If a gigantic asteroid is about to smash into Earth such that all conscious minds [like mine] are obilterated, that is somehow different [for me] than when the next gigantic asteroid smashes into the planet with absolutely no conscious minds around to even be aware of it. The same objects are moving and colliding, but no one around to react to the collision. No one around cognizant of the fact that it happened at all.
Always it comes back to the marvel of matter evolving into mind somehow able to become aware of itself as mindful matter. And then the part where there either is or is not actual human autonomy embedded in it all.
Given a complete understanding of how and why existence does in fact exist at all, there is [presumably] an objective truth.
Restate it this way “Given a complete understanding of how and why relativity does in fact exist at all, there is [presumably] an objective truth.” Why? Why does objectivity need to exist in order for relativity to exist?
My point though is in imagining a unviverse in which the brute facticity of existence is what it is [is what it must be] but there is no actual awareness in existence to know this. No God. No human minds. No anything at all able to point this existence out and to explore why and how it came to be what it is. How could “meaning” be relevant at all [or even exist] in universe in which there is nothing or no one able to broach it in the first place? Conscious minds can’t change the meaning of something when there are no conscious minds around able to bring something up in the first place.
The squabble over white swans and black swans would have been entirely moot with no minds around to create a narrative in which to discuss and to debate it.
Exactly, but that doesn’t mean it’s objectively meaningful.
If swans reflected the highest form of consciousness on the planet what would black and white mean to them? How would their reactions not be entirely embedded in instinct? With human minds however meaning evolves to the point that this is discussed philosophically. Or scientifically. Meaning without the minds of men and women would seem to be a very different thing. Or it could be argued that it couldn’t exist at all. But that is still predicated on the extent to which our minds have some measure of autonomy embedded in them. Otherwise even the meaning exchanged by philosophers would be no less a reflection of nature unfolding only as it ever could have.
I say meaning doesn’t exist even with the minds. Or the meaning only exists relative to the minds.
I can only react to this by pondering the existential implications of it in regard to actual human interactions. If someone asks, “what does it mean to be a virtuous human being?”, different individuals will give us different answers. So, in regard to your point of view here, how would you contribute to the discussion?
Meaning or no meaning in what sense? And how to understand the relationship between “I” and “laws of nature” in that particular context?
You believe that…
Consciousness is not a complicated form of mineral, but mineral is a simple form of consciousness. Whatever it is that makes us “I” is a native property of the universe.
…but how on earth would you go about demonstrating that this is in fact true given all of the “unknown unknowns” that you are no less as entangled in as all the rest of us?
Not if killing you allowed me to consume you in order to sustain my own existence. In other words, in a context in which a rescue team was on the way and it was only a matter of surviving long enough for it to reach me. Good and bad here are points of view. And these are clearly more subjective than the objective parameters embedded in the either/or world of cold and human biology. And how this then factors into living or dying.
Maybe if you didn’t eat me, I would have been the next Hitler. Hitler was in the trenches of WWI and credits god to saving him for a purpose, so if some rogue soldier would have shot him, which would have been considered immoral, how moral would the consequences be?
Sure, maybe. Maybe lots and lots and lots of things. But how are philosophers to react to this in terms of “meaning”? What does “maybe” mean here? And how can we determine if the meaning that we impart to it is a meaning that we constructed of our own “free will”?
It doesn’t mean anything. Whatever happens in this universe cannot be remembered after the universe is gone. It’s all just dust in the wind and we pretend it’s not.
What always boggles my mind here is how folks manage to think themselves into believing things like this are true with no capacity to actually demonstrate empirically that it is true for all rational human beings. Instead, it is true for them “in their heads” based on a set of assumptions they make about the existence of existence itself.
Should we assume meaning and require empirical demonstration that meaning is absent?
Or should we assume lack of meaning and require empirical demonstration of meaning?
Meaning about what though? In what context? And how would our assumptions not be predicated entirely on all that we do not know about the existence of existence itself?
The part about what we think we mean is either able to be connected to the world that we live in or it can’t. In America, many are asking themselves, “what do the mid-term elections mean?” What do they tell us about the future of America? How is meaning understood here in terms of what is present and what is absent?
There are lots and lots of empirical facts here that everyone is able to acknowledge are true. But what the facts are said to tell us about America…? Meaning here becomes considerably more ambiguous and problematic. And political.
I don’t know why you put the burden of proof at my doorstep and I don’t know why you put so much faith in empirical observation, especially popular ones. That seems like a whole string of logical fallacies.
The burdon of proof here is applicable to all of us. We all make arguments about what we believe is true, but are we able to substantiate our claim such that it is demonstrated that all rational men and women are obligated in turn to sahre it?
Then it’s just a matter of being specific regarding what we do believe is true.
First you require me to prove something does not exist, with empirical evidence of its nonexistence, then you require me to do it in such a way that most people would agree. It’s impossible.
Note where this is the case. All I ask of you [of everyone] is to demonstrate how and why what you believe is true “in your head” is in fact in sync with with an ontological understanding of existence itself.
That’s what may well be impossible. Why? Because we have no seeming capacity to even grasp if the human mind is capable of grasping this.
Instead, what I encounter over and again here are folks who make claims like yours. They believe something is true, but all we have are the assumptions they make about the components of either “human reality” or of “existence” itself.
And that’s more a manifestation of human psychology to me. But we seemingly have no capacity in turn to determine if human psychology itself is not just more dominoes toppling over onto each other re the ubiquitous “laws of matter”.
Wherever our decisions come from is the same for all of us because we’re all connected to the same spacetime fabric, but that fundamental thing can never be an object of knowledge because there is no one outside who can take an objective view.
This is more of the same to me. You assert something to be true based only on an intellectual contraption that you have concocted to explain 1] why something exists rather than nothing and 2] why this something and not something else.
This is just logic. I’ve not asserted anything but logic. If something exists, then it is connected to everything that it exists to, which makes the maximum possible things in existence = 1.
The logic of existence? You are actually convinced that your understanding of these relationships reflects the most rational manner in which to grasp existence itself.
Even though there are countless others propagating their own TOE around the globe. All of them convinced “in their head” that they and only they really know what they are talking about.
It always puzzles me how they can not grasp this as a psychological component of “I” in a profoundly mysterious universe.
Freedom is a relative term requiring an object to be free from. We can’t be simultaneously free from law and crime because we’re either free from crime because we’re bound to law or we’re subject to crime upon being freed from law. Being a slave is a good way to be free from worry, but to stand on one’s own and truly be free requires lots of strife and aggravation.
Okay, but when you take this assumption out into the world of actual conflicting goods, how is it determined what the meaning of freedom is when John demands the freedom to own guns and Joe demands the feedom to live in a world without them?
This is the same as a disagreement with a girlfriend: she wants to go out and I want to stay in, so who wins? I’ve never been able to answer that question.
In the case of John and Joe, we could ask more people and make a popularity contest of it. There is no objective answer since the question is essentially should all ice cream be chocolate or vanilla.
You could say that public safety is objective, but I don’t want to be safe and would prefer having some elements of danger lurking about.
In other words, “winning” or “losing” here is always relative to a particular set of initial assumptions. Which I then suggest revolve around my own understanding of the existential juncture that is identity, value judgments and political power. Out in a particular world understood from a particular point of view. And then the extent to which logic is even applicable in the is/ought world.
And how is it demonstrated that either point of view is not just a manifestation of a wholly determined universe?
It’s determined by randomness.
But what does randomness mean in a world that is beyond wholly grasping? If, in fact, it is.
And you need to bring it down to earth. In regard to, say, the Caravan that is marching through Mexico toward the U.S. border, how would you explain/describe randomness to the folks involved here?
Justice is retribution according to some arbitrary moral code.
Any particular moral code is embedded first and foremost in prescribing and proscribing rules of behavior that revolve around sustaining human life itself. Capitalism? Socialism? Fascism? Anarchism? Survival of the fittest? One or another rendition of Plato’s Republic?
Why sustain life? Is that individual life or the collective’s life? We want to live and sustain our species because if we didn’t, we wouldn’t be here, but that doesn’t mean that wanting to live is objective; it just happens to be conditional to living in the environment that happened to come about.
I agree. But that doesn’t make all the conflicts that revolve around the fact of sustaining it go away.
Time is a relation of the movement of one thing compared to another within space.
Space is the condition resulting from a delay in the transmission of information.
Time and space cannot be separated because if there were no time, then all travel would be instant and therefore there would be no space.
Again, as though you actually do have access to an understanding of time and space going all the way back to whatever brought them into existence in the first place.
Seems to be common sense to me. How could we have time without space and space without time?
What does it mean for infinitesimally tiny specks of existence like you and I to talk about “common sesne” given the staggering vastness of the universe? the multiverse? Sure, some are able to just shrug that part off and argue that their own frame of mind is the right one. But then we’re back to the manner in which human psychology itself comes into play here. Not that any particular argument is the right one but that this argument does in fact exist so why not your argument?
If God confirms it, then it isn’t objective, but subjective according to the subjective lens of God.
Yes, it is always fascinating to speculate about these things. But to speak of them as though you can actually know what is in fact true here? Well, that is something I no longer imagine as within my own reach.
This isn’t rocket science. If god is the subject, then his view is subjective. If god is the object, then who is the subject?
On the other hand, what is rocket science next to grasping the precise relationship between Existence, God and human interactions? More to the point [mine] grappling with this in regard to a particular context that most will be familiar with.
You say things like this…
If our universe came from a multiverse, then the multiverse is simply part of our universe. If the multiverse is not part of our universe, then our universe didn’t come from it.
The sun is not an objective thing and couldn’t even be discerned by dark matter. All dark matter would feel is the gravity, which could be more dark matter. The sun only exists as a sun because there are things acting as not-sun.
…as though only a fool couldn’t grasp how truly [and simply] logical your explanation is. As though “common sense” itself tells us these things.
Which [again] leads me to speculate that it is not the substance of these claims that matters to you as much as the certainty with which you embrace them. You know these things. You are able to subsume the psychological “I” into this knowledge and then congratulate yourself on having figured it all out.
Or, rather, that is the manner in which “I” – “here and now” – have come to think about it.
More abstraction. You want action A in a particular context. Someone else wants action B. These are objective facts. But how are philosophers able to determine which action reflects that most rational and virtuous action?
On a coin flip, is heads more rational and virtuous than tails? If someone resonates with your position, they will say you are more rational; if they resonate with my position, they will say I am more rational. It’s still subjective. Even if everyone on earth agreed with you, it would still be subjective.
This seems more about how “technically” philosophers make a distinction between “subjective” and “objective”. Whereas I am more interested in exploring how, in whatever manner you make this distinction, it is made applicable in turn to conflicting assessments of what is deemed to be rational behavior in any particular context. Flipping a coin and it coming up either heads or tails is rational in the sense that it will be one or the other. But if someone switches the conversation to Anton Chigurh’s decision to leave the fate of someone living or dying to a flip of the coin – how rational or virtuous is that?
Same with the government and dollars and gold. There are the facts that can be ascertained and there are the arguments about what the facts tell us about rational or irrational behavior.
And someone partial to Romain Rolland “oceanic feeling” or freud’s “primitive ego-feeling” would have to bring this down to earth. What do they mean in regard to particular behaviors that we choose in particular contexts given [in turn] what we think is true “in our head” about all of it in either a God or a No Go world.
It just means your decisions come as a result of all the variables in the universe instead of just a few variables.
Okay, but that still doesn’t bring them down out of the scholastic clouds. In what particular context might someone feel these things? And if their feelings are intertwined in all of the variables that encompass the universe how is that not just another rendition of determinism? They feel what they do only because they were never able not to.
I’m more than happy to play along, but it takes a good deal of energy to figure out what you’re meaning with these obscure terms like dasein, conflicting goods, here and now. Talking to you is expensive in terms of blood glucose lol
Okay. Choose a context. Choose a set of behaviors in conflict. The whole point of bringing the discussion here down to earth is to make the terms less obscure.
So by “bringing down to earth” you mean examples?
I mean particular contexts in which your arguments are fleshed out existentially. A text that is illustrated with actual human interactions that we can all react to.
What aspects of these interactions are able to be confirmed as true for all of us and what aspects are embodied more in “existential leaps” to one set of values rather than another.
Then it comes down to the extent to which someone is willing to admit that: I’m right from my side, your right from your side. Or insists instead that their own assumptions are predicated objectively on one or another God or political ideology or intellectual [deontological] contraption or assessment of “nature”.
Yeah I guess so, but even God’s opinion is subjective.
Many who believe in God argue that He is 1] omniscient 2] omnipotent and 3] omnipresent. And that He is the creator of All There Is. How then would you [would anyone] go about arguing that these assumptions are either demonstrably true, demonstrably false or, if demonstrably true, that God’s point of view is still subjective.
You’re right. There are those who subjectively interpret that the unborn have rights and there are those who subjectively interpret that women have rights; it’s the chocolate vs vanilla preference again; pepsi vs coke.
Only no one will ever be killed or be arrested for murder if they choose chocolate over vanilla or Coke over Pepsi. There are conflicting goods and then there are conflicting goods.
The fact of a particular abortion is independent of what any individual thinks is true. Here there is a right answer. But in a No God world, the consequences for mere mortals being able or unable to establish a “right anwer” in regard to the morality of it is, in my view, more in sync with the components of my own argument. And the hole I have tumbled down into as a result of believing this argument is reasonable. All I can then do is to search out the arguments of those who don’t think like me.
Trump could give an order and everyone simply says “no”. Trump only has power because the people are willing to play along and pretend he does.
Or they may genuinely embrace his order as in fact “the right thing to do”. My only suggestion is that both Trump and those who either support or don’t support him, create and/or react to particular orders [his or their own] given the manner in which I construe the components of my moral philosophy “here and now”.
Then the part where we grapple with what philosophers are in fact able to discern about all of this essentially/objectively/necessarily.
Then the part where, whatever it is that individual philosophers do discern about all of this [in venues such as this], they were ever able not to given some measure of autonomy.
What is objectively true would be true regardless of opinions, so if it were wrong to murder, then it wouldn’t be possible to murder. Since it is possible, then its not objectively wrong. Objectivity exists independent of ANY observer.
Again, as an intellectual contraption, this is true for you because it is in sync with all the assumptions you make about the meaning of “objective truth”, “opinions”, “murder” and “observers”.
But put these elements out in a particular context in which different people construe the meaning of a particular killing in conflicting ways and then what?
Then we’ll get a range of subjective opinions.
I’m still not following you.
This part:
“…so if it were wrong to murder, then it wouldn’t be possible to murder. Since it is possible, then its not objectively wrong.”
As a general description of human interactions revolving around a particular killing deemed legally to be a murder, whether it is right or wrong is embedded in the points of view derived from a particular historical, cultural and experiential context. Some will argue that though this killing was possible it doesn’t make it either right or wrong. Necessarily in other words. All that can be establish is that the killing did in fact occur. And possibly there will be enough evidence that no reasonable man or women could doubt who did the killing. But whether this killing can be justified morally as “the right thing to do” is the part that “here and now” doesn’t seem possible to establish. Not from my frame of mind.
It wouldn’t be possible to murder someone if there were no laws against it. But how to decide which killings ought to be illegal?
Where does philosophical logic end and all that we don’t know about existence begin?
That is an ought embedded more in the either/or world. John wants to eat meat. Okay, what ought he to do to accomplish this? Well, he can hunt the animals down himself, he can purchase it in the grocery store, he can steal it from someone. He either does in fact accomplish it or he doesn’t. But that is different from the ought embedded in the is/ought world.
Ought he to be a hunter? Ought he to steal? Ought he to eat meat at all?
There is no ought.
Tell that to actual flesh and blood human beings who grapple with what they ought to do over and over and over again. If only from the cradle to the grave.
There is what you need to do to achieve some goal in the either/or world. But there seems to be only what you think you ought to do in the is/ought world. And the extent to which others are not troubled by the manner in which I introduce the components of my own argument.
With respect to existence itself, gravity is related to electromagnetism is related to the strong and the weak interactions. This part: science.howstuffworks.com/envir … nature.htm
Now, can we call these relationships truly absolute? Or, instead, are they related to forces we are not even privy to yet? Even going back perhaps to the existence of God?
They are related to duality. Where did duality come from? Well, duality come from unity: the coin has heads and tails because it’s one coin.
I have no idea what “on earth” something like this means. Let alone how it relates to the manner in which I construe the subjective/objective distinction relating to conflicting goods in a No God world.
To the extent that gravity and the other forces are true “absolutely”…how is that related “for all practical purposes” to this duality coming from unity. A coin is a man-made thing embedded in, among other things, the manner in which any particular community goes about sustaining the means of productions. Money, in other words. But there are any number of ferocious conflicts that revolve around what is deemed “just” in regard to the use and the distribution of money in any particular community.
A force is a duality: something imposing a force and something receiving a force. Energy is +/-. Everything is made of the same “stuff” just different frequencies, polarities, states. A force in spacetime is the same as a moves of a bishop in chess: there are rules that pertain only to that game. Forces do not exist outside of spacetime because we need space and time in order to have a force.
Then I’m just back to this: “I have no idea what ‘on earth’ something like this means.” How does this “force” pertain to coins/money being exchanged in a just or an unjust manner in any particular community?
When the either/or world begins to segue into the is/ought world what is the practical significance of this duality? And how is it related to the arguments voiced by the hard determinists pertaining to the laws of matter in space and time said to be immutable and applicable to all matter. Including brain matter.
Objectivity cannot exist unless it is observed and if it is observed, then it’s no longer objectivity, but subjectivity because it could only be observed through a subjective lens given by how the subject relates to the object.
I sometimes come close to understanding things like this “theoretically”. But when actual flesh and blood human beings observe actual phenomena out in a particular world, there are still going to be those things that reasonable people can agree are true, and those things which are deemed true given an attachment to a particular set of moral and political prejudices. Which I then largely subsume in dasein.
Even if everyone sees the same thing, that still doesn’t mean the thing is objective, but just that everyone’s subjectivity happened to align.
Yes, but with respect to the either/or world, our subjective observations of actual physical things can be demonstrated with considerably more physical evidence than the observations we make regarding how we ought to react to this thing that we are seeing. Thus an aborted fetus can be placed on a table and all rational men and women can agree that this particular “thing” is in fact a dead fetus.
But what can they then tell us is “in fact” true about the morality of aborting it?
That is the distinction I make between an objective truth and a subjective opinion.