Moralty is Objective [ by Magnus ]

[Magnus Anderson]

What you 'took', and thought I was 'accusing' you of, here, are both Wrong, in case you were interested.

So what's the case?

The dictionary definitions were meant to show that the definition that I'm using is both the normative one and the popular one.

And, a subjective or objective definition?

I don't understand your question.

[Age]

What you 'took', and thought I was 'accusing' you of, here, are both Wrong, in case you were interested.

So what's the case?

You claimed that I accused you of holding a "personal, subjective, view" of the meaning of the word "objective".

Once again, I never ever accused you of any such thing.

you took it that I was saying that you misunderstood the normative definition of the word "objective".

I never ever thought such a thing.

The dictionary definitions were meant to show that the definition that I'm using is both the normative one and the popular one.

And, a subjective or objective definition?

I don't understand your question.

To you, are dictionary definitions objective or subjective definitions?

[Magnus Anderson]

You claimed that I accused you of holding a "personal, subjective, view" of the meaning of the word "objective".

Once again, I never ever accused you of any such thing.

you took it that I was saying that you misunderstood the normative definition of the word "objective".

I never ever thought such a thing.

So what did you say then?

To you, are dictionary definitions objective or subjective definitions?

What is an objective definition? Or a subjective one?

[Age]

You claimed that I accused you of holding a "personal, subjective, view" of the meaning of the word "objective".

Once again, I never ever accused you of any such thing.

you took it that I was saying that you misunderstood the normative definition of the word "objective".

I never ever thought such a thing.

So what did you say then?

What I have above, here. Which, again, was not what you said and presumed,

To you, are dictionary definitions objective or subjective definitions?

What is an objective definition? Or a subjective one?

This is the whole point. 'We' would have to discuss what the words 'objective' and 'subjective' mean, to each of 'us', first.

As I pointed out previously,
1. It is your personal, and subjective, view that the word, 'objective', means 'existing independently of minds', in the so-called 'ontological sense'.

2. To say a thing exists independently of minds is to think, assume, or believe that minds even exist.

3. Now, the answer to the question of this thread would all depend on how one defines the 'mind' and the 'morality' words, exactly.

[Magnus Anderson]

\What I have above, here. Which, again, was not what you said and presumed,

So you're not going to explain what you mean by this?

1. It is your personal, and subjective, view that the word, 'objective', means 'existing independently of minds', in the so-called 'ontological sense'.

[Age]

\What I have above, here. Which, again, was not what you said and presumed,

So you're not going to explain what you mean by this?

Why would you even begin to presume such a thing?

And, why did you make this claim and then put a question mark at the end of it?

1. It is your personal, and subjective, view that the word, 'objective', means 'existing independently of minds', in the so-called 'ontological sense'.

Now, if what you were really wanting to get to is, 'Will you explain what I mean by this claim?'

Then, yes I will.

I mean that that view of yours is a personal and subjective view, and thus not necessarily an objective view at all.

But, if you were really wanting to get to something else, then will you just say, ask, and/or explain what 'that' is, exactly?

[popeye1945]

What is objective is energy, frequencies, and vibrations.

[MikeNovack]

What is objective is energy, frequencies, and vibrations.

PHYSICAL things only. Are you calling the transcendental number "pi" subjective? (or any number for that matter).

[Magnus Anderson]

I mean that that view of yours is a personal and subjective view, and thus not necessarily an objective view at all.

What view?

[Age]

I mean that that view of yours is a personal and subjective view, and thus not necessarily an objective view at all.

What view?

The view, of yours, that even you quoted in your last response, to me.

you know 'the view' where you said and claimed, ' the word, 'objective', means 'existing independently of minds', in the so-called 'ontological sense' '.

[popeye1945]

What is objective is energy, frequencies, and vibrations.

PHYSICAL things only. Are you calling the transcendental number "pi" subjective? (or any number for that matter).

All meaning is subject meaning, and there is no other source of meaning but the conscious subjective subject. If it does not have meaning to a life form, it has no meaning. The physical world just is; it has no meaning in and of itself, so in the absence of consciousness, there is no meaning, indeed, subjectively, there is no physical world. Schopenhauer, subject and object stand or fall together-- they exist together or they do not exist subjectively.
Energy, frequencies, and vibrations are not things, yet they are all that is in the absence of consciousness. All is energy. Biology is the measure and the meaning of all things.

[Magnus Anderson]

The view, of yours, that even you quoted in your last response, to me.

you know 'the view' where you said and claimed, ' the word, 'objective', means 'existing independently of minds', in the so-called 'ontological sense' '.

Right.

The claim that I made is that, in the ontological sense, the word "objective" means "existing independently of minds".

That's a definition. I am stating how philosophers use the word. But most importantly, I am declaring how I am going to use it throughout my argument.

And you responded by saying that it is a subjective one.

That begs the question: what means that a definition is subjective?

You did respond to this question but you didn't answer it. You said, "That's the whole point. We would have to discuss what the word means to each of us first."

What it means to each one of us is irrelevant. The question is what you mean by it because it's your statement.

Unless you explain to me what you mean by the term "subjective definition", I can't answer your question, at least not without making an assumption ( which I already did, the first time. )

[Age]

The view, of yours, that even you quoted in your last response, to me.

you know 'the view' where you said and claimed, ' the word, 'objective', means 'existing independently of minds', in the so-called 'ontological sense' '.

Right.

The claim that I made is that, in the ontological sense, the word "objective" means "existing independently of minds".

Once more, that is your subjective view, only. But, the Truth is that what a word means, to you, does not necessarily mean the same to another.

The definition of every word, including the 'objective' word, is relative and subjective. Now, what the word 'objective' means, in any sense, to you and some others, is relative, and subjective. See, to some others, the word 'objective', in the ontological sense, does not mean, 'existing independently of minds', at all.

Now, you would be absolutely Correct if you had stated only the actual Truth in your definition, here, but since you did not, and since 'we' are in a philosophy forum, I suggest that it would be best if 'we' expressed the Truth, and the only actual irrefutable Truth, only. If 'we' did, then 'you' human beings would not be as lost, confused, disagreeing, and bickering as often as as much as 'you' obviously are, here.

That's a definition.

Yes, agreed that that is 'a', or one, definition. But, again, it is just 'a' definition coming from a subjective perspective only. Those definitions that come from an objective perspective, instead, hold much 'more weight', as some say and write.

I am stating how philosophers use the word.

1.What is a so-called 'philosopher', exactly?

2. Are you trying to claim that absolutely every so-called 'philosopher' uses 'that word' in 'that way' every single time when 'that word' is used?

3. Why do you believe that you can speak for absolutely every one in some particular imagined and made up group of people?

But most importantly, I am declaring how I am going to use it throughout my argument.

If it was made absolutely clear that you are going to use 'a word' in a very specific way, which again is just your own subjective view, then that is all well and good. But, again do not be surprised when you create and cause conflict and opposition, especially when you use 'a' definition, like above, which does not even align with what is actually True, in Life, to begin with. Or, with what some call an 'objective Truth'.

And you responded by saying that it is a subjective one.

Yes I did.

That begs the question: what means that a definition is subjective?

1. The term and phrase, 'begs the question', once meant some thing completely different to how you perceive it to mean, and are using it, here. It could even be said and argued that you are not using that term in 'the way' that it is used in philosophical discussions.

Anyway,

2. All definitions are subjective ones, however what makes a definition and objective one, and thus a definition that is actually irrefutable True is the exact same thing that makes up 'objectivity', itself. For those who are, still, not yet aware, it is 'that', which could be agreed with and accepted by every one, which is what is objective, and thus irrefutably True, in Life.

You did respond to this question but you didn't answer it. You said, "That's the whole point. We would have to discuss what the word means to each of us first."

Would you like to present 'the question' in the most succinct and clearest way?

If no, then why not?

What it means to each one of us is irrelevant.

Really? Are you, here, trying to argue that because a definition is written in a dictionary, then that is what makes a word mean what it does, or not?

And, that was more or less 'the point' I was making, here. If 'the meaning' is only to you, or some, and not all, then really 'that meaning' is actually irrelevant. Well to all, and maybe also to the actual Truth of things as well.

Also, if you do not gain an understanding what a word means to another, and you just want to claim that what a word means to another is irrelevant, then you will have accept that what a word means, to you, is also irrelevant. you obviously can not logically have things, here, both ways.

The question is what you mean by it because it's your statement.

And, I thought you just 'tried to' to claim what it means to each of 'us' is irrelevant anyway, correct?

By the way, what is your answer to your question, here?

Unless you explain to me what you mean by the term "subjective definition", I can't answer your question, at least not without making an assumption ( which I already did, the first time. )

Again, every definition is a 'subjective definition' but only 'the definitions' in which every one could agree with and accept are 'objective definitions'. And, it is only 'objective definitions' that are Truly worth looking at, repeating, sharing, and discussing. As it is only 'objective definitions' which provide the True, Right, Accurate, and Correct Knowledge, and perspectives, in Life

[Magnus Anderson]

I suggest that it would be best if 'we' expressed the Truth, and the only actual irrefutable Truth, only. If 'we' did, then 'you' human beings would not be as lost, confused, disagreeing, and bickering as often as as much as 'you' obviously are, here.

So why are you doing the very thing you accuse other human beings of doing?

That begs the question: what means that a definition is subjective?

All definitions are subjective ones, however what makes a definition and objective one, and thus a definition that is actually irrefutable True is the exact same thing that makes up 'objectivity', itself. For those who are, still, not yet aware, it is 'that', which could be agreed with and accepted by every one, which is what is objective, and thus irrefutably True, in Life.

So what you're actually asking me is, "Is your definition something that can be agreed with and accepted by everyone?"

What stops other people from accepting my definition? And why is that relevant at all?

If 'the meaning' is only to you, or some, and not all, then really 'that meaning' is actually irrelevant.

And that is your mistake.

And, I thought you just 'tried to' to claim what it means to each of 'us' is irrelevant anyway, correct?

The one who speaks, i.e. uses the word, gets to decide what the word means.

Although, ideally, everyone should stick to the normative definition of the word, i.e. the ones specified in the dictionaries.

When I use the word "objective", I get to decide what it means. I explained what it means. And I've shown that it aligns with the dictionaries.

When you use the word, you get to decide what it means.

You obviously do not understand what definitions are and how they work. Unfortunately, it's a common ignorance, even among self-proclaimed philosophers.

[MikeNovack]

Magnus is correct. If there are multiple definitions the speaker gets to choose which as long as clearly described which. Age, you get to complain only if the speaker becomes inconsistent. Say begins with one definition, but the brings in a property of another.

However --- Age you can also say "I want to talk about X when X is defined this way"