Philosophy Discussion Forums

By the way, I forgot to add. Seeing as you are supposedly on the "At least I am honest" path here "sculpture1"; Is that even your dog in that pic?

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑March 15th, 2020, 7:46 am

creation wrote: ↑March 14th, 2020, 10:06 pm
Obviously what could make morality objective is agreement with and by everyone. That is all that is really needed to be said in relation to answering this topic's question.

I've been trying to follow this discussion, but I'm not sure what the clear lines of your disagreement are.

The reason you are not sure what my clear lines of disagreement are is because of the very fact that I am not disagreeing with any thing here.

The topic of this thread asked a very simple clarifying question. I just answered that question with very simple clarity.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑March 15th, 2020, 7:46 amI apologise for butting in - but the above assertion about objectivity is just plain false, and I think that needs to be said loud and clear.

Okay now say what is true, to you, loud and clear, with evidence and or proof. Otherwise, expect clarifying questions from me. But, has it ever crossed your thinking to find out what I actually mean first?

Or, are you absolutely 100% sure you know that what I said is just plain false, which would mean that you also know without any doubt at all what thee actual plain truth is exactly as well?

By the way you never have to apologize, well to me anyway, for just discussing with me, and/or showing me the error of my ways.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑March 15th, 2020, 7:46 amWhat we call objectivity is independence from opinion.

Is there absolutely anything independent from opinion when expressing one's thoughts and/or when looking at or listening to another's thoughts?

If yes, then how exactly could it be 'objective'?

After you answer these two very simple clarifying questions, then explain how 'that' could be shared independently of thought, which obviously includes or entails "opinions"?

By the way, who is the 'we' that you are referring to here?

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑March 15th, 2020, 7:46 amAnd that means independence from any and everyone's opinion. So 'agreement with and by everyone' doesn't and can't constitute what we call objectivity.

But 'agreement' with and by everyone can and does constitute what I call 'objectivity'.

See, what everyone agrees with overrides opinions, and thoughts/thinking.

There is far more involved in what you think or believe there is here, in what I am hinting at and alluding to here, which needs to be looked at and discussed, that is; if anyone wants to fully understand more and/or anew.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑March 15th, 2020, 7:46 amIt's possible to deny that what we call objectivity exists or is possible.

I would say it is possible for a human being to deny absolutely any thing at all.

What is 'that' exactly, which you say it is possible to deny that 'it' exists or is possible?

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑March 15th, 2020, 7:46 amBut then there's no reason to talk about what we call objectivity.

I found a reason to talk about what 'you' call "objectivity", and that reason is to gain an understanding.

So, what do 'you' call "objectivity"?

And, who and/or what is this 'we' that you keep continually refer to here?

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑March 15th, 2020, 7:46 amAnd then, the claim that morality is objective is incoherent anyway.

Of course moral objectivity is incoherent to you, and some others. But, this is because you, and those others, have not yet looked fully into this.

You, and others, already assume and/or believe that you and them already know what the truth is. So, anything opposing those assumptions and/or beliefs of yours will obviously appear incoherent to you, and them.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑March 15th, 2020, 8:02 am

creation wrote: ↑March 15th, 2020, 7:25 am I have already shown what could make morality objective.

If we define "objective" as "something that everyone agrees on," then sure, we could wind up with some objective moral stances under that definition (even if I think we don't have any at the moment, especially given seven and a half billion people).

It's just that "objective" in that case wouldn't amount to anything, it wouldn't imply anything, aside from the fact that everyone happens to agree on something at that point in time.

It's just like if Joe were to define "objective" as "what Joe feels." Then every moral stance Joe has would be objective under that definition. It just wouldn't amount to anything or imply anything aside from the fact that Joe has the moral views that Joe has.

Well this is a PRIME EXAMPLE of just how much one can absolutely twist and completely distort what another says and means.

Obviously you will NEVER fully understand what I have been saying and meaning, if this is what you continue to assume and/or believe I have been saying and meaning.

creation wrote: ↑March 15th, 2020, 9:07 am Obviously you will NEVER fully understand what I have been saying and meaning, if this is what you continue to assume and/or believe I have been saying and meaning.

You apparently have a lot of difficulty communicating what you "mean."

So if you're not using "objective" to denote "something everyone agrees on" what are you using it to denote?

creation wrote: ↑March 15th, 2020, 9:00 am
Obviously what could make morality objective is agreement with and by everyone. That is all that is really needed to be said in relation to answering this topic's question ...

You, and others, already assume and/or believe that you and them already know what the truth is. So, anything opposing those assumptions and/or beliefs of yours will obviously appear incoherent to you, and them.

You state what you think is 'obviously' the truth about objectivity. Then you imply that what I and others ('we') call 'the truth' is a matter of assumptions and beliefs. I find this inconsistency tedious and fruitless. What you say about objectivity is false, given the standard way we use the word 'objectivity'. There are other ways to use the word, of course.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑March 15th, 2020, 9:29 am

creation wrote: ↑March 15th, 2020, 9:07 am Obviously you will NEVER fully understand what I have been saying and meaning, if this is what you continue to assume and/or believe I have been saying and meaning.

You apparently have a lot of difficulty communicating what you "mean."

Yes I do. And, I have already specifically explained WHY.

I have also already why I am here in this forum, and that is not to be understood, but rather to just learn how to be better understood. For what I have and want to explain could not be fully done here, especially on a forum like this one and how the majority of people interact here, for now when this being written.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑March 15th, 2020, 9:29 amSo if you're not using "objective" to denote "something everyone agrees on" what are you using it to denote?

Objective relates to objects. Whereas, subjective relates to subjects.

Absolutely everything is relative to the observer.

One can either look at, and see, things objectively, or subjectively.

If things are being looked at from an individual or a few individual subjects, then only a subjective perspective of things can be gained, and therefore only subjective views can be had and seen, understood.

Whereas, if things are being looked at from every object, then that One collective unified and/or uniformed perspective of things can be gained, and therefore the One and only absolute object's view can be be had and seen, understood.

To be able to distinguish between the two, an individual only has to separate between looking from one's own individual past experiences, which are within those already obtained subjective thoughts, which have already been gained, from looking from the Truly OPEN Mind, which does not base what is seen on any preexisting thinking/thoughts.

The Mind just looks at what IS, and instantly KNOWS what is True and Right. Whereas the brain can only look at and sees things, based on pre-existing thoughts and feelings.

The brain can only THINK, assume, and/or believe what is true and right. Whereas, the Mind KNOWS what IS True and Right.

The Mind looks at and sees things objectively, whereas the brain can only look at and see things subjectively.

To look objectively, which can be done through and/ir from thee Truly OPEN Mind is to look without any preexisting ideas or views, but THEN use preexisting views to verify if what is being seen is absolutely and/or absolutely True and/or Right. In order to be able to separate and tell the difference between what is KNOWN to be True and Right from what is just thought or perceived to be true and right is to KNOW that everyone could agree with what is seen, from only a few could agree with what is being seen.

There is far more that needs to be looked at and seen for this to be fully understood. But, the more this is delved into, and looked at, then the more is revealed, and then the more is seen, and understood, which ALL of it backs up and supports Itself, eventually.

creation wrote: ↑March 15th, 2020, 11:20 am
Objective relates to objects. Whereas, subjective relates to subjects.

Absolutely everything is relative to the observer.

One can either look at, and see, things objectively, or subjectively.

If things are being looked at from an individual or a few individual subjects, then only a subjective perspective of things can be gained, and therefore only subjective views can be had and seen, understood.

Whereas, if things are being looked at from every object, then that One collective unified and/or uniformed perspective of things can be gained, and therefore the One and only absolute object's view can be be had and seen, understood.

So you'd say that subjects are objects in some contexts, and that's what you're referring to?

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑March 15th, 2020, 9:33 am

creation wrote: ↑March 15th, 2020, 9:00 am
Obviously what could make morality objective is agreement with and by everyone. That is all that is really needed to be said in relation to answering this topic's question ...

You, and others, already assume and/or believe that you and them already know what the truth is. So, anything opposing those assumptions and/or beliefs of yours will obviously appear incoherent to you, and them.

You state what you think is 'obviously' the truth about objectivity.

Well you have completely and utterly twisted and distorted what I have actually said, and meant.

I have certainly NEVER stated what I think is 'obviously' the truth about objectivity. This is just your own assumption and/or belief here.

What I do state, however, is; I express my views about what I think is true and right, but which obviously could be false and/or wrong.

This is obviously very different from what you stated here.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑March 15th, 2020, 9:33 amThen you imply that what I and others ('we') call 'the truth' is a matter of assumptions and beliefs.

Well if what you (and/or others) call "the truth" is not a matter of your (and/or other's) assumptions and/or beluefs, then what is that based on exactly then?

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑March 15th, 2020, 9:33 amI find this inconsistency tedious and fruitless.

I also find what you, and others, sometimes say is very inconsistent, very contradictory, very absurd, and extremely fruitless. But, at least, I ask clarifying questions in case I am seeing things mistakingly and/or missing some thing.

Also, what you found inconsistent and fruitless if you ever looked into fully and inquisitively, then you would find that what I am saying is not inconsistent at all. And, what can and will be found is that your WRONG assumptions and/or beliefs here are what are actually inconsistent and fruitless.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑March 15th, 2020, 9:33 amWhat you say about objectivity is false, given the standard way we use the word 'objectivity'. There are other ways to use the word, of course.

I asked you, at least twice, to clarify who and/or what the 'we' is, which you continually refer to, but you will not clarify.

Why is this?

By the way, what you say, assume, and/or believe I am saying is NOT what I am saying at all.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑March 15th, 2020, 4:40 am

GE Morton wrote: ↑March 14th, 2020, 9:47 pm Oh, I'm sure even you can see that is false. Assuming, of course, that you accept the standard theories of optics and neurophysiology.

You can't appeal to optics and neurophysiology if all you can get at are representations where there's no way to ground anything in direct, accurate perceptions of the external world. Claiming representationalism and also claiming accurate knowledge of what eyes are, how they work, etc. is attempting to have your cake and eat it, too.

Oh, no. You see, those theories of optics and neurophysiology are just that --- theories, which we have invented. They postulate an external world. And they are good theories, because they allow us to predict many phenomena. If you accept those theories then it is obvious that the sensory phenomena you experience are representations of a neural data stream.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑March 15th, 2020, 7:46 am
What we call objectivity is independence from opinion. And that means independence from any and everyone's opinion. So 'agreement with and by everyone' doesn't and can't constitute what we call objectivity.

It's possible to deny that what we call objectivity exists or is possible. But then there's no reason to talk about what we call objectivity. And then, the claim that morality is objective is incoherent anyway.

Certainly agree with that latter point.

But "independence from opinion" is not a workable definition either, because opinions may also be objective. I.e., "It is my opinion that Paris is the capital of France."

Anything one believes is true is an opinion of his. "Paris is the capital of France" is true and objective, because it has public truth conditions. That Alfie believes it is true does not change that fact.

Your definition leads to the same result you criticize above: Every proposition can be framed as an opinion. Hence none of them can be objective, and the term is rendered useless.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑March 15th, 2020, 11:54 am

creation wrote: ↑March 15th, 2020, 11:20 am
Objective relates to objects. Whereas, subjective relates to subjects.

Absolutely everything is relative to the observer.

One can either look at, and see, things objectively, or subjectively.

If things are being looked at from an individual or a few individual subjects, then only a subjective perspective of things can be gained, and therefore only subjective views can be had and seen, understood.

Whereas, if things are being looked at from every object, then that One collective unified and/or uniformed perspective of things can be gained, and therefore the One and only absolute object's view can be be had and seen, understood.

So you'd say that subjects are objects in some contexts, and that's what you're referring to?

No.

GE Morton wrote: ↑March 15th, 2020, 12:36 pm Oh, no. You see, those theories of optics and neurophysiology are just that --- theories, which we have invented. They postulate an external world. And they are good theories, because they allow us to predict many phenomena. If you accept those theories then it is obvious that the sensory phenomena you experience are representations of a neural data stream.

Under representationalism, the theories are no such thing as "representations of a neural data stream." They're just a story you're making up.

creation wrote: ↑March 15th, 2020, 2:13 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑March 15th, 2020, 11:54 am

So you'd say that subjects are objects in some contexts, and that's what you're referring to?

No.

Sure. So what's the "object" re objective moral claims in your view?

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑March 15th, 2020, 2:53 pm

GE Morton wrote: ↑March 15th, 2020, 12:36 pm Oh, no. You see, those theories of optics and neurophysiology are just that --- theories, which we have invented. They postulate an external world. And they are good theories, because they allow us to predict many phenomena. If you accept those theories then it is obvious that the sensory phenomena you experience are representations of a neural data stream.

Under representationalism, the theories are no such thing as "representations of a neural data stream." They're just a story you're making up.

Egads. Ok.

PS:

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑March 15th, 2020, 2:53 pm
Under representationalism, the theories are no such thing as "representations of a neural data stream." They're just a story you're making up.

Er, I didn't claim that "theories are representations of a neural data stream." I said that experienced phenomena (colors, odors, flavors, etc.) are. Another misquote, to produce another straw man.