Philosophy Now Forum

VVilliam wrote: ↑Tue Mar 09, 2021 7:34 pm Morally is not objectively sourced, but subjectively sourced.

Begging the question.

Objectively speaking, there is no such thing as subjectivity.
Subjectively speaking, there is no such thing as objectivity.

They are just perspectives. If you do away with the distinction/schema you can't recover it in any "subjective" or "objective" way.

We have a bunch of words which we deem are devoid of subjective nuance/connotation/emotion/value. We call those words "objective". We insist that those words correspond to an ontology. When we use those pre-approved and socially sanctioned words to describe the world we call that "objectivity".

When we deviate from that vocabulary it becomes prose, opinion, metaphor, poetry...

Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed Mar 10, 2021 3:03 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue Mar 09, 2021 6:56 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Tue Mar 09, 2021 3:27 pm

That ain't necessarily so.
Paintings that show the disembowlelling of an innocent child would attract many moral judgements.
Same for doughnoughts.
Nothing is completely apolitical.

I wasn't saying it's impossible to make a moral judgment about artworks or food, but normally "That donut is good" and "That painting is bad" aren't moral judgments.

Wrong.
Normally those are in fact moral judgements.

Do you spend much time with people expressing opinions about music, films, visual art, etc.?

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Wed Mar 10, 2021 3:56 pm Do you spend much time with people expressing opinions about music, films, visual art, etc.?

I spend my entire life expressing judgments/assertions.

I also reify a lot of my oughts.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Mar 10, 2021 4:03 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Wed Mar 10, 2021 3:56 pm Do you spend much time with people expressing opinions about music, films, visual art, etc.?

I spend my entire life expressing judgments/assertions.

I also reify a lot of my oughts.

The implication being that you're stuck alone somewhere like a hermit?

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Wed Mar 10, 2021 3:56 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed Mar 10, 2021 3:03 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue Mar 09, 2021 6:56 pm

I wasn't saying it's impossible to make a moral judgment about artworks or food, but normally "That donut is good" and "That painting is bad" aren't moral judgments.

Wrong.
Normally those are in fact moral judgements.

Do you spend much time with people expressing opinions about music, films, visual art, etc.?

All the time.
And normally all comments have moral content.
I cannot think of an example where they did not.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Wed Mar 10, 2021 4:06 pm The implication being that you're stuck alone somewhere like a hermit?

The implication being that assertions are exactly the same things as English sentences ending with full stops.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed Mar 10, 2021 5:24 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Wed Mar 10, 2021 3:56 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed Mar 10, 2021 3:03 pm

Wrong.
Normally those are in fact moral judgements.

Do you spend much time with people expressing opinions about music, films, visual art, etc.?

All the time.
And normally all comments have moral content.
I cannot think of an example where they did not.

So take an example of something like Elvis' soundtrack albums of the 60s, many of which a lot of people think are bad. What are some examples of assessments of them being bad where people are saying that they're morally bad? (I'm referring to albums such as Kissin' Cousins, Paradise Hawaiian Style, It Happened at the World's Fair, etc.--you can look at rym reviews for examples of negative comments)

Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Mar 10, 2021 5:29 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Wed Mar 10, 2021 4:06 pm The implication being that you're stuck alone somewhere like a hermit?

The implication being that assertions are exactly the same things as English sentences ending with full stops.

The question was about experience with other people, but your answer was solely about yourself.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed Mar 10, 2021 5:24 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Wed Mar 10, 2021 3:56 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed Mar 10, 2021 3:03 pm

Wrong.
Normally those are in fact moral judgements.

Do you spend much time with people expressing opinions about music, films, visual art, etc.?

All the time.
And normally all comments have moral content.
I cannot think of an example where they did not.

Or if the Elvis example seems too cherry-picked for you, do something like this:

Take the top 100-selling artists:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_b ... ic_artists

And then take your pick of comments about whatever albums of some of those folks you'd like (again, you can find a bunch of reviews on http://rateyourmusic.com). What are some examples of negative comments about some of those albums, where people are saying something akin to the album or a particular song being bad, where you're taking it to be a moral comment about the album or song? (You can find negative comments about any album, by the way, but you'll find many more on the lower-rated albums.)

Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Mar 10, 2021 3:36 pm

VVilliam wrote: ↑Tue Mar 09, 2021 7:34 pm Morally is not objectively sourced, but subjectively sourced.

Begging the question.

Objectively speaking, there is no such thing as subjectivity.

The object cannot speak through the subject

Subjectively speaking, there is no such thing as objectivity.

The subject speaks through the object.

They are just perspectives. If you do away with the distinction/schema you can't recover it in any "subjective" or "objective" way.

We have a bunch of words which we deem are devoid of subjective nuance/connotation/emotion/value. We call those words "objective". We insist that those words correspond to an ontology. When we use those pre-approved and socially sanctioned words to describe the world we call that "objectivity".

When we deviate from that vocabulary it becomes prose, opinion, metaphor, poetry...

The words of language are but sounds broadcast through the objective [human body] into the objective [world around the human body] by the subjective [the mind consciousness]. The subjective is that which experiences the objective. Layering language over the objective can and does distort the real nature of the objective We - the subjective - are experiencing... Some worship the brain [objective] as that which allows for us to experience the objective. That it is. But it is also that which allows us to distort the real nature of the objective, by superimposing simulations over said nature of the objective it is part of.

One of those simulations became 'brain worship'. Another of those simulations became 'image of god worship' -

Both of which the brain simulated.

Or;

It is not the brain doing the simulating, but that which is using the brain and in doing so, creating the said simulations.

VVilliam wrote: ↑Wed Mar 10, 2021 8:48 pm The object cannot speak through the subject

The subject speaks through the object.

The subject is an object.

VVilliam wrote: ↑Wed Mar 10, 2021 8:48 pm The words of language are but sounds broadcast through the objective [human body] into the objective [world around the human body] by the subjective [the mind consciousness].

The subjective mind is an object.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Mar 10, 2021 8:50 pm

VVilliam wrote: ↑Wed Mar 10, 2021 8:48 pm The object cannot speak through the subject

The subject speaks through the object.

The subject is an object.

VVilliam wrote: ↑Wed Mar 10, 2021 8:48 pm The words of language are but sounds broadcast through the objective [human body] into the objective [world around the human body] by the subjective [the mind consciousness].

The subjective mind is an object.

Then one should be able to show the other, the mind if indeed the mind is an actual object..

VVilliam wrote: ↑Wed Mar 10, 2021 9:30 pm Then one should be able to show the other, the mind if indeed the mind is an actual object..

Sure. Extensionally - you've seen a brain.

Intensionally that's what we use communication for. Transferring contents/information from one mind to another.

VVilliam wrote: ↑Wed Mar 10, 2021 9:30 pm

Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Mar 10, 2021 8:50 pm

VVilliam wrote: ↑Wed Mar 10, 2021 8:48 pm The object cannot speak through the subject

The subject speaks through the object.

The subject is an object.

VVilliam wrote: ↑Wed Mar 10, 2021 8:48 pm The words of language are but sounds broadcast through the objective [human body] into the objective [world around the human body] by the subjective [the mind consciousness].

The subjective mind is an object.

Then one should be able to show the other, the mind if indeed the mind is an actual object..

You can't experience the properties of being anything if you're not that thing.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Wed Mar 10, 2021 9:36 pm

VVilliam wrote: ↑Wed Mar 10, 2021 9:30 pm

Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Mar 10, 2021 8:50 pm
The subject is an object.


The subjective mind is an object.

Then one should be able to show the other, the mind if indeed the mind is an actual object..

You can't experience the properties of being anything if you're not that thing.

Theoretically yes one could, if one were in a state where one existed without things. One can even imagine such a state of being fairly easily. You would be and immaterial 'thing'...a subject without any object in which to reflect off of.. except whatever you then decided to imagine as objects and create on the mind that you are...you could create a universe, and on one of the planets within that universe, one could create a planet and then one could imbue that planet with one's self in order to experiencing being said planet.