Moralty is Objective [ by Magnus ]

[Age]

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?

If you really want to express "yourself" as so 'self-assured', then I suggest you have the actual irrefutable proof, before hand. Now, where and when have I, supposedly, not expressed the actual irrefutable Truth? What are the exact words that I used? Why do you think or believe that 'it' is no the actual irrefutable Truth? And, what is the actual irrefutable Truth, instead?

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?"

Not really as I already know what the answer is.

What stops other people from accepting my definition?

The fact that it is not True and does not align with what is actually True.

And why is that relevant at all?

'We' are in a 'philosophy forum', where Truth and/or finding Truth and answers is very relevant. Well to most anyway, if not 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.

'What', exactly, is, supposedly, my mistake?

And, how is 'that', supposedly, so-called 'my mistake', exactly?

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.

Okay, so what you actually meant is the definition, or meaning, of any word is 'the meaning' is relevant to the speaker/writer, correct?

Also, if 'these' are 'the rules', the meaning of the word 'Mind'

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. [/quote]

Except for the fact that 'now' 'I' am the speaker/writer, here, and 'I' am using the 'objective' word 'now. So, 'now' 'I' get to decide what 'the word' means. Well according to 'your logic' anyway? And, 'now' the 'objective' word does not mean what 'you', previously, claimed it meant.

I explained what it means. And I've shown that it aligns with the dictionaries.

That 'one word' may well be the case, but some of the rest of your other words expressed Falsehoods. Therefore, your sentence did not logically follow. Which is obviously necessary in philosophical discussions.

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

As 'I' just showed 'you' and proved above, here.

You obviously do not understand what definitions are and how they work.

Unfortunately, it's a common ignorance, even among self-proclaimed philosophers.

If only you knew "magnus anderson". If only 'you' knew.

Did you provide 'your definition' of who and/or what a 'philosopher' is, exactly, when 'I' asked 'you' to, previously?

If no, then why not?

And, are 'you' are self-proclaimed philosopher, or not?

[Age]

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.

And, as 'the definition' provided is obviously, well to me anyway, very inconsistent, so I 'get' to 'complain', correct?

If yes, then 'I' complain.

Say begins with one definition, but the brings in a property of another.

What happens when within 'the definition', Itself, there are inconsistencies, which you claim 'the speaker' gets to choose, (just as long as 'the definition' is clearly described)?

Is any one allowed to point 'this' out and highlight 'them'?

After all you just said and claimed that as long as 'the definition' is described, clearly, and a 'property of another' is not brought in, then 'the speaker' gets to choose absolutely any of the multiple definitions.

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

Thank you for allowing 'me' to do such a thing.

But, what if I want to talk about the inconsistencies within the 'chosen definition', Itself, can I have any 'say' at all?

[Magnus Anderson]

The fact that it is not True and does not align with what is actually True.

Declarations of intent do not require proof.

When I declare that I intend to use the word "objective" to mean "existing independently of minds", there is nothing to prove. It's just a declaration of intent.

As for my claim that the word "objective" is often used to mean "existing independently of minds", I've already proved it. Not that it is necessary to do so, but I did it anyways.

I think the problem here is that you're one of those people who confuse definitions with statements.

[Magnus Anderson]

Except for the fact that 'now' 'I' am the speaker/writer, here, and 'I' am using the 'objective' word 'now. So, 'now' 'I' get to decide what 'the word' means. Well according to 'your logic' anyway? And, 'now' the 'objective' word does not mean what 'you', previously, claimed it meant.

Yes, it has a different meaning now.

When I used the word, it meant "existing independently of minds".

Now, when you're using it, it means "that which can be agreed with and accepted by everyone". ( A definition that is strictly your own. It isn't widely used. You won't find it in a dictionary. )

There is no contradiction here.

A word can be assigned any meaning. Its user decides what it means at any given point in time.

[Age]

The fact that it is not True and does not align with what is actually True.

Declarations of intent do not require proof.

Who cares?

When I declare that I intend to use the word "objective" to mean "existing independently of minds", there is nothing to prove. It's just a declaration of intent.

you, obviously, have still missed the point.

The 'meaning' you have been provided is not True and unproven.

you can declare whatever you like. But, if 'the meaning' you provide, and/or declare, is not True and thus does not align with what is actually, probably, True, then what you say, mean, and/or declare is not just illogical but also nonsensical.

As for my claim that the word "objective" is often used to mean "existing independently of minds", I've already proved it.

Who cares?

The fact that 'that often used meaning' does not align with what is actually True is far, far more important.

Not that it is necessary to do so, but I did it anyways.

you, still, seem to be so, so far behind, here.

I think the problem here is that you're one of those people who confuse definitions with statements.

Okay.

[Age]

Except for the fact that 'now' 'I' am the speaker/writer, here, and 'I' am using the 'objective' word 'now. So, 'now' 'I' get to decide what 'the word' means. Well according to 'your logic' anyway? And, 'now' the 'objective' word does not mean what 'you', previously, claimed it meant.

Yes, it has a different meaning now.

Great.

However, the uselessness of 'this' I would hopefully be blatantly clear to everyone else, here, as well.

When I used the word, it meant "existing independently of minds".

1. Although 'that meaning' is not True.

2. And, how you 'used it', previously, was overridden by how I 'use it', now. As, again, I am the speaker/writer, 'now'. And, again, well according to 'your logic' anyway, 'I' get to to decide what 'the word' means.

Now, when you're using it, it means "that which can be agreed with and accepted by everyone". ( A definition that is strictly your own. It isn't widely used. You won't find it in a dictionary. )

Maybe not, but let 'us' not forget that it is you human beings who are, still, looking for answers, here, and thus who are, still, lost and confused, here.

There is no contradiction here.

'your definition' besides being illogical, nonsensical, irrational, and absurd to begin with anyway, it is, still, a contradiction to claim that there are minds, when there is not.

A word can be assigned any meaning. Its user decides what it means at any given point in time.

And, absolutely any one can claim that a use's decided upon meaning is False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and/or Incorrect, correct?

Can you prove that 'your decided upon meaning' is irrefutably True?

If yes, then will you show 'us' how, exactly?

But, if no, then okay, and that is just because it is not True.

[Magnus Anderson]

Who cares?

You should.

you, obviously, have still missed the point.

The 'meaning' you have been provided is not True and unproven.

you can declare whatever you like. But, if 'the meaning' you provide, and/or declare, is not True and thus does not align with what is actually, probably, True, then what you say, mean, and/or declare is not just illogical but also nonsensical.

You have yet to learn that meanings have no truth value. There are no true and false meanings.

Any word can mean anything you want it to mean. It's an arbitrary thing.

[Age]

Who cares?

You should.

Really 'should'?

you, obviously, have still missed the point.

The 'meaning' you have been provided is not True and unproven.

you can declare whatever you like. But, if 'the meaning' you provide, and/or declare, is not True and thus does not align with what is actually, probably, True, then what you say, mean, and/or declare is not just illogical but also nonsensical.

You have yet to learn that meanings have no truth value. There are no true and false meanings.

So, 'the meaning', or definition, for the word 'tree' is, a body of water surrounded by rocks, is neither false, nor true. Well to "magnus Anderson" anyway.

Any word can mean anything you want it to mean. It's an arbitrary thing.

Okay. The word 'objective' means, a false statement.

[Magnus Anderson]

So, 'the meaning', or definition, for the word 'tree' is, a body of water surrounded by rocks, is neither false, nor true. Well to "magnus Anderson" anyway.

You're confusing the meaning of a word with its definition. Two different things.

The meaning of a word refers to the concept attached to it. You can attach any concept to any word. It's a choice. The concept attached to the word is what determines what kind of things can be represented by that word. For example, the concept that pretty much everyone attaches to the word "unicorn" says that, if a thing is not a horse with a straight horn, you can't use the word "unicorn" to represent it.

The definition of a word, on the other hand, is a statement describing, accurately or inaccurately, the meaning of that word, i.e. the concept that someone attached to that word at some point in time.

Definitions do have truth value. Meanings do not.

Words do not have true meanings just as they do not have false meanings. Any word can mean anything at any point in time. It's an arbitrary thing guided only by utility. That's why we have multiple languages rather one. The word "tren" means "moment" in Slavic languages. However, in Spanish, the word "tren" means "train". Which of the two meanings is the true meaning of the word "tren"? None. There's no such thing.

However, if you say something like, "The meaning of the word tren in Spanish language is that of a train", that's a definition of the word "tren" within the Spanish language. And that DOES have truth value which happens to be true.

Similarly, if I say something like, "The meaning of the word `objective` as used by Age in my thread is `that which can be agreed upon and accepted by everyone`", that's a definition of the word "objective" as used by Age in my thread. And that DOES have truth value. And it happens to be true.

It is true that a definition is a statement. But it is also true that it is a SPECIFIC type of statement, not any kind of statement. A definition is a statement about language. It's a linguistic statement. Definitions are entirely about linguistic conventions. Definitions are NOT statements about the world outside of language.

[Age]

So, 'the meaning', or definition, for the word 'tree' is, a body of water surrounded by rocks, is neither false, nor true. Well to "magnus Anderson" anyway.

You're confusing the meaning of a word with its definition. Two different things.

The meaning of a word refers to the concept attached to it. You can attach any concept to any word. It's a choice.

And, to define 'a word' is 'the choice' of 'the speaker/writer', as well. Well according to some anyway.

The concept attached to the word is what determines what kind of things can be represented by that word. For example, the concept that pretty much everyone attaches to the word "unicorn" says that, if a thing is not a horse with a straight horn, you can't use the word "unicorn" to represent it.

Well, again, that would all depend on the writer/speaker. Well to some anyway.

The definition of a word, on the other hand, is a statement describing, accurately or inaccurately, the meaning of that word, i.e. the concept that someone attached to that word at some point in time.

Definitions do have truth value. Meanings do not.

And, exactly as I was pointing out, showing, and proving, 'your definition' was not True.

But, you 'tried to' claim that because you, as speaker, could choose absolutely any definition of 'your choosing'.

Words do not have true meanings just as they do not have false meanings. Any word can mean anything at any point in time. It's an arbitrary thing guided only by utility.

Was it 'you', or 'not you', who was 'trying to' claim that 'a speaker' can decide to put whatever meaning to a word that they like?

That's why we have multiple languages rather one.

'We', whoever that word is referring to, does not have multiple languages, rather than one language, for the reason/s you gave.

The reason different languages are spoken is because different groups of human beings just began speaking different languages.

The word "tren" means "moment" in Slavic languages. However, in Spanish, the word "tren" means "train". Which of the two meanings is the true meaning of the word "tren"? None. There's no such thing.

1. I have already explained how one arrives at Truth.

2. The reason why neither of those two meanings is 'the true' meaning, is because both are 'a truth'.

However, if you say something like, "The meaning of the word tren in Spanish language is that of a train", that's a definition of the word "tren" within the Spanish language.

That, 'a meaning' of the word 'tren', and not 'the meaning', in what is called the "spanish" language is the Truth is because 'that' can be discovered, agreed upon, and accepted.

And that DOES have truth value which happens to be true.

It was 'the sentence', 'that is A definition of the word 'tren' within what is called the "spanish language", which is what has actual 'truth value'.

Similarly, if I say something like, "The meaning of the word `objective` as used by Age in my thread is `that which can be agreed upon and accepted by everyone`", that's a definition of the word "objective" as used by Age in my thread. And that DOES have truth value. And it happens to be true.

'The' sentence may well, but does 'that definition' have 'truth value'? Above you said and claimed, 'Definitions do have truth value'. So, is 'the definition' for the word, 'objective', 'that which can be agreed upon and accepted upon, by everyone', True, true, or neither?

And, if 'the meaning' is more or less the exact same as 'a definition', which you just said and claimed, here, then how does this match in, or align, with your previous claim that, 'Definitions do have truth value. Meanings do not', exactly?

It is true that a definition is a statement. But it is also true that it is a SPECIFIC type of statement, not any kind of statement. A definition is a statement about language. It's a linguistic statement. Definitions are entirely about linguistic conventions. Definitions are NOT statements about the world outside of language.

What?

And, who cares?

you presented a definition, which is plain old 'not True'.

If a definition is 'not True', then why present it?

[Magnus Anderson]

And, if 'the meaning' is more or less the exact same as 'a definition', which you just said and claimed, here

You're very clearly not listening.

you presented a definition, which is plain old 'not True'.

If a definition is 'not True', then why present it?

That it is not true is your own nonsense.

[Magnus Anderson]

And, to define 'a word' is 'the choice' of 'the speaker/writer', as well. Well according to some anyway.

If what you mean by "definition" is "a statement describing the meaning of some symbol", then no, definitions are not a choice.

You are free to attach any concept to any word. But you're not allowed to describe the attached concepts any way you want. You must describe them in an accurate way. If I attached the concept of a horse with a straight horn to the word "unicorn", I am not free to define the word as "a penguin with a hat".

In order to know that the definition of the word "objective" as I use it is wrong, you have to know which one of the infinitely many different concepts is the one that I attached to the word. But how do you know that? The answer is that you don't.

And the way I define it is pretty much the same as the way pretty much everyone defines it. It's a very common meaning that, for some rather bizarre reason, you don't like.

You really have no point to make here. All you're doing is derailing this thread.

[Age]

And, if 'the meaning' is more or less the exact same as 'a definition', which you just said and claimed, here

You're very clearly not listening.

you presented a definition, which is plain old 'not True'.

If a definition is 'not True', then why present it?

That it is not true is your own nonsense.

Talk about one who is not listening. 'This one' claims that definitions have 'truth values'. I inform 'this one' that its definition is 'not True', and instead of questioning and challenging me on 'this' it prefers to just say and claim that 'my claim' is 'my own nonsense'. And, it did this without ever once even knowing why I said and claimed what I did. Now 'that' is 'not listening' in its purest form.

[Age]

And, to define 'a word' is 'the choice' of 'the speaker/writer', as well. Well according to some anyway.

If what you mean by "definition" is "a statement describing the meaning of some symbol", then no, definitions are not a choice.

I was not meaning 'this', so the rest is moot.

You are free to attach any concept to any word.

And so are you, obviously.

But you're not allowed to describe the attached concepts any way you want.

Are you some sort of God who decides what others are allowed to do, and are not allowed to do, here?

Also, you appear to be missing the contradiction in your own claim, here.

You must describe them in an accurate way.

'Accurate' in relation to 'what', exactly?

And, as I have been saying and claiming, here, you described 'objective' in a non Accurate way. So, why are you 'allowed to do' what you say and claim others are 'not allowed to do'?

If I attached the concept of a horse with a straight horn to the word "unicorn", I am not free to define the word as "a penguin with a hat".

Again, it was you who said and claimed that the speaker is allowed to choose how to define words.

Which, let 'us' not forget, I showed the absolute absurdity and irrationality of 'this logic'.

In order to know that the definition of the word "objective" as I use it is wrong, you have to know which one of the infinitely many different concepts is the one that I attached to the word. But how do you know that? The answer is that you don't.

What are you on about, when you provide your concept and/or definition, then you have provided 'the one' that you attached to 'the word'. And, obviously you provided 'the one' that you attached to 'the word', 'objective', and I, obviously, am saying that 'your concept or definition' is False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect.

Now, if you still want to claim that you must describe the 'attached concepts' in an 'accurate way', then, once more, I will say that 'your attached concept' for the 'objective' word is False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect, or just plain old 'not True'.

How much longer will it take 'us' for you to comprehend and understand this fact?

And the way I define it is pretty much the same as the way pretty much everyone defines it.

LOL 'pretty much everyone'.

Look, it does not matter one iota if just about 'pretty much everyone' defines a 'thing' in a particular way, if the concept, or definition, is 'not True', from the outset, then the concept, or definition, is just plain old 'not True'.

Surely you know, by now, that just because a group and even a majority of people agree with and/or accept some thing then this is no way makes what they are saying and claiming True, nor Right.

It's a very common meaning that, for some rather bizarre reason, you don't like.

Once more for those who are 'not listening', and/or for the very slow of learning, the very reason I so-called 'do not like' is because it is, again, just 'not True'.

Why do you think if some one does not like a definition or concept that you are attaching to a word, which, to them, is clearly False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and/or Incorrect as being a so-called 'bizarre reason'? It is like you believe, absolutely, that the concepts, meanings, and definitions that you, personally, attach to words is the absolute Truth and if any one disagrees, then 'they' are bizarre, or have some so-called 'bizarre reason' to not agree with you.

And, again, just being a 'very common meaning' never ever means that 'that meaning' is True, Right, Accurate, nor Correct. Do you even understand this irrefutable fact?

You really have no point to make here.

But, I am making 'it', and have made 'it', you are just 'not listening and seeing'.

All you're doing is derailing this thread.

you did this by 'trying to' share and spread a 'non Truth'.

[Magnus Anderson]

Talk about one who is not listening. 'This one' claims that definitions have 'truth values'. I inform 'this one' that its definition is 'not True', and instead of questioning and challenging me on 'this' it prefers to just say and claim that 'my claim' is 'my own nonsense'. And, it did this without ever once even knowing why I said and claimed what I did. Now 'that' is 'not listening' in its purest form.

I did ask you multiple questions. And they all led nowhere. You have a tendency to talk too much and distract yourself from what's relevant. And it is only recently that you switched from "Your definition is a personal and subjective one" to "Your definition is false".