What could make morality objective?

[Peter Holmes]

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'.

There is no need at all to speculate there is something real beyond [transcendental] what science confirmed as scientifically real.

There is no need at all to speculate that there is not something real that the natural sciences investigate. Such speculation is irrational.

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

You've demonstrated nothing of the sort. This 'prior emergence and realisation' claptrap, inasmuch as it means anything, actually demonstrates the independence of reality from humans.

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.

The claim that, before humans existed, reality (the universe} did not exist absolutely independent from humans is so ridiculous that I have no idea how you cope with the cognitive dissonance required to maintain it.

[Veritas Aequitas]

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

There is no need at all to speculate there is something real beyond [transcendental] what science confirmed as scientifically real.

There is no need at all to speculate that there is not something real that the natural sciences investigate. Such speculation is irrational.

Are you aware of the significant issue surrounding the Philosophy of Science.
First there are two contentious views of science, i.e.

1. Scientific Realism - assume or postulate there is something real beyond scientific confirmation
2. Scientific AntiRealism - oppose the above
If you are not in either of the above, then where are you on what is real in relation to Science.

In addition, science itself has a very significant limitation, i.e.
science relied solely on induction which itself is very problematic in that it cannot confirm conclusively what is really real.

According to Popper a scientific realist, scientific truths at best are merely 'polished conjectures'.
So where is the real thing in science?
The only way is you must speculate and assumed there is a real thing beyond scientific what is confirmed by scientific justification.

If "you" don't speculate or assume, how do demonstrate that really real thing?

I on the other hand, I do not have to speculate, what is empirical as justifiable by science [gold standard] and experienced [or possible to be experienced] by me is the real thing.

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

You've demonstrated nothing of the sort. This 'prior emergence and realisation' claptrap, inasmuch as it means anything, actually demonstrates the independence of reality from humans.

Nope, if the emergence and realization of reality as I claimed is contingent upon the human conditions, how can be that reality or thing is independent from humans?
You should try to understand [not necessary agree with] what I am proposing, if you don't understand my point, how can you dispute it.
It is not 'mine' personally, but philosophers all over history had made that claim.

Protagoras (490–420 BCE ca), "Man is the measure of all things"
The Buddha [>500BC] there is no essence to things.

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.

The claim that, before humans existed, reality (the universe} did not exist absolutely independent from humans is so ridiculous that I have no idea how you cope with the cognitive dissonance required to maintain it.

As I had stated, you need to make the effort to understand [not to agree] what my point is before you waved it off.

[Belinda]

It's not a what it's a who that makes morality objective. Coming your way soon.

[Peter Holmes]

There is no need at all to speculate there is something real beyond [transcendental] what science confirmed as scientifically real.

There is no need at all to speculate that there is not something real that the natural sciences investigate. Such speculation is irrational.

Are you aware of the significant issue surrounding the Philosophy of Science.
First there are two contentious views of science, i.e.

1. Scientific Realism - assume or postulate there is something real beyond scientific confirmation
2. Scientific AntiRealism - oppose the above
If you are not in either of the above, then where are you on what is real in relation to Science.

In addition, science itself has a very significant limitation, i.e.
science relied solely on induction which itself is very problematic in that it cannot confirm conclusively what is really real.

According to Popper a scientific realist, scientific truths at best are merely 'polished conjectures'.
So where is the real thing in science?
The only way is you must speculate and assumed there is a real thing beyond scientific what is confirmed by scientific justification.

Popper didn't argue that there is no reality independent from humans, or that that we can never know what that reality is. The so-called problem of induction is that a conclusion based on experience can only ever be provisional - not that such a conclusion must be illusory.

If "you" don't speculate or assume, how do demonstrate that really real thing?

I on the other hand, I do not have to speculate, what is empirical as justifiable by science [gold standard] and experienced [or possible to be experienced] by me is the real thing.

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

You've demonstrated nothing of the sort. This 'prior emergence and realisation' claptrap, inasmuch as it means anything, actually demonstrates the independence of reality from humans.

Nope, if the emergence and realization of reality as I claimed is contingent upon the human conditions, how can be that reality or thing is independent from humans?

You haven't shown that the emergence and realisation of reality - whatever that means - is contingent upon the human conditions - whatever that means. And your claim flies in the face of all the evidence we have about the temporal sequence. The universe existed long before humans appeared, so its existence can have had nothing to do with humans. Please address that fact.

You should try to understand [not necessary agree with] what I am proposing, if you don't understand my point, how can you dispute it.
It is not 'mine' personally, but philosophers all over history had made that claim.

Protagoras (490–420 BCE ca), "Man is the measure of all things"

So what? That doesn't mean all things are 'somehow' contingent upon man.

The Buddha [>500BC] there is no essence to things.

Irrelevant.

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.

The claim that, before humans existed, reality (the universe} did not exist absolutely independent from humans is so ridiculous that I have no idea how you cope with the cognitive dissonance required to maintain it.

As I had stated, you need to make the effort to understand [not to agree] what my point is before you waved it off.

I do understand your claim, and I've shown a million times why it's false.

[Veritas Aequitas]

According to Popper a scientific realist, scientific truths at best are merely 'polished conjectures'.
So where is the real thing in science?
The only way is you must speculate and assumed there is a real thing beyond scientific what is confirmed by scientific justification.

Popper didn't argue that there is no reality independent from humans, or that that we can never know what that reality is. The so-called problem of induction is that a conclusion based on experience can only ever be provisional - not that such a conclusion must be illusory.

I stated above, Popper is a scientific realist [human-independent reality].
The conclusion is provisional pointing to an impossible to reach/know reality.
Science by nature admit it can never give certainty of reality, it merely assumes there is a reality beyond its conclusion; this assumption is merely a guide for science and can never be substantive or absolutely real.
It is realists and scientific realists who are desperate and claim there is an absolutely independent reality that science will soon confirm with certainty.
The absolutely human independent reality itself implied humans will never ever interact with the supposed human independent reality.
Science has been around for a long time, show me one example where Science is definitely conform the existence of something that is supposed human independent.

If "you" don't speculate or assume, how do demonstrate that really real thing?
I on the other hand, I do not have to speculate, what is empirical as justifiable by science [gold standard] and experienced [or possible to be experienced] by me is the real thing.

You've demonstrated nothing of the sort. This 'prior emergence and realisation' claptrap, inasmuch as it means anything, actually demonstrates the independence of reality from humans.

Nope, if the emergence and realization of reality as I claimed is contingent upon the human conditions, how can be that reality or thing is independent from humans?

You haven't shown that the emergence and realisation of reality - whatever that means - is contingent upon the human conditions - whatever that means. And your claim flies in the face of all the evidence we have about the temporal sequence. The universe existed long before humans appeared, so its existence can have had nothing to do with humans. Please address that fact.

I had opened a thread to explain what is Emergence and Realization of reality that is contingent upon the human conditions:
What is Emergence & Realization
viewtopic.php?t=40721

What that you don't understand or disagree with it?
There are also a tons of rationally justified related materials on the topic in the internet and books.
You should understand them sufficiently [not agree] what they are about.

You should try to understand [not necessary agree with] what I am proposing, if you don't understand my point, how can you dispute it.
It is not 'mine' personally, but philosophers all over history had made that claim.

Protagoras (490–420 BCE ca), "Man is the measure of all things"

So what? That doesn't mean all things are 'somehow' contingent upon man.

It meant 'man' is the common factor with all things, i.e. reality is;
man(reality - all there is) as in (2, 4, 6, 8, 10) = 2(1, 2, 3, 4, 5)
This imply that 'man' is somehow intricately part and parcel of reality and it cannot be 'absolutely independent of human' [as claimed by realists]
It is a nuanced concept so don't jump to conclusion based on your narrow view.

The Buddha [>500BC] there is no essence to things.

Irrelevant.

The claim that, before humans existed, reality (the universe} did not exist absolutely independent from humans is so ridiculous that I have no idea how you cope with the cognitive dissonance required to maintain it.

As I had stated, you need to make the effort to understand [not to agree] what my point is before you waved it off.

I do understand your claim, and I've shown a million times why it's false.

I am the one knowing my own claim, so I know you have not understood [not agree] it at all.
I have opened many threads to explain my view but you are unable to understand [not agree] it.
I believe you are deliberately making sure you don't understand [not agree] [i.e. not engaging in the threads I have opened for the purpose] or you do not have the cognitive ability to do so.
So far, you have been throwing strawmen.

[Peter Holmes]

According to Popper a scientific realist, scientific truths at best are merely 'polished conjectures'.
So where is the real thing in science?
The only way is you must speculate and assumed there is a real thing beyond scientific what is confirmed by scientific justification.

Popper didn't argue that there is no reality independent from humans, or that that we can never know what that reality is. The so-called problem of induction is that a conclusion based on experience can only ever be provisional - not that such a conclusion must be illusory.

I stated above, Popper is a scientific realist [human-independent reality].
The conclusion is provisional pointing to an impossible to reach/know reality.

False. That our conclusions about reality are provisional doesn't mean we can't know reality - that there's something necessarily unknowable about it.

[Iwannaplato]

I stated above, Popper is a scientific realist [human-independent reality].
The conclusion is provisional pointing to an impossible to reach/know reality.
Science by nature admit it can never give certainty of reality, it merely assumes there is a reality beyond its conclusion; this assumption is merely a guide for science and can never be substantive or absolutely real.

Science is provisional for regardless of whether one is antirealist or realist. In other words, science is provisional about it's conclusions, regardless of whether they are about phenomena or noumena. It's built into the methodolgy. You just cut off your nose to spite your face.

You have long said science is the gold standard. Here you are saying that science is provisional but ONLY apply that to it's conclusions about external reality. But even if you take scientific conclusions to be just about phenomena, as a empirical realist would, those conclusions are also provisional. If new data comes up or one finds that factors were not eliminated, for example, in previous research, they can be revised, regardless of ones epistemology or ontology. Regardless of whether one is an antirealist or a philosophical realist.

It is not just provisional in relation to it's claims about external reality.

But as usual you will be utterly incapable of conceding on obvious point.

and since VA only listens to Kant and Chatgpt:
My prompt

Let's say you are an antirealist scientist and thus consider scientific conclusions to be about phenomena not about some external reality, a la Kant's empirical realism, is your science still provisional.

Yes, as an antirealist scientist, your science would still be considered provisional, though for reasons aligned with a specific philosophical approach to scientific knowledge.

Antirealism in science, particularly one influenced by Kant’s *empirical realism*, suggests that scientific conclusions concern phenomena (observed experiences and empirical data) rather than an independent, underlying reality. In this framework, scientific theories are tools to organize and predict observations within our experiences, without claiming to describe a reality beyond them. This view contrasts with scientific realism, which holds that science aims to uncover truths about an objective external reality.

For an antirealist, scientific theories are provisional because they remain open to change and improvement as new observations or better explanatory models emerge. This stance is informed by historical changes in science—such as shifts from Newtonian mechanics to relativity—which demonstrate that scientific theories can be refined or replaced even within their empirical boundaries. Here, *provisionality* reflects the pragmatic flexibility of theories to adapt to new empirical data, rather than an attempt to approximate a mind-independent reality.

Thus, antirealist science is provisional because it is continuously responsive to observable phenomena, remaining adaptable to new evidence and methodological shifts. This provisionality supports the view that science is a dynamic process of organizing phenomena, rather than a final description of reality.

Philosophers like Bas van Fraassen (constructive empiricism) and Thomas Kuhn (paradigm shifts in science) offer complementary ideas, arguing that scientific theories are *tools* or *paradigms* whose utility and coherence with empirical observations matter more than their literal truth about reality.

But, VA, prove me wrong about you. Concede that your point about Popper would undermine your own position. I will apologize and compliment you for conceding this point. Further, it doesn't mean, if you concede this point, that you are wrong about any of your core positions. It just means that that specific argument in relation to PH was problematic for you. Are you unfragile enough to admit an error and contradiction your argument would lead to in relation to other points you have made??????

[Veritas Aequitas]

Popper didn't argue that there is no reality independent from humans, or that that we can never know what that reality is. The so-called problem of induction is that a conclusion based on experience can only ever be provisional - not that such a conclusion must be illusory.

I stated above, Popper is a scientific realist [human-independent reality].
The conclusion is provisional pointing to an impossible to reach/know reality.

False. That our conclusions about reality are provisional doesn't mean we can't know reality - that there's something necessarily unknowable about it.

Attempting to know the unknowable is a contradiction and impossibility.
The Oxymoron of an Unknowable Noumenon
viewtopic.php?t=42651

That is because you are grounding your claim in the ultimately false sense of reality which is that of scientific reality a subset of philosophical realism;
There are Two Senses of Reality
viewtopic.php?t=40265

Science that is practiced merely ASSSUMED the noumenal exists beyond empirical world.
Don't you get that, i.e. it is merely an ASSUMPTION to guide science forward.
How can you insist an assumption is really real?

You are not doing science per se but adopting a philosophical position [philosophical realism] that is immature in insisting there is an absolutely human independent reality out there and in your body.
That you are reifying merely an assumption as really real is your psychological impulse driven by an existential crisis to jump to conclusion necessarily.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I stated above, Popper is a scientific realist [human-independent reality].
The conclusion is provisional pointing to an impossible to reach/know reality.
Science by nature admit it can never give certainty of reality, it merely assumes there is a reality beyond its conclusion; this assumption is merely a guide for science and can never be substantive or absolutely real.

Science is provisional for regardless of whether one is antirealist or realist. In other words, science is provisional about it's conclusions, regardless of whether they are about phenomena or noumena. It's built into the methodolgy. You just cut off your nose to spite your face.

You have long said science is the gold standard. Here you are saying that science is provisional but ONLY apply that to it's conclusions about external reality. But even if you take scientific conclusions to be just about phenomena, as a empirical realist would, those conclusions are also provisional. If new data comes up or one finds that factors were not eliminated, for example, in previous research, they can be revised, regardless of ones epistemology or ontology. Regardless of whether one is an antirealist or a philosophical realist.

It is not just provisional in relation to it's claims about external reality.

But as usual you will be utterly incapable of conceding on obvious point.

and since VA only listens to Kant and Chatgpt:
My prompt

Let's say you are an antirealist scientist and thus consider scientific conclusions to be about phenomena not about some external reality, a la Kant's empirical realism, is your science still provisional.

Yes, as an antirealist scientist, your science would still be considered provisional, though for reasons aligned with a specific philosophical approach to scientific knowledge.

Antirealism in science, particularly one influenced by Kant’s *empirical realism*, suggests that scientific conclusions concern phenomena (observed experiences and empirical data) rather than an independent, underlying reality. In this framework, scientific theories are tools to organize and predict observations within our experiences, without claiming to describe a reality beyond them. This view contrasts with scientific realism, which holds that science aims to uncover truths about an objective external reality.

For an antirealist, scientific theories are provisional because they remain open to change and improvement as new observations or better explanatory models emerge. This stance is informed by historical changes in science—such as shifts from Newtonian mechanics to relativity—which demonstrate that scientific theories can be refined or replaced even within their empirical boundaries. Here, *provisionality* reflects the pragmatic flexibility of theories to adapt to new empirical data, rather than an attempt to approximate a mind-independent reality.

Thus, antirealist science is provisional because it is continuously responsive to observable phenomena, remaining adaptable to new evidence and methodological shifts. This provisionality supports the view that science is a dynamic process of organizing phenomena, rather than a final description of reality.

Philosophers like Bas van Fraassen (constructive empiricism) and Thomas Kuhn (paradigm shifts in science) offer complementary ideas, arguing that scientific theories are *tools* or *paradigms* whose utility and coherence with empirical observations matter more than their literal truth about reality.

But, VA, prove me wrong about you. Concede that your point about Popper would undermine your own position. I will apologize and compliment you for conceding this point. Further, it doesn't mean, if you concede this point, that you are wrong about any of your core positions. It just means that that specific argument in relation to PH was problematic for you. Are you unfragile enough to admit an error and contradiction your argument would lead to in relation to other points you have made??????

You are making a fool of yourself based on your ignorance.

As above ChatGpt wrote:

1. Antirealism in science, particularly one influenced by Kant’s *empirical realism*, suggests that scientific conclusions concern phenomena (observed experiences and empirical data) rather than an independent, underlying reality.

2. In this framework, scientific theories are tools to organize and predict observations within our experiences, without claiming to describe a reality beyond them.

3. This view [1 & 2] contrasts with scientific realism, which holds that science aims to uncover truths about an objective external reality.

Popper's point re realism agree with [3] which is scientific realism.

But 3 is in contrast to 1&2 which is Kant's antirealism, i.e. "rather than an independent, underlying reality."

Kant's scientific empirical realism still provide for scientific conclusions as provisional, i.e. subject to change upon new empirical evidence but do not claim an absolutely independent underlying reality.
What is "really-real" [emergent and realized] is contingent upon the science FSERC.
On hindsight what was accepted by science but rejected later upon new evidence, was then "really-real" but qualified [relative] to the science-FSERC then.

Point is no humans [fallible] can ever have the credibility to claim reality is absolutely mind-independent like what the philosophical realists are claiming. The philosophical realists are desperate and psychologically driven to claim an absolutely mind independent merely to soothe their existential pains.

Thus the most realistic state is a state of indifference and suspension of the evolutionary default so that humanity is not hindered with such dogmatic ideology.

Now who is not reading properly??

[Peter Holmes]

You are not doing science per se but adopting a philosophical position [philosophical realism] that is immature in insisting there is an absolutely human independent reality out there and in your body.

Before there were humans, there was an absolutely human independent reality. And the whole of natural science - the gold standard for knowledge - confirms it. Please address those facts.

The reality (the universe) that existed before humans appeared was not an illusion experienced by humans.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You are not doing science per se but adopting a philosophical position [philosophical realism] that is immature in insisting there is an absolutely human independent reality out there and in your body.

Before there were humans, there was an absolutely human independent reality. And the whole of natural science - the gold standard for knowledge - confirms it. Please address those facts.

The reality (the universe) that existed before humans appeared was not an illusion experienced by humans.

The problem is the whole of natural science [gold standard] by its default cannot confirm anything absolutely.

Therefore it does not follow that relative natural science can confirm your realists' absolutely human independent reality.

You have a fallacy of equivocation here.
Get it?

[Peter Holmes]

You are not doing science per se but adopting a philosophical position [philosophical realism] that is immature in insisting there is an absolutely human independent reality out there and in your body.

Before there were humans, there was an absolutely human independent reality. And the whole of natural science - the gold standard for knowledge - confirms it. Please address those facts.

The reality (the universe) that existed before humans appeared was not an illusion experienced by humans.

The problem is the whole of natural science [gold standard] by its default cannot confirm anything absolutely.

Therefore it does not follow that relative natural science can confirm your realists' absolutely human independent reality.

You have a fallacy of equivocation here.
Get it?

Nonsense. The fact that natural science can't confirm any conclusion about reality absolutely - because of the problem of induction - does not mean that there is no reality absolutely independent from humans. That doesn't follow. Yours is a non sequitur fallacy.

To repeat. Reality (the universe) existed before humans appeared. So that reality (the universe) was absolutely independent from humans. End of.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Before there were humans, there was an absolutely human independent reality. And the whole of natural science - the gold standard for knowledge - confirms it. Please address those facts.

The reality (the universe) that existed before humans appeared was not an illusion experienced by humans.

The problem is the whole of natural science [gold standard] by its default cannot confirm anything absolutely.

Therefore it does not follow that relative natural science can confirm your realists' absolutely human independent reality.

You have a fallacy of equivocation here.
Get it?

Nonsense. The fact that natural science can't confirm any conclusion about reality absolutely - because of the problem of induction - does not mean that there is no reality absolutely independent from humans. That doesn't follow. Yours is a non sequitur fallacy.

How do you prove [demonstrate, justify] there is a reality that is absolutely independent from humans? i.e. it exists regardless of whether there are humans or not.

Natural Science?
But, the fact is natural science can't confirm any conclusion about reality absolutely - because of the problem of induction and its relativity to the human conditions.

VA: But, relative natural science can confirm your realists' absolutely human independent reality.

PH: "Nonsense. The fact that natural science can't confirm any conclusion about reality absolutely - because of the problem of induction - does not mean that there is no reality absolutely independent from humans. That doesn't follow. Yours is a non sequitur fallacy."

VA: How do you prove [demonstrate, justify] there is a reality that is absolutely independent from humans? i.e. it exists regardless of whether there are humans or not.

Ad nauseam ........

To repeat. Reality (the universe) existed before humans appeared. So that reality (the universe) was absolutely independent from humans. End of.

You cannot prove [demonstrate, justify] the above.
It is merely wishful thinking on your part in claiming for an absolutely human independent reality.
This has been a contentious issue since philosophy emerged.
Your claim of "absolutely human independent" is driven psychologically due to cognitive dissonance driven by an inherent existential crisis.

The evolved belief of "human independence" is necessary to facilitate basic survival and common sense but it flops in dealing with more mature matters of life.
You are very dogmatic with your ideology of philosophical realism.
You should not waived it off but at least ask WTF is this contentious issue all about from both sides.

[Peter Holmes]

The problem is the whole of natural science [gold standard] by its default cannot confirm anything absolutely.

Therefore it does not follow that relative natural science can confirm your realists' absolutely human independent reality.

You have a fallacy of equivocation here.
Get it?

Nonsense. The fact that natural science can't confirm any conclusion about reality absolutely - because of the problem of induction - does not mean that there is no reality absolutely independent from humans. That doesn't follow. Yours is a non sequitur fallacy.

How do you prove [demonstrate, justify] there is a reality that is absolutely independent from humans? i.e. it exists regardless of whether there are humans or not.

Consider the following argument.

Premise: We can't prove the existence of a reality absolutely independent from humans.
Conclusion: Therefore, reality is not absolutely independent from humans.

Do you think the premise entails the conclusion? Or, to put it another way, do you think it possible that, even if we can't prove the existence of a reality absolutely independent from humans, it may exist anyway?

[Age]

Nonsense. The fact that natural science can't confirm any conclusion about reality absolutely - because of the problem of induction - does not mean that there is no reality absolutely independent from humans. That doesn't follow. Yours is a non sequitur fallacy.

How do you prove [demonstrate, justify] there is a reality that is absolutely independent from humans? i.e. it exists regardless of whether there are humans or not.

Consider the following argument.

Premise: We can't prove the existence of a reality absolutely independent from humans.
Conclusion: Therefore, reality is not absolutely independent from humans.

Do you think the premise entails the conclusion? Or, to put it another way, do you think it possible that, even if we can't prove the existence of a reality absolutely independent from humans, it may exist anyway?

Just for information it is very simple and very easy to prove the existence of 'reality, absolutely independent from you human beings.

But, just like you human beings evolved into being created into existence, over time, it just took some time to evolve past the human being stage, and level, over, and up, to the next stage, and level, where what 'reality' is, exactly, can be seen, proved, understood, and known, absolutely independent from you human beings, and from your little and limited perspective of things.

Oh, and by the way, what makes things 'objective' is the exact same thing that makes 'morality' 'objective'.