Wossname wrote: ↑May 20th, 2020, 5:28 am
Marvin_Edwards wrote: ↑May 19th, 2020, 9:15 am
Marvin_Edwards » Yesterday, 2:15 pm
Have you and Pattern-chaser fallen into arguing the Kantian noumenal/phenomenal distinction or is it something else? I’m not sure how much you are really disagreeing with each other.
For myself, I have noticed that
Marvin_Edwards seems to be using "objective" to carry several different meanings, even in the same paragraph, without clarifying what he means. I only want to know if he means 'distanced' (mild) or
Objective (hard), or something in between, and he seems unwilling to say which.
Marvin_Edwards wrote: ↑May 19th, 2020, 11:21 am
Moral judgments can be more objective or less objective. That's what objectivity in moral judgments is about.
This assertion could do with some justification. Do you have any justification to offer?
Marvin_Edwards wrote: ↑May 19th, 2020, 11:21 am
The more that moral judgments are grounded in objective evidence, the more likely they are to be correct.
This assertion could do with some justification. Do you have any justification to offer?
A little clarification wouldn't do any harm either. For instance, how can moral judgements be "grounded in objective evidence"? Very often, in moral matters, the
facts (if any) are agreed by all. It is the
moral implications that are disputed.
Marvin_Edwards wrote: ↑May 19th, 2020, 11:21 am
The question of whether we can know objective reality is about the "things" that exist in the world, and how certain we might be that they exist as they appear to us.
Here, I think you refer to Apparent Reality(AR, for brevity) - the reality which our senses/perception show to us, and with which we appear to interact - as if it was Objective Reality(OR) (note the capitals) -
that which actually is. There is no evidence for this. That's sort of the core point of Objectivity discussions. Science cannot pronounce on this question, because there is no scientifically-acceptable evidence at all, for or against, nor can there ever be.
The belief that AR = OR is a faith position, and, as such, it is perfectly acceptable. But from a factual, logical or scientific viewpoint, it is invalid due to the complete lack of evidence. Anyone who wishes to can adopt "AR = OR" as a faith position, but to cast their belief as something they
know is factually, logically and scientifically incorrect. Wrong. Invalid. And so on.
To address the details of your words:
Many "things" seem to exist in the "world" (AR), and they, and AR itself, have
some relationship with OR. But whether it's direct, as you seem to think, or whether AR is a figment of the imagination of a character in a simulation, within another simulation, which exists in OR, we can have no clue.
As for "how certain we might be that they exist as they appear to us", we cannot be certain at all.
Complete uncertainty is what we have here, nothing less. There is no evidence, nothing upon which to base any sort of deduction or logical analysis.
Marvin_Edwards wrote: ↑May 19th, 2020, 11:21 am
Any use of the term objectivity subsumes a knowable objective reality.
If so, then we should confine use of the term strictly to hypothetical discussions. Unless "knowable" can reduce to "know that it exists", for that is all we know, or can know, of OR.
Marvin_Edwards wrote: ↑May 19th, 2020, 11:21 am
So, if you argue that objective reality is unknowable, you undermine any use of the term "objective".
Oh, wouldn't it be wonderful if it was so!
If we could distance ourselves from the certainty we yearn for, but
cannot have, and simply accept
reality as it is (to/for us).
Marvin_Edwards wrote: ↑May 19th, 2020, 11:21 am
I would humbly suggest that you cease doing that.
Why? I seek to avoid a faith position being cast as something more definite. I'm not going to stop that any time soon.