Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Terrapin Station]

It's based on what Alfie values, which isn't objective.

No it is not. It is based on the fact that Alfie values the bicycle.

Which is fine, but that's not objective. And of course it's what Alfie values. It's a fact that Alfie values what he does, but that makes it no less a mental state.

We don't care what Alfie values or why he values it, which are indeed subjective. But we know that he does value certain things, and that those things contribute to his quality of life. Those are objective facts.

No they're not. That he values things and that he (or whoever) considers those things to contribute positively to his quality of life are things that only obtain mentally.

[psyreporter]

The "good" that is indicated is empirically incomprehensible as it precedes the tangible reality. My argument is that "good" may be imply-ably comprehensible.

What in the world are you talking about? So you're talking about something you're calling "good" that's incomprehensible?

Empirically incomprehensible. It is that what precedes the senses.

Why does life has meaning (value)? Religions have attempted to structurize what cannot be structured. Empirical science has attempted to stubbornly deny anything that cannot be comprehended empirically, partly to rid itself of religions (and philosophy), but as such becoming a sort of religion itself on the other end of the spectrum (atheistic dogmatic conviction).

It appears that in recent years it is increasingly acknowledged in the status quo that empirical science may not be able to explain all facets of reality.

Science as we know it can’t explain consciousness – but a revolution is coming
(2019) http://theconversation.com/science-as-w ... ing-126143

I suspect that any sort of 'revolution' will necessarily come from a re-instantiation of (academic) philosophy as a preceding and vital guide for empirical science.

[Sculptor1]

What in the world are you talking about? So you're talking about something you're calling "good" that's incomprehensible?

Empirically incomprehensible. It is that what precedes the senses.

Why does life has meaning (value)? Religions have attempted to structurize what cannot be structured. Empirical science has attempted to stubbornly deny anything that cannot be comprehended empirically, partly to rid itself of religions (and philosophy), but as such becoming a sort of religion itself on the other end of the spectrum (atheistic dogmatic conviction).

It appears that in recent years it is increasingly acknowledged in the status quo that empirical science may not be able to explain all facets of reality.

Thing of it is that most scientists worth their salt do not distress themselves with explanations in terms of purpose. Why always leads to why, why, why. Science is about describing the world. Explanations are emergent properties of the best descriptions.
Empirical investigations offer increasingly detailed descriptions and clearer explanations. Nothing in the realm has anything to do with "goodness" or "badness", these things are not empirical, they are conceptual.
Values of these kinds exist in the fantasy realm of the human mind, and any empirical observations made by "science" concerning the consequences of these fantasies do not establish them as empirically sound things for study, but can only take them on as human assumptions (false factors); and through those examine the costs of these fantasies to human society. Here the disciplines of anthropology and psychology have many interesting insights, but there is nothing that the science of the real can speak on.
If there were no humans there would be no good or evil.

[Sculptor1]

Science as we know it can’t explain consciousness – but a revolution is coming
(2019) http://theconversation.com/science-as-w ... ing-126143

This has nothing to say on the topic of the thread.

[psyreporter]

Thing of it is that most scientists worth their salt do not distress themselves with explanations in terms of purpose. Why always leads to why, why, why. Science is about describing the world. Explanations are emergent properties of the best descriptions.
Empirical investigations offer increasingly detailed descriptions and clearer explanations. Nothing in the realm has anything to do with "goodness" or "badness", these things are not empirical, they are conceptual.
Values of these kinds exist in the fantasy realm of the human mind, and any empirical observations made by "science" concerning the consequences of these fantasies do not establish them as empirically sound things for study, but can only take them on as human assumptions (false factors); and through those examine the costs of these fantasies to human society. Here the disciplines of anthropology and psychology have many interesting insights, but there is nothing that the science of the real can speak on.
If there were no humans there would be no good or evil.

I would disagree. The human could be seen as evidence for "good". It has preceded it. Evil is not something of substance, it is corruption of "good" after it was valued. With valuing I also mean that what precedes a sense, such as a emotion or desire.

Fantasy implies that the concepts good and bad originate in the human mind. I believe that it is imply-able that the valuing of the concepts good and bad in the human mind must be derived from distinguish ability that it derives from something that precedes the valuing which by the nature of value is "good".

Valuing precedes a mental or imperical comprehension of reality.

[psyreporter]

Science as we know it can’t explain consciousness – but a revolution is coming
(2019) http://theconversation.com/science-as-w ... ing-126143

This has nothing to say on the topic of the thread.

It could be indicative for a hint that there may be factors that could provide a fundament for objective morality.

[GE Morton]

No it is not. It is based on the fact that Alfie values the bicycle.

Which is fine, but that's not objective. And of course it's what Alfie values. It's a fact that Alfie values what he does, but that makes it no less a mental state.

Ah. It's a fact, but not objective? That oxymoron results from your eclectic definition of "objective" as "extramental." "Alfie values the bicycle" is objective because the truth conditions for that proposition are public. "Mental states" have nothing to do with it.

We don't care what Alfie values or why he values it, which are indeed subjective. But we know that he does value certain things, and that those things contribute to his quality of life. Those are objective facts.

No they're not. That he values things and that he (or whoever) considers those things to contribute positively to his quality of life are things that only obtain mentally.

Again, the propositions "Alfie values the bicycle," and, "The bicycle contributes to Alfie's quality of life," both have public truth conditions and are therefore objective. No one's mental states have anything to do with it.

[GE Morton]

Empirically incomprehensible. It is that what precedes the senses.

As I suggested previously, unless you can explain how you know about these things that "precede the senses," in such a way that others can readily verify them, your claims will be dismissed as vacuous.

[GE Morton]

I believe that it is imply-able that the valuing of the concepts good and bad in the human mind must be derived from distinguish ability that it derives from something that precedes the valuing which by the nature of value is "good".

You stubbornly ignore the problem for your thesis posed by the subjectivity of "good" and "evil," the ubiquitous fact that the same thing can be deemed "good" or "evil" by different persons, and that there is no objective method of resolving such disagreements. Natural properties of things do not behave that way.

"Goodness" does not exist until that pseudo-property is imputed to something by a valuer. Different valuers may impute "goodness" and "badness" to the same things.

[GE Morton]

Why does life has meaning (value)?

It doesn't. At least, no "transcendental," mystical meaning. "Meaning," like "value," is a subject-dependent and subject-relative term. Something can only have a meaning to someone. Life, like everything else, has whatever meaning each living, sentient creature imputes to it, which will differ from one sentient creature to another.

[Terrapin Station]

Ah. It's a fact, but not objective? That oxymoron results from your eclectic definition of "objective" as "extramental." "Alfie values the bicycle" is objective because the truth conditions for that proposition are public. "Mental states" have nothing to do with it.

"The truth conditions are public" is nonsensical, because truth is a judgment that individuals make that partially depends on the semantics they take to be the proposition.

[Terrapin Station]

I should have added this above:

If the person is using correspondence or consensus, then one side of the comparative judgment they're making is public, the publicly observable facts they're looking at, but the proposition isn't public, and the judgment the person makes about the relationship of the proposition to those publicly observable facts (which is what truth is) isn't public.

[/quote]
Again, the propositions "Alfie values the bicycle," and, "The bicycle contributes to Alfie's quality of life," both have public truth conditions and are therefore objective. No one's mental states have anything to do with it.
[/quote]

Nope. First off, "Alfie values the bicycle" has no meaning if we're not talking about mental states. Meaning is a mental state. Meaning isn't publicly available.

Secondly, "Alfie values the bicycle" is about Alfie's mental states. "The bicycle contributes to Alfie's quality of life" is about either Alfie's or someone else's mental state. There's no non-mental fact re something contributing to someone's "quality of life."

Thirdly, truth conditions are a matter of making a judgment about the relationship of a proposition, which is a mental state, to something else--the exact something else depends on the truth theory the judgment-maker is using on the occasion in question. It could be publicly observable facts, it could be the set of other propositions they assigned "true" to, etc.

[Terrapin Station]

Empirically incomprehensible. It is that what precedes the senses.

What does "empirically comprehensible/empirically incomprehensible" refer to, exactly? I don't know what those terms are saying.

[psyreporter]

Empirically incomprehensible. It is that what precedes the senses.

What does "empirically comprehensible/empirically incomprehensible" refer to, exactly? I don't know what those terms are saying.

Empirical implies that eventualization must have taken place before what is applicable can be contextualized. It is therefor founded in a historical context which implies that something must have preceded that cannot be empirically comprehended. By the nature of value, that which preceded must be "good".

[psyreporter]

Empirically incomprehensible. It is that what precedes the senses.

As I suggested previously, unless you can explain how you know about these things that "precede the senses," in such a way that others can readily verify them, your claims will be dismissed as vacuous.

My argument is that what precedes the senses, the indicated "good", may be imply-ably comprehensible. It would require a philosophical method to unlock that what can be accepted as "knowledge" or "truth" into the human realm but it may be that dogmatic acceptance is in some way replaced by a sort of continuous inquiry or potential thereof (as part of the general human culture).

Aristotle stated that philosophical contemplation is the greatest human virtue. It is the discovery of "good" from which value follows.

https://sniggle.net/TPL/index5.php?entry=04Dec09