What could make morality objective?

[Peter Holmes]

What had happened to you?

What is Knowledge?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge

The concept of Moral Knowledge and Moral Epistemology [Google it] is such a common concept that your doubt above made your thinking very silly.

My above continuum of Incompetence to Competence involved moral knowledge, moral competence and the ability to act morally spontaneously without any need for coercion or threat [of Hell, etc.].

I can know that - sometimes confusingly called propositional knowledge - and I can know of or about - sometimes called knowledge as acquaintance - and I can know how to - sometimes called performative knowledge.

So what is the so-called moral knowledge that VA refers to so confidently?

Presumably, it isn't knowing how to do something, such as ride a bike or play the violin. So presumably it's supposed to be so-called propositional knowledge, or knowledge from acquaintance. But those amount to the same thing, because propositional knowledge is actually knowledge that a feature of reality is or was the case - which is why the JTB account of knowledge is incorrect. Truth has nothing to do with it.

So what's confidently called moral knowledge is supposedly knowing that something is or was the case.

But what is or was the case, of which there can be knowledge? Moral realists and objectivists have no answer. And that's why the expression moral knowledge is incoherent.

You are diverting to something that is not effective to the point.

Whatever is objective knowledge is contingent upon a specific human-based [collective of subjects] framework and system [FS] of which scientific knowledge from the scientific FS is the most credible and objective.

Whatever is objective moral knowledge is contingent upon a specific human-based [collective of subjects] moral framework and system [FS] which would be established as near credible and objective as the scientific FS.
It is 'that is the case' as qualified to the moral FS.

For example, it is an objective moral knowledge [from the moral FS] that there is an oughtnotness of humans killing humans inherent within the brain of all humans.
By acquiring and understanding knowledge of such an objective moral fact will facilitate one to develop its effectiveness and thus increase one's moral competency in that specific aspect.

No, same mistake. What is or was the case - and therefore what can be known - is not morally right or wrong, or good or bad/evil, any more than it's true or false, and any more than it's contingent upon a human way of knowing and describing it.

VA's fundamental error - the error at the heart of all forms of anti-realism - is to mistake what we humans perceive, know and say about reality for reality itself.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I can know that - sometimes confusingly called propositional knowledge - and I can know of or about - sometimes called knowledge as acquaintance - and I can know how to - sometimes called performative knowledge.

So what is the so-called moral knowledge that VA refers to so confidently?

Presumably, it isn't knowing how to do something, such as ride a bike or play the violin. So presumably it's supposed to be so-called propositional knowledge, or knowledge from acquaintance. But those amount to the same thing, because propositional knowledge is actually knowledge that a feature of reality is or was the case - which is why the JTB account of knowledge is incorrect. Truth has nothing to do with it.

So what's confidently called moral knowledge is supposedly knowing that something is or was the case.

But what is or was the case, of which there can be knowledge? Moral realists and objectivists have no answer. And that's why the expression moral knowledge is incoherent.

You are diverting to something that is not effective to the point.

Whatever is objective knowledge is contingent upon a specific human-based [collective of subjects] framework and system [FS] of which scientific knowledge from the scientific FS is the most credible and objective.

Whatever is objective moral knowledge is contingent upon a specific human-based [collective of subjects] moral framework and system [FS] which would be established as near credible and objective as the scientific FS.
It is 'that is the case' as qualified to the moral FS.

For example, it is an objective moral knowledge [from the moral FS] that there is an oughtnotness of humans killing humans inherent within the brain of all humans.
By acquiring and understanding knowledge of such an objective moral fact will facilitate one to develop its effectiveness and thus increase one's moral competency in that specific aspect.

No, same mistake. What is or was the case - and therefore what can be known - is not morally right or wrong, or good or bad/evil, any more than it's true or false, and any more than it's contingent upon a human way of knowing and describing it.

VA's fundamental error - the error at the heart of all forms of anti-realism - is to mistake what we humans perceive, know and say about reality for reality itself.

This is the 'millionth' time I have explained your strawman on this issue:

VA: Knowledge & Descriptions CANNOT Produce Facts
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39925 Apr 10, 2023

Perceiving, Knowing & Describing a Thing Not Related to Existence of the Thing
viewtopic.php?t=40715

I explain why as below:

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

Also this post:
viewtopic.php?p=696962#p696962
VA: As I had argued, also a "million" times there is a prior process of emergence and realization [FSR] before we "know" a thing via a human-based FSR. Note the following threads to support my point;

The above memory loss could an onset of Dementia for you?
Can you explain why you have forgotten the above and the many times I had explained why you a creating a strawman.

In repeating your strawman and not acknowledging my past explanations and countering them directly is very bad for your intellectual credibility.
I suggest you open a new thread to counter my above post;
Reality: Emergence & Realization Prior to Perceiving, Knowing & Describing
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40145

[Peter Holmes]

You are diverting to something that is not effective to the point.

Whatever is objective knowledge is contingent upon a specific human-based [collective of subjects] framework and system [FS] of which scientific knowledge from the scientific FS is the most credible and objective.

Whatever is objective moral knowledge is contingent upon a specific human-based [collective of subjects] moral framework and system [FS] which would be established as near credible and objective as the scientific FS.
It is 'that is the case' as qualified to the moral FS.

For example, it is an objective moral knowledge [from the moral FS] that there is an oughtnotness of humans killing humans inherent within the brain of all humans.
By acquiring and understanding knowledge of such an objective moral fact will facilitate one to develop its effectiveness and thus increase one's moral competency in that specific aspect.

No, same mistake. What is or was the case - and therefore what can be known - is not morally right or wrong, or good or bad/evil, any more than it's true or false, and any more than it's contingent upon a human way of knowing and describing it.

VA's fundamental error - the error at the heart of all forms of anti-realism - is to mistake what we humans perceive, know and say about reality for reality itself.

This is the 'millionth' time I have explained your strawman on this issue:

VA: Knowledge & Descriptions CANNOT Produce Facts
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39925 Apr 10, 2023

Perceiving, Knowing & Describing a Thing Not Related to Existence of the Thing
viewtopic.php?t=40715

I explain why as below:

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

Also this post:
viewtopic.php?p=696962#p696962
VA: As I had argued, also a "million" times there is a prior process of emergence and realization [FSR] before we "know" a thing via a human-based FSR. Note the following threads to support my point;

The above memory loss could an onset of Dementia for you?
Can you explain why you have forgotten the above and the many times I had explained why you a creating a strawman.

In repeating your strawman and not acknowledging my past explanations and countering them directly is very bad for your intellectual credibility.
I suggest you open a new thread to counter my above post;
Reality: Emergence & Realization Prior to Perceiving, Knowing & Describing
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40145

Your claim that there was a 'prior emergence and realisation of reality' - before humans appeared to perceive, know and describe it - is either mystical nonsense or stunningly banal. Of course, the universe existed and evolved long before humans appeared. Agreed.

And that's why your anti-realist claim that 'whatever is real, fact,' etc is contingent upon human ways of perceiving, knowing and describing it is such an absurd contradiction. Your whole argument - before you even get to morality - is ridiculous.

[Veritas Aequitas]

No, same mistake. What is or was the case - and therefore what can be known - is not morally right or wrong, or good or bad/evil, any more than it's true or false, and any more than it's contingent upon a human way of knowing and describing it.

VA's fundamental error - the error at the heart of all forms of anti-realism - is to mistake what we humans perceive, know and say about reality for reality itself.

This is the 'millionth' time I have explained your strawman on this issue:

VA: Knowledge & Descriptions CANNOT Produce Facts
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39925 Apr 10, 2023

Perceiving, Knowing & Describing a Thing Not Related to Existence of the Thing
viewtopic.php?t=40715

I explain why as below:

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

Also this post:
viewtopic.php?p=696962#p696962
VA: As I had argued, also a "million" times there is a prior process of emergence and realization [FSR] before we "know" a thing via a human-based FSR. Note the following threads to support my point;

The above memory loss could an onset of Dementia for you?
Can you explain why you have forgotten the above and the many times I had explained why you a creating a strawman.

In repeating your strawman and not acknowledging my past explanations and countering them directly is very bad for your intellectual credibility.
I suggest you open a new thread to counter my above post;
Reality: Emergence & Realization Prior to Perceiving, Knowing & Describing
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40145

Your claim that there was a 'prior emergence and realisation of reality' - before humans appeared to perceive, know and describe it - is either mystical nonsense or stunningly banal. Of course, the universe existed and evolved long before humans appeared. Agreed.

And that's why your anti-realist claim that 'whatever is real, fact,' etc is contingent upon human ways of perceiving, knowing and describing it is such an absurd contradiction. Your whole argument - before you even get to morality - is ridiculous.

The central issue started with philosophical realism [yours] claim that whatever is real, fact, and the like is absolutely independent of the human-conditions/mind, i.e. it exists regardless of whether there are humans nor not.
Such a beliefs is full of holes, generate radical skepticism [Descartes, Hume], generate dilemmas, philosophical problems and it is grounded on an illusion, thus delusional.
You have not been able to prove your above claim.

To avoid all the generated philosophical problems and dilemmas generated by philosophical realism [based on primal beliefs driven by an evolutionary default], philosophical antirealists [with a more enlightened, intelligent and wiser thinking] opposed and rejected philosophical realism.

Philosophical antirealists in general insist, whatever is reality, fact and the like CANNOT be absolutely independent of the human-conditions/mind, i.e. it exists regardless of whether there are humans nor not.

Philosophical antirealists [Kantian] claim at most, reality, fact and the like has to be relatively independent of the human-conditions/mind.
Note relatively, not ABSOLUTELY.

This is why philosophical antirealists [Kantian] proposed:
Reality: Emergence & Realization Prior to Perceiving, Knowing & Describing
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40145

Such a belief is very realistic, it can be justified empirically.
You just waved off such a claim without justification just as the same you're making the ideological philosophical realism claim without justification.

So far, you claim a 'fact' is a feature of reality 'that is the case' 'state of affairs' which is just-is.
This is merely linguistic babbling, where is your justification to support your belief?

To support your belief, you mentioned briefly Science tells us "that is the case".
Can you confirm this again?
But whatever is a scientific fact cannot exists by itself, it is contingent upon a human-based [collective of subjects] framework and system [FS] extended to FSERC.
Thus, it follows, whatever is confirmed as a scientific reality or scientific fact cannot be absolutely independent of subjects [human conditions].

Therefore, I am not claiming;
"what we humans perceive, know and say about reality, is reality itself"

rather what I claim is this,
"what we humans perceive, know and say about reality, is not an absolutely independent reality in-itself; what is reality is relatively human independent, i.e. somehow entangled with the human conditions."

[Peter Holmes]

...I am not claiming;
"what we humans perceive, know and say about reality, is reality itself"

rather what I claim is this,
"what we humans perceive, know and say about reality, is not an absolutely independent reality in-itself; what is reality is relatively human independent, i.e. somehow entangled with the human conditions."

For the millionth time, here is why your argument is a non sequitur.

Premise: We humans have to perceive, know and describe reality in human ways.

Conclusion: Therefore, reality is [not absolutely independent from humans/only relatively independent from humans/somehow entangled with the human conditions].

How ever you formulate the conclusion's complement, it doesn't follow from the premise. The premise says absolutely nothing about what reality is.

[Veritas Aequitas]

...I am not claiming;
"what we humans perceive, know and say about reality, is reality itself"

rather what I claim is this,
"what we humans perceive, know and say about reality, is not an absolutely independent reality in-itself; what is reality is relatively human independent, i.e. somehow entangled with the human conditions."

For the millionth time, here is why your argument is a non sequitur.

Premise: We humans have to perceive, know and describe reality in human ways.

Conclusion: Therefore, reality is [not absolutely independent from humans/only relatively independent from humans/somehow entangled with the human conditions].

How ever you formulate the conclusion's complement, it doesn't follow from the premise. The premise says absolutely nothing about what reality is.

Looks like you definitely have a cognitive problem:

I wrote the following [> a 'million' times]

This is why philosophical antirealists [Kantian] proposed:
Reality: Emergence & Realization Prior to Perceiving, Knowing & Describing
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40145

Why can't you present precisely what I am claiming as in the link above, i.e.
"reality emerged and realized prior to being perceived, known and described in human ways."
You deliberately and deceptively cut off the "emerged and realized prior to being.."
That is being dishonest.

As such your Premise below is a strawman;
[PH] Premise: We humans have to perceive, know and describe reality in human ways.

My proper premise should be;
Premise: Reality emerged and is realized [contingent upon human conditions] prior to being perceived, known and described in human ways.

The conclusion is;
Conclusion: Therefore, reality is [not absolutely independent from humans/only relatively independent from humans/somehow entangled with the human conditions].

Prove my above argument is wrong, false and does not follow.

The above conclusion opposed the philosophical realists' claim, i.e.
Reality is absolutely independent of the human conditions [mind], i.e. it exists regardless of whether there are humans or not.
Also note, as a fallible human being, you cannot be absolutely certain of the above claim, thus this 'cannot be absolutely certain' claim is somehow entangled with the human conditions.

[Iwannaplato]

Why can't you present precisely what I am claiming as in the link above, i.e.

You deliberately and deceptively cut off the "emerged and realized prior to being.."
That is being dishonest.

Well, actually part of the responsibility at least lies with you, since what you say above contradicts things you have said before. And since something existing prior the being conceived and known by humans, would be noumenal, you are going against Kant.

Though the grammar is a bit awkward
The phrase “reality emerged and realized prior to being perceived, known, and described in human ways” is a complex sentence with two main actions attributed to "reality": emerged and realized.

"Emerged" here implies that reality came into being or became apparent at some foundational point.

"Realized" is where the sentence becomes more ambiguous. Grammatically, realized can mean two different things:

To become actual: implying that reality “actualized” or became concrete independently.
To be perceived or recognized as real: suggesting an awareness or acknowledgment, typically in a conscious or human sense.
If we take "realized" to mean "became actual," then it fits with the sense of reality existing independently of human perception. However, if we interpret it as "recognized as real," this would usually imply a perceiver (i.e., humans), which might contradict the sentence's aim of describing reality as existing prior to human perception.

If it is the latter meaning, it should have 'was' before it and then we would want to know who perceived it before humans.
If it means the former than you are talking about something that cannot have been perceived by a human.

The statement that “reality emerged and realized prior to being perceived, known, and described in human ways” suggests that reality has an existence independent of human perception, aligning somewhat with Kant’s concept of the noumenal realm. However, it subtly conflicts with Kantian philosophy in the following way:

Temporal Independence of Reality: Kant argued that while reality as noumena exists independently, we cannot say anything about it meaningfully in terms of time or emergence. For Kant, time and space are categories imposed by human cognition on phenomena (what we perceive). Since noumena lie outside these categories, it doesn’t make sense to say noumena "emerged" or was "realized" in a temporal sequence. Instead, it simply is, outside of our capacity to define its characteristics. And that messes up the use of the word 'prior'.

Then 'emerged' contradicts Kant's epistemology, since you are claiming it emerged - so you know somethign about its process. For example, it wasn't that it was always there, but it emerged. So, you are claiming knowledge about noumena....

So, if in the mass of different ways you word your beliefs depending on the context that a reader might be confused, especially by a non-Kantian utterance on your part, is at least partly if not entirely your fault.

Remember someone like PH who has read your posts for years may actually take seriously the various positions you put forward and do not openly concede are problematic.

I don't think you have an overview of your positions, they are tactical and not systematic, so readers who have read you for a while are dealing with an ad hoc inconsistant structure and a myriad of ill-fitting descriptions.

[Peter Holmes]

My proper premise should be;
Premise: Reality emerged and is realized [contingent upon human conditions] prior to being perceived, known and described in human ways.

The conclusion is;
Conclusion: Therefore, reality is [not absolutely independent from humans/only relatively independent from humans/somehow entangled with the human conditions].

Prove my above argument is wrong, false and does not follow.

Okay. Pay attention.

First: The premise you insist on assumes your conclusion, because the square bracketed condition - 'contingent upon human conditions' - defines reality as 'somehow entangled with the human conditions'. And that's called a begging-the-question fallacy. So yours is not an argument. You merely repeat the claim.

Second: The claim that any aspect of reality - such as what you fatuously call emergence and realisation - could be 'contingent upon human conditions' PRIOR TO, which means BEFORE, it was perceived, known and described by humans is patently and screamingly FALSE.

So your question-begging argument has a false premise anyway.

Now, how about actually addressing what I've said here?

[Veritas Aequitas]

My proper premise should be;
Premise: Reality emerged and is realized [contingent upon human conditions] prior to being perceived, known and described in human ways.

The conclusion is;
Conclusion: Therefore, reality is [not absolutely independent from humans/only relatively independent from humans/somehow entangled with the human conditions].

Prove my above argument is wrong, false and does not follow.

Okay. Pay attention.

First: The premise you insist on assumes your conclusion, because the square bracketed condition - 'contingent upon human conditions' - defines reality as 'somehow entangled with the human conditions'. And that's called a begging-the-question fallacy. So yours is not an argument. You merely repeat the claim.

The above is not my argument exactly.
It was based on a very rough argument by PH.

The conclusion should have been;
The conclusion is;
Conclusion: Therefore, reality is not absolutely independent from humans [as claimed by philosophical realists] but only relatively independent from humans/somehow entangled with the human conditions [as per philosophical antiRealists -Kantian].

I went along with you presentation.
The above is not a proper argument.
Yes, it merely restate the premise.

Second: The claim that any aspect of reality - such as what you fatuously call emergence and realisation - could be 'contingent upon human conditions' PRIOR TO, which means BEFORE, it was perceived, known and described by humans is patently and screamingly FALSE.

So your question-begging argument has a false premise anyway.

Now, how about actually addressing what I've said here?

My argument proper is the in the thread:

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

Why it is false?
Based on what I had presented, present your argument why is it false?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Why can't you present precisely what I am claiming as in the link above, i.e.

You deliberately and deceptively cut off the "emerged and realized prior to being.."
That is being dishonest.

Well, actually part of the responsibility at least lies with you, since what you say above contradicts things you have said before. And since something existing prior the being conceived and known by humans, would be noumenal, you are going against Kant.

Though the grammar is a bit awkward
The phrase “reality emerged and realized prior to being perceived, known, and described in human ways” is a complex sentence with two main actions attributed to "reality": emerged and realized.

"Emerged" here implies that reality came into being or became apparent at some foundational point.

"Realized" is where the sentence becomes more ambiguous. Grammatically, realized can mean two different things:

To become actual: implying that reality “actualized” or became concrete independently.
To be perceived or recognized as real: suggesting an awareness or acknowledgment, typically in a conscious or human sense.
If we take "realized" to mean "became actual," then it fits with the sense of reality existing independently of human perception. However, if we interpret it as "recognized as real," this would usually imply a perceiver (i.e., humans), which might contradict the sentence's aim of describing reality as existing prior to human perception.

If it is the latter meaning, it should have 'was' before it and then we would want to know who perceived it before humans.
If it means the former than you are talking about something that cannot have been perceived by a human.

The statement that “reality emerged and realized prior to being perceived, known, and described in human ways” suggests that reality has an existence independent of human perception, aligning somewhat with Kant’s concept of the noumenal realm. However, it subtly conflicts with Kantian philosophy in the following way:

Temporal Independence of Reality: Kant argued that while reality as noumena exists independently, we cannot say anything about it meaningfully in terms of time or emergence. For Kant, time and space are categories imposed by human cognition on phenomena (what we perceive). Since noumena lie outside these categories, it doesn’t make sense to say noumena "emerged" or was "realized" in a temporal sequence. Instead, it simply is, outside of our capacity to define its characteristics. And that messes up the use of the word 'prior'.

Then 'emerged' contradicts Kant's epistemology, since you are claiming it emerged - so you know somethign about its process. For example, it wasn't that it was always there, but it emerged. So, you are claiming knowledge about noumena....

So, if in the mass of different ways you word your beliefs depending on the context that a reader might be confused, especially by a non-Kantian utterance on your part, is at least partly if not entirely your fault.

Remember someone like PH who has read your posts for years may actually take seriously the various positions you put forward and do not openly concede are problematic.

I don't think you have an overview of your positions, they are tactical and not systematic, so readers who have read you for a while are dealing with an ad hoc inconsistant structure and a myriad of ill-fitting descriptions.

This is a very complicated issue for those who have selective attention and are stuck with the evolutionary default.
[A] It is just like theists who are unable to understand the non-theists argument against God because of their psychological and emotional state threatened by an existential crisis.

What you present above is a strawman, it has nothing to do with the noumenal.
Why you and others bring in the noumenal is due to [A] above.

I have already explained;
1. it is ASSUMED, what is the ultimate ground is there is the supposed "soup of particles" [from 13.7 billions of years] and evolutionary forces.
2. these evolutionary forces generate patterns within the soup of particles.
3. There is abiogenesis which enable the emergence of entities with a nervous system to cognize these emergence of patterns as contingent to their respective specific framework and system [FS] throughout its 3.5 billion years of history.
4. So, here is a process of the UNIQUE emergence and realization of reality specific to the respective framework and system of each entity.
5. Therefore, there is a unique emergence and realization of reality specific to humans.
6. Humans are self-conscious and has the intellectual capability to know and describe these Emergence & Realization [FSER] in their unique human ways [FSK]

So my point is there is a prior process of emergence and realization conditioned by a 13.7 billion years of physical and 3.5 billion years of organic history which is followed by its perception, knowing and describing that realized reality.

There is no noumenal [absolutely mind independent] involved at all.
What emerged and is realized is entangled with the human conditions contingent upon a 13.7 billion years of physical and 3.5 billion years of organic history.

Premise 1 above has to be ASSUMED based on the Big Bang Theory because there in no way we can confirmed what is really real beyond the Big Bang Theory, else we are caught with an infinite regress and the resulting cognitive dissonance.
It is the resulting cognitive dissonance that drive philosophical realist to end up with the noumenal as the real and theists in insisting God is the First Cause.

Get it?
Show me where my above argument is false.

[Peter Holmes]

My proper premise should be;
Premise: Reality emerged and is realized [contingent upon human conditions] prior to being perceived, known and described in human ways.

The conclusion is;
Conclusion: Therefore, reality is [not absolutely independent from humans/only relatively independent from humans/somehow entangled with the human conditions].

Prove my above argument is wrong, false and does not follow.

Okay. Pay attention.

First: The premise you insist on assumes your conclusion, because the square bracketed condition - 'contingent upon human conditions' - defines reality as 'somehow entangled with the human conditions'. And that's called a begging-the-question fallacy. So yours is not an argument. You merely repeat the claim.

The above is not my argument exactly.
It was based on a very rough argument by PH.

The conclusion should have been;
The conclusion is;
Conclusion: Therefore, reality is not absolutely independent from humans [as claimed by philosophical realists] but only relatively independent from humans/somehow entangled with the human conditions [as per philosophical antiRealists -Kantian].

I went along with you presentation.
The above is not a proper argument.
Yes, it merely restate the premise.

Second: The claim that any aspect of reality - such as what you fatuously call emergence and realisation - could be 'contingent upon human conditions' PRIOR TO, which means BEFORE, it was perceived, known and described by humans is patently and screamingly FALSE.

So your question-begging argument has a false premise anyway.

Now, how about actually addressing what I've said here?

My argument proper is the in the thread:

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

Why it is false?
Based on what I had presented, present your argument why is it false?

Your revised conclusion does nothing to sort out the problem. You are still merely repeating the claim that
reality is 'contingent upon the human conditions' - which is false. For the record, here's your claim:

Premise: Reality emerged and is realized [contingent upon human conditions] prior to being perceived, known and described in human ways. (Note: these are your exact words above.)

Conclusion: Therefore, reality is not absolutely independent from humans [as claimed by philosophical realists] but only relatively independent from humans/somehow entangled with the human conditions [as per philosophical antiRealists -Kantian]. (Note: these are your exact words above.)

Your claim that reality 'emerged' and 'is realised' prior to its being perceived, known and described by humans is, to repeat, banal. Of course it did. The universe existed long before humans appeared. And that existence obviously had nothing to do with humans. So your claim that its emergence and realisation was/is 'contingent upon the human conditions' is false.

[Age]

What makes morality objective is the EXACT SAME thing that makes other things objective.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Your revised conclusion does nothing to sort out the problem. You are still merely repeating the claim that
reality is 'contingent upon the human conditions' - which is false. For the record, here's your claim:

Premise: Reality emerged and is realized [contingent upon human conditions] prior to being perceived, known and described in human ways. (Note: these are your exact words above.)

Conclusion: Therefore, reality is not absolutely independent from humans [as claimed by philosophical realists] but only relatively independent from humans/somehow entangled with the human conditions [as per philosophical antiRealists -Kantian]. (Note: these are your exact words above.)

Your claim that reality 'emerged' and 'is realised' prior to its being perceived, known and described by humans is, to repeat, banal. Of course it did. The universe existed long before humans appeared. And that existence obviously had nothing to do with humans. So your claim that its emergence and realisation was/is 'contingent upon the human conditions' is false.

PH: You are still merely repeating the claim that
reality is 'contingent upon the human conditions' - which is false.

Your claim that reality 'emerged' and 'is realised' prior to its being perceived, known and described by humans is, to repeat, banal. Of course it did. The universe existed long before humans appeared. And that existence obviously had nothing to do with humans.

Can you prove your claim is really true?

The contention is either, reality is:
1. Somehow Contingent [relatively independent] upon the human conditions,
or
2. Absolutely independent of the human conditions, i.e. it exists regardless whether there are human or not; this is based on the ideology of philosophical realism.

Philosophical realism is grounded and chasing an illusion as real, thus delusional.
Why Philosophical Realism is Illusory
viewtopic.php?t=40167
The concept of externalness [& independence] is very useful for basic survival but to ideologize it as philosophical realism in absolute terms for modern living is not effective.

Besides since its emergence and throughout the history of philosophy, philosophical realism has been exposed as with full of holes, dilemmas, antinomies, dichotomies, unresolvable radical skepticism and the like.

It is because of the above problems with philosophical realism that philosophical antirealists introduce more realistic and efficient modes of philosophical views that is realistic, practical and can contribute the progress of humanity.
One of this is Kant's Copernican Revolution among others that arose since the emergence of philosophy.
I have already presented argument on how the emergence and realization of reality prior to reality being known and described in human ways.

Reality: Emergence & Realization Prior to Perceiving, Knowing & Describing
viewtopic.php?t=40145
Try to understand [not necessary agree with] the above and provide your counter to it.

In the meantime, prove your alternative,
'reality is absolutely independent of the human conditions" is really true.
I suggest you open a new thread for this.

Since you are 'chicken' to raise a thread I have done it here:
Is Philosophical Realism Really True?
viewtopic.php?t=43060

[Peter Holmes]

Your revised conclusion does nothing to sort out the problem. You are still merely repeating the claim that
reality is 'contingent upon the human conditions' - which is false. For the record, here's your claim:

Premise: Reality emerged and is realized [contingent upon human conditions] prior to being perceived, known and described in human ways. (Note: these are your exact words above.)

Conclusion: Therefore, reality is not absolutely independent from humans [as claimed by philosophical realists] but only relatively independent from humans/somehow entangled with the human conditions [as per philosophical antiRealists -Kantian]. (Note: these are your exact words above.)

Your claim that reality 'emerged' and 'is realised' prior to its being perceived, known and described by humans is, to repeat, banal. Of course it did. The universe existed long before humans appeared. And that existence obviously had nothing to do with humans. So your claim that its emergence and realisation was/is 'contingent upon the human conditions' is false.

PH: You are still merely repeating the claim that
reality is 'contingent upon the human conditions' - which is false.

Your claim that reality 'emerged' and 'is realised' prior to its being perceived, known and described by humans is, to repeat, banal. Of course it did. The universe existed long before humans appeared. And that existence obviously had nothing to do with humans.

Can you prove your claim is really true?

I'm happy to accept the evidence from natural science - the 'gold standard'.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Your revised conclusion does nothing to sort out the problem. You are still merely repeating the claim that
reality is 'contingent upon the human conditions' - which is false. For the record, here's your claim:

Premise: Reality emerged and is realized [contingent upon human conditions] prior to being perceived, known and described in human ways. (Note: these are your exact words above.)

Conclusion: Therefore, reality is not absolutely independent from humans [as claimed by philosophical realists] but only relatively independent from humans/somehow entangled with the human conditions [as per philosophical antiRealists -Kantian]. (Note: these are your exact words above.)

Your claim that reality 'emerged' and 'is realised' prior to its being perceived, known and described by humans is, to repeat, banal. Of course it did. The universe existed long before humans appeared. And that existence obviously had nothing to do with humans. So your claim that its emergence and realisation was/is 'contingent upon the human conditions' is false.

PH: You are still merely repeating the claim that
reality is 'contingent upon the human conditions' - which is false.

Your claim that reality 'emerged' and 'is realised' prior to its being perceived, known and described by humans is, to repeat, banal. Of course it did. The universe existed long before humans appeared. And that existence obviously had nothing to do with humans.

Can you prove your claim is really true?

I'm happy to accept the evidence from natural science - the 'gold standard'.

Natural Science or just Science i.e. the Science FS or FSERC is the Gold Standard of reality and objectivity.
The science FS is contingent to a human-based [collective of subjects].
Whatever the scientific reality, truth, knowledge or fact, it is established by a consensus of peers within the specific scientific field.

However, there are two contentious views to the science FS, i.e.
1. Scientific Realism
2. Scientific AntiRealism i.e. scientific empirical realism

Scientific realism is a subset of philosophical realism; it believe in the noumenal thing, i.e. it exists beyond the scientific FS regardless of whether there are humans or not.
However, being Science [fallible and human-based] merely ASSUME the noumenal thing exists beyond the scientific reach awaiting discovery.
That the noumenal is ASSUMED, means that it is not taken a really real but merely a guide and direction for science to work with.
So there is also the Correspondence Theory of Truth and its associated problem in this case, regardless of any denial by you.

If you reified the noumenal as really real, you are chasing an illusion because there is nothing real there but merely an assumption.

On the other hand, scientific empirical realism accept what science confirm as real is really-real [credibly the most real, the gold standard] but it is qualified to the conditions of the scientific FS.
There is no need at all to speculate there is something real beyond [transcendental] what science confirmed as scientifically real.

As I had demonstrated, whatever is reality must first emerged [FSER], is realized as real, then perceived and known via the scientific FS [or other FS] and is described via the linguistic FS.
Reality: Emergence & Realization Prior to Perceiving, Knowing & Describing
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40145

So whilst resorting to Gold Standard, i.e. natural science or just science - the science FSERC, you have not "proven" your philosophical realism to be really true as absolutely independent of humans/mind, i.e. it exists regardless of whether there are humans or not.