Atla wrote: ↑Fri Feb 23, 2024 7:27 pm
God says Copenhagen and Quantum Bayesianism though I'm unfamiliar with the latter.
The second paragraph of the Copenhagen interpretation article on Wikipedia:
Copenhagen-type interpretations hold that quantum descriptions are objective, in that they are independent of physicists' personal beliefs and other arbitrary mental factors.[5]: 85–90
Quantum Bayesian is non-realist about qm itself, not reality - which is to say, they think qm isn't ontologically true in any sense, which is distinct from thinking anti realist thoughts about reality itself.
But God was speaking generally, there are many kinds of anti-realisms, which is something VA doesn't understand (he can't process nuance, not even really big nuance). If you mean a literal mind-dependence then I guess that's the Neumann-Wigner with <1% popularity?
Atla the KG wrote:Which currently popular Quantum Mechanics interpretations are grounded on philosophical realism and which are grounded on philosophical anti-realism?
God wrote:Quantum mechanics is a fundamental theory in physics that describes the behavior of particles at the quantum level. There are several interpretations of quantum mechanics, and these interpretations often have different philosophical implications, ranging from realism to anti-realism. It's important to note that the distinction between realism and anti-realism can sometimes be subtle, and interpretations may not fit neatly into one category or the other.
Here are a few interpretations of quantum mechanics and their general philosophical inclinations:
Copenhagen Interpretation: This interpretation, associated with Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg, is often considered to be more anti-realist. It emphasizes the role of observation and measurement, arguing that the quantum state only has a definite value when measured. Outside of measurement, the state is described by a probability distribution.
Many-Worlds Interpretation (MWI): MWI, proposed by Hugh Everett III, is often associated with a realist perspective. It suggests that every possible outcome of a quantum measurement actually occurs, with the universe splitting into multiple branches, each representing a different outcome. In this interpretation, all possibilities are considered equally real.
De Broglie-Bohm Pilot-Wave Theory: This theory, also known as the Bohmian mechanics, is a deterministic interpretation. It posits the existence of hidden variables that determine the behavior of particles, making it realist in nature. The particles have definite positions, and the wave function guides their motion.
Objective Collapse Theories: Some theories propose that the wave function collapses spontaneously, without the need for an observer. Examples include the Ghirardi–Rimini–Weber (GRW) theory. Depending on how these theories are formulated, they can lean towards realism or anti-realism.
QBism (Quantum Bayesianism): QBism is an interpretation that focuses on the subjective nature of quantum probabilities. It's often associated with anti-realism, emphasizing that quantum theory provides a way for an observer to make predictions about their experiences but doesn't necessarily describe an objective reality independent of observation.
It's essential to recognize that the philosophical stance of an interpretation can be debated and may depend on how the interpretation is formulated. Additionally, some physicists may not strictly align with either realism or anti-realism, preferring a more agnostic or instrumentalist view that emphasizes the predictive power of the theory without making strong claims about the underlying reality.
You are so ignorant.
You are arrogantly defending your ignorance to make you more ignorant.
The Nobel Prize related to QM is based on the Copenhagen Interpretations.
Thus the anti-realists' version of QM has greater weights over the realists' version.
The second paragraph of the Copenhagen interpretation article on Wikipedia:
Copenhagen-type interpretations hold that quantum descriptions are objective, in that they are independent of physicists' personal beliefs and other arbitrary mental factors.[5]: 85–90
Quantum Bayesian is non-realist about qm itself, not reality - which is to say, they think qm isn't ontologically true in any sense, which is distinct from thinking anti realist thoughts about reality itself.
But God was speaking generally, there are many kinds of anti-realisms, which is something VA doesn't understand (he can't process nuance, not even really big nuance). If you mean a literal mind-dependence then I guess that's the Neumann-Wigner with <1% popularity?
Atla the KG wrote:Which currently popular Quantum Mechanics interpretations are grounded on philosophical realism and which are grounded on philosophical anti-realism?
God wrote:Quantum mechanics is a fundamental theory in physics that describes the behavior of particles at the quantum level. There are several interpretations of quantum mechanics, and these interpretations often have different philosophical implications, ranging from realism to anti-realism. It's important to note that the distinction between realism and anti-realism can sometimes be subtle, and interpretations may not fit neatly into one category or the other.
Here are a few interpretations of quantum mechanics and their general philosophical inclinations:
Copenhagen Interpretation: This interpretation, associated with Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg, is often considered to be more anti-realist. It emphasizes the role of observation and measurement, arguing that the quantum state only has a definite value when measured. Outside of measurement, the state is described by a probability distribution.
Many-Worlds Interpretation (MWI): MWI, proposed by Hugh Everett III, is often associated with a realist perspective. It suggests that every possible outcome of a quantum measurement actually occurs, with the universe splitting into multiple branches, each representing a different outcome. In this interpretation, all possibilities are considered equally real.
De Broglie-Bohm Pilot-Wave Theory: This theory, also known as the Bohmian mechanics, is a deterministic interpretation. It posits the existence of hidden variables that determine the behavior of particles, making it realist in nature. The particles have definite positions, and the wave function guides their motion.
Objective Collapse Theories: Some theories propose that the wave function collapses spontaneously, without the need for an observer. Examples include the Ghirardi–Rimini–Weber (GRW) theory. Depending on how these theories are formulated, they can lean towards realism or anti-realism.
QBism (Quantum Bayesianism): QBism is an interpretation that focuses on the subjective nature of quantum probabilities. It's often associated with anti-realism, emphasizing that quantum theory provides a way for an observer to make predictions about their experiences but doesn't necessarily describe an objective reality independent of observation.
It's essential to recognize that the philosophical stance of an interpretation can be debated and may depend on how the interpretation is formulated. Additionally, some physicists may not strictly align with either realism or anti-realism, preferring a more agnostic or instrumentalist view that emphasizes the predictive power of the theory without making strong claims about the underlying reality.
You are so ignorant.
You are arrogantly defending your ignorance to make you more ignorant.
The Nobel Prize related to QM is based on the Copenhagen Interpretations.
Thus the anti-realists' version of QM has greater weights over the realists' version.
You have absolutely no fucking idea what you're talking about. All interpretations (aside maybe the objective collapse ones) use the same QM.
...
As a default, for philosophical and science, implicature should be avoided.
But your claims re 'what is fact' is full of implicatures.
...
YOUR 'what is fact' is the one full of implicatures. Your 100% non-existent noumenon beyond appearances and cognition, creates a duality with one side of the duality blank, that's what you base everything on.
Like it or not, but your view is the one that adds something extra and probably unnecessary/nonsensical, it's not the default view. Full of implicatures. Yet never once could you just explicitly state this.
Probably because this isn't quite what Kant meant and you don't know how to phrase your position yourself.
Ignorant again.
My version is based in "You Get What YOU See" and there is nothing extra beyond what you see as verified and justified within a human-based scientific FSK.
You are the one who is adding something, i.e. there is a noumenon beyond what is seen and experienced. There is reifying an illusion and thus literally delusional [ultimate philosophical sense].
Atla wrote: ↑Fri Feb 23, 2024 7:55 pm
But God was speaking generally, there are many kinds of anti-realisms, which is something VA doesn't understand (he can't process nuance, not even really big nuance). If you mean a literal mind-dependence then I guess that's the Neumann-Wigner with <1% popularity?
You are so ignorant.
You are arrogantly defending your ignorance to make you more ignorant.
The Nobel Prize related to QM is based on the Copenhagen Interpretations.
Thus the anti-realists' version of QM has greater weights over the realists' version.
You have absolutely no fucking idea what you're talking about. All interpretations (aside maybe the objective collapse ones) use the same QM.
Even your 'God' stated this;
Copenhagen Interpretation: This interpretation, associated with Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg, is often considered to be more anti-realist. It emphasizes the role of observation and measurement, arguing that the quantum state only has a definite value when measured. Outside of measurement, the state is described by a probability distribution.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Feb 24, 2024 8:54 am
...
As a default, for philosophical and science, implicature should be avoided.
But your claims re 'what is fact' is full of implicatures.
...
YOUR 'what is fact' is the one full of implicatures. Your 100% non-existent noumenon beyond appearances and cognition, creates a duality with one side of the duality blank, that's what you base everything on.
Like it or not, but your view is the one that adds something extra and probably unnecessary/nonsensical, it's not the default view. Full of implicatures. Yet never once could you just explicitly state this.
Probably because this isn't quite what Kant meant and you don't know how to phrase your position yourself.
Ignorant again.
My version is based in "You Get What YOU See" and there is nothing extra beyond what you see as verified and justified within a human-based scientific FSK.
You are the one who is adding something, i.e. there is a noumenon beyond what is seen and experienced. There is reifying an illusion and thus literally delusional [ultimate philosophical sense].
Basic logic fail. You divided the world fundamentally into phenomena and noumena, I didn't. Therefore you are the one making unnecessary shit up, unless you can prove it, which you can't.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Feb 24, 2024 9:28 am
You are so ignorant.
You are arrogantly defending your ignorance to make you more ignorant.
The Nobel Prize related to QM is based on the Copenhagen Interpretations.
Thus the anti-realists' version of QM has greater weights over the realists' version.
You have absolutely no fucking idea what you're talking about. All interpretations (aside maybe the objective collapse ones) use the same QM.
Even your 'God' stated this;
Copenhagen Interpretation: This interpretation, associated with Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg, is often considered to be more anti-realist. It emphasizes the role of observation and measurement, arguing that the quantum state only has a definite value when measured. Outside of measurement, the state is described by a probability distribution.
Hey, don't fuck around when you have aids.
Yes and since these are interpretations of the same QM, Nobel prizes aren't associated with interpretations.
Jesus Christ how can you be this ignorant?
The man still, after all this time, has no idea what people mean when they say "measurement" in qm. QM is a philosophers wet dream, because the language allows someone like va to read whatever they want into it.
FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Fri Feb 23, 2024 12:12 pm
So far as I know, nothing I've written is in conflict with Grice on any subject I know him for such as implicature, but feel free to update my "database" with the proceeds of your learning if there's something I've overlooked. So I don't see any need for me to abandon ordinary language reasoning for any of this discussion.
Here's AI [with reservations] on Grice's Implicature:
In philosophy and science, where precision is paramount, the use of implicature is generally discouraged for several reasons:
Misinterpretation: Implicatures rely on the listener's interpretation, which can be subjective and prone to miscommunication. In philosophy and science, where clarity and accuracy are crucial, avoiding ambiguity is essential. Hidden assumptions: Implicatures often carry hidden assumptions that may not be explicitly stated. This can lead to misunderstandings and hinder the evaluation of arguments based on their own merit rather than implied meanings. Unnecessary complexity: Implicatures can introduce unnecessary complexity into an argument or explanation. In philosophy and science, clarity and simplicity are often valued, and explicit statements are preferred to avoid confusion.
However, implicature can still play a subtle role in these fields in specific situations:
Figurative language: Figurative language, like metaphors and similes, can be used to convey complex ideas in a more engaging way, even though they rely on implicature to some extent. However, their use should be carefully considered to avoid misinterpretations. Irony and humor: While not always appropriate, well-placed irony or humor can be used to highlight certain points or engage the audience without compromising clarity. Informal contexts: In informal discussions or presentations, some level of implicature might be unavoidable, but it's important to strive for clarity and avoid relying on unspoken assumptions.
Regarding your specific situation:
It's unlikely that the topic of implicature directly applies to your attempt to convince philosophical realists with Kantian anti-realism. This is because:
The arguments in these discussions are likely to be explicitly stated and rigorously analyzed, leaving little room for implicit meaning.
Both sides likely rely on well-defined terminology and established principles, minimizing the risk of misinterpretations due to implicature.
However, it's possible that implicit assumptions might be present in the arguments, leading to misunderstandings.
To address this, you can:
Explicitly state your assumptions: Clearly articulate your underlying beliefs and premises to avoid any ambiguity. Clarify your opponent's assumptions: Engage in dialogue to understand your opponent's perspective and identify any implicit assumptions they might be making. Focus on clear and concise arguments: Present your arguments in a well-structured and logical manner, using unambiguous language and avoiding unnecessary complexity.
As a default, for philosophical and science, implicature should be avoided.
But your claims re 'what is fact' is full of implicatures.
This is why I have to ask so many questions on your claim.
To avoid implicatures in philosophy and science, one need to comply with the 4 Maxims of Conversations [AI's];
Maxims of Conversation: The cooperative principle is further broken down into four maxims of conversation: Maxim of Quantity: Provide the amount of information necessary. Maxim of Quality: Be truthful and avoid saying things you believe to be false or lack evidence for. Maxim of Relation: Be relevant to the topic at hand. Maxim of Manner: Be clear and unambiguous in your expression.
But you did not present your claim in compliance with the 4 maxims of Conversations, thus so much hidden implicatures.
I don't think Grice is recommending you use implicatures in philosophy and science.
Seem you are condoning implicatures in philosophy to deceive your interlocutors??
The fuck are you on about? I was asking why you think Grice is relevant, that answer merely shows you don't know anything about Grice and you tried to cover it up as you always will by getting AI to vomit up some nonsense for you.
FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Fri Feb 23, 2024 12:12 pm
The last time was when you had no other way out after blatantly bullshitting about your Kantian know how versus that of Oxford philosopher Simon Blackburn, and you were getting completely toasted because of your own clumsy overconfidence. That's all going to happen again.
I have just downloaded "ETHICS: A Very Short Introduction" by Simon Blackburn and read the relevant parts mainly related to Kant in Part III and elsewhere.
Here are some relevant passages:
It seems to distort the very idea of a standard of conduct. As the moral philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724–1824) put it, it encourages us to act in accordance with a rule, but only because of fear of punishment or some other incentive; whereas what we really want is for people to act out of respect for a rule. This is what true virtue requires. (I discuss these ideas of Kant’s more fully in Part Three.) [Preface]
Here he meant Kant condemned religious ethics compliance to God's rule out of fear; but Kant still recommend to to act out of respect for a rule.
In essence, Kant's morality-proper is not rule-based.
On the question of 'lies' and white lies:
Some philosophers, most notoriously Kant, have grasped the nettle and forbidden even such lies. It was central to Kant’s moral scheme that the prohibition remained simple and absolute: no exceptions.
........
Here is a second example where the stringency of ethics can lead to its rejection.
This is clearly a misunderstanding of Kant's morality-proper. Kant never condoned such a stupid idea of absolute stringency.
Kant is one of the greatest Western philosopher of all times, how could he ever condone such an stupid idea? In the overall context of Kant's morality, even Kant had seemingly made those statements re 'no lying, period!', it was NOT meant to be literal.
99% of those who mentioned Kant's morality take it that Kant insist no one should lie without exceptions. [This is likely due to their oversight of Kant's full morality, or merely based on hearsays]
So this may imply Grice's "implicatures" is relevant within the understanding of Kant's morality-proper.
I had a discussion with AI [with reservations];
"The passages you've provided from Kant's "Critique of Pure Reason" indeed support your argument that Kant's moral philosophy extends beyond a purely deontological framework ..."
Now, who is toasted?? it is you!
Blah blah blah. Here's the context where you suddenly decided that the word "idiot" was too much for the boy who writes "don't fuck when you have aids" to have to withstand....
2. Korsgaard doesn't argue what you think, and if you had read her instead of learning about her from a hurried review of a wikipedia page about the pamphlet in question, you would know not to invoke her for this purpose. She is a neo-Kantian constructivist, she takes Kant's basic premises in the critiques and then re-applies them rather than arguing hermeneutics about Kant's particular intent. That's why she is famous for using Kantian principles to argue for animal rights, something Kant himself very definitely doesn't argue for.
3. Here's Johannes A. Niederhauser of Birkbeck College giving quite a scorching riposte to the Skorsgaard essay you linked, at one point he really loses his shit tbh. Truth be told you would likely prefer Niederhauser to Skorsgaard as he is very much arguing on behalf of Kant in the original form, not some modernised new version of him.
4. However, this all comes at a price for you. To horribly simplify, the way out of the issue for Kant is that he is talking about a different type of lie (he compares ethical and judicial lies in the gwk) and that the act of misleading in the murderer at the door counts as one but not really the other. Niederhauser does have an interesting extra bit that I had never heard of before to explain the sudden lurch into consequentialism that Kant did in that essay. I won't ruin it for you.
I wrote above:
"Many notable Kantians had countered the misrepresentations, e.g. Allen Wood, Korsgaard and others."
I gave a few examples.
I am aware Korsgaard's version was subjected to criticism by others.
But the main point is this;
you brought up Kant's "On the Supposed Right to Lie From Benevolent Motives" [SRL] to critique Kant's Ethics.
My point is, you are wrong because that is out of context because Kant's SRL was in the juridical context and not in the Ethical Contexts.
For Kant, Ethics is independent of politics [legislation and the judiciary].
Yeah so.... that means that Kant would argue that you must not tell an ethical lie even to save a life... which is what he does say in that pamphlet, which is where Blackburn got the claim.... that was correct. Blackburn isn't wrong about deontology or Kant.
5. Blackburn knows all about the judicial/ethical thing, and as does Korsgaard, in both cases it isn't very important to the case they are presenting though. Niederhauser shows why Kant doesn't need to alter his imperative and rules based approach to deal with the murderer at the door. Blackburn is showing how the basic reasoning that attaches rightness and wrongness to actions works under differing moral schemas and thus simply doesn't need to address the two types of lying one of which is a duty and the other a wrong under that circumstance. And skorsgaard.... well maybe her essay is a bit bullshitty, but normally she's got her own thing going and it works fairly well.
6. I don't need you to offer a quote for Kant telling us that all interest is ultimately practical and even that of speculative reason is only conditional and is complete in practical use alone. Everyone knows it already. The point you don't seem to get is that this is why Kant is known to be weak on the subject of moral motivation.
None of this really changes anything. Kant did write that to lie would not be justified even to save a life, and he meant it. He just differentiates between two types of lie and applies different imperatigves and reason to them.
So Blackburn wasn't wrong, either about where deontology touches ground or about its obligations and duties focus. As if that was ever in doubt.
Yes, "Blackburn wasn't wrong, either about where deontology touches ground or about its obligations and duties focus" [he implied in the absolutist sense],
but he was wrong in stating that Kant's Ethics belong to the above sort of absolute deontology, as in the Abrahamic religions, judiciary, with examples like you did, linked to the "On the Supposed Right to Lie From Benevolent Motives".
Kant's ethics does belong to the deontological school. You are off on some adventure now about absolutism, but you are throwing that charge around without giving any real reason. I don't see evidence that Blackburn is making such a claim, but nor do I see evidence he's wrong to.
The point you don't seem to get is that this is why Kant is known to be weak on the subject of moral motivation.
Why?
What do you mean by your sense of 'moral motivation' and how Kant is known for it?
I am very interested to know your point of view on why.
I feel like I've written it a bunch of times for you. Our real morals (not this fake shit you are flogging under the absurd branding of morality-proper) have explanatory power in the causal realm and any accurate description of them needs to cover that. That's something real philosophers take care to do in this matter and you don't get it because your philosophical thing is just an ad hoc dump of nonsense that will never go anywhere.
You did storm off and sulk because you couldn't justify your previous boasting. This isn't interesting though, you can lie to yourself if that's how you need to live, I put in enough work on this at the time and I don't feel like bothering again.
FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Fri Feb 23, 2024 12:12 pm
So far as I know, nothing I've written is in conflict with Grice on any subject I know him for such as implicature, but feel free to update my "database" with the proceeds of your learning if there's something I've overlooked. So I don't see any need for me to abandon ordinary language reasoning for any of this discussion.
Here's AI [with reservations] on Grice's Implicature:
In philosophy and science, where precision is paramount, the use of implicature is generally discouraged for several reasons:
Misinterpretation: Implicatures rely on the listener's interpretation, which can be subjective and prone to miscommunication. In philosophy and science, where clarity and accuracy are crucial, avoiding ambiguity is essential. Hidden assumptions: Implicatures often carry hidden assumptions that may not be explicitly stated. This can lead to misunderstandings and hinder the evaluation of arguments based on their own merit rather than implied meanings. Unnecessary complexity: Implicatures can introduce unnecessary complexity into an argument or explanation. In philosophy and science, clarity and simplicity are often valued, and explicit statements are preferred to avoid confusion.
However, implicature can still play a subtle role in these fields in specific situations:
Figurative language: Figurative language, like metaphors and similes, can be used to convey complex ideas in a more engaging way, even though they rely on implicature to some extent. However, their use should be carefully considered to avoid misinterpretations. Irony and humor: While not always appropriate, well-placed irony or humor can be used to highlight certain points or engage the audience without compromising clarity. Informal contexts: In informal discussions or presentations, some level of implicature might be unavoidable, but it's important to strive for clarity and avoid relying on unspoken assumptions.
Regarding your specific situation:
It's unlikely that the topic of implicature directly applies to your attempt to convince philosophical realists with Kantian anti-realism. This is because:
The arguments in these discussions are likely to be explicitly stated and rigorously analyzed, leaving little room for implicit meaning.
Both sides likely rely on well-defined terminology and established principles, minimizing the risk of misinterpretations due to implicature.
However, it's possible that implicit assumptions might be present in the arguments, leading to misunderstandings.
To address this, you can:
Explicitly state your assumptions: Clearly articulate your underlying beliefs and premises to avoid any ambiguity. Clarify your opponent's assumptions: Engage in dialogue to understand your opponent's perspective and identify any implicit assumptions they might be making. Focus on clear and concise arguments: Present your arguments in a well-structured and logical manner, using unambiguous language and avoiding unnecessary complexity.
As a default, for philosophical and science, implicature should be avoided.
But your claims re 'what is fact' is full of implicatures.
This is why I have to ask so many questions on your claim.
To avoid implicatures in philosophy and science, one need to comply with the 4 Maxims of Conversations [AI's];
Maxims of Conversation: The cooperative principle is further broken down into four maxims of conversation: Maxim of Quantity: Provide the amount of information necessary. Maxim of Quality: Be truthful and avoid saying things you believe to be false or lack evidence for. Maxim of Relation: Be relevant to the topic at hand. Maxim of Manner: Be clear and unambiguous in your expression.
But you did not present your claim in compliance with the 4 maxims of Conversations, thus so much hidden implicatures.
I don't think Grice is recommending you use implicatures in philosophy and science.
Seem you are condoning implicatures in philosophy to deceive your interlocutors??
The fuck are you on about? I was asking why you think Grice is relevant, that answer merely shows you don't know anything about Grice and you tried to cover it up as you always will by getting AI to vomit up some nonsense for you.
Don't fuck around when you have aids!
I see your train is going off the rails.
If you cannot control yourself, I am off.
You stated, So far as I know, nothing I've written is in conflict with Grice on any subject I know him for such as implicature, but feel free to update my "database" with the proceeds of your learning if there's something I've overlooked.
So I gave my views in relation to the above?
What wrong with that.
I have already presented why Grice claimed Ordinary Language is Dead [Demise of Ordinary Language.
FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Fri Feb 23, 2024 12:12 pm
The last time was when you had no other way out after blatantly bullshitting about your Kantian know how versus that of Oxford philosopher Simon Blackburn, and you were getting completely toasted because of your own clumsy overconfidence. That's all going to happen again.
I have just downloaded "ETHICS: A Very Short Introduction" by Simon Blackburn and read the relevant parts mainly related to Kant in Part III and elsewhere.
Here are some relevant passages:
It seems to distort the very idea of a standard of conduct. As the moral philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724–1824) put it, it encourages us to act in accordance with a rule, but only because of fear of punishment or some other incentive; whereas what we really want is for people to act out of respect for a rule. This is what true virtue requires. (I discuss these ideas of Kant’s more fully in Part Three.) [Preface]
Here he meant Kant condemned religious ethics compliance to God's rule out of fear; but Kant still recommend to to act out of respect for a rule.
In essence, Kant's morality-proper is not rule-based.
On the question of 'lies' and white lies:
Some philosophers, most notoriously Kant, have grasped the nettle and forbidden even such lies. It was central to Kant’s moral scheme that the prohibition remained simple and absolute: no exceptions.
........
Here is a second example where the stringency of ethics can lead to its rejection.
This is clearly a misunderstanding of Kant's morality-proper. Kant never condoned such a stupid idea of absolute stringency.
Kant is one of the greatest Western philosopher of all times, how could he ever condone such an stupid idea? In the overall context of Kant's morality, even Kant had seemingly made those statements re 'no lying, period!', it was NOT meant to be literal.
99% of those who mentioned Kant's morality take it that Kant insist no one should lie without exceptions. [This is likely due to their oversight of Kant's full morality, or merely based on hearsays]
So this may imply Grice's "implicatures" is relevant within the understanding of Kant's morality-proper.
I had a discussion with AI [with reservations];
"The passages you've provided from Kant's "Critique of Pure Reason" indeed support your argument that Kant's moral philosophy extends beyond a purely deontological framework ..."
Now, who is toasted?? it is you!
Blah blah blah. Here's the context where you suddenly decided that the word "idiot" was too much for the boy who writes "don't fuck when you have aids" to have to withstand....
You did storm off and sulk because you couldn't justify your previous boasting. This isn't interesting though, you can lie to yourself if that's how you need to live, I put in enough work on this at the time and I don't feel like bothering again.
You arrogantly and ignorantly underestimated me.
I did justify my view that Simon Blackburn was ignorant of Kant's morality at the fundamental level with my post above where I quoted passages from Blackburn's Introduction to Ethics.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Feb 25, 2024 2:49 am
Now who is toasted.
If you disagree, why?
You were toasted. You can follow the links and read what was written then if you like, I don't have a lot of faith in your comprehjension skills and I'm not wasting time on that old shit again.
What I am telling you here and now is that I know what you did, I know why you did it, so don't clutch your pearls at me, I see right through you.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Feb 25, 2024 2:49 am
Now who is toasted.
If you disagree, why?
You were toasted. You can follow the links and read what was written then if you like, I don't have a lot of faith in your comprehjension skills and I'm not wasting time on that old shit again.
What I am telling you here and now is that I know what you did, I know why you did it, so don't clutch your pearls at me, I see right through you.
You wrote earlier;
Kant's ethics does belong to the deontological school. You are off on some adventure now about absolutism, but you are throwing that charge around without giving any real reason. I don't see evidence that Blackburn is making such a claim, but nor do I see evidence he's wrong to.
I quoted passages from Blackburn's book in justifying why Blackburn claimed Kant belonged to the deontological school.
Then I gave you a clue that Kant morality is not deontological per-se from AI based on texts I supplied to the AI from Kant's book.
Btw, most philosophers [like >90%] [e.g. Simon Blackburn] who refer to Kant's morality take it to be deontological per-se because they did not understand Kant thoroughly and they depend on hearsays. You are one of the above 90%.
This is a serious error on your part. If you have any intellectual integrity, you should get to the truth based on Kant's books, merely to understand but not necessary agree with it.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Feb 25, 2024 2:49 am
Now who is toasted.
If you disagree, why?
You were toasted. You can follow the links and read what was written then if you like, I don't have a lot of faith in your comprehjension skills and I'm not wasting time on that old shit again.
What I am telling you here and now is that I know what you did, I know why you did it, so don't clutch your pearls at me, I see right through you.
You wrote earlier;
Kant's ethics does belong to the deontological school. You are off on some adventure now about absolutism, but you are throwing that charge around without giving any real reason. I don't see evidence that Blackburn is making such a claim, but nor do I see evidence he's wrong to.
I quoted passages from Blackburn's book in justifying why Blackburn claimed Kant belonged to the deontological school.
Then I gave you a clue that Kant morality is not deontological per-se from AI based on texts I supplied to the AI from Kant's book.
Btw, most philosophers [like >90%] [e.g. Simon Blackburn] who refer to Kant's morality take it to be deontological per-se because they did not understand Kant thoroughly and they depend on hearsays. You are one of the above 90%.
This is a serious error on your part. If you have any intellectual integrity, you should get to the truth based on Kant's books, merely to understand but not necessary agree with it.
That quote is from months ago, I'm not doing all the work again. You dismissed me at the time when this was a live conversation on the implausible grounds that you took huge offence at the word idiot, even though you are now daily accusing people of "fucking with aids", which is a lot worse in case you haven't noticed. So your threat to do so again falls on deaf ears, because I know you will use any excuse, such as that 'idiot' one, when you are in trouble and need to shut down. Immanuel Can does the exact same trick, everyone knows what it looks like.
The real philosophers are of course right, and i'm just not going to entertain your delusions of superiority over the entire academic community, that's just dumb. You may well think yourself one of the philosophical greats, and I am sure you have a lot of your "confidence" about that, but that is never going to happen for you, you aren't good enough to deal the minnows here.
FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sun Feb 25, 2024 2:56 am
You were toasted. You can follow the links and read what was written then if you like, I don't have a lot of faith in your comprehjension skills and I'm not wasting time on that old shit again.
What I am telling you here and now is that I know what you did, I know why you did it, so don't clutch your pearls at me, I see right through you.
You wrote earlier;
Kant's ethics does belong to the deontological school. You are off on some adventure now about absolutism, but you are throwing that charge around without giving any real reason. I don't see evidence that Blackburn is making such a claim, but nor do I see evidence he's wrong to.
I quoted passages from Blackburn's book in justifying why Blackburn claimed Kant belonged to the deontological school.
Then I gave you a clue that Kant morality is not deontological per-se from AI based on texts I supplied to the AI from Kant's book.
Btw, most philosophers [like >90%] [e.g. Simon Blackburn] who refer to Kant's morality take it to be deontological per-se because they did not understand Kant thoroughly and they depend on hearsays. You are one of the above 90%.
This is a serious error on your part. If you have any intellectual integrity, you should get to the truth based on Kant's books, merely to understand but not necessary agree with it.
That quote is from months ago, I'm not doing all the work again. You dismissed me at the time when this was a live conversation on the implausible grounds that you took huge offence at the word idiot, even though you are now daily accusing people of "fucking with aids", which is a lot worse in case you haven't noticed. So your threat to do so again falls on deaf ears, because I know you will use any excuse, such as that 'idiot' one, when you are in trouble and need to shut down. Immanuel Can does the exact same trick, everyone knows what it looks like.
The real philosophers are of course right, and i'm just not going to entertain your delusions of superiority over the entire academic community, that's just dumb. You may well think yourself one of the philosophical greats, and I am sure you have a lot of your "confidence" about that, but that is never going to happen for you, you aren't good enough to deal the minnows here.
You are the 30th best philosopher at PN, if that.
I have texts from Kant's book to back my argument to counter Simon Blackburn.
Even if Blackburn is smart, but Kant warned;
Even the wisest of men cannot free himself from them {the illusions}.
After long effort he perhaps succeeds in guarding himself against actual error; but he will never be able to free himself from the Illusion, which unceasingly mocks and torments him. CPR B397
Kant's CPR is one of the toughest philosophical book to understand; while Kant had the solid stuffs, he was also a very bad writer, thus many* [most but not all] missed the nuance points of what he wrote.
* the majority are philosophical realists by an evolutionary default, so they are blinded by that very strong instinct and psychological drive to understand the novel paradigm Kant was presenting.
