If that's all you wanted to talk about, then why didn't you make that clear sooner? Why waste both of our time like that?

What the hell?

I assume you are one of these no one's you speak for.

All I can say is: what do I care if a bunch of nobodies remember me? — Merkwurdichliebe

"No one" is the name of my cat. I was saying that she remembers you.

But no one else does.

Hello!

I've seen some pretty awful proposals of what truth is.

Truth as honesty? No, that's a different sense, just use the word "honesty" for that.

Truth as broad or universal agreement? No, because there are exceptions.

A much better indication of what truth is would be to point out that a truth can be stated by stating a true statement, and it resembles the expression of a fact or what's the case. This discussion is in English.

This discussion is in Japanese? No.

ƥ > -+

In other words: your brain isn't observing facts. Your brain is creating them. — YuZhonglu

This has gone from bemusing to annoying. I'm going to leave you and your silly language game be, as you aren't reasonably engaging when you say stuff like the above.

So what? Describing in detail how I responded to what you wrote doesn't do anything, logically. — S

It means every so-called "fact" that any human has ever learned or thought about is the product of neuronal activity. If there are no brains, then there will also be no "facts."

If humans disappeared, the Earth might still revolve around the Sun. But there would be no "facts" regarding this phenomenon. — YuZhonglu

No, it very obviously doesn't. But you aren't good enough at logic to see that.

Or, if that wasn't intended as a reply to me, then you should have been clearer. You shouldn't just start a sentence of with, "It means...", when the context isn't clear.

In order to respond, your brain had to interpret and remember the visual input coming in from your retina. Then, based on this interpretation, neurons in the brain send signals back to the muscles in your fingers to respond. In other words, as you typed this, sections of your brain are responding to input and stimuli from OTHER sections of your brain.

The same applies to me, too, of course. — YuZhonglu

So what? Describing in detail how I responded to what you wrote doesn't do anything, logically.

I was geebus. — Merkwurdichliebe

No one remembers you. But hello.

Technically you're not responding to what I wrote. You're actually responding to a memory of what you believe I wrote. — YuZhonglu

No, I'm responding to what you wrote.

This is what you wrote:

But it is interesting, to many others, because philosophy is little more than neuroscience but without the science or the tools. — YuZhonglu

And this is my response:

You didn't seem very interested when I gave you my definition of "horse" and validly drew a few logical consequences.

You're doing the same thing with "fact". — S

Everyone who complains about me without having the guts to mention my name.

But it is interesting, to many others, because philosophy is little more than neuroscience but without the science or the tools. — YuZhonglu

You didn't seem very interested when I gave you my definition of "horse" and validly drew a few logical consequences.

You're doing the same thing with "fact".

That's just another way of trying to sneak an argumentum ad populum in the back door. Argumentum ad populums are fallacious. Things that most people say or do are only relevant to the question of "What do most people say or do?" There's no other implication to it. — Terrapin Station

You don't properly understand what is and what is not an argumentum ad populum fallacy, so I dismiss what you say.

What's the relevant sense? — Terrapin Station

Banno's sense, otherwise you're just talking past him. And he could have hardly made it any clearer. He said: "That this text is written in English is not dependent on my own taste or feelings. Hence it is an objective truth".

You're not following what I'm saying.

You brought up the following above: "the fact that we're talking about god, unspecified, means that we're talking about god, broadly, as per a number of possible conceptions, one of which is an undetectable god."

Is that identical to simply saying "It's logically possible," or is that something different than simply saying "it's logically possible"? — Terrapin Station

I think I am. The problem seems to be that you're missing the point and leading me down the garden path. I'm not sure whether this is accidental or whether you're deliberately twisting my words.

I only ever meant to make the point that the logical possibility of an undetectable god means that your criticism about evidence misses the point that was being made. It misses the point because it can only be criticism against a detectable god, and it was never specified that a detectable god is what is being talked about. On the contrary, it was clear to me that it was an unspecified god that was being talked about.

Seriously, how hard is that to understand? You keep leading me places which do nothing. The situation we're in won't just go away if you ask me some pointless question which gets us nowhere. It's like you're trying to "win" through distraction or by twisting my words in an attempt to "catch me out".

If what you say can mean either of two different things then it is ambiguous. I am not interested in playing this game. — Fooloso4

You're blaming him for your own mistaken assumption. Next time, if you're not sure, just seek clarification.

Even though it was pretty obvious. He meant what he said, and if he didn't, then he would've worded it better. I'm sure he's perfectly capable of wording statements of that sort appropriately. How hard can it be to state, "I do not believe...", instead of, "I believe..."?

You don't need so much text to make the simple and uninteresting point that you're now redefining "fact" as memory. It's still problematic in the bigger picture, and it will continue to be so unless you conform with what the word ordinarily means. You're headed up river without a paddle. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Give me an example. — Janus

It wouldn't be the first time I've given examples of this. It's true that Spain borders France, that one plus one equals two, and that Earth orbits the Sun. They're objective truths. They don't depend on me or my judgement or thoughts or feelings or anything like that, nor on anyone else or their judgement or thoughts or feelings or anything like that. You can interpret the meaning of moral statements, such as that abortion is wrong, in the same way, but I don't accept that there's an objective truthmaker in the sense I just described, and I find it very counterintuitive to end up with the logical consequence that no moral statement is true, so I opt for moral relativism. Moreover, your community defined ethics leads to problems you have been unable to resolve, so that rules that one out. And I'm tired of trying to go over that with you, because your response has been unsatisfactory each time I've tried: either handwaving or completely ignoring it. And I'm also tired of hearing your excuses for this, predictably blaming it on me instead of taking responsibility.

So what was the point? I'm not going to do your work for you. — Janus

What part of what I originally said don't you understand? I don't have any "work" to do, because I don't need to provide an actual example. A hypothetical example is sufficient. For example, if there's a particular galaxy in a particular location in space that no one is currently aware of, then that would be an example of a fact that is not intersubjectively confirmed. Facts don't need to be intersubjectively confirmed to be facts.

You are a moral relativist because you believe there is no empirical evidence that could confirm whether a moral judgement is right or wrong. How is the situation different with regard to aesthetic or philosophical judgements? — Janus

I favour moral relativism because I judge that to be a better position than the alternatives, but I can switch between moral relativism and a position like error theory depending on how we interpret moral statements. It just doesn't seem as useful to interpret moral statements in the latter way because of the logical consequences. All moral statements would be false or unwarranted. But I don't see the same problem with other types of statement, statements that seem factual rather than something like an indication of opinion.

A hypothetical fact is not a fact any more than a hypothetical thing is a thing. Try again. — Janus

Yes, a hypothetical fact is not a fact. And missing the point is missing the point. Try again.

Fine then give me an example of an unconfirmed fact and I will believe that you are not speaking through your arse. — Janus

You must have arse for brains, since that is not necessary. A hypothetical unconfirmed fact is sufficient, and I already gave an example of that. That's an example of something that would be a fact by virtue of the way the world is, not by virtue of your irrelevant and wrongheaded definition of what a fact is. I can easily provide innumerable examples of that.

So, now you contradict yourself. The claim that you are the best philosopher is not an empirical claim that can be confirmed, but either an ethical, aesthetic or philosophical claim that comes down, according to your own avowed relativism in such matters, to being merely a matter of personal (and in this case your and your alone) judgement. — Janus

No, I haven't contradicted myself, you're just demonstrating once again that you don't pay close enough attention to what I say.

I'm not a relativist, I'm specifically and only a moral relativist. That wasn't a moral statement. It was a statement about ability. You calling me a relativist is like me calling you a good listener.

And it was obviously tongue-in-cheek, whether true or false. (It's the former).

I'm glad someone understood the relevance (or maybe everyone did, but thought it unworthy of response) — Isaac

It could be that they got it, but just decided not to reply. Although I think that some people around here just aren't intelligent enough to distinguish between funny comments with a serious philosophical point, and a simple joke with no serious philosophical point.

Truth can instrumentally be collective belief. Personally I don't need any more than that. It is true that bishops move diagonally in chess is entirely a description of the collective belief of chess players. — Isaac

I find that weird, because that isn't truth, that's just treating as truth something which is not truth. It's a bit like treating a phone as a thing which goes "ring ring", instead of a device for calling people. You and Janus are wrong to think of belief in this way. There can be a truth which is not a collective belief nor intersubjectively confirmed, and that it could be intersubjectively confirmed is irrelevant, because it is already a fact by virtue of the way the world is. A genius could discover a truth unknown by the rest of the world.

I think a better way of framing this is in terms of subjective and inter-subjective. — Janus

It isn't.

"That this text is written in English" is an inter-subjective fact, because it can be inter-subjectively confirmed. — Janus

It doesn't need to be.

A fact is a fact, regardless of confirmation. Confirmation is completely irrelevant.

There may be psychiatrists who could prescribe something to make his "preaching" go away. — whollyrolling

I don't need a doctor. I am the doctor.

How could it be true according to your relativism, if others disagree? What you mean is that you believe it is true, it is true for you; but that means, not that it is a truth, but that it is merely a belief. — Janus

I'm not a relativist.

There is no requirement on this forum to do philosophy well. — Merkwurdichliebe

True, but it should be encouraged.

And how can you do philosophy well without taking the proper digressions. — Merkwurdichliebe

We already have a topic and should stick to it. We have the ability to create separate discussions for a reason. Digressions are never really "proper". They're usually a sign of a lack of focus.

Also, the justice system has scientific precision in determining the morality of a society. That's pretty objective. — Merkwurdichliebe

Bare assertions about something controversial in philosophy is not an example of doing philosophy well. If you want to argue for moral objectivism, do so properly and in a discussion with that as the topic. I only brought it up here as an example relevant to the topic of the subjective-objective distinction.

Then its possible you don't mind the murder and rape of babies, but for the dominant majority of people living in the western world, they would object simply because they have inherited the judeo-Christian ethic, wittingly or not. — Merkwurdichliebe

It's possible that you're an abnormally intelligent octopus hidden away in a secret lab somewhere in Switzerland, but you're not.

It would be silly to believe that, and it would be silly to believe that I don't mind the murder and rape of babies.

Let's not be silly.

I find the terms moral objectivism and moral subjectivism to be nonsense...unless you can define them for my edification. I would be eternally grateful. — Merkwurdichliebe

Nah, you can you google it or pick up how they should be used by paying attention to people like me.

Or you can simply dismiss them as nonsense, but you'd be wrong.

What about the judeo-Christian ethic that pervades the western world, that seems like an objective morality to me. — Merkwurdichliebe

Well, I'm not so naive.

I think applying them to moral statements - looking for objective morality - is a misuse. Not because there are no objective moral facts, but because morality is not the sort of thing that can be objective.

But that does not imply that it is not something about which we can agree.

That's the error made by folk who think that being objective means being in agreement.

It's a minefield. Needs to be kept simple and we need to take small steps. — Banno

I agree that morality is not the sort of thing that can be objective. Those who think that it is objective are moral objectivists, and I am not a moral objectivist.

Again, you want me to justify my preference for vanilla ice? No? Then why do I need to justify my preference for not committing murder? — Banno

So this is just another semantic disagreement, it seems. I would say that our judgement that murder is wrong is justified by my standard.

And again, it was the meta-ethics that I was saying would need to be justified, not the ethics. It is about the statement, and in what sense it is true, not whether murder is wrong. Some people on this forum seem to muddle up meta-ethics and ethics.

S & Banno:

It is my opinion moral objectivism and moral subjectivism are misleading terms...

I prefer moral relativism and absolute morality. But I don't expect anyone to adopt my definitions, I'm not a nazi of lexicon like S. — Merkwurdichliebe

They are two sets of terms with distinct meanings. Which set of terms is more appropriate to use will depend on the context. And we're supposed to be talking about the subjective-objective distinction, so it is obviously the former set of terms which is more appropriate.

I'd go with "true yet unwarranted". — Banno

Why unwarranted?

Even if what's objective is also universal, that doesn't mean that they don't have distinct meanings, nor does it mean that they mean anything other than what I just set out.

The universal is a red herring. The topic is the subjective-objective distinction.

Did I catch up? — Banno

No, motion is an illusion. Everything is appearance. :wink:

I think we do. But only about how we ought use the word "objective". — Banno

I think that we ought to use it with regards to what's objective, and if we interpret moral statements in that way, then they'll be false or unwarranted at best. So it makes more sense to interpret them subjectively, by which I mean as a reflection of moral judgement.

So, instead of "murder is wrong" being false or unwarranted, it is true and warranted. At least when I say it, going by my judgement.

But kicking puppies is wrong. You agree with me. What more do you want? It's being objectively true (to misuse "objectively") would not make it any more true...? — Banno

Yes, I agree with you that kicking puppies is wrong. You've just left me confused about your stance in meta-ethics, because I thought we disagreed.

I think this more aptly describes the universal rather than the objective. — Merkwurdichliebe

Well it doesn't. The universal would be something along the lines of that which is true in all cases or believed by all. The objective would be something along the lines of a fact that is independent of subjects and their thoughts, feelings, beliefs, judgement, and so on.

The existence of Jupiter does not depend on you or me or anyone else or anyone at all, nor on what we think or perceive or judge and so on. It is objective.