Objectivity without Objects?

[Veritas Aequitas]

I have been questioned that what Objective must be supported by Object.

Putnam is his Ethics without Ontology in the Chapter Objectivity without Objects wrote the following;

" As it is very often interpreted, Plato’s theory of Ideas represents an early appearance of two persistent philosophical ideas: the idea that

i. if a claim is objectively true, then there have to be objects to which the claim “corresponds”—an idea which is built into the very etymology of the word “objective”—and the corollary idea that
ii. if there are no obvious natural objects whose properties would make the claim true, then there must be some non-natural objects to play the role of “truth-maker.”

As we saw, the same two ideas (plus some confusions of his own)1 figure in G. E. Moore’s idea that if there are truths as to the goodness of certain states of affairs, then there must be a “non-natural property” “good,” to account for this.
Accept these two ideas, and you are likely to accept a third, the idea that if a claim is true, then the claim is a description of whatever objects and properties make it true.

Accept all three ideas, and, if you regard some value judgments as objectively true, you will conclude that they are descriptions; and if you cannot construe them to your own satisfaction as descriptions of natural objects and properties, you will be forced to construe them as descriptions which refer to non-natural entities.

It is this very understandable, but I believe totally mistaken, line of thought ."

Note:
The OP looks silly from the common sense POV, but note the nuance:

There are two senses of 'what is object' and 'objectivity', i.e.

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39326

'Objective' [& object] is a very loose term but most of the moral fact deniers [PH & gang] are stuck with a dogmatic view of 'what is objective' within the Philosophical Realism perspective;

There are Two Senses of Objective: i.e.

• 1. Objectivity [& object] in the Philosophical Realism [PR] Sense
  2. Objectivity [object] in the FSK Sense

As such, what I am claiming is there is objectivity [FSK sense] without object in the PR sense; there is objectivity [FSK sense] with object in the PR sense
FSK = Framework and System of Knowledge [Emergence and Reality].

For more details see:
Two Senses of 'Objective' [also object]

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39326

[Veritas Aequitas]

I requested ChatGPT to explain in simpler terms:

ChatGPT [with reservations]
I'll break down the passage from Putnam's "Ethics without Ontology" in simpler terms:

Plato's Ideas and Objective Truth: Putnam talks about how Plato's theory of Ideas introduced two important philosophical ideas. The first idea is that when a statement is objectively true (meaning it's true no matter what people think), there must be actual things that the statement matches or corresponds to. This is where the term "objective" comes from. The second idea is that if there aren't any obvious natural things that the statement could be talking about, then there must be some non-natural things that serve as the basis for making the statement true.

G. E. Moore's Similar Idea: Putnam mentions that these same two ideas, along with some of Moore's own ideas, show up in G. E. Moore's thinking. Moore believed that if there are truths about whether certain situations are good or not, then there must be a special "non-natural property" called "good" that explains these truths.

Connection to Truth and Descriptions: If you agree with all three of these ideas, then you might also believe that if a statement is true, it must be describing actual things or properties that make it true. In other words, when you say something is true, you're saying that it's a description of real things that match up with what the statement says.

Link to Value Judgments: If you follow these ideas and believe that some judgments about what's valuable are objectively true, then you might think these judgments are descriptions too. If you can't understand them as descriptions of natural things and qualities, you might end up thinking they're descriptions of non-natural things.

Putnam's View: Putnam then says that this way of thinking is understandable but ultimately incorrect. He disagrees with this line of thought.

In essence, Putnam is discussing how certain historical philosophical ideas, related to the connection between objective truth, descriptions, and non-natural entities, have been influential. However, he disagrees with this line of thinking and finds it mistaken.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I request ChatGPT to give example of Objectivity without Object:
Note the mentioned of Ethical Principles;

ChatGPT [with reservations]
"Putnam's concept of "objectivity without objects" refers to situations where something can be considered objectively true or meaningful, even when there are no tangible physical objects to which the truth or meaning corresponds. Here are some examples to illustrate this concept:

Logic and Mathematics: .., logical statements and mathematical concepts often fall into this category. Statements like "If A is true, then B is also true" or mathematical equations like "2 + 2 = 4" are objectively true, but they don't necessarily correspond to physical objects. They are abstract concepts that have objective validity without being tied to specific objects.

Currencies: Currencies can be considered objective without having a direct physical counterpart. The value of a currency is based on economic factors, exchange rates, and people's trust in the currency's stability. Even though you can't touch or see the value of a currency, it's still objectively meaningful within the economic context.

Share Prices: Share prices in a stock exchange can be considered objective without being directly tied to a company's physical assets. The price of a share is influenced by various factors such as company performance, market sentiment, and investor expectations. While it might not directly correspond to the net tangible assets of a company, it still reflects the collective perception of the company's value in the market.

Ethical Principles: Ethical principles like "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" are considered objective by many people, even though they don't have a physical presence. These principles guide human behavior and interactions based on shared moral values, even though they aren't concrete objects.

Laws of Nature: Scientific laws, like the law of gravity, are objective without being physical objects. They describe consistent patterns and relationships in the natural world, and even though you can't see or touch the laws themselves, they have objective significance.

The common thread among these examples is that they demonstrate how concepts, principles, and ideas can hold objective meaning and truth even when they don't correspond to physical objects. This challenges the idea that objectivity always requires a concrete, observable counterpart."

[Peter Holmes]

I think the premises that Putnam recycles rest on both an etymological fallacy about 'objects', and a demonstrably incorrect correspondence theory of truth - mistaking what we say for the way things are.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I think the premises that Putnam recycles rest on both an etymological fallacy about 'objects', and a demonstrably incorrect correspondence theory of truth - mistaking what we say for the way things are.

Note the title of Putnam's book is Ethics without Ontology with the following chapters;

• PART I
  Ethics without Ontology
  Lecture 1 Ethics without Metaphysics 15
  Lecture 2 A Defense of Conceptual relativity 33
  Lecture 3 Objectivity without Objects 52
  Lecture 4 “Ontology”: An Obituary 71
  
  PART II
  Enlightenment and Pragmatism
  Lecture 1 The Three Enlightenments 89
  Lecture 2 Skepticism about Enlightenment 109

Note the chapter “Ontology: An Obituary" I don't see Putman "mistaking what we say for the way things are."

Putnam stated,

• " the metaphysical reasons which are offered for denying the very possibility of objective ethical judgment (as I have argued in a number of places, and briefly argued in this volume as well) would equally imply the impossibility of objective methodological value judgments, and thereby threaten the objectivity of science itself; "

In a way as with the above, Putnam approach is the same as my FSK approach which imply scientific objectivity which reinforces moral objectivity.

There are objectivity without objects [in logic, mathematics, currencies, share prices, laws of nature] in contrast to your claim objectivity must be grounded on a matter of fact which is absolutely mind-independent.
Do you deny this?
Objectivity without objects land support to moral objectivity without things which are absolutely mind-independent.

In your case, you are claiming objectivity based on an illusory object [thing], i.e. the noumenon.

Still waiting for you to counter my following challenge to you;
PH's What is Fact is Illusory
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39577
PH's Philosophical Realism is Illusory
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39992

[Veritas Aequitas]

I wonder where's PH?
I have to thank him for helping me to increase much of my database on morality and ethics.

[FlashDangerpants]

Putnam was not doing anything similar to FSK. Pete probably just got bored of everything having to be about antirealism and FSKs.

[Phil8659]

I have been questioned that what Objective must be supported by Object.

Putnam is his Ethics without Ontology in the Chapter Objectivity without Objects wrote the following;

" As it is very often interpreted, Plato’s theory of Ideas represents an early appearance of two persistent philosophical ideas: the idea that

i. if a claim is objectively true, then there have to be objects to which the claim “corresponds”—an idea which is built into the very etymology of the word “objective”—and the corollary idea that
ii. if there are no obvious natural objects whose properties would make the claim true, then there must be some non-natural objects to play the role of “truth-maker.”

Perhaps you should read Aristotle, as you could not comprehend Plato. A thing, i.e., an object, can be either perceptible or intelligible, as, for a fact, every thing is defined as a binary of relative and correlative. We have only two concepts to master, as Plato stressed but it seems you did not get it.
The fact that a thing can be either perceptible or intelligible is, in fact, mentioned in my common grammar books.

And Objectivism is was made popular by the cult philosopher wannabe Ayn Rand.

Ayn Rand fictionalized the business man and modeled that fiction, apparently on the Doc Savage pulps. If you have read both fiction series compare John Galt and Doc Savage.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I have been questioned that what Objective must be supported by Object.

Putnam is his Ethics without Ontology in the Chapter Objectivity without Objects wrote the following;

" As it is very often interpreted, Plato’s theory of Ideas represents an early appearance of two persistent philosophical ideas: the idea that

i. if a claim is objectively true, then there have to be objects to which the claim “corresponds”—an idea which is built into the very etymology of the word “objective”—and the corollary idea that
ii. if there are no obvious natural objects whose properties would make the claim true, then there must be some non-natural objects to play the role of “truth-maker.”

Perhaps you should read Aristotle, as you could not comprehend Plato. A thing, i.e., an object, can be either perceptible or intelligible, as, for a fact, every thing is defined as a binary of relative and correlative. We have only two concepts to master, as Plato stressed but it seems you did not get it.
The fact that a thing can be either perceptible or intelligible is, in fact, mentioned in my common grammar books.

And Objectivism is was made popular by the cult philosopher wannabe Ayn Rand.

Ayn Rand fictionalized the business man and modeled that fiction, apparently on the Doc Savage pulps. If you have read both fiction series compare John Galt and Doc Savage.

Aristotle and Rand's Objectivism is off topic.

From the above, here is Plato's view of things or object.

Plato's Ideas and Objective Truth: Putnam talks about how Plato's theory of Ideas introduced two important philosophical ideas.
The first idea is that when a statement is objectively true (meaning it's true no matter what people think), there must be actual things that the statement matches or corresponds to. This is where the term "objective" comes from.
The second idea is that if there aren't any obvious natural things that the statement could be talking about, then there must be some non-natural things that serve as the basis for making the statement true.

So Plato view of object or things is perceptible and intelligible.
What is perceptible to Plato is merely the shadows while what is really real are the intelligible Forms.

Plato objectivity relying on his Platonic Forms is chasing illusions.

What I claim is,
whatever is objective grounded on objects/things that are contingent upon a specific human based [collective of subjects] Framework and System of reality and knowledge.
The scientific FS is the most credible and objective as such is the Gold Standard.

The point is the non-empirical Platonic Forms are way off from the objectivity of the the empirical scientific FS, thus the Platonic Forms has negligible objectivity and from another perspective they are mere illusions.

Can you justify Platonic Forms [ideas] are real?
What is real is like a real apple that can be touched and eaten.

[Phil8659]

Can you justify Platonic Forms [ideas] are real?
What is real is like a real apple that can be touched and eaten.

Certainly, if you had studied Aristotle, Plato's student, you would know there was no magic, or mysticism involved, As Aristotle, plainly said, being the same as Plato, the two elements of a thing are its shape or form, i.e, limits, and the material within the form, and that we know all things, by its form, I,e., the correlative or noun.
Now, if you are having trouble, I suggest you study both works a lot better, as I have posted both works, Plato's translations, reedited, all major and some minor translations, for machine reading. And both renditions of Aristotle's work along with Definitions by Aristotle, which is a collection of Quotes by Aristotle, in his own words.
You apparently spout the same mysticism of the illiterate.
Do what I did. I wrote a macro program for word which will find all uses of words or phrases, through all the translations of Plato and Aristotle, and it helps keep you focused when you focus on what was said, and it lets the actual author explain his word usage.

Now, every major and a lot of minor editions of Plato are available on the internet archive, enough so, that you should be able to directly quote Plato, instead of quoting the mythologers of history, and since he repeated himself many times, you can stack the quotes in order to obtain clarity. So why not use his own words, and someone could explain them to you? And who but an idiot would claim that one of his students, Aristotle was off topic when what he said he was only repeating Plato

[Veritas Aequitas]

Can you justify Platonic Forms [ideas] are real?
What is real is like a real apple that can be touched and eaten.

Certainly, if you had studied Aristotle, Plato's student, you would know there was no magic, or mysticism involved, As Aristotle, plainly said, being the same as Plato, the two elements of a thing are its shape or form, i.e, limits, and the material within the form, and that we know all things, by its form, I,e., the correlative or noun.
Now, if you are having trouble, I suggest you study both works a lot better, as I have posted both works, Plato's translations, reedited, all major and some minor translations, for machine reading. And both renditions of Aristotle's work along with Definitions by Aristotle, which is a collection of Quotes by Aristotle, in his own words.
You apparently spout the same mysticism of the illiterate.
Do what I did. I wrote a macro program for word which will find all uses of words or phrases, through all the translations of Plato and Aristotle, and it helps keep you focused when you focus on what was said, and it lets the actual author explain his word usage.

Now, every major and a lot of minor editions of Plato are available on the internet archive, enough so, that you should be able to directly quote Plato, instead of quoting the mythologers of history, and since he repeated himself many times, you can stack the quotes in order to obtain clarity. So why not use his own words, and someone could explain them to you? And who but an idiot would claim that one of his students, Aristotle was off topic when what he said he was only repeating Plato

Plato (c. 428–c. 348 BCE) and Aristotle (384–322 BCE) were influential ancient Greek philosophers, with Aristotle being Plato's student and later a colleague, but whose philosophies eventually diverged, with Aristotle's being more empirical and practical while Plato's was more abstract and theoretical.
Link

Do what I did. I wrote a macro program for word which will find all uses of words or phrases, through all the translations of Plato and Aristotle, and it helps keep you focused when you focus on what was said, and it lets the actual author explain his word usage.

I am interested.
How can I do that?
Do you have a portable program? I would like to have a copy.

[Phil8659]

I am interested.
How can I do that?
Do you have a portable program? I would like to have a copy.

It is a Word Macro I wrote. I started writing my own Word macro's back when Word 2 came out. I actually started copying books, on a TI-99., When I copied the Bible, it took 32 disk, I used the concordance to write a spell checker.

There is, or was, a program called, I believe, InfoSearch, which might be still around and of some use. I tried it, but did not like it, as the results were text, and my macro worked within Word, and I could do some formatting automatically with it.

[FlashDangerpants]

I actually started copying books, on a TI-99., When I copied the Bible, it took 32 disk, I used the concordance to write a spell checker.

Wow, your boy VA there once spent years learning Arabic so that he could do his own translation of the Quran into Excel and sort every passage into to 14,000 categories of evilness. You two are a marriage made in Visio.

[popeye1945]

If you remove an object or objects, consciousness ceases, for objects are the fuel of consciousness. If you remove the conscious subject, the object or objects will cease to be/exist. The topic is silly.

[Veritas Aequitas]

If you remove an object or objects, consciousness ceases, for objects are the fuel of consciousness. If you remove the conscious subject, the object or objects will cease to be/exist. The topic is silly.

OK, it looks silly without the nuances which I had omitted which I should have done.

There are two senses of 'what is object' and 'objectivity', i.e.

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39326

'Objective' [& object] is a very loose term but most of the moral fact deniers [PH & gang] are stuck with a dogmatic view of 'what is objective' within the Philosophical Realism perspective;

There are Two Senses of Objective: i.e.

• 1. Objectivity [& object] in the Philosophical Realism [PR] Sense
  2. Objectivity [object] in the FSK Sense

As such, what I am claiming is there is objectivity [FSK sense] without object in the PR sense: ; there is objectivity [FSK sense] with object in the PR sense

For more details see:
Two Senses of 'Objective' [also object]

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39326