Philosophy Now Forum

The 'objectivity' that is claimed by PH et. al. on the basis that facts and reality are objective in the sense they are absolutely independent of the human condition [exist regardless of whether there are humans or not] is literally nonsensical.

So, when PH et. al. [philosophical realists] insist 'morality cannot be objective' because there are no objective moral facts, they are relying on an objectivity that is pseudo.

• For philosophical realists;
  1. There is an absolutely mind-independent table in the room.
  - this is a factual and objective statement because the table [assumed permanent and eternal] exists regardless whether there are humans or not.
  
  2. X do not prefer the color of that table in the room.
  -this is a subjective statement not a fact because it is dependent on a subject's opinion, beliefs, judgments.
  
  3. X to Y: you ought to hammer in the protruding nail in the leg of the table.
  -this is not a matter of fact but a command which need not be obeyed.

The philosophical realists' concept of objective is pseudo because their definition of objective is too restricted to absolute mind independence when
there are two senses of mind-independence
1. Absolute Mind-independence - philosophical realists'
2. Relative Mind-independence - philosophical antirealists'

The above two senses are revealed in the following definition of what is Objectivity-proper;

Something is objective if it can be confirmed independently of a mind. If a claim is true even when considering it outside the viewpoint of a sentient being, then it is labelled objectively true.

Scientific objectivity is practicing science while intentionally reducing partiality, biases, or external influences.
Moral objectivity is the concept of moral or ethical codes being compared to one another through a set of universal facts or a universal perspective and not through differing conflicting perspectives.[4]
Journalistic objectivity is the reporting of facts and news with minimal personal bias or in an impartial or politically neutral manner.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjectiv ... hilosophy)

Objectivity-proper is not the philosophical realists' pseudo-objectivity which is based on absolute mind-independence.

Objectivity-proper as defined above [scientific, moral, journalistic,] is strictly with reference to independence from a mind.
Scientific Objectivity-proper is conditioned upon a collective-of-minds [subjects] thus is independent from a mind.
The collective-of-minds condition the scientific FSERC.
This sort of independence is relative, i.e. relative to the human conditions.

Thus it is the same with moral objectivity-proper, i.e.it is conditioned upon a collective-of-minds [subjects] thus is independent from a mind.
The collective-of-minds condition the moral FSERC.
This sort of independence is relative, i.e. relative to the human conditions.

In contrast, the philosophical realists' sense of objectivity is based on the absolute independence from ALL humans[minds], i.e. whatever is objectivity exists regardless of whether there are human or not.

Therefore, PH et. al. [philosophical realists] version of objectivity is pseudo-objectivity.
To rely on pseudo-objectivity to deny the objectivity-proper [objective morality] of philosophical antirealists is a farce.

My point;
Based on the argument for objectivity-proper [relative mind-independence], morality is objective. [details to be provided].

Discuss??
Views??

Notes:
Why the term "Objectivity" is critical for antirealists

• Objectivity = the fact of being based on facts and not influenced by personal beliefs or feelings:
  https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictio ... bjectivity

The use of the term 'objectivity' by itself in its present usage represent a certain degree of intellectual integrity, it is necessary to use this term in its proper philosophical perspective.
The term intersubjectivism by itself do not reflect a sense of intellectual integrity, unbiasness and honesty.

Philosophical realist in their ignorance and arrogance are desperate to hijack certain terms for their narrow interests.

For example the term 'realism' which generally reflect not-falsehoods and being realistic.
The term 'realism' had been hijacked by philosophical realist to represent their sense of what is real, i.e. that which exists absolutely independent of the human-conditions, i.e. it exists regardless of whether there are humans or not.

However, it has been shown that what is real as claimed by philosophical realist is in fact, ultimately not-realistic false, illusory and nonsensical.

On the other hand it is the non-philosophical realists e.g. Kantians, whose claims are ultimately most realistic as conditioned upon a human-based FSERC.
Since the term 'realism' has been hijack by realists [p-realists] the Kantians and the like has to be labelled as anti-realists which has negative connotations in terms of 'reality'.

The philosophical realists are doing the same with the term "objectivity" to be exclusive to them.
Just as their claim of 'reality' their claim of objectivity is merely pseudo-objectivity.

Since the term 'objectivity' is still not yet fully ingrained with the philosophical realist, there is still room for the anti-realists to push their 'intersubjectivity' as 'objectivity'; in this case, there is no need to give up the term 'objectivity' for 'intersubjectivity' since both terms are interchangeable and can be explained.

Notes:

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Jun 27, 2024 3:42 am Objectivity-proper

Is this the first time you have -propered objectivity?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Jun 27, 2024 3:42 amThus it is the same with moral objectivity-proper, i.e.it is conditioned upon a collective-of-minds [subjects] thus is independent from a mind.

Yeah, just like how you can do it and remain a virgin-proper.

Scientific Objectivity-proper is conditioned upon a collective-of-minds [subjects] thus is independent from a mind.

To save time, let God answer-proper:

God wrote:Between the two sentences, "Scientific Objectivity is independent from any mind." is the correct one.

Here's why:

"Independent from a mind": This phrasing suggests that scientific objectivity is independent from the influence of a single mind. While grammatically acceptable, it implies that objectivity is only free from the influence of one specific mind, which does not capture the intended universality of scientific objectivity.

"Independent from any mind": This sentence correctly implies that scientific objectivity is free from the influence of all minds, not just a single one. The use of "any" emphasizes the universal independence from all subjective influences, which aligns with the concept of scientific objectivity being free from personal biases and perspectives.

Summary:
"Scientific Objectivity is independent from any mind." effectively conveys the universal and unbiased nature of scientific objectivity, making it the more accurate and appropriate choice.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Jun 27, 2024 3:42 am Scientific Objectivity-proper is conditioned upon a collective-of-minds [subjects] thus is independent from a mind.

Thus it is the same with moral objectivity-proper, i.e.it is conditioned upon a collective-of-minds [subjects] thus is independent from a mind.

In other words intersubjectivity.

Or intersubjectivity-proper.

And proper-proper. Not just any judgment that it was intersubjectivity done OK proper

God wrote:Between the two sentences, "Scientific Objectivity is independent from any mind." is the correct one.

Here's why:

"Independent from a mind": This phrasing suggests that scientific objectivity is independent from the influence of a single mind. While grammatically acceptable, it implies that objectivity is only free from the influence of one specific mind, which does not capture the intended universality of scientific objectivity.

"Independent from any mind": This sentence correctly implies that scientific objectivity is free from the influence of all minds, not just a single one. The use of "any" emphasizes the universal independence from all subjective influences, which aligns with the concept of scientific objectivity being free from personal biases and perspectives.

Summary:
"Scientific Objectivity is independent from any mind." effectively conveys the universal and unbiased nature of scientific objectivity, making it the more accurate and appropriate choice.

As usual the prompt to AI without its proper context is bias to generate a bias answer from AI.

Something is objective if it can be confirmed independently of a mind. If a claim is true even when considering it outside the viewpoint of a sentient being, then it is labelled objectively true.

In the above 'a mind' refer to any individual human mind or even an unorganized loose group [not collective and shared] of human minds.

I have explained:

Objectivity-proper as defined above [scientific, moral, journalistic,] is strictly with reference to independence from a mind.
Scientific Objectivity-proper is conditioned upon a collective-of-minds [subjects] thus is independent from a mind or any individual human mind.
The collective-of-minds condition the scientific FSERC.
This sort of independence is relative, i.e. relative to the human conditions.
This support scientific antirealism.

Thus it is the same with moral objectivity-proper, i.e.it is conditioned upon a collective-of-minds [subjects] thus is independent from a mind.
The collective-of-minds condition the moral FSERC.
This sort of independence is relative, i.e. relative to the human conditions.

Objectivity-proper is intersubjectivity [intersubjective consensus], i.e. it entails the subjective elements [human minds] on a collective basis, therefore it is relatively independent from 'a' or 'any' individual human mind.

Just look at the definition of subjectivity o his own wiki page of choice and you will see that his "objectivity-proper" meets that defnition.

Something is subjective if it is dependent on a mind (biases, perception, emotions, opinions, imagination, or conscious experience).[1] If a claim is true exclusively when considering the claim from the viewpoint of a sentient being, it is subjectively true. For example, one person may consider the weather to be pleasantly warm, and another person may consider the same weather to be too hot; both views are subjective. The word subjectivity comes from subject in a philosophical sense, meaning an individual who possesses unique conscious experiences, such as perspectives, feelings, beliefs, and desires,[1][2] or who (consciously) acts upon or wields power over some other entity (an object).[3]

What makes objective properties objective in type is that they are mind independent not by virtue of being many-minds-dependent, but by virtue of being checked by checking something other than a mind. You check an objective property by looking at the object. Being dependent on some but not all minds is not mind independence.

This whole fiasco has rolled on for years because VA thinks he found a loophole.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Thu Jun 27, 2024 9:16 am Just look at the definition of subjectivity o his own wiki page of choice and you will see that his "objectivity-proper" meets that defnition.

Something is subjective if it is dependent on a mind (biases, perception, emotions, opinions, imagination, or conscious experience).[1] If a claim is true exclusively when considering the claim from the viewpoint of a sentient being, it is subjectively true. For example, one person may consider the weather to be pleasantly warm, and another person may consider the same weather to be too hot; both views are subjective. The word subjectivity comes from subject in a philosophical sense, meaning an individual who possesses unique conscious experiences, such as perspectives, feelings, beliefs, and desires,[1][2] or who (consciously) acts upon or wields power over some other entity (an object).[3]

What makes objective properties objective in type is that they are mind independent not by virtue of being many-minds-dependent, but by virtue of being checked by checking something other than a mind. You check an objective property by looking at the object. Being dependent on some but not all minds is not mind independence.

This whole fiasco has rolled on for years because VA thinks he found a loophole.

He's going to say that he has specifically said it is not one mind, it's a bunch of minds.
Which is a kind of intersubjectivity. And he has asserted that objectivity is really intersubjectivity, but he continues to use the more confusing 'objectivity'. He has to continuous defend his use of the term objectivity. I think people would have less trouble with intersubjectivity. But there is a great appeal in being able to say objectivity,...my ideas are objective.

Of course many of the things he asserts are merely subjective: the latest FSERC or whatever it is.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Jun 27, 2024 10:48 am He has to continuous defend his use of the term objectivity. I think people would have less trouble with intersubjectivity. But there is a great appeal in being able to say objectivity,...my ideas are objective.

Of course there is. Intersubjectivity is automatically relativistic, but he wants to pass his thing off as more than that because he doesn't want to find out he's been a moral relativist all this time.

Actual objectivity confers exclusive truth to statements such as "it is the case that all X are Y". Intersubjectivity confers inclusive truths such as "We hold that that all X are Y". With objectivity the property of Y belongs to the object X and thus the truth is confirmed by looking at X. With intersubjectivity the property of Y is projected onto X by the audience and the truth of the matter depends upon a conference within that audience.

With exclusive truths, if it is indeed the case that all X are Y, and you say I have seen an X that is not Y, you are mistaken, or a dirty liar. VA wants that exclusive truth for his CRISCO theory of objective-ptoper-morality-proper-proper-proper. The whole goddamn point of doing this from day one has been to give his vendetta against Islam a veneer of scienctific truth so that he can say a whole religion is evil. He absolutely requires the exclusive truth.

VA is trying not to have any costs for his trade-off. The real world doesn't make that deal.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Jun 27, 2024 10:48 am Of course many of the things he asserts are merely subjective: the latest FSERC or whatever it is.

All of the things he asserts are subjective. Objectivity isn't created by layering complications on top of subjectivity via aggregation of the subject or storytelling (KFC/FRESC, whatever, it's just a story about "we ought to agree that all X are Y because....").

Objectivity and subjectivity are differences of type, not of quantity.

The partners in guilt move that VA sometimes uses says that we are all horribly mistaken (blah blah blah, realism, ash heap of history .. blah..) and that such a definition of objectivity describes a phantasm, therefore we should use his easily acheivable version of the thing. Thats's specious. If it is impossible for us to have true objectivity about anything at all, then so be it, in that circumstance then we just don't have actual objectivity. That doesn't change the fact that is fraud to substitute in whatever somebody thinks is the best of what is availalable and to say that it is what 'objectivity really means'.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Jun 27, 2024 7:55 am

God wrote:Between the two sentences, "Scientific Objectivity is independent from any mind." is the correct one.

Here's why:

"Independent from a mind": This phrasing suggests that scientific objectivity is independent from the influence of a single mind. While grammatically acceptable, it implies that objectivity is only free from the influence of one specific mind, which does not capture the intended universality of scientific objectivity.

"Independent from any mind": This sentence correctly implies that scientific objectivity is free from the influence of all minds, not just a single one. The use of "any" emphasizes the universal independence from all subjective influences, which aligns with the concept of scientific objectivity being free from personal biases and perspectives.

Summary:
"Scientific Objectivity is independent from any mind." effectively conveys the universal and unbiased nature of scientific objectivity, making it the more accurate and appropriate choice.

As usual the prompt to AI without its proper context is bias to generate a bias answer from AI.

Something is objective if it can be confirmed independently of a mind. If a claim is true even when considering it outside the viewpoint of a sentient being, then it is labelled objectively true.

In the above 'a mind' refer to any individual human mind or even an unorganized loose group [not collective and shared] of human minds.

I have explained:

Objectivity-proper as defined above [scientific, moral, journalistic,] is strictly with reference to independence from a mind.
Scientific Objectivity-proper is conditioned upon a collective-of-minds [subjects] thus is independent from a mind or any individual human mind.
The collective-of-minds condition the scientific FSERC.
This sort of independence is relative, i.e. relative to the human conditions.
This support scientific antirealism.

Thus it is the same with moral objectivity-proper, i.e.it is conditioned upon a collective-of-minds [subjects] thus is independent from a mind.
The collective-of-minds condition the moral FSERC.
This sort of independence is relative, i.e. relative to the human conditions.

YOU don't discuss scientific objectivity in the context of scientific objectivity.

Whenever God points out your mistakes/dishonesties, you dismiss them as the products of false prompts. Any other time, what God says is gospel. This isn't what intellectually honest people would do, but whatever.

The 'objectivity' that is claimed by PH et. al. on the basis that facts and reality are objective in the sense they are absolutely independent of the human condition [exist regardless of whether there are humans or not] is literally nonsensical.


It is a common claim that 'objectivity' in one sense is intersubjectivity, i.e. intersubjective agreement.
Here is one paper [intro only] which explains why objectivity in the pragmatic sense is intersubjectivity based on intersubjective agreement.

OBJECTIVITY AS "INTERSUBJECTIVE AGREEMENT"
Eugene Freeman
https://www.jstor.org/stable/27902304

In the writings of both C. S. Peirce and Sir Karl Popper, we can find "Objectivity" defined in the pragmatic sense as being in essence "intersubjective agreement."

The present paper is focussed on the general relationship between the conception of Objectivity in the above pragmatic sense, and the conception of Objectivity in the classical realistic sense of "non-subjectivity," or brute otherness, as expressed by Peirce in its purest form in his category of secondness.

Popper's interpretation of Objectivity is consistently pragmatic.
He holds that a claim to Objectivity is established sufficiently for the needs of empirical science when it is grounded in intersubjective agreement, without making any claim that the subjectivity of intersubjective agreement has been transmuted into or replaced by Objectivity in the classical realistic sense.
For Peirce, however, Objectivity is used both in its realistic sense, which for Peirce is its basic sense, and also inconsistently in its pragmatic sense of intersubjective agreement.
For Peirce these two senses apparently do not conflict—he explains Objectivity as being intersubjective agreement, but he treats it as though the subjectivity in intersubjective agreement had been transmuted into classical or realistic Objectivity by the fad of the agreement.

The present enquiry into the notion of Objectivity as intersubjective agreement is concerned with the question "What is the agreement in Peirce and Popper's `intersubjective agreement' an agreement about?"

Peirce's writings seem to suggest that the separate reports of separate individual investigators are purified of their subjectivity and are transmuted into a pooled set of objective reports through the fact that they are interconsistent.
Popper's more guarded and more consistent usage of the term "Objectivity" as simply a synonym for "intersubjective agreement" seems to suggest that on his view what

The current contention from PH et. al. is there are no objective moral facts because facts are absolutely independent of the human conditions.
I have argued it is impossible for real objective moral facts that exist as absolutely independent of the human conditions. They are illusory.
This PH et. al. claims of objectivity on this basis is pseudo-objectivity.

What is objectivity-proper [independent of any individual opinions & belief] is grounded on intersubjective agreement within a human-based framework and system [FS or FSERC].
Therefore objectivity-proper cannot be equated with something that is absolutely independent of the human conditions.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Jun 28, 2024 6:20 am The 'objectivity' that is claimed by PH et. al. on the basis that facts and reality are objective in the sense they are absolutely independent of the human condition [exist regardless of whether there are humans or not] is literally nonsensical.


It is a common claim that 'objectivity' in one sense is intersubjectivity, i.e. intersubjective agreement.
Here is one paper [intro only] which explains why objectivity in the pragmatic sense is intersubjectivity based on intersubjective agreement.

OBJECTIVITY AS "INTERSUBJECTIVE AGREEMENT"
Eugene Freeman
https://www.jstor.org/stable/27902304

In the writings of both C. S. Peirce and Sir Karl Popper, we can find "Objectivity" defined in the pragmatic sense as being in essence "intersubjective agreement."

The present paper is focussed on the general relationship between the conception of Objectivity in the above pragmatic sense, and the conception of Objectivity in the classical realistic sense of "non-subjectivity," or brute otherness, as expressed by Peirce in its purest form in his category of secondness.

Popper's interpretation of Objectivity is consistently pragmatic.
He holds that a claim to Objectivity is established sufficiently for the needs of empirical science when it is grounded in intersubjective agreement, without making any claim that the subjectivity of intersubjective agreement has been transmuted into or replaced by Objectivity in the classical realistic sense.
For Peirce, however, Objectivity is used both in its realistic sense, which for Peirce is its basic sense, and also inconsistently in its pragmatic sense of intersubjective agreement.
For Peirce these two senses apparently do not conflict—he explains Objectivity as being intersubjective agreement, but he treats it as though the subjectivity in intersubjective agreement had been transmuted into classical or realistic Objectivity by the fad of the agreement.

The present enquiry into the notion of Objectivity as intersubjective agreement is concerned with the question "What is the agreement in Peirce and Popper's `intersubjective agreement' an agreement about?"

Peirce's writings seem to suggest that the separate reports of separate individual investigators are purified of their subjectivity and are transmuted into a pooled set of objective reports through the fact that they are interconsistent.
Popper's more guarded and more consistent usage of the term "Objectivity" as simply a synonym for "intersubjective agreement" seems to suggest that on his view what

The current contention from PH et. al. is there are no objective moral facts because facts are absolutely independent of the human conditions.
I have argued it is impossible for real objective moral facts that exist as absolutely independent of the human conditions. They are illusory.
This PH et. al. claims of objectivity on this basis is pseudo-objectivity.

What is objectivity-proper [independent of any individual opinions & belief] is grounded on intersubjective agreement within a human-based framework and system [FS or FSERC].
Therefore objectivity-proper cannot be equated with something that is absolutely independent of the human conditions.

So, the first obvious question is why not call your positions on things intersubjective rather than objective. The latter word has the baggage of realism built into it. It is objective, of the objects which are not the subject or subjects.

For the other, your post is a few assertions without support. The quote from the article is descriptive. It does not make an argument. You quoted it as if it demonstrates something supporting your position on PH's objectivity. The article may well do this somewhere, but it hasn't so far.

I don't know if you are in a hurry and don't read what you quote, but basically this thread does what dozens of other threads you have started have done: made a claim about PH's position.

We know what you believe. Perhaps, for example, you could have read the article and used its arguments in your own words to support your claims.

Why the term "Objectivity" is critical for antirealists

• Objectivity = the fact of being based on facts and not influenced by personal beliefs or feelings:
  https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictio ... bjectivity

The use of the term 'objectivity' by itself in its present usage represent a certain degree of intellectual integrity, it is necessary to use this term in its proper philosophical perspective.
The term intersubjectivism by itself do not reflect a sense of intellectual integrity, unbiasness and honesty.

Philosophical realist in their ignorance and arrogance are desperate to hijack certain terms for their narrow interests.

For example the term 'realism' which generally reflect not-falsehoods and being realistic.
The term 'realism' had been hijacked by philosophical realist to represent their sense of what is real, i.e. that which exists absolutely independent of the human-conditions, i.e. it exists regardless of whether there are humans or not.

However, it has been shown that what is real as claimed by philosophical realist is in fact, ultimately not-realistic false, illusory and nonsensical.

On the other hand it is the non-philosophical realists e.g. Kantians, whose claims are ultimately most realistic as conditioned upon a human-based FSERC.
Since the term 'realism' has been hijack by realists [p-realists] the Kantians and the like has to be labelled as anti-realists which has negative connotations in terms of 'reality'.

The philosophical realists are doing the same with the term "objectivity" to be exclusive to them.
Just as their claim of 'reality' their claim of objectivity is merely pseudo-objectivity.

Since the term 'objectivity' is still not yet fully ingrained with the philosophical realist, there is still room for the anti-realists to push their 'intersubjectivity' as 'objectivity'; in this case, there is no need to give up the term 'objectivity' for 'intersubjectivity' since both terms are interchangeable and can be explained.