What could make morality objective?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Elsewhere, VA quotes the following, and adds a gloss.

Cognitive Relativism consists of two claims:
(1) The truth-value of any statement is always relative to some particular standpoint;
(2) No standpoint is metaphysically privileged over all others.
https://iep.utm.edu/cognitive-Relativism-truth/#H3
The above stated there are no independent objective reality other than the reality that is conditioned upon the human related paradigms, standpoints and frameworks.

But the gloss is false. The claims refer to statements and standpoints. They say nothing about the existence - or non-existence - of a reality independent from 'the human conditions' [?].

You missed out the critical term "Frameworks" [similar to my Framework and System of Knowledge, FSK] which are conditioned upon the human conditions, i.e. constructed and sustained by human beings [scientists & others].

Note this point;

Note from the above, the mentioned of truths [aka facts] relativized to specific ‘frameworks’ ‘standpoints’ and ‘paradigms’ [later] which is the same as my Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK].

Here is one critical point,
“theory and observation are so intertwined that the shift amounts to a change in the reality the scientists inhabit”
https://iep.utm.edu/cognitive-Relativism-truth/
this justify my point that humans are the co-creators of reality they are part and parcel of.


I gave a few definitions therein;

• “There is no unique truth, no unique objective reality” (Ernest Gellner, Relativism and the Social Sciences (Cambridge, 1985), p. 84.)

By 'objective reality' it refer to an independent objective reality that is independent of the human conditions.
This point is in the negative.

And, btw, the words cognition is just a fancy, technical-sounding substitute for thinking or thought - designed to give the impression of scientific accuracy.

Here's what the two claims actually mean.

A description - and therefore a truth-claim - is contextual and conventional, and is therefore 'relative to' or 'dependent on' our linguistic practices in a specific context. This is trivially true and inconsequential.

A thing can be described in many different ways; and no one kind of description is inherently superior to or more fundamental or 'truer' than any other. A description is not the described. And a thing can't be described into or out of existence.

VA is not alone in mistaking what we say for the way things are.

Nope! Thinking?? You are so ignorant.

Cognition is a very complex process;

Cognition refers to "the mental action or process of acquiring knowledge and understanding through thought, experience, and the senses".[2] It encompasses all aspects of intellectual functions and processes such as: perception, attention, thought, intelligence, the formation of knowledge, memory and working memory, judgment and evaluation, reasoning and computation, problem solving and decision making, comprehension and production of language. Imagination is also a cognitive process, it is considered as such because it involves thinking about possibilities. Cognitive processes use existing knowledge and discover new knowledge.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognition

PH: "A description is not the described." "Things are not described into existence".
These points are so obvious within the common sense and conventional sense.
But in a more realistic sense, there is a prior process of realization of a thing [in entanglement and enactment with the human conditions] before it is known and described.
I have already explained this point "a 1000 times."

This point is also explained in this thread;
The Moon Does Not Exist If No Humans 'Look' at It

where is the common and convention sense, the moon is always there when no one is looking at it,
BUT in the more refined and realistic sense of QM, The Moon Does Not Exist If No Humans 'Look' at It

Here at 54:30
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISdBAf-ysI0
Professor Jim Al-Khalili stated,
"In some strange sense, it really does suggest the moon doesn't exists when we are not looking. It truly defies common sense."

I believe the above is beyond your intellectual ability to comprehend the above truth, as such, you will keep throwing your kindergarten denial.

[Peter Holmes]

VA quotes the infamously wrong Ernest Gellner, and adds a gloss, as follows:

' “There is no unique truth, no unique objective reality” (Ernest Gellner, Relativism and the Social Sciences (Cambridge, 1985), p. 84.)
By 'objective reality' it [sic] refer [sic] to an independent objective reality that is independent of the human conditions.'

How to untangle this mess? Where to begin?

First, what is a unique truth? The existence of exactly what is being denied? Who ever said there's only one truth - one true assertion? And what could that assertion possibly be? This grand and portentous claim - 'there is no unique truth' - is in fact empty bombast.

Second, notice the segue from truth - which is an attribute of some factual assertions - to reality, which is what factual assertions are about - the ones with truth-value. Is the supposed non-existence of the one somehow connected to the supposed non-existence of the other?

Third, what is an objective reality? the existence of exactly what is being denied? What distinction does the qualifier objective make? For example, is there such a thing as a subjective reality? Perhaps one that could exist, even if an objective one can't? And what further distinction does the qualifier unique make in the expression unique objective reality? Could there be more than one objective reality?

Gellner specialised in this kind of empty blather. So the attraction for VA is obvious.

To clarify. What we call objectivity is reliance on facts. And what we call a fact is a feature of reality that is or was the case. And what we call reality is everything that is the case - everything that exists. And (I'd add), pending evidence for the existence of anything non-physical, that means exists physically.

The anthropocentric and self-demolishing idea that the whole shebang depends on us humans - on the way we perceive, know and describe reality - became newly fashionable around the mid twentieth century, and has been metastasizing ever since. For example, Rorty gave it an influential spin.

And, absurdly, VA thinks it supports the argument for moral objectivity.

[Veritas Aequitas]

VA quotes the infamously wrong Ernest Gellner, and adds a gloss, as follows:

' “There is no unique truth, no unique objective reality” (Ernest Gellner, Relativism and the Social Sciences (Cambridge, 1985), p. 84.)
By 'objective reality' it [sic] refer [sic] to an independent objective reality that is independent of the human conditions.'

How to untangle this mess? Where to begin?

First, what is a unique truth? The existence of exactly what is being denied? Who ever said there's only one truth - one true assertion? And what could that assertion possibly be? This grand and portentous claim - 'there is no unique truth' - is in fact empty bombast.

Second, notice the segue from truth - which is an attribute of some factual assertions - to reality, which is what factual assertions are about - the ones with truth-value. Is the supposed non-existence of the one somehow connected to the supposed non-existence of the other?

Third, what is an objective reality? the existence of exactly what is being denied? What distinction does the qualifier objective make? For example, is there such a thing as a subjective reality? Perhaps one that could exist, even if an objective one can't? And what further distinction does the qualifier unique make in the expression unique objective reality? Could there be more than one objective reality?

Gellner specialised in this kind of empty blather. So the attraction for VA is obvious.

To clarify. What we call objectivity is reliance on facts. And what we call a fact is a feature of reality that is or was the case. And what we call reality is everything that is the case - everything that exists. And (I'd add), pending evidence for the existence of anything non-physical, that means exists physically.

The anthropocentric and self-demolishing idea that the whole shebang depends on us humans - on the way we perceive, know and describe reality - became newly fashionable around the mid twentieth century, and has been metastasizing ever since. For example, Rorty gave it an influential spin.

And, absurdly, VA thinks it supports the argument for moral objectivity.

The "infamously wrong Ernest Gellner" ??

In his book 'Words and Things' Gellner smashed Ordinary Language Philosophy -OLP [your preference and ideology] to the ground into smithereens with valid and sound arguments.

With the publication in 1959 of Words and Things, his first book, Gellner achieved fame and even notoriety among his fellow philosophers, as well as outside the discipline, for his fierce attack on "linguistic philosophy", as he preferred to call Ordinary Language Philosophy, then the dominant approach at Oxbridge (although the philosophers themselves denied that they were part of any unified school). He first encountered the strong ideological hold of linguistic philosophy while at Balliol:

• [A]t that time the orthodoxy best described as linguistic philosophy, inspired by Wittgenstein, was crystallizing and seemed to me totally and utterly misguided. Wittgenstein's basic idea was that there is no general solution to issues other than the custom of the community. Communities are ultimate. He didn't put it this way, but that was what it amounted to. And this doesn't make sense in a world in which communities are not stable and are not clearly isolated from each other. Nevertheless, Wittgenstein managed to sell this idea, and it was enthusiastically adopted as an unquestionable revelation. It is very hard nowadays for people to understand what the atmosphere was like then. This was the Revelation. It wasn't doubted. But it was quite obvious to me it was wrong. It was obvious to me the moment I came across it, although initially, if your entire environment, and all the bright people in it, hold something to be true, you assume you must be wrong, not understanding it properly, and they must be right.
  And so I explored it further and finally came to the conclusion that I did understand it right, and it [Ordinary Language Philosophy] was rubbish, which indeed it is.[5]

Words and Things is fiercely critical of the work of Ludwig Wittgenstein [early], J. L. Austin, Gilbert Ryle, Antony Flew, P. F. Strawson and many others.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernest_Ge ... and_Things

During the time Gellner critiqued OLP, OLP was the 'woke' of the day and adopted by the majority, thus the insecured OLP tribe insulted Gellner to defend their ideology.

But in time, and realistically, Ordinary Language Philosophy faced its death

The Demise of Ordinary Language Philosophy: Grice
viewtopic.php?f=21&t=35143

Re your strawman that I believe reality is constructed from perceive, know and describe reality, I won't bother to address here, since I have countered that 'a million times' already.

Here is a repeat of a part of my counter from my previous post which you as so blind to understand [not necessary agree with];

PH: "A description is not the described." "Things are not described into existence".
These points are so obvious within the common sense and conventional sense.
But in a more realistic sense, there is a prior process of realization of a thing [in entanglement and enactment with the human conditions] before it is known and described.
I have already explained this point "a million times."

This point is also explained in this thread;
The Moon Does Not Exist If No Humans 'Look' at It
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39510

where is the common and convention sense, the moon is always there when no one is looking at it,
BUT in the more refined and realistic sense of QM, The Moon Does Not Exist If No Humans 'Look' at It

Here at 54:30
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISdBAf-ysI0
Professor Jim Al-Khalili stated,
"In some strange sense, it really does suggest the moon doesn't exists when we are not looking. It truly defies common sense."

I believe the above is beyond your intellectual ability to comprehend the above truth, as such, you will keep throwing your kindergarten denial.

[Peter Holmes]

Questions for VA. Or anyone interested in these problems.

1 Did any of those cut-and-paste chunks on Gellner show the soundness of his argument against the philosophical turn to language? Or can you summarise his argument for the rest of us?

(NB I think there was a wrong turn to language with Frege, the early Wittgenstein, the logical positivists, and - more generally - the delusion that philosophy is conceptual analysis.)

2 Does quantum indeterminacy exist when we're not looking?

3 Is observation of the observer effect unaffected by the observer effect? If not, how do we know there's an observer effect?

4 Can you demonstrate the valid and sound steps from quantum indeterminacy to the existence of moral facts?

5 Why should we avoid evil and promote good? And is it a fact that we should - or a matter of opinion?

[Skepdick]

Questions for VA. Or anyone interested in these problems.

It's so weird that you keep using these strange word "problem". Please demonstrate the existence of these so-called "problems".

Are these so-called "problems" objective or subjective? The dictionary is of no help here.

noun 1. a matter or situation regarded as unwelcome or harmful and needing to be dealt with and overcome.

OUGHT the situation be regarded as "unwelcome" or "harmful"?
OUGHT we overcome it?

Why?

1 Did any of those cut-and-paste chunks on Gellner show the soundness of his argument against the philosophical turn to language? Or can you summarise his argument for the rest of us?

What or where is the "soundness" of an argument? Is the "soundness" of an argument objective; or subjective?

2 Does quantum indeterminacy exist when we're not looking?

What do you mean by "exist"? Do thoughts and concepts about epistemic phenomena such as "indeterminacy" (of any kind) exist?

3 Is observation of the observer effect unaffected by the observer effect? If not, how do we know there's an observer effect?

Shame. Is all the overloaded and ambiguous use of "observation" confusing you?

Are you observing your screen right now, or are you interacting with it?

4 Can you demonstrate the valid and sound steps from quantum indeterminacy to the existence of moral facts?

What or where is "validity" and "soundness"? Please demonstrate their factual existence.

5 Why should we avoid evil and promote good? And is it a fact that we should - or a matter of opinion?

Why should we avoid invalid and unsound arguments and promote valid and sound arguments? And is it a fact that we should - or a matter of opinion?

I ask questions.
You ask questions.
Everyone is asking!

OUGHT anyone answer?

Insert own cock in own ass and continue as before.

[Agent Smith]

Questions for VA. Or anyone interested in these problems.

It's so weird that you keep using these strange word "problem". Please demonstrate the existence of these so-called "problems".

Are these so-called "problems" objective or subjective? The dictionary is of no help here.

noun 1. a matter or situation regarded as unwelcome or harmful and needing to be dealt with and overcome.

OUGHT the situation be regarded as "unwelcome" or "harmful"?
OUGHT we overcome it?

Why?

1 Did any of those cut-and-paste chunks on Gellner show the soundness of his argument against the philosophical turn to language? Or can you summarise his argument for the rest of us?

What or where is the "soundness" of an argument? Is the "soundness" of an argument objective; or subjective?

2 Does quantum indeterminacy exist when we're not looking?

What do you mean by "exist"? Do thoughts and concepts about epistemic phenomena such as "indeterminacy" (of any kind) exist?

3 Is observation of the observer effect unaffected by the observer effect? If not, how do we know there's an observer effect?

Shame. Is all the overloaded and ambiguous use of "observation" confusing you?

Are you observing your screen right now, or are you interacting with it?

4 Can you demonstrate the valid and sound steps from quantum indeterminacy to the existence of moral facts?

What or where is "validity" and "soundness"? Please demonstrate their factual existence.

5 Why should we avoid evil and promote good? And is it a fact that we should - or a matter of opinion?

Why should we avoid invalid and unsound arguments and promote valid and sound arguments? And is it a fact that we should - or a matter of opinion?

I ask questions.
You ask questions.
Everyone is asking!

OUGHT anyone answer?

Insert own cock in own ass and continue as before.

[Agent Smith]

Some times what is not on a list is more important than what is on the list.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Questions for VA. Or anyone interested in these problems.

1 Did any of those cut-and-paste chunks on Gellner show the soundness of his argument against the philosophical turn to language? Or can you summarise his argument for the rest of us?

(NB I think there was a wrong turn to language with Frege, the early Wittgenstein, the logical positivists, and - more generally - the delusion that philosophy is conceptual analysis.)

It is a fact that Ordinary Language Philosophy [OLP] is now dead!

The Demise of Ordinary Language Philosophy: Grice
viewtopic.php?f=21&t=35143

In general the death of OLP had vindicated Gellner's arguments against it.
"in as far as this book argues that those ideas are false, this is argued; it is not merely inferred from the existence of a social context." pg. 18

I have not read the whole of Gellner's book but relied on Bertrand Russell's views in his Introduction in the Book, where Russell foresaw the death of OLP, i.e. [Gellner's arguments will be accorded its due weight];

MR. GELLNER'S BOOK Words and Things deserves the gratitude of all who cannot accept the Linguistic Philosophy now in vogue at Oxford.
It is difficult to guess how much immediate effect the book is likely to have; the power of fashion is great, and even the most cogent arguments fail to convince if they are not in line with the trend of current opinion. But, whatever may be the first reaction to Mr. Gellner's arguments, it seems highly probable--to me, at least-- that they will gradually be accorded their due weight.

The first part of his book consists of a careful analysis of the arguments upon which Linguistic philosophers rely. He sets forth what he calls "The Four Pillars" of the theory of language which forms the basis of the Philosophy in question.

While the first portion of Mr. Gellner's book is admirably done and very necessary for the support of his general contentions, I have found the later chapters even more interesting.

Behind all the minute argumentation of the Linguistic philosophers, there is a curious kind of arid mysticism.

For my own part, I find myself in very close agreement with Mr. Gellner's doctrines as set forth in this book.

The Linguistic Philosophy, which cares only about language, and not about the world, is like the boy who preferred the clock without the pendulum because, although it no longer told the time, it went more easily than before and at a more exhilarating pace.

Meanwhile you are still stuck with elements of this 'dead' philosophy.

Btw, I had just refreshed on Ryle's "The Concept of Mind" which you are relying upon to insist there is no such thing as a "mind". Ryle's book is a refutation of Descartes' Dualism which lead to an independent soul that exists after physical death.

Your arrogant dogmatic insistence in sticking to Ryle's point of view and condemning my use of "independent-mind" or "mind" is the sort of arrogance that Gellner was condemning the OLP philosophers of.

The current use of the term 'mind' is meaningful from the perspective of cognitive science and the neurosciences.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind

2 Does quantum indeterminacy exist when we're not looking?

3 Is observation of the observer effect unaffected by the observer effect? If not, how do we know there's an observer effect?

4 Can you demonstrate the valid and sound steps from quantum indeterminacy to the existence of moral facts?

5 Why should we avoid evil and promote good? And is it a fact that we should - or a matter of opinion?

I have already explained the above 'a million times' so I will not be wasting my time on the above.
Suggest you review this thread of yours [and the many related threads I have raised] to note the answers I have given the above queries.

[Harbal]

I have not read the whole of Gellner's book

Perhaps you could get back to us when you've had time to fully misunderstand it.

[Iwannaplato]

It is a fact that Ordinary Language Philosophy [OLP] is now dead!

As usual VA doesn't read his sources.
He claims it is dead as if one or some philosophers opinions are THE authority.
He did not read the article to it's finish that, and that article claims the issue is not resolved in philosophy.
His appeals to authority are limited.
Person X agrees with me. Therefore I have demonstrated you are wrong.

[Iwannaplato]

Questions for VA. Or anyone interested in these problems.

1 Did any of those cut-and-paste chunks on Gellner show the soundness of his argument against the philosophical turn to language? Or can you summarise his argument for the rest of us?

(NB I think there was a wrong turn to language with Frege, the early Wittgenstein, the logical positivists, and - more generally - the delusion that philosophy is conceptual analysis.)

2 Does quantum indeterminacy exist when we're not looking?

3 Is observation of the observer effect unaffected by the observer effect? If not, how do we know there's an observer effect?

4 Can you demonstrate the valid and sound steps from quantum indeterminacy to the existence of moral facts?

5 Why should we avoid evil and promote good? And is it a fact that we should - or a matter of opinion?

As usual VA doesn't read his sources.
He claims it is dead, in a response to you, as if one or some philosophers opinions are THE authority.
He did not read the article to it's finish that, and that article claims the issue is not resolved in philosophy.
His appeals to authority are limited.
Person X agrees with me. Therefore I have demonstrated you are wrong.

[Peter Holmes]

Questions for VA. Or anyone interested in these problems.

1 Did any of those cut-and-paste chunks on Gellner show the soundness of his argument against the philosophical turn to language? Or can you summarise his argument for the rest of us?

(NB I think there was a wrong turn to language with Frege, the early Wittgenstein, the logical positivists, and - more generally - the delusion that philosophy is conceptual analysis.)

It is a fact that Ordinary Language Philosophy [OLP] is now dead!

The Demise of Ordinary Language Philosophy: Grice
viewtopic.php?f=21&t=35143

In general the death of OLP had vindicated Gellner's arguments against it.
"in as far as this book argues that those ideas are false, this is argued; it is not merely inferred from the existence of a social context." pg. 18

I have not read the whole of Gellner's book but relied on Bertrand Russell's views in his Introduction in the Book, where Russell foresaw the death of OLP, i.e. [Gellner's arguments will be accorded its due weight];

MR. GELLNER'S BOOK Words and Things deserves the gratitude of all who cannot accept the Linguistic Philosophy now in vogue at Oxford.
It is difficult to guess how much immediate effect the book is likely to have; the power of fashion is great, and even the most cogent arguments fail to convince if they are not in line with the trend of current opinion. But, whatever may be the first reaction to Mr. Gellner's arguments, it seems highly probable--to me, at least-- that they will gradually be accorded their due weight.

The first part of his book consists of a careful analysis of the arguments upon which Linguistic philosophers rely. He sets forth what he calls "The Four Pillars" of the theory of language which forms the basis of the Philosophy in question.

While the first portion of Mr. Gellner's book is admirably done and very necessary for the support of his general contentions, I have found the later chapters even more interesting.

Behind all the minute argumentation of the Linguistic philosophers, there is a curious kind of arid mysticism.

For my own part, I find myself in very close agreement with Mr. Gellner's doctrines as set forth in this book.

The Linguistic Philosophy, which cares only about language, and not about the world, is like the boy who preferred the clock without the pendulum because, although it no longer told the time, it went more easily than before and at a more exhilarating pace.

Meanwhile you are still stuck with elements of this 'dead' philosophy.

Btw, I had just refreshed on Ryle's "The Concept of Mind" which you are relying upon to insist there is no such thing as a "mind". Ryle's book is a refutation of Descartes' Dualism which lead to an independent soul that exists after physical death.

Your arrogant dogmatic insistence in sticking to Ryle's point of view and condemning my use of "independent-mind" or "mind" is the sort of arrogance that Gellner was condemning the OLP philosophers of.

The current use of the term 'mind' is meaningful from the perspective of cognitive science and the neurosciences.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind

2 Does quantum indeterminacy exist when we're not looking?

3 Is observation of the observer effect unaffected by the observer effect? If not, how do we know there's an observer effect?

4 Can you demonstrate the valid and sound steps from quantum indeterminacy to the existence of moral facts?

5 Why should we avoid evil and promote good? And is it a fact that we should - or a matter of opinion?

I have already explained the above 'a million times' so I will not be wasting my time on the above.
Suggest you review this thread of yours [and the many related threads I have raised] to note the answers I have given the above queries.

1 Russell admired - but arguably misunderstood - the 'Tractatus'; and he disliked - and undoubtedly misunderstood - Wittgenstein's later work. His admiration for Gellner was predictable and symptomatic. Meanwhile, perhaps you could set out Gellner's convincing argument against the turn to language - the one that's persuaded you.

2 In my opinion, the label 'ordinary language philosophy' was misleading. And I think some of the Oxford developments from the later Wittgenstein's work were less than impressive. But the claim that the turn to language - particularly in 'Philosophical Investigations' and 'On Certainty' - is over, and was always a mistake - that's just flatly false.

3 Your misreading of Ryle - 'there's no such thing as mind' - is laughable. And - to repeat my standing questions:

What and where are so-called abstract or non-physical things - such as minds - and in what way do they exist?

How can a non-physical cause have a physical effect? What is the causal mechanism?

4 You haven't answered my questions: does quantum determinacy exist when we're not looking?; is observation of the observer effect unaffected by the observer effect?; what are the valid and sound steps from quantum indeterminacy to the existence of moral facts?; why should we avoid evil and promote good - and is it a fact that we should, or a matter of opinion?

5 I and others have falsified your claims and refuted your arguments for moral objectivity 'a million times'.

[Skepdick]

What and where are so-called abstract or non-physical things - such as minds - and in what way do they exist?

I guess you'll find them in the exact same place where you find the "soundness" and "validity" of arguments.

How can a non-physical cause have a physical effect? What is the causal mechanism?

What a stupid fucking question.

All causes have effects. Using the adjective "physical" or "non-physical" to characterise a cause doesn't change the cause.

4 You haven't answered my questions: does quantum determinacy exist when we're not looking?

Does the soundness and validity of an argument exist when we are not looking?

[Peter Holmes]

Some thoughts for the day, in no particular order.

1 To construct a model of reality is not to construct reality. If it were, then of what is the model a model? And if all we can know is the models we construct, then how can we construct them?

2 If all models are wrong, then why are some more useful than others? Whence their usefulness? And what would a model that's right look like?

3 If there are no noumena, then there are also no phenomena. If there are no things-in-themselves, then of what are appearances appearances?

4 If we demolish one pole of a dichotomy, then it's no longer a dichotomy. When you eat your cake, it's gone. If you blow up the bridge, then you can't go back over it to the other side. (If there are no facts, then there are no moral facts.)

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

6 To say reality can be nothing more than the ways we perceive, know and describe it - is to replace one deluded foundationalism with another.

7 Are brick houses less real than bricks? Is a brick house merely a theoretical construct? And can we only theoretically have a shit in it?

8 If there's no such thing as what we call reality, then there are also no such things as human beings.

9 A theory of truth or knowledge is, like all so-called philosophical theories, a wild goose chase down the rabbit hole. And a subjective consensus theory of truth or knowledge is patently absurd. Claim: it was the subjective consensus that the sun orbits the earth; therefore, the sun used to orbit the earth.

[Skepdick]

And a subjective consensus theory of truth or knowledge is patently absurd. Claim: it was the subjective consensus that the sun orbits the earth; therefore, the sun used to orbit the earth.

Idiot-philosopher is a fucking idiot. Eoesn't understand what a coordinate system is; or what a fixed point is.

You can assume the sun as a fixed point in your coordinate system you can then describe the motion of any other celestial body as "orbiting around the sun".
You can assume earth as a fixed point in your coordinate system. And then you can describe the motion of any other celestial body as "orbiting around the earth".

You learned Mathematics in school, did you? They taught you how to draw an x-axis, a y-axis and a 0 at the point where they intersect.
You can put anything you want at that 0. Earth. Sun. Moon. Jupiter. Doesn't matter - it's an arbitrary choice. And then you can graph the motion of any other object around it.

Idiot-philosopher seems to have forgotten his own mantra: what we say about things is not what they are.

Just because we SAY that Earth orbits around the sun; just because assume that the sun is a fixed point - It doesn't mean that's what's actually happening - It's just what we say about it. That's why the word "WE" is in there. Because WE agreed to say that.