PH's (et. al.) Thing is a Thing-in-Itself

[Atla]

This one believes that it can just say to another, 'You are wrong', and that 'this' is absolutely true, and right.

Wrong as usual.

Yes, you are Wrong, as usual.

Wrong as usual. I told you many times that I don't have absolute beliefs, you failed to comprehend it every time. Almost certainly this time too. It's like a part of your brain is literally not there or not working.

[Sculptor]

I explained in the above post what is a thing-in-itself [plural things-in-themselves].

I am not relying on Kant's Ding an Sich to claim that Morality is Objective.
I am relying on Kant's Ding an sich only to refute PH's claim that Morality Cannot be Objective.

PH et. al. claimed there are things-in-themselves, i.e. they exist absolutely independent of the human conditions, i.e. they exist regardless whether there are humans or not. In this sense things-in-themselves are objective.

To PH et. al. moral objects [elements, right or wrong beliefs] are not things-in-themselves, i.e. exist independent of the human conditions.
Moral objects [as opinions, beliefs and judgments] are contingent upon the subjects, thus are subjective and cannot be objective.
Therefore, to PH et. al morality can never be objective.

But Kant has proven there are no real things-in-themselves, they can be thought of but they are essentially illusory.

Because PH relies on the existence of things-in-themselves to refute Morality is objective, but Kant had proven, things-in-themselves are illusions,
PH do not have real solid grounds to refute morality is objective.
In other words, PH cannot rely on illusions to refute morality is objective.

The problem with this approach is while it may cause problems for PH - if you undermine his sense that the objectivity he seeks isn't there in other areas of philosophy/epistemology - it doesn't necessarily at ALL demonstrate that morality is objective.

PH argues that unlike, say, science, morality is subjective because it is not made of things in themselves.
For the sake of argument we accept that Kant proved things in themselves don't exist.

This is has not proven that morality is objective. It has proven that nothing is objective.

Now in the specific battle with PH, this might put him in an awkward position.

But someone else, for example a nihilist who is also an epistemological skeptic, might just say...right morals aren't objective AND we can't be objective about truth either.

Your argument is context dependent: undermine PH.
But it does not in any way demonstrate the objective existence of morals. It actually just says objectivity, in its traditional sense is gone and we can't know stuff.

You have conflated creating a problem for a specific critic with proving your thesis.

The nihilist skeptic can just say, you're just inventing a new meaning for objective, so you can claim objectivity. Thanks for undermining objectivity in general.

You are inviting VA to use critical thinking on his own philosophy. How very rude!

I dont think that is rude.
I think that is is futile. VA is not capable of such self reflection.

[Ansiktsburk]

You latest guys, to transfer this into something worldly, understandable for this Kant rookie:

What are the in itself’s of the following and what does it matter if they are in or out of themselves?

Conflicts Ukraine-Russia/Israel-Palestine
Global warming
Climate Justice
Donald Trump
Brexit
FIFA EU 2024

[Age]

Wrong as usual.

Yes, you are Wrong, as usual.

Wrong as usual.

Yes you are Wrong, as usual.

I told you many times that I don't have absolute beliefs, you failed to comprehend it every time.

And, you have failed many times to comprehend what I have been saying and pointing out here about you. Which, again, is NOT what you are presuming and believing here.

Almost certainly this time too.

Notice how this one changes its wording, after it has been made to think about and consider the way it writes and expresses here.

It speaks and writes in 'absolutist' language, until it starts thinking about the words that it will next use, and so only then it changes it language.

It's like a part of your brain is literally not there or not working.

What you continually keep not seeing and understanding here is, blatantly, obvious to 'us, but,obviously, not to you.

One could also say, and claim, 'It is like part of your brain is literally not there or not working', but this one certainly would not make such an idiotic , illogical, and extremely Fasle and Incorrect Wrong statement and claim as that one Truly is.

[Atla]

Yes, you are Wrong, as usual.

Wrong as usual.

Yes you are Wrong, as usual.

I told you many times that I don't have absolute beliefs, you failed to comprehend it every time.

And, you have failed many times to comprehend what I have been saying and pointing out here about you. Which, again, is NOT what you are presuming and believing here.

Almost certainly this time too.

Notice how this one changes its wording, after it has been made to think about and consider the way it writes and expresses here.

It speaks and writes in 'absolutist' language, until it starts thinking about the words that it will next use, and so only then it changes it language.

It's like a part of your brain is literally not there or not working.

What you continually keep not seeing and understanding here is, blatantly, obvious to 'us, but,obviously, not to you.

One could also say, and claim, 'It is like part of your brain is literally not there or not working', but this one certainly would not make such an idiotic , illogical, and extremely Fasle and Incorrect Wrong statement and claim as that one Truly is.

Wrong again. You are literally incapable of comprehending that I didn't write in absolutist language.

[Age]

Wrong as usual.

Yes you are Wrong, as usual.

I told you many times that I don't have absolute beliefs, you failed to comprehend it every time.

And, you have failed many times to comprehend what I have been saying and pointing out here about you. Which, again, is NOT what you are presuming and believing here.

Almost certainly this time too.

Notice how this one changes its wording, after it has been made to think about and consider the way it writes and expresses here.

It speaks and writes in 'absolutist' language, until it starts thinking about the words that it will next use, and so only then it changes it language.

It's like a part of your brain is literally not there or not working.

What you continually keep not seeing and understanding here is, blatantly, obvious to 'us, but,obviously, not to you.

One could also say, and claim, 'It is like part of your brain is literally not there or not working', but this one certainly would not make such an idiotic , illogical, and extremely Fasle and Incorrect Wrong statement and claim as that one Truly is.

Wrong again. You are literally incapable of comprehending that I didn't write in absolutist language.

Lol your own written words here clearly, and obviously, show otherwise.

But, because you believe otherwise, you believe, absolutely, what you say and claim here.

The hypocrisy here from you now is even more blindingly obvious.

Even just your two little words, Wrong again', here is absolutist language, as well . But, this one, literally, cannot see and comprehend this.

And, once again, the very reason why this one cannot see and comprehend this is because of the presumptions and beliefs that it trying so hard to desperately hold onto here.

[Atla]

Yes you are Wrong, as usual.




And, you have failed many times to comprehend what I have been saying and pointing out here about you. Which, again, is NOT what you are presuming and believing here.



Notice how this one changes its wording, after it has been made to think about and consider the way it writes and expresses here.

It speaks and writes in 'absolutist' language, until it starts thinking about the words that it will next use, and so only then it changes it language.



What you continually keep not seeing and understanding here is, blatantly, obvious to 'us, but,obviously, not to you.

One could also say, and claim, 'It is like part of your brain is literally not there or not working', but this one certainly would not make such an idiotic , illogical, and extremely Fasle and Incorrect Wrong statement and claim as that one Truly is.

Wrong again. You are literally incapable of comprehending that I didn't write in absolutist language.

Lol your own written words here clearly, and obviously, show otherwise.

But, because you believe otherwise, you believe, absolutely, what you say and claim here.

The hypocrisy here from you now is even more blindingly obvious.

Even just your two little words, Wrong again', here is absolutist language, as well . But, this one, literally, cannot see and comprehend this.

And, once again, the very reason why this one cannot see and comprehend this is because of the presumptions and beliefs that it trying so hard to desperately hold onto here.

Wrong again, this isn't absolutist language. I told you many times that you simply can't comprehend this.

It's 'beyond reasonable doubt' language.

[Age]

Wrong again. You are literally incapable of comprehending that I didn't write in absolutist language.

Lol your own written words here clearly, and obviously, show otherwise.

But, because you believe otherwise, you believe, absolutely, what you say and claim here.

The hypocrisy here from you now is even more blindingly obvious.

Even just your two little words, Wrong again', here is absolutist language, as well . But, this one, literally, cannot see and comprehend this.

And, once again, the very reason why this one cannot see and comprehend this is because of the presumptions and beliefs that it trying so hard to desperately hold onto here.

Wrong again, this isn't absolutist language. I told you many times that you simply can't comprehend this.

It's 'beyond reasonable doubt' language.

Wrong again.

[Atla]

Lol your own written words here clearly, and obviously, show otherwise.

But, because you believe otherwise, you believe, absolutely, what you say and claim here.

The hypocrisy here from you now is even more blindingly obvious.

Even just your two little words, Wrong again', here is absolutist language, as well . But, this one, literally, cannot see and comprehend this.

And, once again, the very reason why this one cannot see and comprehend this is because of the presumptions and beliefs that it trying so hard to desperately hold onto here.

Wrong again, this isn't absolutist language. I told you many times that you simply can't comprehend this.

It's 'beyond reasonable doubt' language.

Wrong again.

You are wrong and have always been. Idiots use absolutist language and thinking. Yet you assumed that almost everyone does. You shouldn't have insisted on such a monumentally wrong assumption.

[Iwannaplato]

You are wrong and have always been. Idiots use absolutist language and thinking. Yet you assumed that almost everyone does. You shouldn't have insisted on such a monumentally wrong assumption.

Yes, the irony is, for example, he's used the word irrefutable - sometimes before 'fact' - about his own assertions here, well, to be on the conservative side, hundreds of times. He will use the word family from the root 'prove' in all sorts of situations where it is not a proof. For example, he will refer to someone's act (choice) not to do something (respond, mount an argument, take Age seriously, prove something) as proving that whatever Age believes is true. He doesn't understand what constitutes a proof.

One person's decision not to do something, proves something in general about the nature of things. (note the similarity to VA's sense that if he has come up with something that undermines someone else's position, he has proven his own thesis.) Age is assuming that he can mind-read the motivation someone has for discontinuing a line of discussion with him AND that that motivation shows that no one could possibly provide evidence Age is wrong. And, of course, even that situation doesn't prove his thesis. And it's funny how often whatever motivation he assigns to other people choices is always, purely coincidentally, beneficial to his own sense of self, his sense of his arguments and his negative judgments of most people at the time this is being written.

He has also added 'absolutely' before 'proves'. I'm not sure what added weight this is, but he's happy to use that. And he's tossed around absolute about his own positions.

By the way, did you catch the discussion where Age called Attofishpi a pedophile, and his justification was that the word once meant someone who loves children. He mocked Attofishpi for having a limited perspective (and this no doubt proved something in Age's mind). He doesn't quite get the idea that what a word meant is not what a word means, but further we can see the toxic games he plays.

[Age]

Wrong again, this isn't absolutist language. I told you many times that you simply can't comprehend this.

It's 'beyond reasonable doubt' language.

Wrong again.

You are wrong and have always been

This one, laughingly, believes that it does not use 'absolutist language', and because of this belief that it, obviously, is strongly hold onto, it, literally, cannot recognise and comprehend that the words, 'your wrong', and, 'have always been' are 'absolutist' terms and phrases.

Idiots use absolutist language and thinking.

Which makes this statement and claim here even more hilarious.

Yet you assumed that almost everyone does.

Not that you will ever clarify nor answer this, but when have I ever, to you, assumed this?

Also, there is no use of informing you of what the actual Truth is here because:

1. you believe otherwise.

2. you are not open to the actual Truth of things here.

You shouldn't have insisted on such a monumentally wrong assumption.

Wrong again.

This one is continually making assumptions and claims about me, and about what I am saying and meaning, but never checks to see if its assumptions, and eventually beliefs, are even close to being true and right, let alone ever checking to find out if they ever were actually True and Right, to begin with. This one just keeps on keeping on believing in its own imagined and made up beliefs and assumptions.

And, it will keep doing this, as it will, once more, prove irrefutably True and Right here, again.

[Atla]

This one, laughingly, believes that it does not use 'absolutist language', and because of this belief that it, obviously, is strongly hold onto, it, literally, cannot recognise and comprehend that the words, 'your wrong', and, 'have always been' are 'absolutist' terms and phrases.

You have simply been dead wrong all along, it's a fact that it's not absolutist language. Your house of cards of lies is built upon this, and now it's crumbling. It's a fact that you've never known the first thing about humans.

And again: you can NOT comprehend the above.

[Age]

You are wrong and have always been. Idiots use absolutist language and thinking. Yet you assumed that almost everyone does. You shouldn't have insisted on such a monumentally wrong assumption.

Yes, the irony is, for example, he's used the word irrefutable - sometimes before 'fact' - about his own assertions here, well, to be on the conservative side, hundreds of times. He will use the word family from the root 'prove' in all sorts of situations where it is not a proof.

Are you sure that these words here are the ones you wanted to use?

If yes, then here is another example of how Wrong this one, and "atla" can be and have been here.

But, if they are not the words that you wanted to use, then what are the, exactly, words that you wanted to use, here?

For example, he will refer to someone's act (choice) not to do something (respond, mount an argument, take Age seriously, prove something) as proving that whatever Age believes is true.

Even this here is completely and utterly False and Wrong.

But, do not let that get in the way of you continuing on here "iwannaplato".

He doesn't understand what constitutes a proof.

you do not even, yet, know how I define nor use the word 'proof'. And, this is, once again, because you rarely, if ever, seek out to 'understand', the other.

you, like "atla", just make assumptions, believe them to be true or right, and proceed from there. Even when no matter how Wrong or False your beliefs and assumptions are.

Oh, and by the way, not that you would ever clarify and answer, but what does constitute 'proof', to you, exactly?

One person's decision not to do something, proves something in general about the nature of things. (note the similarity to VA's sense that if he has come up with something that undermines someone else's position, he has proven his own thesis.)

Any 'similarity' here exists in your imagination, or 'findings', only because of the beliefs that are creating your 'confirmation biases'. And, the fact that you will not have a Truly open and honest full discussion about this proves just how closed and blinded you are by your beliefs and biases here.

Or, will you prove me Wrong here and,actually, have a Truly open and honest discussion here?

We will wait to see.

Age is assuming that he can mind-read the motivation someone has for discontinuing a line of discussion with him AND that that motivation shows that no one could possibly provide evidence Age is wrong.

Lol what a Truly idiotic and stupid thing to claim here.

All absolutely anyone has to do to not just provide evidence to, but to actually proof, where I am wrong anywhere here is:

1. Just be specific in regards to what I am, supposedly, wrong about, and not be valued at all. (I have continually asked you and "atla" to do this, but both of you will not. Obviously, the fear that it is you or "atla" who will end up being the ones who are Wrong here is one of the reasons that you two do not).

2. After being 'specific', then just explain where, exactly, and most importantly why, exactly, I am, supposedly, Wrong.

3. Then just have a Truly open and honest discussion with me.

Then, 'we' all will be able to see and find out who is actually Wrong, and Right, here.


And, of course, even that situation doesn't prove his thesis. And it's funny how often whatever motivation he assigns to other people choices is always, purely coincidentally, beneficial to his own sense of self, his sense of his arguments and his negative judgments of most people at the time this is being written.

He has also added 'absolutely' before 'proves'. I'm not sure what added weight this is, but he's happy to use that. And he's tossed around absolute about his own positions.

Once more, why you are 'not sure' is because you do not seek out answers and clarity. you, obviously, much prefer to just make up assumptions, believe your own assumptions are the truth of things, and then just visit back' and make vague accusations about others and their words while claiming that 'they are wrong', and while implying that you are right'. Which, to be honest, has been a Truly amusing thing to watch and observe you doing, here.

By the way, did you catch the discussion where Age called Attofishpi a pedophile, and his justification was that the word once meant someone who loves children.

Who are you directing this at, exactly?

He mocked Attofishpi for having a limited perspective (and this no doubt proved something in Age's mind).

Once again, for those of you are not yet aware "age" does not have a mind.

He doesn't quite get the idea that what a word meant is not what a word means,

What another Truly idiotic and stupid thing to presume and/or believe here.

I used the word 'meant', 'specifically'. And, obviously for reasons that you are, still, completely and utterly aware of.

I will also remind people here of just how easy and simple.it is to manipulate and control some

but further we can see the toxic games he plays.

Wow, reintroducing the 'toxic' word here again, as though it is me who brings 'toxicity' into this forum, and never "iwannaplato".

[Atla]

You are wrong and have always been. Idiots use absolutist language and thinking. Yet you assumed that almost everyone does. You shouldn't have insisted on such a monumentally wrong assumption.

Yes, the irony is, for example, he's used the word irrefutable - sometimes before 'fact' - about his own assertions here, well, to be on the conservative side, hundreds of times. He will use the word family from the root 'prove' in all sorts of situations where it is not a proof. For example, he will refer to someone's act (choice) not to do something (respond, mount an argument, take Age seriously, prove something) as proving that whatever Age believes is true. He doesn't understand what constitutes a proof.

One person's decision not to do something, proves something in general about the nature of things. (note the similarity to VA's sense that if he has come up with something that undermines someone else's position, he has proven his own thesis.) Age is assuming that he can mind-read the motivation someone has for discontinuing a line of discussion with him AND that that motivation shows that no one could possibly provide evidence Age is wrong. And, of course, even that situation doesn't prove his thesis. And it's funny how often whatever motivation he assigns to other people choices is always, purely coincidentally, beneficial to his own sense of self, his sense of his arguments and his negative judgments of most people at the time this is being written.

He has also added 'absolutely' before 'proves'. I'm not sure what added weight this is, but he's happy to use that. And he's tossed around absolute about his own positions.

By the way, did you catch the discussion where Age called Attofishpi a pedophile, and his justification was that the word once meant someone who loves children. He mocked Attofishpi for having a limited perspective (and this no doubt proved something in Age's mind). He doesn't quite get the idea that what a word meant is not what a word means, but further we can see the toxic games he plays.

It has to be some kind of physical brain injury.. rather anticlimactic..

[Age]

This one, laughingly, believes that it does not use 'absolutist language', and because of this belief that it, obviously, is strongly hold onto, it, literally, cannot recognise and comprehend that the words, 'your wrong', and, 'have always been' are 'absolutist' terms and phrases.

You have simply been dead wrong all along, it's a fact that it's not absolutist language.

LOL
LOL
LOL

Your house of cards of lies is built upon this, and now it's crumbling. It's a fact that you've never known the first thing about humans.

I, suppose, to you, this is, absolutely, not 'absolutist' language neither "atla", right?

And again: you can NOT comprehend the above.

Okay.

If this is what you believe is true, then this must, absolutely, be true, right?

you appear to not even recognise nor comprehend you 'absolutist' wording and language, even when you continually expressly say and write it here.