What could make morality objective?

[Agent Smith]

Advaita philosophy (kind courtesy of Adi Shankara) may be relevant.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Advaita philosophy (kind courtesy of Adi Shankara) may be relevant.

You are into that?

I [not an Indian] was into Advaita Philosophy for a long time. Hegel's philosophy is a good complementary to Advaita Vedanta.
It is a good philosophy but I had graduated from that into Buddhism and now a freelance in terms of 'spirituality.

Advaita Philosophy [grounded on the Absolute Brahman] do have a good perspective of morality but it does not support morality as objective.

[Skepdick]

Given that you won't follow an argument even if you could, I won't waste my time explaining why you are the dumb fuck.

Given that I have to keep explaining to you why arguing is a dumb sport with made up rules there's no need for having to also explain why you are the dumbest fuck.

You are also unlikely to understand that all judgments/evaluations are performed by the very same entity whose qualities and properties you are trying to judge/evaluate.

[Skepdick]

The idea that what they're questioning, observing, investigating and trying to explain exists simply because of what they do is laughable.

The Idiot-philosopher doesn't seem to understand the difference between definite and indefinite terms.

Take these two English expressions:

1. The question: What are they questioning, observing, investigating and trying to explain?
2. The statement: What they are questioning, observing, investigating and trying to explain.

They constitute different uses/meanings of the term "what".

The "what" in #1 is not ontologically committed. It's indefinite.
The "what" in #2 is ontologically committed. It's definite.

So Peter Idiot Holmes, please answer this question for us: What are they questioning, observing, investigating and trying to explain?

Queue the reification fallacy of a vacuous noun.

[Agent Smith]

Advaita philosophy (kind courtesy of Adi Shankara) may be relevant.

You are into that?

I [not an Indian] was into Advaita Philosophy for a long time. Hegel's philosophy is a good complementary to Advaita Vedanta.
It is a good philosophy but I had graduated from that into Buddhism and now a freelance in terms of 'spirituality.

Advaita Philosophy [grounded on the Absolute Brahman] do have a good perspective of morality but it does not support morality as objective.

I'm acquainted with the idea, but that's about it. Seems relevant somehow. Perhaps I'm mistaken.

[Peter Holmes]

VA: 'Whatever is reality is always grounded to the human conditions.'

False. There's no such thing as 'whatever is reality' or 'reality-in-itself'. So the claim that reality is what humans perceive and know it to be, and say it is, is false.

We humans must perceive, know and describe reality - including humans - in a human way. But so what? What exactly is it that we can't have access to, that we can never know or understand?

If we can't know what reality is, then we also can't know what reality is not. For example, we can't know that reality is not the way we perceive, know and describe it.

What exactly does model-dependent realism mean? A model is not the thing being modelled. And if all models are wrong, why are some models more useful than others? And what would a model that's right be like? The saying that says it all?

A description is not the thing being described. An objection to realism is usually an objection to the claim that one kind of description captures the essence or truth of reality - as though there is such a thing, and as though such a thing could be captured. It's a giant straw windmill.

The factual assertion that water is H2O isn't an overweening attempt to describe 'reality-in-itself'. And like all factual truth-claims, it's contextual and conventional - it makes sense as a chemical description. The fact that it doesn't make sense as a quantum mechanical description is trivially true and irrelevant.

Like most of the rest of us, natural scientists do deal with true and false factual assertions, such as expressions of data. The fashionable idea that all they do is propose models or paradigms - and that therefore all we can ever know are models or paradigms - is catastrophically misleading. And it comes from mistaking what we say about things for the way things are.

[Skepdick]

There's no such thing as 'whatever is reality' or 'reality-in-itself'.

Of course there is. It's all of reality. Including me. Including you. Including everything and everyone.

Because it includes us it doesn't relate to us in any way.

Because reality is not relative to humans there's nothing to be said about it beyond giving it a name.

We humans must perceive, know and describe reality - including humans - in a human way.

We can't do that - human brain too small to capture reality in a description.

We can only attempt to capture very small parts of reality.

But so what?

It only matters if you are trying to avoid category errors.
It doesn't matter if you aren't trying to avoid category errors.

What exactly is it that we can't have access to, that we can never know or understand?

Reality!

If we can't know what reality is, then we also can't know what reality is not.

You are contradicting yourself.

A description is not the thing being described.

If we can't know what reality is not then how do you know that a description [of reality] is not [the reality] being described?

For example, we can't know that reality is not the way we perceive, know and describe it.

Of course you can and do know that reality is NOT the description of reality. It follows directly from the definition. YOUR definition.

Because you distinguish and define "reality" as separate and distinct category from "descriptions of reality" it directly follows that reality is NOT a description of reality; and that a description of reality is NOT reality. YOU have established the fundamental categories!

Now it's on you to explain how the category called "descriptions of reality" relates to "reality".

What or where is this relation?

What or where is the relation between the description "red" and this color?

[tillingborn]

Given that you won't follow an argument even if you could, I won't waste my time explaining why you are the dumb fuck.

Given that I have to keep explaining to you why arguing is a dumb sport with made up rules there's no need for having to also explain why you are the dumbest fuck.

So you keep presenting arguments for why presenting arguments is a dumb sport.

You are also unlikely to understand that all judgments/evaluations are performed by the very same entity whose qualities and properties you are trying to judge/evaluate.

Very unlikely if you can't or won't present an argument for why I should think so.

[Veritas Aequitas]

VA: 'Whatever is reality is always grounded to the human conditions.'

False. There's no such thing as 'whatever is reality' or 'reality-in-itself'.
So the claim that reality is what humans perceive and know it to be, and say it is, is false.

Strawman again!
I had never made the following claim;
"So the claim that reality is what humans perceive and know it to be, and say it is"
How many times, must I repeat my claim before it gets into your thick skull?
Suggest you read my few posts to you earlier to get my point.

What is your definition of 'reality'.
The following is the typical definition of what is reality;

• 1 : the quality or state of being real
  2 a (1) : a real event, entity, or state of affairs
  (2) : the totality of real things and events
  
  2 b : something that is neither derivative nor dependent but exists necessarily
  https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reality

I believe you can accept the above meanings of what is reality.
Based on the above, whatever-is-reality to you IS whatever you deemed reality to be.

I understand what is reality to you is independent of the human conditions, i.e. represent by facts that are independent of individual's opinions, beliefs and judgment, which is literally reality-in-itself or facts-in-themselves.
So, how can you say, "There's no such thing as 'whatever is reality' or 'reality-in-itself'."

We humans must perceive, know and describe reality - including humans - in a human way. But so what?
What exactly is it that we can't have access to, that we can never know or understand?

You defined reality as independent from you, that is why you can never have access to it directly, thus can never know or understand it fully with the possibility of error.
It is because YOU can't have access to, that YOU can never know or understand, that you have to speculate and postulate what-it-is, i.e. it is something that is close to your description of it.

If we can't know what reality is, then we also can't know what reality is not. For example, we can't know that reality is not the way we perceive, know and describe it.

If you can't know what reality is [in-itself or by-itself], and you can't know what reality is not, plus you can't know that reality is not the way you perceive, know and describe it, then why bother with such a reality [in-itself or by-itself]. You are chasing after illusions.

As I had explained why you are chasing after such illusions is because of terrible psychological pains driven by an inherent existential crisis generating cognitive dissonances.

What exactly does model-dependent realism mean? A model is not the thing being modelled. And if all models are wrong, why are some models more useful than others? And what would a model that's right be like? The saying that says it all?

Strawman again.
Note the term 'realism' in model-dependent realism which indicate this not purely about modelling.
It mean the reality culminating from relying on a model is the totality comprising of 'the one who model' entangling with the model together that enable the emergence of a reality [reality] identified as model-dependent-realism.

As I had stated the all of reality is conditioned upon a specific FSK which involved a model therein generating different degrees of objectivity, thus confidence level.
There are various criteria to verify the realism of a model; the ultimate is the utility of the model in contribution to the progress and well being of humanity.

If a biology-model confirm based on empirical evidence that thing is a real apple and is nutritious and human can eat it, then such a model-realism is credible.
If a Physics model can confirm a law based on empirical evidences that can take one to the moon and back, then its realism is credible and reliable.

There is no need to give a damn with your,
"reality in-itself or by-itself that cannot know directly, and you can't know what reality is not, plus you can't know that reality is not the way you perceive, know and describe it".

A description is not the thing being described. An objection to realism is usually an objection to the claim that one kind of description captures the essence or truth of reality - as though there is such a thing, and as though such a thing could be captured. It's a giant straw windmill.

That is why you are claiming, i.e. there are such entities called independent facts that can be known and described.
As stated above, such facts-in-themselves are useless, meaningless and non-sensical.

What is most meaningful, sensible and useful is the fact that is conditioned upon a credible and reliable FSK, i.e. a FSK-conditioned scientific fact or moral fact.

The factual assertion that water is H2O isn't an overweening attempt to describe 'reality-in-itself'. And like all factual truth-claims, it's contextual and conventional - it makes sense as a chemical description. The fact that it doesn't make sense as a quantum mechanical description is trivially true and irrelevant.

What is fact to you is that entity that is independent of the human conditions.
That is literally reality-in-itself, fact-in-itself with its description 'Water is H2O'

Like most of the rest of us, natural scientists do deal with truth and false factual assertions, such as expressions of data. The fashionable idea that all they do is propose models or paradigms - and that therefore all we can ever know are models or paradigms - is catastrophically misleading. And it comes from mistaking what we say about things for the way things are.

What you are missing above is the 3 phases of reality I stated above, i.e.

1. The entanglement, the emergence and realization in modeling of reality, i.e. the FSK processes.
2. The perception and knowing of 1.
3. The description of 2.

You are totally unable to grasp the activities of realities in 1 above, i.e. the "FSK'ing" of reality.

[Skepdick]

So you keep presenting arguments for why presenting arguments is a dumb sport.

I am at a loss for words on how else to express to you the fact that I don't engage in the activity of "presenting arguments'; or the sport of "arguing", but I guess Bertrand Russel was right...

A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand. --Bertrand Russel

Very unlikely if you can't or won't present an argument for why I should think so.

OK. Lets try this. I'll translate into your language.

It seems to me like you are asking me to dumb down my deep technical insight into a language you can understand.
It seems to me you are asking me to adopt your language (and the practice) of "presenting arguments" otherwise you won't be able to understand me.

Am I understanding your correctly?

[Peter Holmes]

Btw - for the temporarily confused -

Use of the pronoun what doesn't necessarily imply an ontological commitment. Context is all.

[Skepdick]

Btw - for the temporarily confused -

Use of the pronoun what doesn't necessarily imply an ontological commitment. Context is all.

Aaaaah! The intellectual retard is attempting to prevaricate behind my own words.

Obviously the use of the pronoun what doesn't necessarily imply an ontological commitment. I already demonstrated that in the given examples!

Here it is again for Peter "Intellectual Retard" Holmes:

In this example the use does not imply an ontological commitment:

What are they questioning, observing, investigating and trying to explain?

This is an indefinite use of what. They could be questioning, observing, investigating and trying to explain anything.

And in this example the use does imply an ontolotical commitment:

The idea that what they're questioning, observing, investigating and trying to explain exists simply because of what they do is laughable.

This is a definite use of what. They are questioning, observing, investigating and trying to explain THAT what they are questioning.

What is THAT?

Context is all.

Precisely! Your confusion about the context in which you are using the pronoun what is a category error!

[Sculptor]

Agreed. Theorising about science is what philosophers do. Scientists just get on with doing science: asking questions, observing and investigating, recording data and suggesting explanations.

The idea that what they're questioning, observing, investigating and trying to explain exists simply because of what they do is laughable.

That is not what I said, and not what I meant.
Many scientists - yes even the best ones, are in fact great philosophers too, and think deeply about wht they are saying, the validity, the consequences and the philosophical implications.
This is true of Darwin, Feynman, Einstein, Aristotle, Newton, ...etc.

What I meant, I meant literally. None of them has ever heard of a FSK, Whatever the F that is.

Apologies. Of course you're right about those giants. I was referring to the ordinary scientists engaged in ordinary scientific work. But even the giants thought they were investigating a reality that exists independent from 'the human conditions'.

But all those qualities you attribute to an FSK are not really relevant since no one, not science, not anyone except VA knows what it is.
As for every day science i think you might be unfair in implying that "non giants" have not thought about the philosophical basis of science.

[Sculptor]

I have already answered your question [as implied] with my replies.

If you are that slow-witted with the implications, then

Do you accept the theory of evolution?
Yes.
The theory of evolution is a scientific fact conditioned upon the scientific FSK which has lesser objectivity that say 'Water is H20'.

This is false.
No one working in evolution ever heard of an FSK.

No one? How come you are so ignorant on this?

Because its made up shit from the cesspool of your mind.

[Skepdick]

But all those qualities you attribute to an FSK are not really relevant since no one, not science, not anyone except VA knows what it is.

Apparently Sculptor doesn't even understand how synonyms work.

An FSK is what scientists might call a "general theory"; or what physicists might call a "reference frame"; or what philosopher of science might call a "paradigm". They are all approximately the same thing.

Of course, every practicing scientist understands what VA is aluding to, even though he is using a non-standard term/acronym of his own making.

Of course, every non-practitioner (e.g an idiot philosopher such as YOU) can't make the connection because you couldn't figure out what common terminology/concepts an FSK is synonymous with despite VA's elaborate qualitative description.