Philosophy Now Forum

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Nov 18, 2022 12:22 pm It can be a fact - a feature of reality - that a rule has a causal effect. And that a rule exists and people obey it can be a fact. And objectivity is about facts.

But to say a rule - a command - is or asserts a fact is a category error.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Nov 18, 2022 12:22 pm It's like saying that, because people believe something, what they believe is a fact. For example: it's a fact that many benighted people believe there are gods; therefore, there are gods. (This is absurd.)

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Nov 18, 2022 12:22 pm An imperative has no truth-value. The command 'go away' is neither true nor false.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Nov 18, 2022 12:22 pm And obedience to it doesn't make it true, just as disobedience doesn't make it false. The prediction that people will go away can turn out to be true or false, but that doesn't make the command true or false. (I wonder why this needs explaining.)

Age wrote: ↑Sat Nov 19, 2022 2:57 pm

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Nov 18, 2022 12:22 pm It can be a fact - a feature of reality - that a rule has a causal effect. And that a rule exists and people obey it can be a fact. And objectivity is about facts.

But to say a rule - a command - is or asserts a fact is a category error.

Have I said that 'a rule' is or asserts 'a fact'?

If yes, then WHERE?

But if no, then this has absolutely NOTHING AT ALL to do with what I SAID and SHOWED.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Nov 18, 2022 12:22 pm It's like saying that, because people believe something, what they believe is a fact. For example: it's a fact that many benighted people believe there are gods; therefore, there are gods. (This is absurd.)

LOL Talk about providing a great example of one expressing what they BELIEVE to be true as though it is a fact.

But, just because you believe some thing "peter holmes" this does NOT make it a fact.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Nov 18, 2022 12:22 pm An imperative has no truth-value. The command 'go away' is neither true nor false.

You seem to be MISSING the whole point here.

And the way you respond now, or do not respond, will SHOW just how OPEN and READY you are to LEARNING MORE, or NOT.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Nov 18, 2022 12:22 pm And obedience to it doesn't make it true, just as disobedience doesn't make it false. The prediction that people will go away can turn out to be true or false, but that doesn't make the command true or false. (I wonder why this needs explaining.)

It does NOT 'need' explaining.

And, the fact that what you think you are explaining here has absolutely ANY thing to do with what I was POINTING OUT and SHOWING, REVEALS just how OUT OF TUNE you REALLY ARE here.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sat Nov 19, 2022 11:56 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sat Nov 19, 2022 2:57 pm

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Nov 18, 2022 12:22 pm It can be a fact - a feature of reality - that a rule has a causal effect. And that a rule exists and people obey it can be a fact. And objectivity is about facts.

But to say a rule - a command - is or asserts a fact is a category error.

Have I said that 'a rule' is or asserts 'a fact'?

If yes, then WHERE?

But if no, then this has absolutely NOTHING AT ALL to do with what I SAID and SHOWED.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Nov 18, 2022 12:22 pm It's like saying that, because people believe something, what they believe is a fact. For example: it's a fact that many benighted people believe there are gods; therefore, there are gods. (This is absurd.)

LOL Talk about providing a great example of one expressing what they BELIEVE to be true as though it is a fact.

But, just because you believe some thing "peter holmes" this does NOT make it a fact.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Nov 18, 2022 12:22 pm An imperative has no truth-value. The command 'go away' is neither true nor false.

You seem to be MISSING the whole point here.

And the way you respond now, or do not respond, will SHOW just how OPEN and READY you are to LEARNING MORE, or NOT.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Nov 18, 2022 12:22 pm And obedience to it doesn't make it true, just as disobedience doesn't make it false. The prediction that people will go away can turn out to be true or false, but that doesn't make the command true or false. (I wonder why this needs explaining.)

It does NOT 'need' explaining.

And, the fact that what you think you are explaining here has absolutely ANY thing to do with what I was POINTING OUT and SHOWING, REVEALS just how OUT OF TUNE you REALLY ARE here.

I wasn't responding to what you said.

Age wrote: ↑Sun Nov 20, 2022 6:13 am

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sat Nov 19, 2022 11:56 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sat Nov 19, 2022 2:57 pm

Have I said that 'a rule' is or asserts 'a fact'?

If yes, then WHERE?

But if no, then this has absolutely NOTHING AT ALL to do with what I SAID and SHOWED.


LOL Talk about providing a great example of one expressing what they BELIEVE to be true as though it is a fact.

But, just because you believe some thing "peter holmes" this does NOT make it a fact.


You seem to be MISSING the whole point here.

And the way you respond now, or do not respond, will SHOW just how OPEN and READY you are to LEARNING MORE, or NOT.


It does NOT 'need' explaining.

And, the fact that what you think you are explaining here has absolutely ANY thing to do with what I was POINTING OUT and SHOWING, REVEALS just how OUT OF TUNE you REALLY ARE here.

I wasn't responding to what you said.

In a way you were.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Nov 20, 2022 8:41 am

Age wrote: ↑Sun Nov 20, 2022 6:13 am

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sat Nov 19, 2022 11:56 pm
I wasn't responding to what you said.

In a way you were.

No. I never understand what you're on about, and I hate your use of block caps - so I've given up reading your comments. Sorry. May have been correlation/not causation.

Age wrote: ↑Mon Nov 21, 2022 12:22 pm

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Nov 20, 2022 8:41 am

Age wrote: ↑Sun Nov 20, 2022 6:13 am

In a way you were.

No. I never understand what you're on about, and I hate your use of block caps - so I've given up reading your comments. Sorry. May have been correlation/not causation.

"NEVER", LOL.

What 'you' HATE does NOT matter here.

And, you, supposedly, gave up reading my comments BECAUSE I have ALREADY PROVED EXACTLY HOW 'morality' can be and IS objective. Which goes COMPLETELY AGAINST what you BELIEVE is true.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Nov 21, 2022 1:11 pm

Age wrote: ↑Mon Nov 21, 2022 12:22 pm

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Nov 20, 2022 8:41 am
No. I never understand what you're on about, and I hate your use of block caps - so I've given up reading your comments. Sorry. May have been correlation/not causation.

"NEVER", LOL.

What 'you' HATE does NOT matter here.

And, you, supposedly, gave up reading my comments BECAUSE I have ALREADY PROVED EXACTLY HOW 'morality' can be and IS objective. Which goes COMPLETELY AGAINST what you BELIEVE is true.

Perhaps I missed it. Sorry. Please complete the following sentence:

Morality is objective because...

(Maybe I'll get it this time.)

Age wrote: ↑Tue Nov 22, 2022 11:53 am

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Nov 21, 2022 1:11 pm

Age wrote: ↑Mon Nov 21, 2022 12:22 pm

"NEVER", LOL.

What 'you' HATE does NOT matter here.

And, you, supposedly, gave up reading my comments BECAUSE I have ALREADY PROVED EXACTLY HOW 'morality' can be and IS objective. Which goes COMPLETELY AGAINST what you BELIEVE is true.

Perhaps I missed it. Sorry. Please complete the following sentence:

Morality is objective because...

(Maybe I'll get it this time.)

HOW can you have, supposedly, 'given up reading my comments' BUT THEN respond to them?

Morality IS 'objective' in the EXACT SAME WAY that EVERY thing else, which IS 'objective', IS 'objective'.

Now, if one wants to LEARN and UNDERSTAND HOW to FIND 'objectivity', itself, then one has to, at least, NOT BELIEVE that 'objectivity' is IMPOSSIBLE.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Nov 22, 2022 1:31 pm

Age wrote: ↑Tue Nov 22, 2022 11:53 am

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Nov 21, 2022 1:11 pm
Perhaps I missed it. Sorry. Please complete the following sentence:

Morality is objective because...

(Maybe I'll get it this time.)

HOW can you have, supposedly, 'given up reading my comments' BUT THEN respond to them?

Morality IS 'objective' in the EXACT SAME WAY that EVERY thing else, which IS 'objective', IS 'objective'.

Now, if one wants to LEARN and UNDERSTAND HOW to FIND 'objectivity', itself, then one has to, at least, NOT BELIEVE that 'objectivity' is IMPOSSIBLE.

So, this is the best you can do:

Morality is objective in the exact same way that everything else which is objective is objective.

I'm blinded by the light.

Age wrote: ↑Wed Nov 23, 2022 7:35 am

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Nov 22, 2022 1:31 pm

Age wrote: ↑Tue Nov 22, 2022 11:53 am

HOW can you have, supposedly, 'given up reading my comments' BUT THEN respond to them?

Morality IS 'objective' in the EXACT SAME WAY that EVERY thing else, which IS 'objective', IS 'objective'.

Now, if one wants to LEARN and UNDERSTAND HOW to FIND 'objectivity', itself, then one has to, at least, NOT BELIEVE that 'objectivity' is IMPOSSIBLE.

So, this is the best you can do:

Morality is objective in the exact same way that everything else which is objective is objective.

I'm blinded by the light.

But I have OBVIOUSLY NOT REVEALED ANY thing of ANY REAL substance here YET. And this is just BECAUSE NO one has shown ANY REAL INTEREST here YET.

Also, I will suggest that you are ACTUALLY BLINDED by your OWN BELIEFS.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Wed Nov 23, 2022 9:03 am

Age wrote: ↑Wed Nov 23, 2022 7:35 am

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Nov 22, 2022 1:31 pm
So, this is the best you can do:

Morality is objective in the exact same way that everything else which is objective is objective.

I'm blinded by the light.

But I have OBVIOUSLY NOT REVEALED ANY thing of ANY REAL substance here YET. And this is just BECAUSE NO one has shown ANY REAL INTEREST here YET.

Also, I will suggest that you are ACTUALLY BLINDED by your OWN BELIEFS.

Waste of time. Nothing to see here.

Age wrote: ↑Wed Nov 23, 2022 10:25 am

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Wed Nov 23, 2022 9:03 am

Age wrote: ↑Wed Nov 23, 2022 7:35 am

But I have OBVIOUSLY NOT REVEALED ANY thing of ANY REAL substance here YET. And this is just BECAUSE NO one has shown ANY REAL INTEREST here YET.

Also, I will suggest that you are ACTUALLY BLINDED by your OWN BELIEFS.

Waste of time. Nothing to see here.

NO one has asked for ANY thing. So, OBVIOUSLY, there is NOTHING to see here.

But this still does NOT take away the Fact of what 'it' is EXACTLY that makes 'morality' OBJECTIVE.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Wed Nov 23, 2022 4:59 pm

Age wrote: ↑Wed Nov 23, 2022 10:25 am

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Wed Nov 23, 2022 9:03 am
Waste of time. Nothing to see here.

NO one has asked for ANY thing. So, OBVIOUSLY, there is NOTHING to see here.

But this still does NOT take away the Fact of what 'it' is EXACTLY that makes 'morality' OBJECTIVE.

Okay. Try again.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Wed Nov 23, 2022 4:59 pm 'Morality is objective because ...'

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Wed Nov 23, 2022 4:59 pm Or you can carry on coat-trailing - as if anyone gives a toss.

Age wrote: ↑Wed Nov 23, 2022 11:40 pm

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Wed Nov 23, 2022 4:59 pm

Age wrote: ↑Wed Nov 23, 2022 10:25 am

NO one has asked for ANY thing. So, OBVIOUSLY, there is NOTHING to see here.

But this still does NOT take away the Fact of what 'it' is EXACTLY that makes 'morality' OBJECTIVE.

Okay. Try again.

Stop lying.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Wed Nov 23, 2022 4:59 pm 'Morality is objective because ...'

There is NO use, with you, as you are completely and utterly BLIND and DEAF, due to your ABSOLUTE BELIEF here.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Wed Nov 23, 2022 4:59 pm Or you can carry on coat-trailing - as if anyone gives a toss.

And you can carry on BELIEVING things to be ABSOLUTELY true, as you do here. But just be forewarned, NO one really cares and you WILL BE BLINDED by such, ILLOGICAL and UNSUPPORTED, BELIEFS. As you CLEARLY ARE here.