventions. It claims that moral statements can be true or false, just like factual statements.

[Iwannaplato]

'Moral realism asserts that objective moral truths exist independently of human beliefs or cultural conventions. It claims that moral statements can be true or false, just like factual statements.

We've got a bunch of threads on this topic going right now....
Is morality objective or subjective?, for example
and pretty much any thread started by Veritas A. is aiming at showing moral realism is the case. He doesn't generally call it moral realism for reasons that will become clear if one reads a lot of his posts.

[Fairy]

'Moral realism asserts that objective moral truths exist independently of human beliefs or cultural conventions. It claims that moral statements can be true or false, just like factual statements.

We've got a bunch of threads on this topic going right now....
Is morality objective or subjective?, for example
and pretty much any thread started by Veritas A. is aiming at showing moral realism is the case. He doesn't generally call it moral realism for reasons that will become clear if one reads a lot of his posts.

Thanks, but I am aware this subject is ongoing on a bunch of other threads. But not in the metaphysical forum.

As a meta studier myself, I happen to believe 'morality' belongs in the meta realm of cognitive abilities within the human mind, just like everything else that 'we' the philosophical curious human mind seeks to understand. The human, who is a natural seeker, a natural story teller, one who is able to question the existence of their very own existence. And if that questioning is possible at all it is because there is something here that desires to draw from a well of of infinite knowledge that must already exist for it to become knowable at all.

I could be wrong about a lot of things, but I'm always under construction, eager to receive new information, and never closed off completely, that leaves me totally wide open to new ideas.

I can hardly grasp the VA posts, I've read them now and again, but VA's mind is elevated above and beyond my personal puny mind.

[Iwannaplato]

Thanks, but I am aware this subject is ongoing on a bunch of other threads. But not in the metaphysical forum.

OK, great.

As a meta studier myself, I happen to believe 'morality' belongs in the meta realm of cognitive abilities within the human mind, just like everything else that 'we' the philosophical curious human mind seeks to understand. The human, who is a natural seeker, a natural story teller, one who is able to question the existence of their very own existence. And if that questioning is possible at all it is because there is something here that desires to draw from a well of of infinite knowledge that must already exist for it to become knowable at all.

would this be your metaphysical position on morals? Could you rephrase it.

I can hardly grasp the VA posts, I've read them now and again, but VA's mind is elevated above and beyond my personal puny mind.

Well, they have perhaps three main aspects that might lead to you not understanding
1) he is using a bunch of philosophical jargon that you might not be so familiar with.
2) he makes up a lot of his own jargon, though often defines it poorly
3) his thinking is very jumpy and disorganized. His posts, if you quickly scanned them, might look like philosophical arguments. But a slower read will find sequences of assertions, not logically connected or justified, and a lot of words that are being used oddly and not consistently.

There are a lot of ways to appear elevated. Sometimes people are very smart and/or wise, but highfalutin' certainty is a dime a dozen.

And if this post of mine seems like highfalutin' certainty. By all means be wary of me too.

[Age]

'Moral realism asserts that objective moral truths exist independently of human beliefs or cultural conventions. It claims that moral statements can be true or false, just like factual statements.

We've got a bunch of threads on this topic going right now....
Is morality objective or subjective?, for example

'Morality' is both objective and subjective, and irrefutably so. As I have already gone into, partly, and will go into fully. Again, that is if absolutely any one shows enough curiosity, interest, openness, and honesty in wanting to uncover, and/or learn, relatively new things, here.

and pretty much any thread started by Veritas A. is aiming at showing moral realism is the case.

Which is quite humorous to observe and watch play out. That is; the one who 'believes' that 'moral truths', which can only come from 'the concepts' of human beings, exist independent of human beliefs, but also, and contrary, 'believes' that 'physical objects', which 'have to' exist before human beings could have evolved into creation and exist not matter 'concepts' exist within beings, do not actually exist independent of human beings.

Which is about the most absurd, illogical, and irrational thinking I have seen expressed here. This thinking could not oppose itself more.

He doesn't generally call it moral realism for reasons that will become clear if one reads a lot of his posts.

[Fairy]

The fact that we can know anything at all, implies knowledge must already exist, that it can be drawn from, to then become known where it was previously unknown.

Whenever a truth claim is made, becomes apparent to the mind, where is that truth claim coming from? that's just an obvious basic innate recognised understanding, it's coming from itself. The only true and real source available.
Does this mean then, that 'natural laws' including 'morals' must already be woven into the fabric of absolute being? Of course we cannot as a finite being know the infinite absolute being. We can only reflect what we already are, and that is we are the absolute.

And is why the relative mind is able to discern and make distinctions between what is good and bad. It is able to align with absolute truth, as the unknown becomes known. As the relative understanding of itself becomes known, the closing of the gap between relative and absolute happens. In a meta sense of the word, in this conception, within the purveyor of knowledge.

[Age]

'Moral realism asserts that objective moral truths exist independently of human beliefs or cultural conventions. It claims that moral statements can be true or false, just like factual statements.

We've got a bunch of threads on this topic going right now....
Is morality objective or subjective?, for example
and pretty much any thread started by Veritas A. is aiming at showing moral realism is the case. He doesn't generally call it moral realism for reasons that will become clear if one reads a lot of his posts.

Thanks, but I am aware this subject is ongoing on a bunch of other threads. But not in the metaphysical forum.

As a meta studier myself, I happen to believe 'morality' belongs in the meta realm of cognitive abilities within the human mind, just like everything else that 'we' the philosophical curious human mind seeks to understand. The human, who is a natural seeker, a natural story teller, one who is able to question the existence of their very own existence. And if that questioning is possible at all it is because there is something here that desires to draw from a well of of infinite knowledge that must already exist for it to become knowable at all.

Were you aware that the word 'educate' once or originally meant, 'to draw out'? Like, for example, 'to draw out' 'the potential', from within, 'to draw out' the 'True Self', from within, and/or 'to draw out, or from, within, where there is 'a well of infinite knowledge' just waiting to be uncovered, and discovered?

How people used to be, and are meant to be, 'educated' is very, very different from how they are 'now', when this is being written, in a Truly selfish and very greedy society.

I could be wrong about a lot of things, but I'm always under construction, eager to receive new information, and never closed off completely, that leaves me totally wide open to new ideas.

I can hardly grasp the VA posts, I've read them now and again, but VA's mind is elevated above and beyond my personal puny mind.

What I found helps in wanting to learn is considering that you human beings do not really 'have a mind', and if and when you change the 'mind' word to the 'thinking', which is just what is being 'actually meant', when the 'mind' is usually used, like for example in your post that I am replying to, then you will find and see that what you are saying, still, makes sense but also makes much more, and even perfect, sense.

[Age]

Thanks, but I am aware this subject is ongoing on a bunch of other threads. But not in the metaphysical forum.

OK, great.

As a meta studier myself, I happen to believe 'morality' belongs in the meta realm of cognitive abilities within the human mind, just like everything else that 'we' the philosophical curious human mind seeks to understand. The human, who is a natural seeker, a natural story teller, one who is able to question the existence of their very own existence. And if that questioning is possible at all it is because there is something here that desires to draw from a well of of infinite knowledge that must already exist for it to become knowable at all.

would this be your metaphysical position on morals? Could you rephrase it.

I can hardly grasp the VA posts, I've read them now and again, but VA's mind is elevated above and beyond my personal puny mind.

Well, they have perhaps three main aspects that might lead to you not understanding
1) he is using a bunch of philosophical jargon that you might not be so familiar with.

It would not matter how familiar one is with 'the jargon' being used here, because the way "veritas aequitas" and you others use 'the jargon' that is being used here, it is nonsensical anyway. For example, "iwannaplato" added the word 'philosophical' in front of the word 'jargon', while "fairy" used the 'philosophical' word in front of the curious human mind' words. Yet, if one was to ask both of these people what do they mean by using the 'philosophical' word, then what is very quickly discovered is that two completely different meanings and definitions are being talked about and referred, and so discussions here are just be 'spoken over each other', as some might say, here.

To show and prove just how often 'the jargon' used, in so-called 'philosophical discussions', is misunderstood and misinterpreted completely, or even just completely missed, I just have to say, ' I do not want to 'argue' with one here in a 'philosophy forum' about an expressed 'paradox' ', and there is not a one of you human beings who would understand and comprehend what I actually meant, nor understand what just these three relatively commonly used words in 'philosophical discussions'.

Therefore, it does not matter at all how familiar one is with the so-called 'bunch of philosophical jargon', which is being used, if you human beings do not clarify with 'each other' what 'the other' is actually meaning, you all just end up 'speaking over and past one another'. As can be absolutely clearly seen, and proved True, here in 'this philosophy forum'.

2) he makes up a lot of his own jargon, though often defines it poorly

Even with the already made up, by others, 'jargon', which is 'familiar', and which you posters here use, you posters rarely, if ever, even define what definition that you are using, which again can be one of the many, many different, and even opposing, definitions, let alone that when words are being defined is it usually so poorly done that doing so was just a 'waste of time', anyway. And, the fact that others will not agree with, nor accept, another's definition, shows and proves just how much a 'waste of 'time' has actually occurred over the last few thousand years or so, hitherto when this was being written.

3) his thinking is very jumpy and disorganized. His posts, if you quickly scanned them, might look like philosophical arguments. But a slower read will find sequences of assertions, not logically connected or justified, and a lot of words that are being used oddly and not consistently.

One can also see the exact same way in expressing 'by others' here, as well, and, make the exact same accusations 'about others', as well, here.

In fact the more readings one does of the posts in this forum, then the more clearly just how jumpy and disorganized a lot of the claims are made here, by these posters here, 'back' in the days when this was being written.

There are a lot of ways to appear elevated. Sometimes people are very smart and/or wise, but highfalutin' certainty is a dime a dozen.

And if this post of mine seems like highfalutin' certainty. By all means be wary of me too.

Well considering that this one rarely, if ever, actually 'discusses things', besides of course, 'talking 'about' others' and thus 'discussing others', as it is clearly doing here, once again, it would not be surprising at all if some see this post of this one as just being another example of one with a 'superiority complex'.

[Age]

The fact that we can know anything at all, implies knowledge must already exist, that it can be drawn from, to then become known where it was previously unknown.

'Knowledge', like 'fact' and 'truth', and that is both the relative and objective kind, fundamentally come down to one thing, only, which when 'looked into' and 'discussed' might actually show, reveal, and prove just how much actual Truth there is here in what "fairy" just said, and wrote, here.

Whenever a truth claim is made, becomes apparent to the mind, where is that truth claim coming from? that's just an obvious basic innate recognised understanding, it's coming from itself. The only true and real source available.

This might be a, supposed, 'obvious basic innate recognized understanding', to 'you', one human being. But, 'the way' you are writing here what you say and claim is an 'obvious basic innate recognized understanding' you are just making 'more confusing' to some other human beings.

Does this mean then, that 'natural laws' including 'morals' must already be woven into the fabric of absolute being?

What is Lore, or what some might call 'natural and/or moral laws', like the 'Mind', is woven into absolutely every conceivable thing. Which is what the One, visible, Thing, Itself, is made up of, exactly, anyway, and thus how the One, invisible, Thing 'knows' all of anyway.

Of course we cannot as a finite being know the infinite absolute being.

But, 'this' is already 'known' by, what you call, and describe as, a 'finite being'.

We can only reflect what we already are, and that is we are the absolute.

If by 'we' you mean ALL things, collectively as One, then 'we' are the Absolute'.

If, however, by 'we' you mean you human beings or any other thing, which is conceptually separate a part from the, collective, One, and only, the 'we' are not 'the Absolute' at all.

'you' human beings might be 'the absolute' human beings, but 'you' are certainly not 'the Absolute', Itself

And is why the relative mind is able to discern and make distinctions between what is good and bad.

How could any so-called and so-claimed 'relative mind' be able to discern and make distinctions between what is good and bad any different that 'you' individual beings do 'now'. Which, by the way, let 'us' not forget that, in the days when this is being written, absolutely none of you had, yet, agreed upon and accepted what is actually 'good' and 'bad', in Life. So, if just two of you cannot fully agree upon on what is 'good' and 'bad', in Life, then how could any so called 'relative mind' be able to do so and to also be able to discern and make distinctions between what is 'good' and 'bad'?

Now, of course, being able to discern and make distinctions between what is good and bad is 'possible', but if any of the so-called 'good' or so-called 'bad', is, really' 'good' or 'bad', or not, is a completely other matter.

Also, what could a so-called 'relative mind' make "its" own 'distinction/s' on and against, exactly?

It is claimed that "fairy" has "its own mind", which would 'have to be' a 'relative mind'. So, let 'us' see if this 'relative mind', which "fairy", supposedly, has can discern and distinguish between if eating meat is 'good' or 'bad'.

It is able to align with absolute truth, as the unknown becomes known. As the relative understanding of itself becomes known, the closing of the gap between relative and absolute happens. In a meta sense of the word, in this conception, within the purveyor of knowledge.

[Iwannaplato]

The fact that we can know anything at all, implies knowledge must already exist, that it can be drawn from, to then become known where it was previously unknown.

How so?
Could we not be finding out things and creating knowledge from experience? For example.

[Fairy]

would this be your metaphysical position on morals? Could you rephrase it.

Yes, this would be my metaphysical non-positioned position, positioning itself on the matter. Everything claimed to be known, is only borrowed by from that that first must already exist, including morals.

Any truth claim is an extension of what is already the case. When the relative comes aware of it's absolute true Self, through the process of self-introspection, is when the finite finally collides with the infinite, where the finite disappears to merge with the absolute, which is just an extension of itself, never separated from one true Self.



I am a vision of fairy liquid clarity of awareness.

[Iwannaplato]

I am a vision of fairy liquid clarity of awareness.

I am a manifestation of faun liquid clarity of awareness, emotions and desires.

[Fairy]

The fact that we can know anything at all, implies knowledge must already exist, that it can be drawn from, to then become known where it was previously unknown.

How so?
Could we not be finding out things and creating knowledge from experience? For example.

To know there has been an experience, is to become aware of the experience, as and when that experience is happening. Simultaneously, the knowledge of that experience has been recorded to memory. That is how we know our experiences, through knowledge on demand, through remembrance of the experience.

Knowing is not inside of us or outside of us. We are the knowing right here and now. THIS is it. Right Here and Now.

I am a vision of fairy liquid clarity of awareness.

[Fairy]

I am a vision of fairy liquid clarity of awareness.

I am a manifestation of faun liquid clarity of awareness, emotions and desires.

That's my new signature, I'm going to get sick and tired of posting that after every post, I just know I am.

See, I've already forgotten to post it, see how easy it is to forget.

[Iwannaplato]

I am a vision of fairy liquid clarity of awareness.

I am a manifestation of faun liquid clarity of awareness, emotions and desires.

That's my new signature, I'm going to get sick and tired of posting that after every post, I just know I am.

See, I've already forgotten to post it, see how easy it is to forget.

I keep my signature implicit, given that I am also forgetful. Anyway sometimes showing is better than telling.