Philosophy Now Forum

Age wrote: ↑Sun Oct 24, 2021 4:24 am

bahman wrote: ↑Sun Oct 24, 2021 4:19 am

Age wrote: ↑Sun Oct 24, 2021 4:14 am

I do not understand what you are asking here.

Also, are you able to explain and clarify what exactly your, supposed, "argument" is here?

I am asking a simple question. Is beating you good to you? I am assuming that you have a good nature who do not like to be beaten (not like a masochist who likes to be beaten).

EVERY human being is born with a, so called, "good nature".

Also, WHY do you claim that those of 'you', human beings, who you label "masochists" are not, so called, "good natured"?

Because they like pain. You don't like pain. Therefore, they are the opposite of you. Therefore they have evil nature (if you have good nature).

bahman wrote: ↑Sun Oct 24, 2021 4:27 am

Age wrote: ↑Sun Oct 24, 2021 4:24 am

bahman wrote: ↑Sun Oct 24, 2021 4:19 am
I am asking a simple question. Is beating you good to you? I am assuming that you have a good nature who do not like to be beaten (not like a masochist who likes to be beaten).

EVERY human being is born with a, so called, "good nature".

Also, WHY do you claim that those of 'you', human beings, who you label "masochists" are not, so called, "good natured"?

Because they like pain. You don't like pain. Therefore, they are the opposite of you. Therefore they have evil nature (if you have good nature).

That does NOT make ANY logical sense AT ALL. It does NOT even logically follow, like a LOT of what you write and claim. But I think a lot of this is because english is not your first language. Is english your first language?

Just because one likes pain does in NO way infer that they have a, so called, "evil nature". EVERY one of 'you', adult human beings, does 'good or right' things AS WELL AS 'bad or wrong' things.

Look,

If 'morality' is discerning between what is actually right from wrong or good from bad behavior, then like ALL human knowledge 'morality' can be BOTH objective AND subjective.

'Objective' is related to (collective/ALL) KNOWING or just Facts, which obviously could NOT be refuted by ANY one.

'Subjective' is related to (personal/individual) THINKING or just opinions, which obviously could be refuted by ANY one.

Age wrote: ↑Sun Oct 24, 2021 4:32 am

bahman wrote: ↑Sun Oct 24, 2021 4:27 am

Age wrote: ↑Sun Oct 24, 2021 4:24 am

EVERY human being is born with a, so called, "good nature".

Also, WHY do you claim that those of 'you', human beings, who you label "masochists" are not, so called, "good natured"?

Because they like pain. You don't like pain. Therefore, they are the opposite of you. Therefore they have evil nature (if you have good nature).

That does NOT make ANY logical sense AT ALL. It does NOT even logically follow, like a LOT of what you write and claim. But I think a lot of this is because english is not your first language. Is english your first language?

Just because one likes pain does in NO way infer that they have a, so called, "evil nature". EVERY one of 'you', adult human beings, does 'good or right' things AS WELL AS 'bad or wrong' things.

Look,

If 'morality' is discerning between what is actually right from wrong or good from bad behavior, then like ALL human knowledge 'morality' can be BOTH objective AND subjective.

'Objective' is related to (collective/ALL) KNOWING or just Facts, which obviously could NOT be refuted by ANY one.

'Subjective' is related to (personal/individual) THINKING or just opinions, which obviously could be refuted by ANY one.

I cannot make it easier than this. Do you want me to make it in form of syllogism? It is simple. How do you define a good nature by the way? Once you understand what good nature means then you understand what evil nature is, the opposite of good.

bahman wrote: ↑Sun Oct 24, 2021 4:36 am

Age wrote: ↑Sun Oct 24, 2021 4:32 am

bahman wrote: ↑Sun Oct 24, 2021 4:27 am
Because they like pain. You don't like pain. Therefore, they are the opposite of you. Therefore they have evil nature (if you have good nature).

That does NOT make ANY logical sense AT ALL. It does NOT even logically follow, like a LOT of what you write and claim. But I think a lot of this is because english is not your first language. Is english your first language?

Just because one likes pain does in NO way infer that they have a, so called, "evil nature". EVERY one of 'you', adult human beings, does 'good or right' things AS WELL AS 'bad or wrong' things.

Look,

If 'morality' is discerning between what is actually right from wrong or good from bad behavior, then like ALL human knowledge 'morality' can be BOTH objective AND subjective.

'Objective' is related to (collective/ALL) KNOWING or just Facts, which obviously could NOT be refuted by ANY one.

'Subjective' is related to (personal/individual) THINKING or just opinions, which obviously could be refuted by ANY one.

I cannot make it easier than this.

You cannot make 'what' easier?

bahman wrote: ↑Sun Oct 24, 2021 4:36 am Do you want me to make it in form of syllogism?

Yes.

bahman wrote: ↑Sun Oct 24, 2021 4:36 am It is simple.

Okay, so then making 'it' into syllogism form, for you, will not be hard at all.

bahman wrote: ↑Sun Oct 24, 2021 4:36 am How do you define a good nature by the way?

That was what I was going to get to with you, which is why I use the words, ' so called "good nature" '. But to me EVERY one is born with the 'natural tendency' to just be 'good'. However, EVERY adult ends up doing 'wrong' because of the Wrong way they have been brought up in childhood.

bahman wrote: ↑Sun Oct 24, 2021 4:36 am Once you understand what good nature means then you understand what evil nature is, the opposite of good.

So, how do you define 'good nature'?

By the way, does ANY of this end up leading to you informing us whether morality is objective or subjective?

Age wrote: ↑Sun Oct 24, 2021 8:43 am

bahman wrote: ↑Sun Oct 24, 2021 4:36 am

Age wrote: ↑Sun Oct 24, 2021 4:32 am

That does NOT make ANY logical sense AT ALL. It does NOT even logically follow, like a LOT of what you write and claim. But I think a lot of this is because english is not your first language. Is english your first language?

Just because one likes pain does in NO way infer that they have a, so called, "evil nature". EVERY one of 'you', adult human beings, does 'good or right' things AS WELL AS 'bad or wrong' things.

Look,

If 'morality' is discerning between what is actually right from wrong or good from bad behavior, then like ALL human knowledge 'morality' can be BOTH objective AND subjective.

'Objective' is related to (collective/ALL) KNOWING or just Facts, which obviously could NOT be refuted by ANY one.

'Subjective' is related to (personal/individual) THINKING or just opinions, which obviously could be refuted by ANY one.

I cannot make it easier than this.

You cannot make 'what' easier?

bahman wrote: ↑Sun Oct 24, 2021 4:36 am Do you want me to make it in form of syllogism?

Yes.

bahman wrote: ↑Sun Oct 24, 2021 4:36 am It is simple.

Okay, so then making 'it' into syllogism form, for you, will not be hard at all.

bahman wrote: ↑Sun Oct 24, 2021 4:36 am How do you define a good nature by the way?

That was what I was going to get to with you, which is why I use the words, ' so called "good nature" '. But to me EVERY one is born with the 'natural tendency' to just be 'good'. However, EVERY adult ends up doing 'wrong' because of the Wrong way they have been brought up in childhood.

bahman wrote: ↑Sun Oct 24, 2021 4:36 am Once you understand what good nature means then you understand what evil nature is, the opposite of good.

So, how do you define 'good nature'?

By the way, does ANY of this end up leading to you informing us whether morality is objective or subjective?

First, we have to agree on what a good nature is for example. Could we agree that good nature is when you don't like pain or don't like to cause pain?

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Oct 23, 2021 3:05 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Oct 23, 2021 3:00 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Oct 23, 2021 2:58 pm
are you trying to say something about moral objectivity?

Yes, and also moral subjectivity. I edited my last post while you were posting.

Is there some way for me to tell if you are arguing that moral concerns are a matter of objective truth/false evaluation or a subjective matter where contradictory evaluations are objectively moot and subject to reason only in the form of persuasion?

I believe the latter. As to persuasion, it is most important that nobody yields to persuasion. Yielding to persuasion does happen, and is what educators have to contend with.

If someone opts to be trained in a skill, then yielding to persuasion is okay as that is part of the training contract between the pupil and the trainer. Also very often we must delegate decisions to experts and to politicians. In those cases we should be powerful (i.e. free)enough to monitor the powers to whom we have delegated our choices.

All meaning is subjective, thus, morality is of necessity subjective and based upon one's biological experiences or the collective biological experience. The foundation of morality in order to be rational must be based upon biology and the self-interest of that biology both individually and collectively.

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 20, 2022 5:05 am All meaning is subjective, thus, morality is of necessity subjective and based upon one's biological experiences or the collective biological experience. The foundation of morality in order to be rational must be based upon biology and the self-interest of that biology both individually and collectively.

I think you're right about the physical and social context within which - or background against which - we live and communicate.

But I suggest that claims such as 'all meaning is subjective' misfire. We use the word 'meaning' and its cognates in many different contexts, by no means all of which involve subjectivity. And rules for the use of words in sentences - and therefore what the sentences mean - are facts. How else could we use language to communicate clearly?

The abstract noun 'meaning' isn't the name of a thing of some kind that exists somewhere, somehow, and that can therefore be described. That delusion is the source of philosophy - in my opinion: earnest talk about so-called abstract things.

I think you're right about the physical and social context within which - or background against which - we live and communicate.

But I suggest that claims such as 'all meaning is subjective' misfire. We use the word 'meaning' and its cognates in many different contexts, by no means all of which involve subjectivity. And rules for the use of words in sentences - and therefore what the sentences mean - are facts. How else could we use language to communicate clearly?

The abstract noun 'meaning' isn't the name of a thing of some kind that exists somewhere, somehow, and that can therefore be described. That delusion is the source of philosophy - in my opinion: earnest talk about so-called abstract things.
[/quote]

Peter,

There are no acceptions to the fact that all meaning belongs to a conscious subject, thus subjectivity. In the relation between subject and object, meaning always belongs to the subject never the object. One could play games with semantics all day long it would not change this reality.

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 20, 2022 11:08 am I think you're right about the physical and social context within which - or background against which - we live and communicate.

But I suggest that claims such as 'all meaning is subjective' misfire. We use the word 'meaning' and its cognates in many different contexts, by no means all of which involve subjectivity. And rules for the use of words in sentences - and therefore what the sentences mean - are facts. How else could we use language to communicate clearly?

The abstract noun 'meaning' isn't the name of a thing of some kind that exists somewhere, somehow, and that can therefore be described. That delusion is the source of philosophy - in my opinion: earnest talk about so-called abstract things.

Peter,

There are no acceptions to the fact that all meaning belongs to a conscious subject, thus subjectivity. In the relation between subject and object, meaning always belongs to the subject never the object. One could play games with semantics all day long it would not change this reality.
[/quote]
Here are our two claims:

1 The abstract noun 'meaning' isn't the name of a thing of some kind that exists somewhere, somehow, and that can therefore be described.

2 ...all meaning belongs to a conscious subject, thus subjectivity. In the relation between subject and object, meaning always belongs to the subject never the object.

Do you see how, if my claim is true, then yours is incoherent? What we call 'meaning' isn't a thing that can 'belong' to anyone or anything.

I think you've developed a metaphysical, or even mystical, view of 'Meaning' that belies our ordinary and various ways of using the word. For example, if we say an object - or a sentence - has a meaning, is that a hopelessly inaccurate use of those words?

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 20, 2022 11:08 am I think you're right about the physical and social context within which - or background against which - we live and communicate.

But I suggest that claims such as 'all meaning is subjective' misfire. We use the word 'meaning' and its cognates in many different contexts, by no means all of which involve subjectivity. And rules for the use of words in sentences - and therefore what the sentences mean - are facts. How else could we use language to communicate clearly?

The abstract noun 'meaning' isn't the name of a thing of some kind that exists somewhere, somehow, and that can therefore be described. That delusion is the source of philosophy - in my opinion: earnest talk about so-called abstract things.

Peter,

There are no acceptions to the fact that all meaning belongs to a conscious subject, thus subjectivity. In the relation between subject and object, meaning always belongs to the subject never the object. One could play games with semantics all day long it would not change this reality.

If meaning is objective, then we should be able to show an occurrence of objective meaning, right? That is, show an occurrence of meaning where meaning isn't a mental phenomenon. So what would we show?

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Thu Jan 20, 2022 5:13 pm

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 20, 2022 11:08 am I think you're right about the physical and social context within which - or background against which - we live and communicate.

But I suggest that claims such as 'all meaning is subjective' misfire. We use the word 'meaning' and its cognates in many different contexts, by no means all of which involve subjectivity. And rules for the use of words in sentences - and therefore what the sentences mean - are facts. How else could we use language to communicate clearly?

The abstract noun 'meaning' isn't the name of a thing of some kind that exists somewhere, somehow, and that can therefore be described. That delusion is the source of philosophy - in my opinion: earnest talk about so-called abstract things.

Peter,

There are no acceptions to the fact that all meaning belongs to a conscious subject, thus subjectivity. In the relation between subject and object, meaning always belongs to the subject never the object. One could play games with semantics all day long it would not change this reality.

If meaning is objective, then we should be able to show an occurrence of objective meaning, right? That is, show an occurrence of meaning where meaning isn't a mental phenomenon. So what would we show?

1 A location-criterion for what we call subjectivity and objectivity doesn't work. It's a legacy from the dualist idea of mind-dependence and mind-independence.

2 Meaning isn't a kind of thing that exists with a location, such as inside or outside brains. That's a metaphysical delusion, as is the idea that mentalist talk is any more than metaphorical.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Jan 21, 2022 7:49 am

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Thu Jan 20, 2022 5:13 pm

Peter,

There are no acceptions to the fact that all meaning belongs to a conscious subject, thus subjectivity. In the relation between subject and object, meaning always belongs to the subject never the object. One could play games with semantics all day long it would not change this reality.

If meaning is objective, then we should be able to show an occurrence of objective meaning, right? That is, show an occurrence of meaning where meaning isn't a mental phenomenon. So what would we show?

1 A location-criterion for what we call subjectivity and objectivity doesn't work. It's a legacy from the dualist idea of mind-dependence and mind-independence.

2 Meaning isn't a kind of thing that exists with a location, such as inside or outside brains. That's a metaphysical delusion, as is the idea that mentalist talk is any more than metaphorical.

The location of meaning is the subject who means. The subject who means is an accumulation of experiences one of which is the subject at one time learned some science.

"Terrapin Station"


The physical world and its contents surely do have relations of among themselves, the world and its relations are part of your mind, your brain is encased this is true, but the physical world and its content is the fuel of the mind. In philosophy these for the purpose of examination are divided into subject and object, the object/world has no meaning, only a conscious subject can bestow meaning upon this outer world. ALL meaning is the property of a conscious subject, with no acceptions, thus morality as meaning is subjective.

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 20, 2022 11:08 am There are no acceptions to the fact that all meaning belongs to a conscious subject, thus subjectivity. In the relation between subject and object, meaning always belongs to the subject never the object. One could play games with semantics all day long it would not change this reality.

It's not a very important reality in this context though. The argument that all meanings are subjective and therefore moral meanings, scientific meanings, and art history meanings are all subjective simply obscures valid distinctions at an entirely cosmetic level.

The question of whether a sandwich is better if it is cut into triangles rather than rectablges is subjective in more contexts than the question of whether the Earth transits the Sun or vice versa. An argument that progresses from the fact all meaning is subjective if you caegorize it that way to a mere insinuation that this makes all things subjective in all the same ways won't change that reality.

We have the methods and concpets of objectivity because they serve a useful purpose in our rational enquiries. Perfect metaphysical objectivity isn't a requirement.

If there is a question that is best resolved by looking out at the world, and if doing so will resolve the debate such that one claim is clearly supported by eveidence that all can aquire by that action, then this is a standard of objectivity that we apply to such questions. If a question is of a sort that we can only introspect for further guidance, then a similar standard of objectivity is simply not available.