BDM - It's not a sex thing

[Skepdick]

<blah blah blah>
So if you are asked why you, as some sort of Humean, would choose to act honourably or honestly or something, the obvious answer is that it is because you believe acting honourably and honestly are good things, and you are motivated by your beliefs and desires which is perfectly natural.

This dimwit doesn't get it. Not even a little bit. Not even at all.

The principle of equifinality is fundamental in open systems. In brief: there are infinitely many paths to the same destination/outcome.

This entire rambling about morals/choices is fundamentally confused soon as you erase the possibility of any difference.

So you choose to act morally? OK.
So you choose to act immorally? OK.
So you choose to act honourable, honestly <insert virtues here>? OK.

Different people - different ideals. What now? Well. lets raise the stakes on justification by asking: Objectively speaking - does any of it make any difference?

Subjectivists can't answer this question without imploding their paradigm.
Humeans and Kantian deontologists can't answer this questions without empirical cosnequentialism.

If different choices make no effective difference - then there is no point in making any choices. Just flip a coin.
Anything other than consequentialism is vacuous and self-defeating.

So is there an objective difference between True and False? If there isn't then philosophy implodes and becomes pointless.

[Iwannaplato]

[Mathematics has near credibility and objectivity to science].

How close are their degrees of empiricalness?
How did you test the objectivity of math?
Via what steps?
Do you have a number with science as the standard at 100?
Math has near credibility. Could you show the steps to arriving at the number.

[Skepdick]

[Mathematics has near credibility and objectivity to science].

How close are their degrees of empiricalness?
How did you test the objectivity of math?
Via what steps?
Do you have a number with science as the standard at 100?
Math has near credibility. Could you show the steps to arriving at the number.

The irony of the ignoramus asking for the steps to arrive at a number.

He is asking for a procedure. An algorithm. A proof which is itself a mathematical entity.

Of course a procedure can be provided. In fact an infinite number of procedures can be provided.

hat he won't tell you is how the quality of those procedures is to be evaluated.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curry%E2% ... espondence

[Atla]

Any rational and critical thinker

I asked God about this:

On a scale of 1 to 10 from least rational to most rational, could you rate how rational the idea is that objective reality doesn't exist?

The idea that objective reality doesn't exist is a complex philosophical concept that has been debated for centuries. It's important to note that the assessment of rationality can vary among individuals and within different philosophical frameworks. Here's a general perspective:

From a philosophical standpoint, the idea that objective reality doesn't exist is often discussed within the context of solipsism, idealism, or various forms of anti-realism. These positions argue that reality is either entirely mental or constructed in some way, and they often lack empirical evidence to support their claims. From this perspective, it might be considered less rational. Let's rate it as 2 on the scale.

However, it's essential to recognize that philosophy is a discipline that frequently explores ideas at the fringes of rationality. Some philosophers have developed sophisticated arguments for these positions, even if they are not widely accepted. In this sense, the rationality of the idea can be higher in the context of philosophical discourse. Let's rate it as 5 in this context.

From a scientific and empirical standpoint, the idea that objective reality doesn't exist is generally considered less rational. Scientific methodologies rely on the assumption that there is an objective reality that can be studied and understood through empirical observation and evidence. Most scientific endeavors would be challenging or impossible without this foundational assumption. Therefore, in a scientific context, this idea might be rated quite low, perhaps around 2 on the scale.

It's important to acknowledge that debates about the nature of reality and the limits of human perception continue, and different philosophical and scientific perspectives exist. People's views on this idea may vary widely, and it's subject to ongoing discussion and debate. In some contexts, it might be rated higher on the rationality scale due to the complexity of the arguments and the richness of the philosophical discourse. Let's rate it as 4 in this context.

In summary, the rationality of the idea that objective reality doesn't exist depends on the context and perspective from which it is considered. It's a concept that spans the spectrum from less rational to more rational, and the rating can vary among individuals and disciplines.

That averages to 3.25/10, which looks kinda meh

According to God, VA is irrational. If VA is irrational then he also can't recognize rationality in others.

[Veritas Aequitas]

A radical change to how "credibility" works has suddenly occurred. Could this be to do with you being in charge of the whole game and you making up rules to suit yourself as you go?

Rules in this case refer to general rules on how STANDARDS are created, not my own rules.

Any rational and critical thinker at present will accept scientific facts from the human-based scientific FSK [at its best] is the most credible and objectivity. [Mathematics has near credibility and objectivity to science].
This is based on the FSK of FSKs within one critical element, i.e.
Criteria in Rating Credibility & Objectivity of a FSK
viewtopic.php?p=675044#p675044

Show me which other FSK of fields of knowledge is more credible and objective than Science and Mathematics?

If the scientific FSK is the most credible, then, we can use it as a base or Standard all other FSKs can be compared against.
As THE STANDARD, we assign it a value of 100 or 100% as matter of convenience.

The setting of standard approach is a very useful quantitative and objective approach.

Your own FSK is not is not near equivalent to anything. The criteria for being credible includes multiple people accepting it, so you fail imediately on that score. It is the height of arrogance to insist that your one man crusade is equivalent to the product of centuries of science just because you filled out questionnaire and self-certified your own work as "methodical" and "ethically neutral".

So you are setting the rules in this sandpit to favour your own ideas. Hardly scientific is it?

Note this generic suggestions from ChatGpt on how to make comparison of the credibility and objectivity more effective.

Fact is, the FSK approach is already implemented in practice.
What I had presented is an improved model which I believe is very tenable.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Any rational and critical thinker

On a scale of 1 to 10 from least rational to most rational, could you rate how rational the idea is that objective reality doesn't exist?

The idea that objective reality doesn't exist is a complex philosophical concept that has been debated for centuries. It's important to note that the assessment of rationality can vary among individuals and within different philosophical frameworks. Here's a general perspective:

From a philosophical standpoint, the idea that objective reality doesn't exist is often discussed within the context of solipsism, idealism, or various forms of anti-realism. These positions argue that reality is either entirely mental or constructed in some way, and they often lack empirical evidence to support their claims. From this perspective, it might be considered less rational. Let's rate it as 2 on the scale.

However, it's essential to recognize that philosophy is a discipline that frequently explores ideas at the fringes of rationality. Some philosophers have developed sophisticated arguments for these positions, even if they are not widely accepted. In this sense, the rationality of the idea can be higher in the context of philosophical discourse. Let's rate it as 5 in this context.

From a scientific and empirical standpoint, the idea that objective reality doesn't exist is generally considered less rational. Scientific methodologies rely on the assumption that there is an objective reality that can be studied and understood through empirical observation and evidence. Most scientific endeavors would be challenging or impossible without this foundational assumption. Therefore, in a scientific context, this idea might be rated quite low, perhaps around 2 on the scale.

It's important to acknowledge that debates about the nature of reality and the limits of human perception continue, and different philosophical and scientific perspectives exist. People's views on this idea may vary widely, and it's subject to ongoing discussion and debate. In some contexts, it might be rated higher on the rationality scale due to the complexity of the arguments and the richness of the philosophical discourse. Let's rate it as 4 in this context.

In summary, the rationality of the idea that objective reality doesn't exist depends on the context and perspective from which it is considered. It's a concept that spans the spectrum from less rational to more rational, and the rating can vary among individuals and disciplines.

ChatGpt: "From a philosophical standpoint, the idea that objective reality doesn't exist is often discussed within the context of solipsism, idealism, or various forms of anti-realism. These positions argue that reality is either entirely mental or constructed in some way, and they often lack empirical evidence to support their claims. From this perspective, it might be considered less rational. Let's rate it as 2 on the scale."

Because ChatGpt lumped up all the various anti-realism and idealism, it gave a rating of 2 on the scale of rationality.

In the case of philosophical_realism [objective reality is absolutely mind-independent and real], from a ANTI-philosophical realists' the rationality would be rated at 0 [Zero], because philosophical realism is grounded on an illusion.

[FlashDangerpants]

Rules in this case refer to general rules on how STANDARDS are created, not my own rules.

Any rational and critical thinker at present will accept scientific facts from the human-based scientific FSK [at its best] is the most credible and objectivity. [Mathematics has near credibility and objectivity to science].
This is based on the FSK of FSKs within one critical element, i.e.
Criteria in Rating Credibility & Objectivity of a FSK
viewtopic.php?p=675044#p675044

Show me which other FSK of fields of knowledge is more credible and objective than Science and Mathematics?

If the scientific FSK is the most credible, then, we can use it as a base or Standard all other FSKs can be compared against.
As THE STANDARD, we assign it a value of 100 or 100% as matter of convenience.

The setting of standard approach is a very useful quantitative and objective approach.

Your own FSK is not is not near equivalent to anything. The criteria for being credible includes multiple people accepting it, so you fail imediately on that score. It is the height of arrogance to insist that your one man crusade is equivalent to the product of centuries of science just because you filled out questionnaire and self-certified your own work as "methodical" and "ethically neutral".

So you are setting the rules in this sandpit to favour your own ideas. Hardly scientific is it?

Note this generic suggestions from ChatGpt on how to make comparison of the credibility and objectivity more effective.

Fact is, the FSK approach is already implemented in practice.
What I had presented is an improved model which I believe is very tenable.

By your own words below, your own FSK doesn't count.

The base is the existence and qualification of a human-based FSK with its Constitution, structures, principles and processes as supported by sufficient members [not by one person or a loose group] who agreed and adopt the Constitution implicitly or explicitly.

You are self serving. You change the rules when it suits you because you are only making up rules for a game of self glorification anyway.

[Skepdick]

You are self serving. You change the rules when it suits you because you are only making up rules for a game of self glorification anyway.

FlashDangerpants successfully profiles himself; and all philosophers.

This was our paradox: no course of action could be determined by a[ny?] rule[s], because any course of action can be made out to accord with the rule[s] --Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations §201a

[Atla]

morality-proper-WillBouwman-Pete-IWP-Sculptor-ATLA FSK

Imo the source of moral motivation is neither the Kantian autistic rules/maxims/imperatives, nor the Humean wants/desires/passions/beliefs (obviously). The source is one level deeper.

Moral motivation is the inner moral drive to do what is right, which is an expression of the conscience. Some people have stronger drives, some people have weaker drives. People without conscience don't have such a drive.

Once we have this basis, we can then look at how people's wants/desires/passions/beliefs are affected or even created by their moral drives. Or look at how autistic people like Kant feel it to be sort of a necessity to be subjugated to rules/maxims/imperatives that have a moral nature.

That's also why IC's morality is artificial. He has no conscience and therefore no moral drive. But Christianity has established a moral code that he has adopted without understanding its moral (conscience-based) nature.

[Gary Childress]

Tbh I don't know what you guys are trying to achieve with IC. Are you guys hoping that one day he'll realize all the ways he's been wrong, and feel bad about it? That is literally not possible.

It's true. The only thing we can do with respect to IC is agree to disagree and keep our distance from each other. It seems to be the only way all humans can get along and not go insane.

[Atla]

Tbh I don't know what you guys are trying to achieve with IC. Are you guys hoping that one day he'll realize all the ways he's been wrong, and feel bad about it? That is literally not possible.

It's true. The only thing we can do with respect to IC is agree to disagree and keep our distance from each other. It seems to be the only way all humans can get along and not go insane.

I meant that even if he realizes all the ways he's been wrong, he literally can't feel bad about it. Feeling bad about it (in this sense) comes from the conscience, but he doesn't have one.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Willy B has expressed a belief that morality is founded on emotions, so he's a gimme.

Indeed sir; I have expressed a belief that all of philosophy is based on emotion - morality is a shoo-in.

When you employ the word emotion is it related to what you have said about aesthetics?

It reduces to what we feel about things and to a sense of proportion and balance?

[Will Bouwman]

Willy B has expressed a belief that morality is founded on emotions, so he's a gimme.

Indeed sir; I have expressed a belief that all of philosophy is based on emotion - morality is a shoo-in.

When you employ the word emotion is it related to what you have said about aesthetics?

Absolutely. I don't know of an aesthetic response that isn't emotional. Happy to be enlightened, Gus.

It reduces to what we feel about things and to a sense of proportion and balance?

Well, up to the proportion and balance bit, yeah.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Absolutely. I don't know of an aesthetic response that isn't emotional.

So if I understand you correctly philosophy is ultimately an affair of aesthetics and emotional response? That is, what seems philosophically sound is associated to how we feel about the matter at hand?

[Will Bouwman]

Absolutely. I don't know of an aesthetic response that isn't emotional.

So if I understand you correctly philosophy is ultimately an affair of aesthetics and emotional response? That is, what seems philosophically sound is associated to how we feel about the matter at hand?

Well philosophically sound is a ridiculously stringent criterion. To be philosophically sound, a proposition has to such that its denial is self refuting. As I have said frequently, only Parmenides and Descartes have achieved this. There is something, and there is thought cannot be expressed without being true. All other propositions, however absurd you personally find them, can be coherently held. Doing so is an aesthetic choice. Consider whether the world is material or ideal. There is no phenomenon that could be observed in one case and not the other. No way to tell them apart, so if you take a view, it's not determined by anything that might be called science. Once you understand this, you will appreciate that what you happen to believe is influenced by your circumstances and your personal aesthetic values. Bit of nurture, with a side order of nature.