Is there objective Truth?

[Astreja]

When I morally condemn the person who has just killed my loved one, I am not so much applying an objective definition as I am vowing to heap as much retribution on his sorry ass as I the legal system and my own ingenuity will allow.

Perhaps proponents of objectivity have just mislabeled an evolved and common emotional reaction to being wronged, thinking that it has to be objective simply because people's subjective experiences happen to agree.

[Neo-Scholastic]

When I morally condemn the person who has just killed my loved one, I am not so much applying an objective definition as I am vowing to heap as much retribution on his sorry ass as I the legal system and my own ingenuity will allow.

Perhaps proponents of objectivity have just mislabeled an evolved and common emotional reaction to being wronged, thinking that it has to be objective simply because people's subjective experiences happen to agree.

Kind of begging the question aren't you? On what basis does someone know they are being wronged? Being angry or feeling aggrieved may be an evolved instinct, but that doesn't make it accurate or true.

[Edwardo Piet]

There are NO consistent athiests.

I have secular faith in the sense of mere confidence + hope that you will someday realize that atheism is a rational response to an absence of evidence.

I can't pray for you but I will wish you well and thank goodness rather than god.

You have my pity.

[Edwardo Piet]

Asking why existence exists is not asking why A=A.

It is analogous to that.

Here's why:

For something to exist is for it to be existent.

So to ask why existence exists is to ask why existence is existent.

That's like asking why atheism is atheistic why colors are colorful, why squares have straight sides and why bachelors are unmarried.

 This is a wrong way of coining the question.

No the problem is with the phrasing of the question. It's logically nonsensical and overly simplistic and vague.

A better question would be "Why did the big bang happen?"

When we say something exists, we mean that it can be found to exist in the context of some framework.

No we mean that it exists. Whether we're talking about whether it can be found to exist or not is a question of whether we're talking about existence in principle or existence as it can be tested by science. Whether we're talking about noumenal or phenomenal existence.

When we simply say that "X exists" whether it can be found to exist in the context of a framework or what that framework is are further questions and are the business of empirical science and hypothesis.

 For example, a desk exists in the framework of things people perceive in time and space.

A desk is something that exists in a framework of things people perceive in time and space, yes. That does NOT mean that when we say "something exists" it has to exist in a framework of things people perceive in time and space.

Sure, that's the only kind of existence that we can test or has any actual meaning to us pragmatically.... but my point is that it would be more helpful if we began with a question that wasn't illogical nonsense like "Why is existence existent?".... sure it's fine if it is clear that what is really meant is "Why did the big bang happen?" or some other more specific and useful question but "Why is existence existent?" is a nonsense question and pseudo-profound.

If you look at the Universe which allows for the existence of the desk, and ask whether it, in turn, is part of some framework which establishes a context for the existence of Universes, then we do not have A=A.

That is not the question I was referring to. You're asking a more helpful question when you're asking about specific frameworks and stuff. If you simply ask "Why is existence existent?" though... then you're stuck on a pointless nonsensical question.

 We have set A1 as a member of set A2.

Again you're elaborating on the question and adding detail to it. If you leave the question at merely "Why is existence existent?" that's a nonsense question like "Why are bachelors unmarried?"

Since when we ask about existence, we are asking about OUR context-- either the existence of mind, or the existence of the Universe which we believe exists, what we REALLY want to know is if there may be said to be another, greater, context.

No, you're talking about particular existences and asking specific things about it in context there... you're not merely asking "Why are the totality of all existent things all existent things?" or "Why is the entirety of all existence itself existent?" those are nonsense questions.

 Just insisting that our own context must be THE ONLY context is a pretty poor response to such a legitimate question.

You're changing the question.

[Edwardo Piet]

You see sombody else replied with "Evolution did it", but a natural explanations cannot possibly justify immaterial truths, for example the laws of logic, morality. And you can't say it's a social construct, because those are inherantly subjective.These are objective standards we observe...
Now you could deny objectivity, like you do. Or embrace objectivity, and refuse to agknowledge the only rational explanation, under the guise of, maybe we will find out one day.

You will find that Jor takes a pragmatic approach, i.e. that human reason is apparently sufficient without access to absolutes. For her, people will never know if the Principle of Non-Contradiction is actually true. She claims that our brains evolved to believe the PNC to be true, though it might not be. At least, she is consistent.

You may be misrepresenting her but if and only if she actually believes that then I disagree with her there.

To me the principle of non-contradiction is ultimately the Law of Identity and that requires human minds to conceive of it but what it refers to is an absolute fact that whether humans exist to conceive of the following or not:

Whatever is, is and and whatever is not is not.

The truth of that is true without humans around to conceive of it. If the universe exists without us then it exists without us, without us needing to think of these tautologies.

Tautologies are hardly useful or helpful but they're certainly accurate. The law of identity is as absolute as math. Tautology is just math in words and math is just tautology in numbers. 0=0 is equivalent to A=A and "All bachelors are unmarried" is as absolute as "2+2=4".

Whether there is anyone to conceive of the concept or not... two objects and another two objects together is the same thing as four objects together because ultimately they mean the same thing. So 2+2=4 is an absolute truth without human existence.

Imagine humans never existed to conceive of bachelors or marriage.

Imagine there is an alien race that can get married.

Imagine they have no language and no words for "married" or "bachelors".

It's still absolutely true that all alien bachelors are unmarried because that is what those words mean and refer to when they are being used right now, in the same sense that two objects and two objects are four objects whether we use the words "two", "four", or "objects" or not (or the symbols "2" , "+" or "4" or not)... all bachelors are unmarried whether we use the words "bachelors" or "unmarried" or not. And whether we exist to use them or not.

Logical tautologies are as absolute as mathematics and for exactly the same reason.

Anyways, that's enough on that. You could easily be misrepresenting Jor. Not saying you're doing it intentionally, of course.

[ApeNotKillApe]

Asking why things exist presumes that not existing is some default or more natural state of reality. Obvious case of spacetime exclusivity bias.

[Edwardo Piet]

You can ask why any particular thing exists... but to ask why existence itself is existent? That makes no sense at all.

[Edwardo Piet]

It's asking why existence has the property of existence but existence is not a property. This is why the ontological argument for God fails. It's why imaging the most perfect being and saying "Wouldn't he be more perfect if he had the property of existence?" fails massively... because existence is not a property. Whether something exists is an entirely separate question to what that thing is.

Existence and essence are separate, that's elementary philosophy.

But beyond that there's also the fact that if a thing doesn't exist is it even a thing? I would say in one sense yes and in another sense no. But I tend to say, no. Because the imagination itself and imaginary concepts exist in a sense... it's just not real stuff. It's imaginary stuff. It's figment, ideas, imagings. So that is where I distinguish between reality and existence. This is my metaphysics.

At it's strictest sense I consider existence to refer to the presence of any thing whether real or imaginary as opposed to its absence. And basically when it is entirely absent in all senses... there is not "it". There many be the concept of "it" but here is no "it". If the concept is truly absent then there isn't even the concept of "it". If we are able to conceptualize "it", it may or may not exist but the concept of it in that case is certainly present and does exist otherwise we wouldn't be able to conceptualize it.

In any sense at all though, if you're asking why existence itself is existent, you're talking nonsense.

[Edwardo Piet]

Asking why things exist presumes that not existing is some default or more natural state of reality.

Here's another thing I am certain of: "not existing" is not a natural state of any reality

[Edwardo Piet]

Although unreality/an 'imaginary reality' may be a state of existence [emoji41]