Aristotle also proposed explanations (most were wrong, of course, and admittedly he didn't always investigate enough). Not only him, but many others in antiquity (the Epicureans for instance proposed many possible explanations for phenomena). They had a fairly large number of naturalists (in the sense of people who study nature, though many were also philosophical naturalists). I'm unaware that this idea you couldn't understand Nature was widespread, outside Skeptics (and they said that about everything). Admittedly science as we'd call it now wasn't that advanced then, but I don't think an ideological block really existed, or at least was hardly universal.

All right.

You need more to convince others.

Support your argument first. Thus far all that I've seen is you asserting this.

You simply beg the question.

I am not "negating" anything.

You said everything is dependent on thought. I'm not seeing why that is. Sure, we do depend upon thought to discern reality. That doesn't mean that there's nothing outside it though.

I'm not seeing a justification of your stance, and I wanted one.

Why?

That didn't answer the question. I don't think we engage with reality solely by thought. In any case, that does not tell us it's entirely thought. Your claims were to me rather extreme, such as claiming before people believed in heliocentrism, it wasn't true. I see no basis for that.

Ah. I'm not sold on that either.

I may have misunderstood. You stated:

As you know I reject the very idea of there being an overarching (objective) meaning to human existence and life in general.

That seemed like it meant you rejected objective morality too. Are they distinct for you? On your question though, yes in some sense, or rather some natural things are good objectively.

That makes sense. I'd say your view isn't that different from an ethical naturalist in practice, even if we disagree over the metaethical status of morality.

Ah, that makes sense. I'm familiar with that idea from my history readings. However only having seen it once I don't remember the details of the play.

Yes.

I thought it was sorry. So what I mean is "general agreement". Where the line is drawn I agree would be difficult.

I wasn't aware of that. Why did they not like it?

That's true, it can be difficult. It is better to say there's a consensus.

I'm pretty sure that's not constant. Let me be more specific: pain such that they can't even do anything, such as unfortunately some of the sick have without medication. You describe a pain that's chosen as well. I'm pretty sure that can lead to pleasure as well (i.e. they're masochists, or they gain pleasure through achievements).

It was metaphorical yes. Well, it's an objective fact, i.e. my opinion doesn't change this.

I know it doesn't literally. That earth revolves though is a fact.

Really. Who likes to be in constant pain? Tell me.

I think that seems fine so far.

Why do you think that? How does this explain things happening people profoundly dislike, if it's just thought?

A guess? If you mean it's not absolutely certain, perhaps so. Certain as anything gets though. However even if I have my guess wrong, it will or won't happen no matter what anyone thinks of the matter.

That the sun will rise and set is independent of my opinion. Whether or not I happen to agree with it, this will happen nonetheless. That is simply one example.

Which opinion is that?

It was believed, but wasn't true. There is a difference.

Quite probably. However my point is certain facts exist independent of opinion. Do you disagree?

That's absurd. Are you saying until then the earth really was the center of the solar system? Come on.

They don't actually want bad health (and in moderation not all of these things cause it). However, addiction gets in the way.

So were Galileo or Copernicus wrong when they said heliocentrism was true because most astronomers didn't agree at the time?

It's true there is not a uniform agreement. At the same time however, there do seem some things which can be agreed upon, for instance being in constant pain is bad.

Why is it ambiguous by extending to the brain? I'm not sure what you mean with your example. Would hating every aspect of society mean that health is bad?

Of course it's limited to health. There are many kinds of progress that happen.

They differ to some degree. I'm not aware of anyone who likes to be sick all the time for instance however.

I agree, it seems like the burden lies on them, and it's a difficult onus. Some whom I've seen simply defend moral realism by rebutting attacks, thus leaving it by default.

I assume you mean by "impossible" it's impossible to get it universally accepted? That may be true.

I agree, it is very damaging.

An interestingly succinct argument.

I'm sorry, I misunderstood you then. There are of course always difficulties in getting something intellectually accepted. On the other hand, I don't think anyone fails to pursue happiness or health etc. So it could be argued they implicitly accept them, whatever else they may say.

Okay. I think it does, but I'm not sure how many there are. Those you and I listed however would be there. As to I would say he's not going to be in good mental health then, even if he's otherwise healthy (which is not necessarily true-these things affect the rest).

I wasn't trying to "evade" anything, just adding to your examples, and describing my agreement with them.

How should I engage those? I don't get what you were expecting here.

The view that morals, rather than subjective opinions, social constructs or nonexistent, are objective facts in some way. Here is a rundown.

I'm a supporter of ethical naturalism, and I'd add happiness in general, or sophisticated pleasure (distinguished from ones which cause pain, like say drug use).