Moralty is Objective [ by Magnus ]

[Walker]

In fact, the mere existence of "life" doesn't imply morality. Chimps, dogs, fish and amoebas have life, but no particular relation to morality. So the one is certainly possible without the other.

Yes. Life is possible without inherent morality ever being activated. However, morality cannot exist without life to animate the morality, and even with life of sufficient capacity to contain inherent morality, it may remain inherent.

I don't see how you are showing this. A conditional "could" claim, doesn't apply to everyone, or even every case of anyone. It might not happen at all. So it's not capable of being objective...it might not even be real.

Yes, the universal requirement of a condition does not call for a particular condition, only that there is a secondary condition to release morality from the bounds of inherency. What is inherent must be activated to exist, or else it remains inherent which is the same as not existing. Morality must manifest, to be. This applies to everyone. A secondary condition will activate the primary condition of inherent morality (an inherent morality such as do unto others …), however not all secondary conditions have the same effect because folks are different. The particular catalyst of secondary condition varies from person to person, as do levels of capacity. Not everyone gets their inherent empathy activated by the secondary condition of a puppy, although encountering a starving child might do the trick. If one has been conditioned to override inherent empathy, e.g., a Spartan Yute from olden times, there may be no secondary condition to activate inherent empathy.

[Magnus Anderson]

but, 'objective is laws' is not a proposition

"Objective is laws" is an incoherent sentence.

An adjective can't stand alone as the subject of a sentence.

Perhaps before you open your mouth, and pretend that you know far more than you actually do, you should learn how to speak.

Any one can see things clearly, here.

Yes, anyone can see that you've been disruptive since your very first post in this thread.

Except for you, of course.

if 'this' does not make sense to any of you

It doesn't. It's word salad. You're trying to be smart but all you're being is a rambling moron.

But, 'I' will inform 'you' of which one/s do hold 'truth value' and which one/s do not hold 'truth value' only after you question and/or challenge 'me'. Because it is only 'then' when I will decide.

You're trying to cover up the fact that you do not understand the fundamentals; namely, that definitions are linguistic statements, i.e. statements about language.

That was your confusion since your very frist post in this thread. Despite multiple attempts to open your eyes, you kept stubbornly insisting that definitions must correspond to some sort of non-linguistic reality that lies outside of conventions.

Being an arrogant moron that you are, you misunderstood every single explanation that was provided to you, only to conclude that it's all incoherent anyways. And you've been provided with lots and lots of detailed explanations.

Good job ruining this thread.

[Magnus Anderson]

Imagine coming into a 'philosophy forum' of all places, claiming,

Imagine coming to a philosophy forum believing that definitions must correspond to reality that is non-linguistic and outside of all conventions in order to be true.

'Morality' being 'the laws', we make up and hold 'in mind', and,

Morality is not a set of manmade laws.

Such was never claimed. In fact, it was very clearly denied in the OP.

But retards addicted to disagreeing with others will find it hard to believe that. They never read. And when they do, they misinterpret everything.

Once more I will suggest that when absolutely any one wants to present and claim absolutely any thing, here, that you first obtain actual irrefutable proof for 'your claim' before you even begin to think about presenting absolutely any claim at all, here.

Not that the bullshit that you spout here in an effort to appear smart is true but the irrefutable proof that you're looking for is in the OP. You just don't see it. And you don't see that you don't see it because 1) you're overconfident, and 2) you're not paying attention.

Keep lying to yourself, Ape.

Now, the fact is, 'morality is objective'. but obtain and have the actual irrefutable proof, first, for this irrefutable Fact.

In other words be able to formulate and present a 'sound and valid argument', first, for 'your claim', before you even think about making 'any claim' public, here, in a 'philosophy forum'.

You should try listening to your own advice sometimes.

[Immanuel Can]

In fact, the mere existence of "life" doesn't imply morality. Chimps, dogs, fish and amoebas have life, but no particular relation to morality. So the one is certainly possible without the other.

Yes. Life is possible without inherent morality ever being activated. However, morality cannot exist without life to animate the morality, and even with life of sufficient capacity to contain inherent morality, it may remain inherent.

Like unicorn-riding. If it were possible, then only living beings could do it. Unfortunately for that argument, the fact that unicorn-riding "cannot exist without life to animate" it does not take us any steps towards showing that unicorn-riding is a real thing. So we'd have to prove it, just as we would if we want to advocate objective morality.

...inherent empathy...

Empathy is just a feeling, and does not show that there is any obligation for the feeling to be acted upon. Therefore, empathy is no grounds for morality.

Here's the problem, Walker: if we try to base our argument for objective morality on things like culture, empathy, life, survival or whatever, the mere existence of these things does not show we have any duty toward them. To get that, we would need a more powerful, overarching imperative, one that commands our actual obedience to our feelings, to culture, to survival or whatever we claim as the grounds of morality. And where, but in God Himself, would we ever get such a thing?

[Immanuel Can]

In fact, the mere existence of "life" doesn't imply morality. Chimps, dogs, fish and amoebas have life, but no particular relation to morality. So the one is certainly possible without the other.

Yes. Life is possible without inherent morality ever being activated. However, morality cannot exist without life to animate the morality, and even with life of sufficient capacity to contain inherent morality, it may remain inherent.

None of this even remotely suggests morality is objective or warranted by anything. The way philosophy explains this is to say that while life is necessary to morality, it is also nowhere near sufficient for it. In the same way, “inherency” is insufficient: even if we had inherent morality, it would not suggest morality was warranted or objective. Many things, in fact, which we regard as immoral — violence, hatred, xenophobia, and so on — are also inherent to human beings. Without an objective standard external to all that, how do we know which “inherent” impulses deserve our obedience?

As for “empathy,” it also nothing but a feeling. It may be right, it may be wrong; who knows? It may be inherent, or it may be socially conditioned; but either way, why do we have any obligation to act on it?

You see, Walker, we need a much better grounds for a moral claim than empathy, culture, inherency, life, or anything else contingent that we can summon. We need something absolute. Nothing less than an overarching moral existent will justify any argument for moral obedience.

[Age]

but, 'objective is laws' is not a proposition

"Objective is laws" is an incoherent sentence.

An adjective can't stand alone as the subject of a sentence.

Perhaps before you open your mouth, and pretend that you know far more than you actually do, you should learn how to speak.

So, I wrote 'an error'.

Did you ever consider finding out why?

Could I have written that error, purposely?

Could I have written an error, purposely, to show and prove how instead of you seeking out clarification, first, you will, as usual, just assume some thing occurred, and then, as usual, then believe your own assumption to be absolutely true, right, accurate, and/or correct?

Any one can see things clearly, here.

Yes, anyone can see that you've been disruptive since your very first post in this thread.

Except for you, of course.

LOL It now appears more so that 'this one' actually believes that it can come into a 'philosophy forum', of all places, say and claim things, and that everyone else has to accept and agree with 'this one's' claims. And, if absolutely any one points out any errors, inconsistencies, and/or any contradiction, just through challenging and/or questioning, then 'this one' considers you 'disruptive'. LOL As though being so-called 'disruptive' is somet thing wrong or bad, here.

Look, if you want to claim things, which are just plain old False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and/or Incorrect, then expect to have 'your claims' disrupted, here, in a philosophy forum.

Could I make 'this' any simpler for you "martin peter clarke"?

if 'this' does not make sense to any of you

It doesn't. It's word salad. You're trying to be smart but all you're being is a rambling moron.

LOL It was you who was 'trying to' be smart after I pointed out the errors in your beliefs and claims, here. you did 'this' by claiming that 'the meaning' that you give to the words you presented in your proposition, and claim, 'has to' accept and agree with, and that 'they' were not even true nor false anyway.

And, from then on you have not been looking 'smart' at all.

you whole argument fell to pieces, but you just can not accept this Fact.

your argument,

'objective' is 'that', which exists independent of mind/s.
'morality' is 'that', which are laws. (Which you had not considered are held within what you people, here, call 'mind/s', anyway.)
Therefore, 'morality is objective'.

your argument besides being unsound is invalid as well.

I suggest trying again, and next time, as I always suggest, here, obtain the irrefutable Facts and proof before you even begin to consider presenting your beliefs and claims, publicly.

But, 'I' will inform 'you' of which one/s do hold 'truth value' and which one/s do not hold 'truth value' only after you question and/or challenge 'me'. Because it is only 'then' when I will decide.

You're trying to cover up the fact that you do not understand the fundamentals; namely, that definitions are linguistic statements, i.e. statements about language.

But even if I do not yet understand what you call 'the fundamentals' I have nothing to cover up. Especially considering I have already shown and exposed, through just challenging questions, what I set out to do, here.

That you just do not like this fact does not make what you 'now' 'try to' say and claim is true, true at all.

That was your confusion since your very frist post in this thread. Despite multiple attempts to open your eyes, you kept stubbornly insisting that definitions must correspond to some sort of non-linguistic reality that lies outside of conventions.

1. Once again 'conventions' are never what is actually 'good', nor 'right'.

2. you people will learn and see how much better, simpler, and easier 'living', itself, becomes when you finally do get around to using words, and thus definitions, in 'the ways' that do actually fit in, perfectly, with what is actual True and Real, in Life, or what some people refer to as, 'Reality', Itself,

Being an arrogant moron that you are, you misunderstood every single explanation that was provided to you, only to conclude that it's all incoherent anyways.

If only 'this one' knew. If only 'it' knew.

And you've been provided with lots and lots of detailed explanations.

What you call 'detailed explanations', others can see were just attempts at deflect, and deception.

Just out of curiosity, 'now', has any one come to accept and agree with 'your belief and claim', here?

If yes, then who are 'they', exactly?

But, if no, then why not? Could have your own personal and subjective so-called 'detailed explanations' not been as 'correct' as you were 'hoping they would be'?

Good job ruining this thread.

If some one, who started a thread, had a 'sound and valid argument', from the outset, then there is no one who could so-call 'ruin that thread'. As, obviously, 'the words', in 'that kind of argument', will 'speak on their own and/or for themselves', as some might say.

Also, and by the way, one who knows, for sure, that they can back up and support 'their claims' would not resort to attempts of attacking 'the other', "themself", like for example calling another, 'an arrogant moron', and would just focus on 'the words' being used, alone, and instead.

The only real thing that has been 'ruined', here, is 'your belief' in 'your claim' that 'morality is objective' and 'the reasons' you provided for why 'morality is objective'.

Now, for any one who is curious. 'morality is, actually, objective'. 'I', however, unlike "martin peter clarke", can back up and support 'this claim' with irrefutable proof, and facts. Which will come through and from 'logical and unquestioning reasoning'.

[Age]

Imagine coming into a 'philosophy forum' of all places, claiming,

Imagine coming to a philosophy forum believing that definitions must correspond to reality that is non-linguistic and outside of all conventions in order to be true.

Has any one even done 'this'?

I certainly have not.

And, do not forget that just because you assume and/or believe some thing never means that 'that thing' is true.

'Morality' being 'the laws', we make up and hold 'in mind', and,

Morality is not a set of manmade laws.

So, what is 'morality' then, exactly?

'Woman' made laws? Or maybe children made laws?

What 'laws' are you actually meaning and referring to, exactly?

Such was never claimed. In fact, it was very clearly denied in the OP.

But retards addicted to disagreeing with others will find it hard to believe that.

While, supposedly, 'denying' that 'morality', itself, is a set of so-called 'man made laws', did you also explain 'what laws' you were referring to, exactly?

If no, then why not?

But, if yes, then 'what laws' are they, exactly?

They never read. And when they do, they misinterpret everything.

Are you absolutely sure that these, what you call, 'retards addicted to disagreeing' misinterpret absolutely every thing?

you appear to believe that you hold quite some astonishing knowledge, here. Are you able to back up and support 'your claims', here, absolutely?

Once more I will suggest that when absolutely any one wants to present and claim absolutely any thing, here, that you first obtain actual irrefutable proof for 'your claim' before you even begin to think about presenting absolutely any claim at all, here.

Not that the bullshit that you spout here in an effort to appear smart is true

What do you believe, and claim, 'of mine' is not true, here?

Show 'the readers' what 'you believe', then let 'us' have a Truly open and honest peaceful discussion, and then let 'the readers' decide if what I say and claim, here, is true, or is not true like you believe and claim 'it' is.

Are you able to, and ready to, do 'this'?

If no, then why not?

but the irrefutable proof that you're looking for is in the OP.

Really?

Are you absolutely sure?

If yes, then will you present a shortened down symbolic form?

If no, then why not?

You just don't see it.

Has absolutely any one, here, seen the so-called 'irrefutable proof' in your opening post, here?

If yes, then who are they, exactly?

But, if no, then this is why no one, here, is accepting and agreeing with you, here.

And you don't see that you don't see it because 1) you're overconfident, and 2) you're not paying attention.

'I' am, supposedly, 'overconfident' in 'what', exactly?

Could your claim that there is 'irrefutable proof' for 'your claim' that 'morality is objective' be just you 'overconfident' in your own belief-system.

See, if absolutely no one else has seen your self-claimed 'irrefutable proof', then what is 'it', exactly, making you so confident that there is so-called 'irrefutable proof' in your opening post, here?

Are you aware that 'irrefutable proof' is proof that no one ever could refute? Or, do you possess some other personal and subjective meaning and/or definition for the 'irrefutable' word, here?

Keep lying to yourself, Ape.

What do you "martin peter clarke" believe, absolutely, that 'I' am lying to "myself", here, about, exactly?

If you do not answer and clarify, then why not?

Now, the fact is, 'morality is objective'. but obtain and have the actual irrefutable proof, first, for this irrefutable Fact.

In other words be able to formulate and present a 'sound and valid argument', first, for 'your claim', before you even think about making 'any claim' public, here, in a 'philosophy forum'.

You should try listening to your own advice sometimes.

Really?

If yes, then why, exactly?

What claim of mine, here, do you believe I could not present a 'sound and valid argument' for, exactly?

Let 'us' find out and see if I can, or not.

[Age]

In fact, the mere existence of "life" doesn't imply morality. Chimps, dogs, fish and amoebas have life, but no particular relation to morality. So the one is certainly possible without the other.

Yes. Life is possible without inherent morality ever being activated. However, morality cannot exist without life to animate the morality, and even with life of sufficient capacity to contain inherent morality, it may remain inherent.

Like unicorn-riding. If it were possible, then only living beings could do it. Unfortunately for that argument, the fact that unicorn-riding "cannot exist without life to animate" it does not take us any steps towards showing that unicorn-riding is a real thing. So we'd have to prove it, just as we would if we want to advocate objective morality.

...inherent empathy...

Empathy is just a feeling, and does not show that there is any obligation for the feeling to be acted upon. Therefore, empathy is no grounds for morality.

It is beliefs and claims like 'these ones', here, why 'these human beings' took so, so long to 'catch up'.

Here's the problem, Walker: if we try to base our argument for objective morality on things like culture, empathy, life, survival or whatever, the mere existence of these things does not show we have any duty toward them. To get that, we would need a more powerful, overarching imperative, one that commands our actual obedience to our feelings, to culture, to survival or whatever we claim as the grounds of morality. And where, but in God Himself, would we ever get such a thing?

Yeah "walker", The 'only' place to find and get 'objective morality' from is from a 'male gendered' thing, which wrote one and one only book, literally through the hands and thoughts of 'adult male gendered human beings', (who obviously would not have been biased in any way at all), and that it is only through 'this one' and only book', only, which "immanuel can" will only 'look at' and 'listen to'. Hey "immanuel can"?

Absolutely every one should know that 'this one book', only, that "immanuel can" uses and gets all of its 'guidance' from, is the only book and only way to know what is right, and wrong, in Life.

One only has to 'look at' the claimed fact that a 'he' wrote 'that book', "himself", to know, irrefutably, that 'that book' therefore then 'must be true'.

How could 'this logic and reasoning' not work and not be true?

[Magnus Anderson]

martin peter clarke

Martin Peter Clarke and Magnus Anderson are two different forum members. I am the latter. You should stop confusing them. It does you no good.

Which you had not considered are held within what you people, here, call 'mind/s', anyway.

You presume too much.

2. you people will learn and see how much better, simpler, and easier 'living', itself, becomes when you finally do get around to using words, and thus definitions, in 'the ways' that do actually fit in, perfectly, with what is actual True and Real, in Life, or what some people refer to as, 'Reality', Itself,

As I've been saying for a long time now, you have no clue what definitions are. And you're refusing to entertain that possibility, instead choosing to reassert your silly little belief over and over again.

What you call 'detailed explanations', others can see were just attempts at deflect, and deception.

Your confusing your own posts with mine.

If some one, who started a thread, had a 'sound and valid argument', from the outset, then there is no one who could so-call 'ruin that thread'.

Don't be silly.

Also, and by the way, one who knows, for sure, that they can back up and support 'their claims' would not resort to attempts of attacking 'the other', "themself", like for example calling another, 'an arrogant moron', and would just focus on 'the words' being used, alone, and instead.

Again, don't be silly. What you're presenting here is a naive view. People call other people names for all sorts of reasons. Lack of arguments isn't the only reason. And it's also not a necessary condition.

[Magnus Anderson]

I certainly have not.

Yes, you have.

So, what is 'morality' then, exactly?

Have you read the OP at all?

While, supposedly, 'denying' that 'morality', itself, is a set of so-called 'man made laws', did you also explain 'what laws' you were referring to, exactly?

How about you read the OP instead of asking questions in an effort to pose, distract and destabilize?

Are you absolutely sure that these, what you call, 'retards addicted to disagreeing' misinterpret absolutely every thing?

Yes. You are one of them. Skepdick is another.

then let 'us' have a Truly open and honest peaceful discussion

I can do that. But you very clearly can't. So stop trying to deceive people into thinking that you're the good guy.

If yes, then will you present a shortened down symbolic form?

If no, then why not?

Because I am not interested in wasting my time on people who make no effort to understand what other people are saying before proceeding to criticize them.

Let 'us' find out and see if I can, or not.

You have yet to learn that asking too many questions at once, many of which are irrelevant distractions, does not make you look good.

That's not being a philosopher. That's being a retard ( you're similar to Skepdick in this regard. )

Smart people address one issue at a time. And they strictly focus on what matters.

[Magnus Anderson]

Magnus, it's not just "objective" vs "subjective".

I would argue there is also what I am going to call "contingent".

Contingent shares with "objective" that its truth does nor depend on the mind of an observer.. But it lacks the sense of eternal truth usually assigned to the "objective" because contingent on the existence of something else to have any meaning.

I'm struggling to understand the point that you're making. Nonetheless, I feel inclined to add that the word "objective" simply means "that which exists independently of minds". The thing that is objective is not necessarily eternal and it's also not necessarily an instance of truth. Trees, for example, are objective, even though they are neither eternal nor truths.

For example "the current tallest white pine" has well defined meaning. Nor does the tallest white pine depend on anybody having seen it, recognized it as tallest. It is only for brief time identical with some specific living tree. BUT ---- before white pines came into existence and after the species has gone extinct the meaning is NULL (the empty set).

I make a distinction between the meaning of a symbol and its reference.

The phrase in question has meaning, and is thus meaningful, in all possible worlds, even in those where pines do not exist. A symbol is meaningful insofar the set of all conceivable things that can be represented by it is greater than zero.

However, that phrase has a valid reference if and only if at the time of being uttered there is at least one white pine in existence. Otherwise, its reference is null.

Still, I don't see how this pertains to what we're talking about here.

[Magnus Anderson]

"In situation S, the best decision for decision maker DM is D."

Here, neither S nor DM are references to something that exists. Instead, they denote classes of possible existence. "S" denotes a class of possible situations. "DM" denotes a class of possible decision makers.

One can state it more precisely as:

"For every situation S and for every decision maker DM, if DM is in S, then the best decision for DM is D."

[Age]

martin peter clarke

Martin Peter Clarke and Magnus Anderson are two different forum members. I am the latter.

So, the answer to the question, 'Who am 'I'?' is "magnus anderson".

Well, according to 'this one', anyway.

You should stop confusing them. It does you no good.

Very, very True, and my apologies to both of you.

Which you had not considered are held within what you people, here, call 'mind/s', anyway.

You presume too much.

Great, here 'we' have another claim.

Now, what am 'I', supposedly, presuming too much in regards to, here, exactly?

2. you people will learn and see how much better, simpler, and easier 'living', itself, becomes when you finally do get around to using words, and thus definitions, in 'the ways' that do actually fit in, perfectly, with what is actual True and Real, in Life, or what some people refer to as, 'Reality', Itself,

As I've been saying for a long time now, you have no clue what definitions are.[/quote]

And, you keep re-repeating this 'same claim'.

Why do you believe 'definitions' are, exactly, and, why, exactly, do you believe, absolutely that I have no clue about what 'definitions' actually are?

And you're refusing to entertain that possibility, instead choosing to reassert your silly little belief over and over again.

See, it is claims like 'this one' why 'this one' assumptions and beliefs keep leading it astray, here.

you have informed 'us' of what you perception of what 'the definition' of 'definition' is. However, when I use 'that word' in 'the way' you claim 'it' is defined, then you just keep changing 'meanings' around, and then claim that 'your new meaning' has no 'truth value', while contradicting your claim that 'definitions' do have 'truth value'

And the reason why you keep deflecting and changing things around is because when you get 'caught out' you have no other choices, here. Except, of course, to just acknowledge and accept and agree. However, you, and 'that ego', just, stubbornly, do not want to 'let go' of your 'current' belief/s, here.

What you call 'detailed explanations', others can see were just attempts at deflect, and deception.

Your confusing your own posts with mine.

LOL Now, you have just made another claim, here. So, let 'us' see if you will, this time, actually back up and support this claim' of yours, here, by providing actual examples of when you believe I have made attempts at deflection, and deception.

And, if you do not, then, once more, you have just shown, and proved, how you do actually attempt to deflect, and deceive, here.

If some one, who started a thread, had a 'sound and valid argument', from the outset, then there is no one who could so-call 'ruin that thread'.

Don't be silly.

Okay.

If you did, actually, have a 'sound and valid argument', here, for 'this thread', then just present it.

Could things get any more simple, and any less silly, here?

Also, and by the way, one who knows, for sure, that they can back up and support 'their claims' would not resort to attempts of attacking 'the other', "themself", like for example calling another, 'an arrogant moron', and would just focus on 'the words' being used, alone, and instead.

Again, don't be silly.

So, you resorting to 'trying to' attack 'the one' who speaks and/or writes, here, instead of just focusing on 'the words', alone, you believe is 'not silly', and that it is actually 'silly' to not even do so, correct?

What you're presenting here is a naive view.

Really, what is 'it' that you believe I am presenting a 'naive view' of, exactly?

People call other people names for all sorts of reasons.

Yes I know.

Lack of arguments isn't the only reason.

'This' was not even suggested, let alone said and claimed.

And it's also not a necessary condition.

No one, here, that I know of said, nor implied, that 'it' was.

All of this 'further deflection and deception' is just showing further that 'your argument' is, really, not worth even just 'trying to' fight over, let alone presenting 'it' to the public, in the first place.

[Age]

I certainly have not.

Yes, you have.

you are absolutely free to see, assume, and believe, absolutely any thing you like.

So, what is 'morality' then, exactly?

Have you read the OP at all?

Obviously you have not 'read' what I have written, and meant.

When I say, 'exactly', I do not mean what you consider nor believe subjectively. What I mean is 'that' what is objectively True, Right, Accurate, and/or Correct, instead.

Yes, by the way.

While, supposedly, 'denying' that 'morality', itself, is a set of so-called 'man made laws', did you also explain 'what laws' you were referring to, exactly?

How about you read the OP instead of asking questions in an effort to pose, distract and destabilize?

What happens if I do/did read the opening post, are you then going to answer, and clarify, the actual questions I pose, and ask, to clarify?

If no, then why not.

But, if yes, then great.

Or, will you just keep on repeating things like, 'How about you read the opening post'?

Are you absolutely sure that these, what you call, 'retards addicted to disagreeing' misinterpret absolutely every thing?

Yes. You are one of them. Skepdick is another.

LOL Talk about 'this one' presenting another prime example of how beliefs blind and block, absolutely, to the irrefutable Truth of things.

then let 'us' have a Truly open and honest peaceful discussion

I can do that. But you very clearly can't. So stop trying to deceive people into thinking that you're the good guy.

I. I never thought that 'I' was a, so-called and so-labelled, 'good guy', let alone, 'the good guy'.

2. While you continue to believe that you can have a Truly open and honest peaceful discussion, and that 'I' can not, then you are, obviously, not yet even close to becoming open, let alone able to have a Truly open discussion.

3. The fact that you will not even begin to try to have a Truly open and honest peaceful discussion about what you believe is absolutely true, shows and proves that you are not open at all, here.

If yes, then will you present a shortened down symbolic form?

If no, then why not?

Because I am not interested in wasting my time on people who make no effort to understand what other people are saying before proceeding to criticize them.

So, you are so stubborn and so arrogant that you actually believe, absolutely, that if other people do not agree with you and accept your own personal and subjective views and beliefs and are challenging, questioning, and/or criticising your beliefs and claims, then you will not even present absolutely any thing, other than what you have already. In other words you will make no further effort to be understood, and thus just expect 'others' to understand 'you', already.

Let 'us' find out and see if I can, or not.

You have yet to learn that asking too many questions at once, many of which are irrelevant distractions, does not make you look good.

you have yet to learn, and understand, that just what you assume and/or believe is true, is never actually necessarily true at all.

That's not being a philosopher.

What is being "a philosopher", exactly?

Let 'the readers', here see if you can actually clarify any thing, here.

That's being a retard ( you're similar to Skepdick in this regard. )

Okay. And, does saying and claim 'this' make you feel better, higher, or even like 'the good guy', here?

Smart people address one issue at a time. And they strictly focus on what matters.

LOL
LOL
LOL

[Age]

Magnus, it's not just "objective" vs "subjective".

I would argue there is also what I am going to call "contingent".

Contingent shares with "objective" that its truth does nor depend on the mind of an observer.. But it lacks the sense of eternal truth usually assigned to the "objective" because contingent on the existence of something else to have any meaning.

I'm struggling to understand the point that you're making. Nonetheless, I feel inclined to add that the word "objective" simply means "that which exists independently of minds".

To 'you', personally and thus subjectively, only.

When will 'you' ever comprehend and understand this Fact?

Once more, 'objective' simply does not mean, 'that which exists independently of minds', at all.

LOL Once again, you speak and write as though 'you' are for 'every one'.

Now, if you spoke and wrote properly, and Correctly, from the outset, then there would be no need for you to keep being informed of your ability to speak and write, irrefutably.

'Objective' simply means 'that which exists dependently on minds'.

The thing that is objective is not necessarily eternal and it's also not necessarily an instance of truth. Trees, for example, are objective, even though they are neither eternal nor truths.

Trees, (by themselves), are neither 'objective', as well.

One day you might learn to seek out clarification, and thus, clarity, before you speak as though your own personal and subjective assumptions and beliefs are actually what is true and right.

For example "the current tallest white pine" has well defined meaning. Nor does the tallest white pine depend on anybody having seen it, recognized it as tallest. It is only for brief time identical with some specific living tree. BUT ---- before white pines came into existence and after the species has gone extinct the meaning is NULL (the empty set).

I make a distinction between the meaning of a symbol and its reference.

The phrase in question has meaning, and is thus meaningful, in all possible worlds, even in those where pines do not exist. A symbol is meaningful insofar the set of all conceivable things that can be represented by it is greater than zero.

However, that phrase has a valid reference if and only if at the time of being uttered there is at least one white pine in existence. Otherwise, its reference is null.

Still, I don't see how this pertains to what we're talking about here.

you do have this issue, quite often.