Moralty is Objective [ by Magnus ]

[Magnus Anderson]

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.

See?

You're not listening at all.

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.

There you go again proving that you have ZERO understanding of what you just read and responded to.

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.

And you have YET to learn what definitions are.

The above only applies to statements about the world outside of human conventions.

Definitions are NOT that kind of statements.

They are statements are about how people use words.

If everyone is using the word "objective" to mean "existing independently of minds", then that's what the word "objective" means.

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.

You don't attach definitions to words. Definitions are descriptions of the concepts attached to words. You attach concepts. Learn the difference. And concepts aren't propositions, so they don't have truth value. There are no true and false concepts.

[Age]

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.

That is your own personal subjective perception.

You have a tendency to talk too much and distract yourself from what's relevant.

What is relevant to you is your own personally and subjective view, which is not necessarily relevant to what is actually True Right, Accurate, and/or Correct, here.

Also, could it actually be possible that it was you have spend so much time, here, 'trying to' 'justify' your own personal, subjective view and position that you have been missing what is Truly relevant, here? Or, is 'this' just not possible in your own little and narrowed 'world view' of things, here?

And it is only recently that you switched from "Your definition is a personal and subjective one" to "Your definition is false".

Was there some sort of 'time limit'?

you, obviously, still have no interest in Correcting your provided False definition.

[Magnus Anderson]

What is relevant to you is your own personally and subjective view, which is not necessarily relevant to what is actually True Right, Accurate, and/or Correct, here.

In order to know what it means for a definition to be true, you have to know what a definition is; that is to say, you have to know what kind of statement it is.

And I've already explained this more than once here in this thread.

A definition is a statement that the meaning assigned to a word by an individual, or a group of individuals, at some point in time, or during certain period of time, is such and such.

A definition is, thus, true if and only if it correctly describes the assigned meaning ( = the attached concept. )

In the opening post of this thread, I stated that the meaning of the word "objective" that I will use here in this thread, and that is generally used by most people on this forum as well as outside of it, is captured by the sentence "existing independently of minds".

You agreed that this is the concept that I atteched to the word "objective". So you agree that at least one half of this statement is true.

You also agree that this is the concept that people in general attach to the word "objective". So you also agree with the second half of that statement.

In short, you AGREE that what I'm saying is true.

Yet, you proceed to say it's false anyways.

And that's only because you don't understand how definitions work.

That's all there is to it.

You should seriously consider taking your own advice.

[Magnus Anderson]

That is your own personal subjective perception.

Anyone can see it for themselves. You can see it too.

What is relevant to you is your own personally and subjective view, which is not necessarily relevant to what is actually True Right, Accurate, and/or Correct, here.

There you go again, repeating yourself like a broken record.

The original statement that you made is that my definition is "a personal and a subjective one". It took you a while to explain what that actually means. You're that much of a nuisance -- you can't answer a simple question. And when you finally did, you said that it means that not everyone can agree with and accept that definition ( a rather strange use of the word "objective". ) When I asked you to explain the relevance of that, you said, "It's relevant because it means your definition is not true." In the end, all you're saying is that my definition is false. It took you so many posts only to say that you think that my definition is false. And now all you're doing is repeating that like a broken record. What do you seriously expect me to think of you?

[Age]

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.

See?

You're not listening at all.

Lol just making 'this claim' without showing what it is in relation to, exactly, is literally not showing any thing at all.

I could also just as simply and as easily, and also very, very foolishly, just also say and write,

See?

you are not listening at all. But as can be clearly seen I would also be showing and proving nothing at all, as well.

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.

There you go again proving that you have ZERO understanding of what you just read and responded to.

And, there you go again proving absolutely NO THING.

you just make unsubstantiated claims, and doing so after I have shown and proved your inability to recognise and understand what I have been pointing out and showing, here, is not helping you in any way at all.

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.

And you have YET to learn what definitions are.

The above only applies to statements about the world outside of human conventions.

Definitions are NOT that kind of statements.

They are statements are about how people use words.

If everyone is using the word "objective" to mean "existing independently of minds", then that's what the word "objective" means.

And, what you have been completely missing this whole time is not every one uses 'that False definition' for the very Fact that it is False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect.

But, you will never comprehend and understand this Fact while you are continually being completely blinded by your belief that 'your subjective and personal definition', here, is 'the one' that you want to use, because you believe that it will back up and support your other personal and subjective belief, which you want to go and argue and fight for.

Look, not every one is going to use the word 'objective' to mean what you are, here, because of just how Truly distorted from, and/or out of touch with, 'Reality' it really is.

One day hopefully 'this' will be understood, and so 'sets in'.

It does not matter if 'it' is cyoir concept's, or 'what you mean' 'it' is 'the definition', which you put forward and 'it' is just 'not True'.

you can 'try to' deflect or deceive for as long as you like, but you can not get away from the actual irrefutable Truth, here. And, no matter how much you want to and are 'trying to'.

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.

You don't attach definitions to words. Definitions are descriptions of the concepts attached to words. You attach concepts. Learn the difference.

If you had been noticing what had been occuring, here, then you would have noticed that I had learned the difference.However, because I forgot to add a word into my reply there, it is totally understandable why you did not notice in that one reply.

Now, you can continue to ignore all of the mistakes, contradictions, and lack of recognition, on your part, if your like, but this will never take them away although you are very clearly now 'trying' so hard to deflect away from and 'trying to' get away from.

Only if you want to learn and become better, here, then you will stop doing what you 'currently' clearly are, here.

And concepts aren't propositions, so they don't have truth value. There are no true and false concepts.

Again, only according to your own personal and subjective views and beliefs.

Now, back the main points, which are really relevant, and that I have been pointing out and showing, here. you claim that just because you are the speaker/writer then you are allowed to present 'a definition' for a word. Now, besides showing and proving the absolute ridiculousness of this, you are, still, stuck with the fact that your own personal and subjective presented definition for the 'objective' word does not align with what is actually irrefutably True, in Life.

So, absolutely any further attempt on your part to use that False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and/or Incorrect definition will never actually work, successfully.

But, if you really want to keep 'trying to' use 'that definition', then please go ahead and 'try to', because you 'trying to' will keep further proving what I have been pointing out, showing, and presenting, here.

[Magnus Anderson]

You wrote nearly 600 words in response to my 120. And they do nothing but derail this thread .

You seriously need to be disciplined.

[Magnus Anderson]

Lol just making 'this claim' without showing what it is in relation to, exactly, is literally not showing any thing at all.

Yes. And that's because I am waiting for you to show to me that you're interested. How about you actually ASK instead of complaining?

[Age]

What is relevant to you is your own personally and subjective view, which is not necessarily relevant to what is actually True Right, Accurate, and/or Correct, here.

In order to know what it means for a definition to be true, you have to know what a definition is; that is to say, you have to know what kind of statement it is.

Look, you can 'try to' detract for as long as you like, but you presented what 'we' both consider 'a definition'. To which you also claim 'definitions' have 'truth values'. Now, and once again, 'the definition', which you provided and presented, here, is 'not True'.

Do you want to keep 'trying to' ignore 'my claim', here? Or, would you like to, now, behave reasonably and just have a Truly open and honest peaceful discussion?

The subtleties between concepts, meanings, and definitions are, really, totally irrelevant, here, as 'we' both agree that what you presented was 'a definition'.

('We' can talk about whether there are truth and false values in concepts and/or meanings at a later date, but as for now you presented 'a definition', which you also agree has within it what you call 'truth value', right?)

And I've already explained this more than once here in this thread.

And, the more you 'try to' deflect with your own personal and subjective views or positions in regards to the subtle differences between concepts, meanings, and/or definitions, then the more you 'try to' explain your own personal and subjective views, here. Which is really only an attempted detraction from 'your presented definition', which I claim is 'not True'.

Is there any actual reason you do not want to just focus on 'this', for now?

Obviously if you ever want to get to 'your claim' that 'morality is objective', then you will have to start focusing on what is actually relevant, here.

A definition is a statement that the meaning assigned to a word by an individual, or a group of individuals, at some point in time, or during certain period of time, is such and such.

A definition is, thus, true if and only if it correctly describes the assigned meaning ( = the attached concept. )

In the opening post of this thread, I stated that the meaning of the word "objective" that I will use here in this thread, and that is generally used by most people on this forum as well as outside of it, is captured by the sentence "existing independently of minds".

And, If I recall Correctly, I alluded to the Falseness and Wrongness in 'your opening post' in the very first lines in 'my very first post' in response to 'your opening post'.

You agreed that this is the concept that I atteched to the word "objective". So you agree that at least one half of this statement is true.

You also agree that this is the concept that people in general attach to the word "objective". So you also agree with the second half of that statement.

In short, you AGREE that what I'm saying is true.

Well that is one way to 'try to' deceive and fool readers. But, essentially the only real one that 'you' are actually fooling and deceiving, here, is "yourself".

Yet, you proceed to say it's false anyways.

Are you even aware of what the 'it' word, here, is even in relation to, exactly?

If yes, then please say what 'it' is

And, if you do not, then you not doing so can be taken as you do not even know.

And that's only because you don't understand how definitions work.

That's all there is to it.

You should seriously consider taking your own advice.

If only it knew.

Now, and by the way, showing and proving how 'morality is, actually, objective' is really a very simple, a very easy, a very quick, and a very short process. But, you need to start with and from the 'actual irrefutably Truth', only, and stay with the 'actual irrefutable Truths, only, all the way through.

Starting like you have with False, Wrong, Inaccurate, or Incorrect definitions will never get you to the actual irrefutable Truths, in Life, and will only lead you astray, like you clearly have been, here..

[Age]

That is your own personal subjective perception.

Anyone can see it for themselves. You can see it too.

Look "magnus anderson" what you consider to be 'nowhere', here, is, obviously, and again, 'your own personal and subjective perception.'

Now, you want to claim, 'anyone can see 'it' for themselves', and, 'I can see 'it' too', however you continually keep missing the fact that what 'you see', from and with 'your own personal and subjective opinions, perceptions, or beliefs' is that what you consider to being 'led nowhere' I consider to be actually reaching and achieving, exactly, what I have set out to achieve, and reach.

So, 'your nowhere' is, exactly, 'where I wanted to get to, and be'.

Therefore, your claiming of asking of multiple questions has let to nowhere has actually led to me being, exactly, where I wanted to be, which is just showing and proving things like the very reasons why people like "yourself" never get to seeing and knowing what the actual Truth is, exactly, nor to you ever getting to prove what 'it' is that you appear to be desperately wanting to.

What is relevant to you is your own personally and subjective view, which is not necessarily relevant to what is actually True Right, Accurate, and/or Correct, here.

There you go again, repeating yourself like a broken record.

The original statement that you made is that my definition is "a personal and a subjective one".

Yes. As 'this' is what is irrefutably True.

It took you a while to explain what that actually means. You're that much of a nuisance -- you can't answer a simple question.

So, once more, when I am not understood, by 'the reader', here, then it is all 'my fault', and, when I do not understand, 'the writer', here, then, again, it as all 'my fault'.

And when you finally did, you said that it means that not everyone can agree with and accept that definition ( a rather strange use of the word "objective". )

LOL Once again, when another's view does not align with "magnus anderson's" view, then it is 'the other' who has 'the strange' and/or 'bizarre' view.

When I asked you to explain the relevance of that, you said, "It's relevant because it means your definition is not true." In the end, all you're saying is that my definition is false.

Obviously you have not been reading, nor listening, as you, still, have not yet comprehended and understood what has been said and meant, here.

But, this is the consequence of those with pre-existing assumptions and beliefs, and look and hear from them.

It took you so many posts only to say that you think that my definition is false.

But, I pointed out why 'your definition' is, actually, False in the very next statement after 'my original statement', here.

Did you miss it?

I would not be surprised at all considering all of the other things that you have missed, and misinterpreted, here.

And now all you're doing is repeating that like a broken record.

But, it is you who keeps repeating that. Did you miss that, also?

What do you seriously expect me to think of you?

LOL I do not care one iota what 'you' think of 'me'.

[Age]

You wrote nearly 600 words in response to my 120. And they do nothing but derail this thread .

If 'this' is all you can see, here, then so be it.

Have you ever considered why your thread has gone so off track could be because of the fact that you use False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and/or Incorrect statements?

If fact was 'this thread' ever 'on track'?

If so, point out and show 'where', and 'when', exactly.

You seriously need to be disciplined.

LOL
LOL
LOL

If only 'you' knew.

[Age]

Lol just making 'this claim' without showing what it is in relation to, exactly, is literally not showing any thing at all.

Yes. And that's because I am waiting for you to show to me that you're interested. How about you actually ASK instead of complaining?

1. I am not complaining. In fact I found it very humorous, and enjoy observing you presenting things like it.

2. Could it be the case that it is 'I' who has been waiting, for 'you', to show that you are interested. After all it was 'I' who said and claimed, 'To say a thing exists independently of minds is to think, assume, or believe that minds even exist.'

What 'interested' have 'you' shown in regards to this comment and statement?

3. I have absolutely no interest in 'your claim' that 'I am not listening, at all'. And this is because if you really want to believe, absolutely, that 'I am not listening, and not at all', then I really do not care, at all. Please keep presenting your beliefs and claims.

4. What could I even ASK. If you want to believe that 'I am not listening, at all', then, obviously, to you anyway, I would not listen to absolutely any thing you said in response anyway, correct?

[Magnus Anderson]

Is there any actual reason you do not want to just focus on 'this', for now?

You have to be seriously retarded.

How can we discuss whether or not a definition is true if we don't agree on what it means for a definition to be true?

And how can we agree on what it means for a definition to be true if we don't agree on what a definition is?

It's very clear to me that you have no clue what definitions are.

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

That's an idiotic claim of yours that I didn't get the chance to address due to your inability to clarify your first claim.

One step at a time, moron.

[Age]

Is there any actual reason you do not want to just focus on 'this', for now?

You have to be seriously retarded.

How can we discuss whether or not a definition is true if we don't agree on what it means for a definition to be true?

Why are you presuming that 'we' do not agree on what it means for a definition to be true?

you 'try to' detract and deflect away so often you forget where 'we' are actually up to.

What does it mean for a definition to be true, to you? What does it mean for a definition to be true, to me?

And, why did you believe you knew what it means for a definition to be true, to me, before you ever even considered to ask me for clarification?

And how can we agree on what it means for a definition to be true if we don't agree on what a definition is?

Lol you really are absolutely closed and blind, here?

What is your definition of what a definition is?
What is my definition of what a definition is?

And, just like the two very similar questions I ask you above, if you do now provide your answers to these four questions, then explain why you believe, absolutely, that 'we' do not agree?

It's very clear to me that you have no clue what definitions are.

And, it is very clear that you are now definitely 'trying to' detract, deflect, once more, as well as 'try to' deceive the readers, here,

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

That's an idiotic claim of yours that I didn't get the chance to address due to your inability to clarify your first claim.

you have had plenty of chances to address 'it'. you just have not because, with help and guidance, this is the first time you have comprehended what it is, exactly.

Lol you believing that my claim, here, is an idiotic claim is why you are stuck where you are, and why you never get to prove what it is that you are so desperately wanting and 'trying to' prove, here. Which, by the way, and again, the irrefutable proof already exists, although you obviously are no way near obtaining it.

One step at a time, moron.

Lol Once again, 'we' have another example of when those who are failing miserably and having nothing left they resort to comments and remarks like 'this one' just wrote and showed, here.

My first has been clarified, but is, obviously, still, not yet understood, by you.

And, again, if some thing is not yet understood and/or clarified, to you, then all you have to do is just ask the actual specific question that you want to understand and/or have clarified.

Could 'I' make this any simpler and easier, for you?

[Age]

If you "magnus anderson", really, still, after all of these back and forth posts, can not yet comprehend, and understand, these three claims, of mine, then you are more blind, closed, and stupid, than I first noticed.
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.

1. Only 'the view' from every one's perspective is 'objective'. Every other view is personal and/or subjective. Not every one could agree with and accept that the word, 'objective', means 'existing independently of minds'. For the very simple fact that 'that, personal and subjective, view', of yours, is not 'the view' of every one. If you, really, want to use 'that view' as 'your definition', then just know that 'that view' and 'that definition' of yours is 'not True' and never will be True.

2. If you want to assume, or believe, that 'minds' exist, then go on ahead, but are you already prepared for when you are challenged about what are 'minds', exactly?

If no, then why claim some thing to be true when you have no proof at all?

3. Now, again, the title of this thread is, 'Morality is Objective', (with a capital 'O'), and, (claimed to be, by "magnus", as though "magnus" knows, for sure, and can prove, irrefutably, that 'morality' is, actually, 'objective'. Which means that what the definitions of the words, 'minds', 'morality', and 'objective' will need to be discussed, agreed with, and accepted by all within 'the discussion', before 'the discussion' even begins. That is, obviously only if a 'successful outcome' is wanted.

4. And let 'us' not forget that the claim 'the speaker/writer', solely, gets to choose 'the definition' because of the absolute absurdity and ridiculousness of 'this claim'. However, and of course, if one wants to present some thing, and not be questioned, challenged, nor have a discussion, then they can obviously get to choose 'the definition' for each and every word. But, 'we' are speaking/writing within a 'forum', if you just want to be listened to, and heard, only, then just go somewhere else and present your paper, views, and/or own personal and subjective opinions there.

[popeye1945]

If all meaning is a biological readout, read the sensing and the understanding of the body of the energy's frequencies and vibration of the outer world, how can the world of things be objective to a subjective consciousness? Take away subjective consciousness, and the apparent world ceases to be subjectively the only way you know of a world. Biology is the measure and the meaning of all things for a subjective consciousness, that is, us. Morality is a meaning, thus necessarily the property of subjective consciousness; the only source of meaning in the world belongs to the subject, never the object, until the subject projects its meaning onto a meaningless world.