Is morality objective or subjective?

[Peter Holmes]

See, mysticism is always lurking down the rabbit hole.

Subject and object standing or falling together is hardly mysticism. It is the basis of reality. Metaphysics perhaps, but very rational thought, the waters can always be clouded with unnecessary semantics.

QED. Mystical blather from down the rabbit hole: 'subject and object standing or falling together...is the basis of reality'. And semantics deals with meaning, which is hardly 'unnecessary'.

'Reality is the unity of subject and object'. Or
'Reality is experience.' Or
'The world is the totality of facts, not of things.' Or
'Reality cannot be mind-independent.

You do understand that you only know apparent reality on a subjective level----yes. If you do not get that, I would ask you not to respond to my posts on the subject. Just entertain yourself with your love of mudding the waters of understanding.

I think it's sweet that you state we 'only know apparent reality on a subjective level' as though those words have uncontested meanings. You're merely regurgitating philosophical mantras. And, sorry, but your opinions are no more or less challengeable than mine or anyone else's.

Look at the different - and all perfectly explicable - ways we use the word reality, and its cognates and related words, such as real and unreal. Then compare those uses with what philosophers do.
'The word reality is the name of something. But what is that thing? What does it really mean to say something is real? What we need is a theory of reality or being. And let's give it a cool name: ontology or metaphysics.'

Let us start then, with what do you mean by look, define different, and then fine sir we will move on to explicable, what a pretentious lot of bullshit.

To which pretentious bullshit do you refer? 'Subject and object standing or falling together is the basis of reality'? That pretentious bullshit?

It's the same delusion with every so-called problem in philosophy. At the bottom, there's a mysterious reification of an abstract 'entity': knowledge, truth, identity, justice, beauty, mind, consciousness, goodness, and on and on.

You are hypnotized by your own verbiage, and have become rather good at pretending to understand something.

I look forward to seeing evidence that you actually understand anything, beyond tired old banalities.

[Iwannaplato]

Organisms you might say are those that experience, and what organisms experience is bestowed upon the world as meaning, for objects are not conscious, and meaning is biologically dependent. So, two terms, subject/life forms, and object/s, the world at large.

I'm not sure how this responds to this....

But more importantly, how do you know what is consciousness and what is object. They only exist (for you) at the same time. Which part of the experiencing is the object and which part is the consciousness?
in the absence of object consciousness ceases to be. Apparent reality is the unity of both subject and object.
Then having two words is misleading. There is just experiencing.

or

Then having two words is misleading. There is just experiencing.

re consciousness and phenomena. It seems like there is one kind of phenomenon. And it is a conscious phenomenon. Which means that a redundant phrase.

[popeye1945]

Organisms you might say are those that experience, and what organisms experience is bestowed upon the world as meaning, for objects are not conscious, and meaning is biologically dependent. So, two terms, subject/life forms, and object/s, the world at large.

I'm not sure how this responds to this....

But more importantly, how do you know what is consciousness and what is object? They only exist (for you) at the same time. Which part of the experiencing is the object and which part is the consciousness?
in the absence of object consciousness ceases to be. Apparent reality is the unity of both subject and object.
Then having two words is misleading. There is just experiencing or, then having two words is misleading. There is just experiencing.

re consciousness and phenomena. It seems like there is one kind of phenomenon. And it is a conscious phenomenon. Which means that a redundant phrase.

,

Think of it this way, the world as object/s is fuel for the brain, where there is no object, there is no fuel, thus no conscious subjective mind; for there is nothing to be conscious of.

[Peter Holmes]

Just a thought. Instead of trying to flesh out the subject-object myth or model - which almost invariably depends on the myth of the mind as a separate, non-physical thing - in other words, not itself an object - how about just talking about observers and observed? - things or objects, some of which observe, and all of which are or can be observed?

My point is that the subject-object model places huge importance on the so-called subject, or subjectivity, or consciousness, or experience. We feel compelled to describe or explain what these things are - and even project them outwards to the point where we confuse them with reality: 'reality is experience'; 'reality is a product of consciousness/the mind'.

One consequence is a very deeply ingrained empiricist skepticism: knowledge comes from experience; experience is necessarily first-person and subjective; so we're essentially cut off from each other - from the 'external world'.

And another consequence is a blinkering anthropocentrism or human exceptionalism, which has had morally disastrous effects.

[popeye1945]

Just a thought. Instead of trying to flesh out the subject-object myth or model - which almost invariably depends on the myth of the mind as a separate, non-physical thing - in other words, not itself an object - how about just talking about observers and observed? - things or objects, some of which observe, and all of which are or can be observed?

My point is that the subject-object model places huge importance on the so-called subject, or subjectivity, or consciousness, or experience. We feel compelled to describe or explain what these things are - and even project them outwards to the point where we confuse them with reality: 'reality is experience'; 'reality is a product of consciousness/the mind'.

One consequence is a very deeply ingrained empiricist skepticism: knowledge comes from experience; experience is necessarily first-person and subjective; so we're essentially cut off from each other - from the 'external world'.

And another consequence is a blinkering anthropocentrism or human exceptionalism, which has had morally disastrous effects.

You are always focused upon criticizing, why don't you lay it out for us just how meaning comes about, and to who or what that meaning belongs.

[Peter Holmes]

Just a thought. Instead of trying to flesh out the subject-object myth or model - which almost invariably depends on the myth of the mind as a separate, non-physical thing - in other words, not itself an object - how about just talking about observers and observed? - things or objects, some of which observe, and all of which are or can be observed?

My point is that the subject-object model places huge importance on the so-called subject, or subjectivity, or consciousness, or experience. We feel compelled to describe or explain what these things are - and even project them outwards to the point where we confuse them with reality: 'reality is experience'; 'reality is a product of consciousness/the mind'.

One consequence is a very deeply ingrained empiricist skepticism: knowledge comes from experience; experience is necessarily first-person and subjective; so we're essentially cut off from each other - from the 'external world'.

And another consequence is a blinkering anthropocentrism or human exceptionalism, which has had morally disastrous effects.

You are always focused upon criticizing, why don't you lay it out for us just how meaning comes about, and to who or what that meaning belongs.

What I'm challenging is the nature of the seemingly profound questions you ask: how does meaning come about?; to whom or what does meaning belong? And I think these are the kind of misfiring questions that philosophers ask.

I've explained why I think this many times, and you obviously don't agree with my explanation. And that's fine. But if you make challengeable claims in a philosophy forum, you can expect to have them challenged.

[popeye1945]

Just a thought. Instead of trying to flesh out the subject-object myth or model - which almost invariably depends on the myth of the mind as a separate, non-physical thing - in other words, not itself an object - how about just talking about observers and observed? - things or objects, some of which observe, and all of which are or can be observed?

My point is that the subject-object model places huge importance on the so-called subject, or subjectivity, or consciousness, or experience. We feel compelled to describe or explain what these things are - and even project them outwards to the point where we confuse them with reality: 'reality is experience'; 'reality is a product of consciousness/the mind'.

One consequence is a very deeply ingrained empiricist skepticism: knowledge comes from experience; experience is necessarily first-person and subjective; so we're essentially cut off from each other - from the 'external world'.

And another consequence is a blinkering anthropocentrism or human exceptionalism, which has had morally disastrous effects.

You are always focused upon criticizing, why don't you lay it out for us just how meaning comes about, and to who or what that meaning belongs.

What I'm challenging is the nature of the seemingly profound questions you ask: how does meaning come about?; to whom or what does meaning belong? And I think these are the kind of misfiring questions that philosophers ask.

I've explained why I think this many times, and you obviously don't agree with my explanation. And that's fine. But if you make challengeable claims in a philosophy forum, you can expect to have them challenged.

OUT LINE IN A FEW PARAGRAPHS HOW MEANING IS AQUIRED, TO WHOM DOES IT BELONG, AND WHAT THEN IS DONE WITH THAT MEANING.

[Peter Holmes]

You are always focused upon criticizing, why don't you lay it out for us just how meaning comes about, and to who or what that meaning belongs.

What I'm challenging is the nature of the seemingly profound questions you ask: how does meaning come about?; to whom or what does meaning belong? And I think these are the kind of misfiring questions that philosophers ask.

I've explained why I think this many times, and you obviously don't agree with my explanation. And that's fine. But if you make challengeable claims in a philosophy forum, you can expect to have them challenged.

OUT LINE IN A FEW PARAGRAPHS HOW MEANING IS AQUIRED, TO WHOM DOES IT BELONG, AND WHAT THEN IS DONE WITH THAT MEANING.

How do you think those shouty words have a meaning? To whom does the meaning of my words belong? And what do we do with these meanings?

How does an erect middle finger acquire and have a meaning? (Snot hard.)

[popeye1945]

What I'm challenging is the nature of the seemingly profound questions you ask: how does meaning come about?; to whom or what does meaning belong? And I think these are the kind of misfiring questions that philosophers ask.

I've explained why I think this many times, and you obviously don't agree with my explanation. And that's fine. But if you make challengeable claims in a philosophy forum, you can expect to have them challenged.

OUT LINE IN A FEW PARAGRAPHS HOW MEANING IS AQUIRED, TO WHOM DOES IT BELONG, AND WHAT THEN IS DONE WITH THAT MEANING.

How do you think those shouty words have a meaning? To whom does the meaning of my words belong? And what do we do with these meanings?

How does an erect middle finger acquire and have a meaning? (Snot hard.)

Just as I thought------lol!! babble!

[Peter Holmes]

OUT LINE IN A FEW PARAGRAPHS HOW MEANING IS AQUIRED, TO WHOM DOES IT BELONG, AND WHAT THEN IS DONE WITH THAT MEANING.

How do you think those shouty words have a meaning? To whom does the meaning of my words belong? And what do we do with these meanings?

How does an erect middle finger acquire and have a meaning? (Snot hard.)

Just as I thought------lol!! babble!

In other words - and just as I thought - you can't answer these questions. Lol.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Consciousness
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness

Phenomenon
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenomenon

From a TOP-DOWN approach based on empirical evidences,
there is no denial, the above 'consciousness' and 'phenomena' exist as real.

The above 'consciousness' and 'phenomena' can be verified and justified with empirical evidences via the human-based scientific-FSK.

Anyone deny they do not exist as real?
If no one deny the above, then there should be no issue.

There is only a serious issue when philosophical realists [and theists] when driven by an evolutionary default of exuding terrible cognitive dissonances from an existential crisis, insist on the existence of a substance ontology, i.e. noumenon, thing-in-itself or God which are illusory intelligible objects.
They insist for phenomena there must be noumena or every creation must be created by an ultimate creator.
Such Insistence and clinging_ness to such substance ontological objects [illusions] is to soothe the real terrible cognitive dissonances.

To speculate that consciousness or phenomena are caused by some substance-ontological entity is engaging in illusions.

Both consciousness and phenomena are emergences and realization of reality.
All we need is to verify and justify both are real within the human-based science FSR-FSK.
Note FSR = ontological, FSK = Epistemological and linguistic.

[Peter Holmes]

Look at the following two sentences.

To speculate that consciousness or phenomena are caused by some substance-ontological entity is engaging in illusions.

Both consciousness and phenomena are emergences and realization of reality.

1 What we call consciousness is, to use Kant's silly term, a phenomenon. So there's no need to specify it. So we can simplify this claim: phenomena are not caused by some substance-ontological entity.

2 An example could be this: what we call a dog is not 'caused' by a substance-ontological dog - a canine noumenon. But who ever in their right mind thought or thinks it is? Where did this mysterious canine noumenon come from?

3 The simplified claim is this: 'phenomena are emergences and realization of reality'. But wtf does that mean? What is this 'reality'? It's not reality-in-itself (the noumenon), because there's no such thing. Oh, wait - is it just the reality that realists talk about?

VA is in a bind - Kant's Gordian Knot: 'You realists must believe in something - the noumenon - which doesn't and can't exist.'

No, no, no. You anti-realists are haunted by a fiction of your own invention. Cut the knot. Free in one bound.

[Iwannaplato]

Both consciousness and phenomena are emergences and realization of reality.
All we need is to verify and justify both are real within the human-based science FSR-FSK.

In antirealism: there are no phenomena without consciousness. Consiousness and the phenomenon. They are coincident.
More importantly, for my point, they are not separable.
What in your experience is consciousness and not phenomenon?
You cannot separate out these two 'things'.
You cannot say 'that is consciousness, while that over there is the phenomenon'
There is one 'thing' in antirealism.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Look at the following two sentences.

To speculate that consciousness or phenomena are caused by some substance-ontological entity is engaging in illusions.

Both consciousness and phenomena are emergences and realization of reality.

1 What we call consciousness is, to use Kant's silly term, a phenomenon. So there's no need to specify it. So we can simplify this claim: phenomena are not caused by some substance-ontological entity.

2 An example could be this: what we call a dog is not 'caused' by a substance-ontological dog - a canine noumenon. But who ever in their right mind thought or thinks it is? Where did this mysterious canine noumenon come from?

3 The simplified claim is this: 'phenomena are emergences and realization of reality'. But wtf does that mean? What is this 'reality'? It's not reality-in-itself (the noumenon), because there's no such thing. Oh, wait - is it just the reality that realists talk about?

VA is in a bind - Kant's Gordian Knot: 'You realists must believe in something - the noumenon - which doesn't and can't exist.'

No, no, no. You anti-realists are haunted by a fiction of your own invention. Cut the knot. Free in one bound.

As I had stated, your views are grounded on the mind-independence of philosophical realism which is illusion and you are delusional to keep clinging to it dogmatically.

3 The simplified claim is this: 'phenomena are emergences and realization of reality'. But wtf does that mean? What is this 'reality'? It's not reality-in-itself (the noumenon), because there's no such thing. Oh, wait - is it just the reality that realists talk about?

I have already explained the above a '1000' times.
Because you are a victim of a delusion, it is not likely you will grasp my point which is realistic.

PH: What is this 'reality'?
Note I referenced this many times;

1. Reality: Emergence & Realization Prior to Perceiving, Knowing & Describing
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40145

The reality I am referring to is the human-based specific FSR-FSK reality of which the scientific FSR-FSK is the most credible, reliable and objective.

I have already argued, what is 'consciousness' and 'phenomena' can be verified and justified with empirical evidences as real within the human-based scientific-FSR-FSK.
Do you deny this reality?

Just in case, you insist the-descriptions-by-science is not the-described, refer to 1 above.

[Veritas Aequitas]

In Kantian anti-philosophical-realism, there are various levels of reality;

1. Within the conventional perspective phenomena and consciousness are separate things which can be verified and justified within the science-FSR-FSK.

2. In the ultimate perspective of reality, re the TOP-DOWN [Kant's Copernican Revolution] perspective 1 is subsumed within the human-based FSR-FSK.
Since it is human-based, it follows that 1 cannot be ultimately mind-independent which contra the claim of the mind-independent of philosophical realism.

Note philosophical realism is a derivative ideology, an -ism from the evolution default of the very necessary sense external_ness that facilitate basic survival.
As such, philosophical realism is a very barbaric primitive ideology.

The Kantian anti-philosophical-realism is a more refined view of reality which can be verified and justified via the scientific FSK [highest objectivity] and other FSK of lower credibility.