Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Tue May 23, 2023 10:01 am
None of that seems to answer the question about why you care
If you look at his response to your repeat of the question:
1) he seems to have forgotten the context. This leads him to repeat one of his positions and fails to answer the question.
2) you could rephrase the question: must someone be an antirealist for you to consider them an ally in relation to morals? Can you align with people who are realists, but who also think, like you do, that reducing murder and/or being more empathetic are good goals? Or do you consider them threats to humanity only?
3) His response to you above is very confused, even if it was actually answering the question you asked.
Why I care?
I am in alignment with the vision of philosophy for humanity [hardwired in the brain], i.e.
1. What can I know - Epistemology
2. What can I do - Morality
3. What can I hope for? Perpetual Peace
Why I care is because of being naturally driven for 3 even I know it is not possible within the current generation.
He is aligned with the vision of humanity [hardwired in the brain]
and they he has a list where only number three could be considered a vision. He values Perpetual Peace.
1 and 2 are just categories. They are not parts of a vision. An epistemology with specific characteristics could be. A morality with specific characteristics could be. But one and two don't make any sense after "i.e"
He is naturally driven for 3. This is also an odd response. You ask why he cares. He answers that he is naturally driven. It is as if it is not part of any philosophy. He's answering as if you asked him Why do you like blue cheese?
Now it can be a great admission. He could be saying '
the root of my vision and valuing perpetual peace is something innate. I do think this is a good idea, I am just acknowledging that it is a part of who I am.
But then it should be incredibly easy to align with realists who share such a goal and consider it objectively good.
So I want to sum this up on two main points because I think they explain a lot about communication with VA:
A. He is not good at undertanding points IN CONTEXT. So, you never really know for sure what he is arguing against, in a specific set of points, or even if it connects to what it seems to be responding to.
B. There is something chaotic in the communication. It's the work of a bricoleur. He takes things that may or may not fit together, as if he is in a hurry and we're left with something that ends up being partially nonsensical. I am not saying his beliefs are nonsensical, but given the nature of his writing and the way he jams things together, we get an impression of his main point, but lots of internal tensions and countermessages and things that are hard to interpret.
Couple these two patterns and communication is very convoluted with VA. Even in this short non-response to your twice-asked question dozens of confusions are created. I think that may be more important that any differences in position someone communicating with VA may have.
And that's not even getting at his goal of Perpetual Peace, which in English actually sounds quite a bit like death, or heaven.
But it comes from Kant's book of the same name and it's more or less a set of political positions.
The irony is that many realists, apropos your question, have believed in this and tried to implement it.