Philosophy Now Forum

Posted: **Tue Apr 16, 2024 2:17 pm**

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Tue Apr 16, 2024 2:15 pm
Sculptor wrote: ↑Tue Apr 16, 2024 1:34 pmAs you can see Will, all he does is troll and the take a series of dumps on the thread contibuting nothing.
Have no fear Sculptor, I know exactly what Septick is.

I fear you have no clue what anything is.

Posted: **Tue Apr 16, 2024 2:19 pm**

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Tue Apr 16, 2024 2:16 pm
Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Apr 16, 2024 2:15 pmWhy do you care why you should care?

I fear you might be a troll.

Posted: **Tue Apr 16, 2024 3:45 pm**

Sculptor wrote: ↑Tue Apr 16, 2024 10:51 am ***
Let us set the record straight on this idiotc question that keeps coming up
"Is moraltiy sujective or objective", " "what would it take?" etc..
The whole problem seem to be a mischaracterisation of what the subject/object argument is all about.
Things are not objective or subjective in and of themselves.
Subjectiity and objectivity refer to a RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN two things. Between the percieved and the perceiver.
SO it may not be asked "is morality objective" anymore than "is morality subjective".

Subjective vs objective morality isn't about a relationship between the percieved and the perceiver. "Subjective vs objective" has more than one meaning. You're welcome.

Posted: **Tue Apr 16, 2024 8:44 pm**

Atla wrote: ↑Tue Apr 16, 2024 3:45 pm
Sculptor wrote: ↑Tue Apr 16, 2024 10:51 am ***
Let us set the record straight on this idiotc question that keeps coming up
"Is moraltiy sujective or objective", " "what would it take?" etc..
The whole problem seem to be a mischaracterisation of what the subject/object argument is all about.
Things are not objective or subjective in and of themselves.
Subjectiity and objectivity refer to a RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN two things. Between the percieved and the perceiver.
SO it may not be asked "is morality objective" anymore than "is morality subjective".
Subjective vs objective morality isn't about a relationship between the percieved and the perceiver. "Subjective vs objective" has more than one meaning. You're welcome.

With respect that is not much of an answer.
WOuld you care to say something

Posted: **Tue Apr 16, 2024 9:07 pm**

Sculptor wrote: ↑Tue Apr 16, 2024 8:44 pm With respect that is not much of an answer.
WOuld you care to say something

Can't help the fly out of the bottle if it doesn't want to get out...

The subjective/objective distinction is getting in your way of thinking clearly.

Starting with reality - it contains no such things as "subjects". There are only objects - everything is objective.

Some objects (often refered to as "dumb philosophers") then go onto manufacture the idea of a "subject" - born out of special pleading it is then juxtaposed with objects. This distinction (like all distinctions in philosophy) is a perpetual source of conflict.

Posted: **Sun Apr 21, 2024 7:36 am**

Sculptor wrote: ↑Tue Apr 16, 2024 10:51 am Things are not objective or subjective in and of themselves.
Subjectiity and objectivity refer to a RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN two things. Between the percieved and the perceiver.

Your view is so empty:

Something is objective if it can be confirmed independently of a mind. If a claim is true even when considering it outside the viewpoint of a sentient being, then it is labelled objectively true.
Scientific objectivity is practicing science while intentionally reducing partiality, biases, or external influences.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjectiv ... hilosophy)

Something is subjective if it is dependent on a mind (biases, perception, emotions, opinions, imagination, or conscious experience).[1] If a claim is true exclusively when considering the claim from the viewpoint of a sentient being, it is subjectively true. For example, one person may consider the weather to be pleasantly warm, and another person may consider the same weather to be too hot; both views are subjective. The word subjectivity comes from subject in a philosophical sense, meaning an individual who possesses unique conscious experiences, such as perspectives, feelings, beliefs, and desires,[1][2] or who (consciously) acts upon or wields power over some other entity (an object). ibid

Thus, from the above'
Moral objectivity is practicing Morality while intentionally reducing partiality, biases, or external influences.

What is morality but a collection of rules "decided" by society, or through normative association rules that it is claimed ought to be followed for society to work to minimises conflict and aportion rights. SOme moral systems claim to do this equally, others to reserve rights to special groups.

What is morality-proper is not about RULES.
Rules are confined to customs, cultures, traditions, politics [legislature, laws & policing].
The confusion is these rules has moral elements which should be deal within morality proper.

There are loads of moral elements within morality proper.
One of the moral element [MT1] is the 'oughtnot_ness to torture and kill babies for pleasure' which is a very evident pattern of human state which can be investigate by science as a scientific fact which is scientifically objective as defined above [i.e. agreed by a collective not by 'a' subject].

When such an objective scientific fact is inputted into a morality-proper Framework and System [FSERC] it it an objective moral element which has the consensus of a collective of subjects [not 'a' subject].

Therefore morality is objective [so far as qualified to the moral element MT1 above].

The claim that morality is objective will facilitate moral progress, e.g.
avoiding the moral relativists indifference and tolerance to:
Moral Relativists Condone Killing of Babies for Pleasure
viewtopic.php?t=42185

Posted: **Mon Mar 24, 2025 5:24 pm**

An organism's apparent reality is entirely subjective, apparent reality being a subjective creation, an emergent property of the union of subject and object. The subject is a life form, its real object is the surrounding energies that alter/affect its standing biology. How can reality be objective when all one has to do to change apparent reality is alter/affect the subject's physical biology? Not all organisms have the same apparent reality because they do not have the same biology as humans. Apparent reality you might think of this way. Organism is the instrument of the energies of the cosmos. The melody these energies play upon their instrument is that of apparent reality, as opposed to ultimate reality, which would be a place of unmanifested energy, a place of no things. We cannot escape our subjectivity, not for a moment. The physical world is utterly meaningless in the absence of a conscious subject. How could we know our apparent reality as an objective reality, inferring that things are just as they seem and there is no bestowing of meanings upon our biological projections?

Posted: **Tue Mar 25, 2025 3:52 am**

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 24, 2025 5:24 pm An organism's apparent reality is entirely subjective, apparent reality being a subjective creation, an emergent property of the union of subject and object. The subject is a life form, its real object is the surrounding energies that alter/affect its standing biology. How can reality be objective when all one has to do to change apparent reality is alter/affect the subject's physical biology? Not all organisms have the same apparent reality because they do not have the same biology as humans. Apparent reality you might think of this way. Organism is the instrument of the energies of the cosmos. The melody these energies play upon their instrument is that of apparent reality, as opposed to ultimate reality, which would be a place of unmanifested energy, a place of no things. We cannot escape our subjectivity, not for a moment. The physical world is utterly meaningless in the absence of a conscious subject. How could we know our apparent reality as an objective reality, inferring that things are just as they seem and there is no bestowing of meanings upon our biological projections?

There is no 'ultimate reality' in-itself or by-itself.

'Ultimate reality' is just an idea [a thought] that is conditioned by the subject.

Nevertheless, the term 'objective' is still pragmatic when defined as 'not dependent on the views or opinions of ONE subject, but rather based on the shared views of a collective of subjects' i.e. intersubjective consensus as in scientific objectivity.
Pragmatic objectivity = intersubjectivity.

As such 'moral objectivity' is pragmatic in the above intersubjective sense.

Posted: **Wed Mar 26, 2025 1:12 pm**

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Mar 25, 2025 3:52 am
popeye1945 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 24, 2025 5:24 pm An organism's apparent reality is entirely subjective, apparent reality being a subjective creation, an emergent property of the union of subject and object. The subject is a life form, its real object is the surrounding energies that alter/affect its standing biology. How can reality be objective when all one has to do to change apparent reality is alter/affect the subject's physical biology? Not all organisms have the same apparent reality because they do not have the same biology as humans. Apparent reality you might think of this way. Organism is the instrument of the energies of the cosmos. The melody these energies play upon their instrument is that of apparent reality, as opposed to ultimate reality, which would be a place of unmanifested energy, a place of no things. We cannot escape our subjectivity, not for a moment. The physical world is utterly meaningless in the absence of a conscious subject. How could we know our apparent reality as an objective reality, inferring that things are just as they seem, and there is no bestowing of meanings upon our biological projections?
There is no 'ultimate reality' in-itself or by-itself.
'Ultimate reality' is just an idea [a thought] that is conditioned by the subject.
Nevertheless, the term 'objective' is still pragmatic when defined as 'not dependent on the views or opinions of ONE subject, but rather based on the shared views of a collective of subjects' i.e. intersubjective consensus as in scientific objectivity.
Pragmatic objectivity = intersubjectivity.

As such 'moral objectivity' is pragmatic in the above intersubjective sense.

You say there is no ultimate reality, yet science says there is. Are you then saying that things are just as they seem to us? The ultimate reality might be considered no reality, as we think of reality as a world of things. Science tells us that all is energy, that is what science bases its knowledge of our apparent reality upon. You say the ultimate reality is just an idea, a thought conditioned by the subject. Well, all knowledge, experience, and all values are the property of the conscious subject and never belong to the object. The truth to an individual is experience; the truth to a group is agreement, a collective agreement of group experiences as to what is true, which is only a probability that the group is healthy, their biology not impaired. Sometimes, the pragmatic is not the same as the truth. Organisms do not individually or collectively experience a place as all energy and not manifested as objects, though apparent reality is due to its source. Apparent reality, your everyday reality is a biological readout, you do not experience what is, you experience how what is alters/affects your standing biology, giving you experience of your body, not the truth of what is.

Posted: **Wed Mar 26, 2025 1:23 pm**

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 26, 2025 1:12 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Mar 25, 2025 3:52 am
popeye1945 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 24, 2025 5:24 pm An organism's apparent reality is entirely subjective, apparent reality being a subjective creation, an emergent property of the union of subject and object. The subject is a life form, its real object is the surrounding energies that alter/affect its standing biology. How can reality be objective when all one has to do to change apparent reality is alter/affect the subject's physical biology? Not all organisms have the same apparent reality because they do not have the same biology as humans. Apparent reality you might think of this way. Organism is the instrument of the energies of the cosmos. The melody these energies play upon their instrument is that of apparent reality, as opposed to ultimate reality, which would be a place of unmanifested energy, a place of no things. We cannot escape our subjectivity, not for a moment. The physical world is utterly meaningless in the absence of a conscious subject. How could we know our apparent reality as an objective reality, inferring that things are just as they seem, and there is no bestowing of meanings upon our biological projections?
There is no 'ultimate reality' in-itself or by-itself.
'Ultimate reality' is just an idea [a thought] that is conditioned by the subject.
Nevertheless, the term 'objective' is still pragmatic when defined as 'not dependent on the views or opinions of ONE subject, but rather based on the shared views of a collective of subjects' i.e. intersubjective consensus as in scientific objectivity.
Pragmatic objectivity = intersubjectivity.

As such 'moral objectivity' is pragmatic in the above intersubjective sense.
You say there is no ultimate reality, yet science says there is. Are you then saying that things are just as they seem to us? The ultimate reality might be considered no reality, as we think of reality as a world of things. Science tells us that all is energy, that is what science bases its knowledge of our apparent reality upon. You say the ultimate reality is just an idea, a thought conditioned by the subject. Well, all knowledge, experience, and all values are the property of the conscious subject and never belong to the object. The truth to an individual is experience; the truth to a group is agreement, a collective agreement of group experiences as to what is true, which is only a probability that the group is healthy, their biology not impaired. Sometimes, the pragmatic is not the same as the truth. Organisms do not individually or collectively experience a place as all energy and not manifested as objects, though apparent reality is due to its source. Apparent reality, your everyday reality is a biological readout, you do not experience what is, you experience how what is alters/affects your standing biology, giving you experience of your body, not the truth of what is. Apparent reality is always true to the biology experiencing it; if the biology is damaged/altered, one's apparent reality is altered.

Posted: **Thu Mar 27, 2025 4:59 am**

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 26, 2025 1:12 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Mar 25, 2025 3:52 am
popeye1945 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 24, 2025 5:24 pm An organism's apparent reality is entirely subjective, apparent reality being a subjective creation, an emergent property of the union of subject and object. The subject is a life form, its real object is the surrounding energies that alter/affect its standing biology. How can reality be objective when all one has to do to change apparent reality is alter/affect the subject's physical biology? Not all organisms have the same apparent reality because they do not have the same biology as humans. Apparent reality you might think of this way. Organism is the instrument of the energies of the cosmos. The melody these energies play upon their instrument is that of apparent reality, as opposed to ultimate reality, which would be a place of unmanifested energy, a place of no things. We cannot escape our subjectivity, not for a moment. The physical world is utterly meaningless in the absence of a conscious subject. How could we know our apparent reality as an objective reality, inferring that things are just as they seem, and there is no bestowing of meanings upon our biological projections?
There is no 'ultimate reality' in-itself or by-itself.
'Ultimate reality' is just an idea [a thought] that is conditioned by the subject.
Nevertheless, the term 'objective' is still pragmatic when defined as 'not dependent on the views or opinions of ONE subject, but rather based on the shared views of a collective of subjects' i.e. intersubjective consensus as in scientific objectivity.
Pragmatic objectivity = intersubjectivity.

As such 'moral objectivity' is pragmatic in the above intersubjective sense.
You say there is no ultimate reality, yet science says there is. Are you then saying that things are just as they seem to us? The ultimate reality might be considered no reality, as we think of reality as a world of things. Science tells us that all is energy, that is what science bases its knowledge of our apparent reality upon. You say the ultimate reality is just an idea, a thought conditioned by the subject. Well, all knowledge, experience, and all values are the property of the conscious subject and never belong to the object. The truth to an individual is experience; the truth to a group is agreement, a collective agreement of group experiences as to what is true, which is only a probability that the group is healthy, their biology not impaired. Sometimes, the pragmatic is not the same as the truth. Organisms do not individually or collectively experience a place as all energy and not manifested as objects, though apparent reality is due to its source. Apparent reality, your everyday reality is a biological readout, you do not experience what is, you experience how what is alters/affects your standing biology, giving you experience of your body, not the truth of what is.

What science states about reality [ultimate or otherwise] is reality-by-science [always qualified] not reality-by-itself [or reality-in-itself] [never unqualified].
What science says about reality is still "a biological readout" albeit by a collective of biological entities in consensus; so it is reality-by-science.
Point is reality-by-science [collective of humans within the scientific framework and system] is more credible and objective than reality-by-you or reality-by-people.

The 'truth of what is' is still the truth-of-what-is by someone or some group of people; there is no such thing as truth-of-what-is-by-itself, i.e. absolutely independent of any cognitive beings [humans or otherwise].

It is impossible to conceptualize what is reality-by-itself or reality-in-itself, i.e. absolutely independent of any self.
As you aware this reality-by-science [or reality by individuals] versus reality-by-itself is a serious topic within the philosophy community?

Posted: **Fri Mar 28, 2025 2:35 pm**

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Mar 27, 2025 4:59 am
popeye1945 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 26, 2025 1:12 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Mar 25, 2025 3:52 am
There is no 'ultimate reality' in-itself or by-itself.
'Ultimate reality' is just an idea [a thought] that is conditioned by the subject.
Nevertheless, the term 'objective' is still pragmatic when defined as 'not dependent on the views or opinions of ONE subject, but rather based on the shared views of a collective of subjects' i.e. intersubjective consensus as in scientific objectivity.
Pragmatic objectivity = intersubjectivity.

As such 'moral objectivity' is pragmatic in the above intersubjective sense.
You say there is no ultimate reality, yet science says there is. Are you then saying that things are just as they seem to us? The ultimate reality might be considered no reality, as we think of reality as a world of things. Science tells us that all is energy, that is what science bases its knowledge of our apparent reality upon. You say the ultimate reality is just an idea, a thought conditioned by the subject. Well, all knowledge, experience, and all values are the property of the conscious subject and never belong to the object. The truth to an individual is experience; the truth to a group is agreement, a collective agreement of group experiences as to what is true, which is only a probability that the group is healthy, their biology not impaired. Sometimes, the pragmatic is not the same as the truth. Organisms do not individually or collectively experience a place as all energy and not manifested as objects, though apparent reality is due to its source. Apparent reality, your everyday reality is a biological readout, you do not experience what is, you experience how what is alters/affects your standing biology, giving you experience of your body, not the truth of what is.
What science states about reality [ultimate or otherwise] is reality-by-science [always qualified] not reality-by-itself [or reality-in-itself] [never unqualified].
What science says about reality is still "a biological readout" albeit by a collective of biological entities in consensus; so it is reality-by-science.
Point is reality-by-science [collective of humans within the scientific framework and system] is more credible and objective than reality-by-you or reality-by-people.

The 'truth of what is' is still the truth-of-what-is by someone or some group of people; there is no such thing as truth-of-what-is-by-itself, i.e. absolutely independent of any cognitive beings [humans or otherwise].

It is impossible to conceptualize what is reality-by-itself or reality-in-itself, i.e. absolutely independent of any self.
As you aware this reality-by-science [or reality by individuals] versus reality-by-itself is a serious topic within the philosophy community?

In the absence of a conscious subject, there is nothing.

Posted: **Thu May 01, 2025 3:50 pm**

It's the believer's appeal to whatever God, the deity, the demiurge, the guru, the messenger says.

Posted: **Thu May 01, 2025 4:01 pm**

What we call 'morality' is man converting naturally selected behaviors into linguistic codes of conduct.
Considered 'divine' because they are essential to his survival.

Think about what it would mean, for a social species, to be excluded from a group.
Certain death.

Morality is how individuation submits to necessity.

Posted: **Thu May 01, 2025 5:33 pm**

Objective morality is projected into the physical world through meanings, norms, structures, and systems, which bestow meaning upon a meaningless world.

The only meanings in the world are biological experiences projected outwardly.

You do not experience what is out there, you experience the effects of what is out there as it alters the state of your biology, as experiences.

Philosophy Now Forum

[b][i]Morality is objective[/i][/b] is not even wrong. It is a statement without any meaning what ever.

Re: [b][i]Morality is objective[/i][/b] is not even wrong. It is a statement without any meaning what ever.

Re: [b][i]Morality is objective[/i][/b] is not even wrong. It is a statement without any meaning what ever.

Re: [b][i]Morality is objective[/i][/b] is not even wrong. It is a statement without any meaning what ever.

Re: [b][i]Morality is objective[/i][/b] is not even wrong. It is a statement without any meaning what ever.

Re: [b][i]Morality is objective[/i][/b] is not even wrong. It is a statement without any meaning what ever.

Re: [b][i]Morality is objective[/i][/b] is not even wrong. It is a statement without any meaning what ever.

Re: [b][i]Morality is objective[/i][/b] is not even wrong. It is a statement without any meaning what ever.

Re: [b][i]Morality is objective[/i][/b] is not even wrong. It is a statement without any meaning what ever.

Re: [b][i]Morality is objective[/i][/b] is not even wrong. It is a statement without any meaning what ever.

Re: [b][i]Morality is objective[/i][/b] is not even wrong. It is a statement without any meaning what ever.

Re: [b][i]Morality is objective[/i][/b] is not even wrong. It is a statement without any meaning what ever.

Re: [b][i]Morality is objective[/i][/b] is not even wrong. It is a statement without any meaning what ever.

Re: [b][i]Morality is objective[/i][/b] is not even wrong. It is a statement without any meaning what ever.

Re: [b][i]Morality is objective[/i][/b] is not even wrong. It is a statement without any meaning what ever.

Re: [b][i]Morality is objective[/i][/b] is not even wrong. It is a statement without any meaning what ever.