Philosophy Now Forum

Belinda wrote: ↑Sun Apr 04, 2021 10:48 am

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sat Apr 03, 2021 7:24 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Apr 03, 2021 6:41 pm

Henry Quirk obviously means the quale that he calls "red" and which he reasonably presumes other people experience like he himself experiences.I dare say Plato too thought his qualia were Forms of reality. On the other hand, Terrapin Station refers to the objectively verifiable markers of redness.

But what makes text a particular color isn't what it looks like to an individual. That can be why that individual calls it the color they call it, but that's a different issue.

They are both true, Henry's quale and your explanation of what makes 'text' a different colour. They are both true and viewed from either the subjective or the objective perspective. No doubt if a neuroscientist inspected Henry's brain when he is experiencing

red

the scientist would correlate brain changes with Henry's mind - quale.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Apr 03, 2021 3:11 pm WHAT MAKES THIS RED

There's a consistent sumthin' in what we call red, a sumthin', in the light, we all, barring defect in eye or brain, see and recognize. We apply placeholders (красный, 빨간, rouge, red, etc.) to this sumthin'.

The placeholders change, the sumthin' remains the same.

We create the placeholders; we recognize the sumthin'.

The placeholders represent a communal effort to talk about and understand the sumthin'; the sumthin' exists independently of our effort to understand it or talk about it.

Our understanding of the sumthin' can improve or worsen, we may be right or wrong about the sumthin', but the sumthin' is unmoved, unchanged, by our thinkin', measurements, and assessments.

Just like moral fact.

Gimme my goddamned already, cuz I done good.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Apr 04, 2021 3:11 pm Henry's quale

I didn't say jack shit about quales...

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Apr 03, 2021 3:11 pm WHAT MAKES THIS RED

There's a consistent sumthin' in what we call red, a sumthin', in the light, we all, barring defect in eye or brain, see and recognize. We apply placeholders (красный, 빨간, rouge, red, etc.) to this sumthin'.

The placeholders change, the sumthin' remains the same.

We create the placeholders; we recognize the sumthin'.

The placeholders represent a communal effort to talk about and understand the sumthin'; the sumthin' exists independently of our effort to understand it or talk about it.

Our understanding of the sumthin' can improve or worsen, we may be right or wrong about the sumthin', but the sumthin' is unmoved, unchanged, by our thinkin', measurements, and assessments.

Just like moral fact.

Gimme my goddamned already, cuz I done good.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Apr 05, 2021 11:41 am Question: what could make morality objective?

Cute, anti-intellectual answer: moral facts.

QED.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Apr 05, 2021 3:13 pm

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Apr 05, 2021 11:41 am Question: what could make morality objective?

Cute, anti-intellectual answer: moral facts.

QED.

Huh?

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Apr 05, 2021 3:34 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Apr 05, 2021 3:13 pm

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Apr 05, 2021 11:41 am Question: what could make morality objective?

Cute, anti-intellectual answer: moral facts.

QED.

Huh?

You seem to be saying that moral facts are what make morality objective. And that's tautological. Sorry if that's not what you meant.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Apr 05, 2021 6:35 pm You seem to be saying that moral facts are what make morality objective. And that's tautological. Sorry if that's not what you meant.

Jeez...

We got B pontificatin' about quales, and you jibberin' about whatever, and both of attributin' it to me.

All I said, recently, as an answer to Skep's question, is: the sumthin' we call red is real.

We see it in the light, and label it.

It is, as you would say, a feature of reality.

At the end of my lil post I threw in the jab about moral fact cuz the sumthin' we call moral fact (what I call ownness) is as real as the sumthin' we label red.

All this manure about quales and whatnot, all that's on you people.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Apr 05, 2021 8:46 pm To be clear, this is what I say...

Ownness (a man belongs to himself) is a fact (a true statement; one that jibes with reality).

Now, morality is all about the rightness or wrongness of a man's intent, his choices, his actions and conduct, as he interacts with, or impinges on, another. Seems to me, the validity of a morality rests solely with how well the assessment of wrongness or rightness agrees with reality, or with statements about reality.

So, a moral fact is a true statement; one that aligns with the reality of a man (not his personality, or opinion, or whims, but what is fundamental to him, ownness).

Can I say slavery is wrong is a moral fact?

Yes.

-----

And: mebbe I'm wrong but, this, what you wrote...

You seem to be saying that moral facts are what make morality objective

...doesn't exactly jibe with my position, yeah?

henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Apr 05, 2021 8:46 pm To be clear, this is what I say...

Ownness (a man belongs to himself) is a fact (a true statement; one that jibes with reality).

Now, morality is all about the rightness or wrongness of a man's intent, his choices, his actions and conduct, as he interacts with, or impinges on, another. Seems to me, the validity of a morality rests solely with how well the assessment of wrongness or rightness agrees with reality, or with statements about reality.

So, a moral fact is a true statement; one that aligns with the reality of a man (not his personality, or opinion, or whims, but what is fundamental to him, ownness).

Can I say slavery is wrong is a moral fact?

Yes.

-----

And: mebbe I'm wrong but, this, what you wrote...

You seem to be saying that moral facts are what make morality objective

...doesn't exactly jibe with my position, yeah?