Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
No, objective in philosophy requires a objective agent.This is what I found:
not dependent on the mind for existence; actual.
"a matter of objective fact".
I don't see where my post indicated that there is no objective fact in an objective view. Making judgments based on facts rather than prejudice is covered in the definition I applied.
Respectfully, my post was about an objective view which implies an objective agent that has an objective view.No, objective in philosophy requires a objective agent.
And a human (a subject) can never have a objective view.Respectfully, my post was about an objective view which implies an objective agent that has an objective view.
So is it impossible for us to consider anything objectively real?And a human (a subject) can never have a objective view.
For me objective/subjective is meanigless terms as they pre-suposes an objective agent, ie god(s).So is it impossible for us to consider anything objectively real?
For me they are quite meaningful so long as I dont require them to be absolutes.For me objective/subjective is meanigless terms as they pre-suposes an objective agent, ie god(s).
I like being precise in my word useage.For me they are quite meaningful so long as I dont require them to be absolutes.
He put chocolate in the ice cream is generally "objective".
Chocolate is better than licorice is generally "subjective".
Its good to have terms for thinking about whats 'out there' vs what we personally project onto to it.
A human is a subject? Respectfully, you're confusing a person with a place, as well as misappropriating the term "subject" for use in this context. Objectivity is ascertained by standing in the place where there is an objective view. To claim there is no such thing as a place where there is an objective view is to say there is no such thing as impartiality, fairness, justice. Such an assertion is a foundation for cynicism.And a human (a subject) can never have a objective view.
I do too.I like being precise in my word useage.
For me objective/subjective is meanigless terms as they pre-suposes an objective agent, ie god(s).
The Ten Commandments are those fundamental standards of the Law.
Even if you opt for their most relaxed interpretation, everybody has broken, at least, one of them in their lifetime.
Being a christian does not make a person perfect .... none of us claim that ... all are in different places with their walk with God .... and we do mess up. Don't look at christians as an example of who God is ..... look at who God is (through the life of Jesus .... who is God.
Yes, we are called to reflect His character .... but we fall short of that .... some worse than others .... and we understand that.
The absolute moral position is contained in the life of Jesus.
Thanks, Elos. But that's yet another way of saying 'we don't know'.
But that's missing the point. Morality isn't anywhere. The point is that you could exhaustively search for it and you won't find it.
"YOU THINK SO? THEN TAKE THE UNIVERSE AND GRIND IT DOWN TO THE FINEST POWDER AND SIEVE IT THROUGH THE FINEST SIEVE AND THEN SHOW ME ONE ATOM OF JUSTICE, ONE MOLECULE OF MERCY" is just poetry.
no those who study the life of Jesus do know ... He is our example in all things. We know because it is written about His life in the Holy Bible. Now some don't believe that .... that's another matter.
Positive prejudice is moral and negative prejudice is immoral. Which is why righteousness is by grace through faith.OK. So you can access objective morality. But if you disagree with someone on a moral act when the other person has also studied the life of Jesus etc and claims that she has access to objective morality then how do we know who is correct?
We wrote some laws but you ground them to powder.
Jokes aside, it only shows that materialism is inadequate.
You mean a Photon?We can do the same with light and shadow: grind it all down and show me one molecule of light or shadow, and I'll concede that the author has a good point.
Not certain I understand your point here. Can you elaborate?And besides this, we need not rely on a transcendent immaterial realm to establish some basic, useful facts. We use maths extensively to make accurate predictions about the world of the senses, and to produce tangible, empirically verifiable benefits: reality is abstract.
Positive prejudice is moral and negative prejudice is immoral. Which is why righteousness is by grace through faith.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?