Philosophy Now Forum

PH et. al. claimed there are no moral facts based on their version of 'what is fact'. "veritas aequitas" claims that there is no actual 'reality/Universe', if human beings did not come to exist, but there are 'objective moral facts', if, or if not, human beings exist. Yet, "veritas a...

Your response is too shallow and narrow. How can reality be experienced, realized and known if there are no humans? Note whatever the answer you provide can only be answered by humans. Therefore, logically and deductively, it follows, whatever the resultant reality it cannot be independent of the h...

In the case of Kantianism, reality is confine to what humans are capable of realizing the reality that spontaneously emerged. This is limited to what is experiential and observable [directly and indirectly] with reinforcement of critical thinking, rationality and wisdom. Here's your claim: If there...

Whatever is fact [reality, truth, knowledge] is contingent upon a human-based FSERC of which the scientific FSERC is the most credible and objective. Patently and demonstrably false. And self-contradictory. And stupidly anthropocentric. 'Reality is contingent upon that alien species on a planet on ...

Pete, we are talking at cross purposes; I’m a philosopher, and it seems you are primarily interested in rhetoric. I happen to think your strategy is also weak from a propaganda point of view, but I am not skilled in rhetoric. Instead of “There never was any evidence of election fraud sufficient to ...

The key fact here is that if we collected the total of all of the voter fraud cases everywhere in the USA for the last three years: 1499 that is not enough votes to even nudge the closest 2020 lection race in Arizona where Biden won by 10,457 votes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_...

'Empathy', in a sense, is having the ability to understand, and/or feel, 'the other'. This ability only happens fully when one is Truly 'listening' to 'the other'. Ever expressing, 'I know how you feel', 'I understand how you must be feeling, 'I understand what you must be feeling', 'I understand wh...

So, what is the actual irrefutable Truth here, was there never any evidence of election fraud? Or, was there some evidence of election fraud? The key fact here is that if we collected the total of all of the voter fraud cases everywhere in the USA for the last three years: 1499 that is not enough v...

For all practical purposes there never was any evidence of election fraud. Do you mean this from: your perspective? Some people's perspective? Every one's perspective? Thus, is 'your claim' here: your truth? Some people's truth? The actual irrefutable Truth? I knew there was hardly any cases I now ...

PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Mon May 06, 2024 1:11 am
For all practical purposes there never was any evidence of election fraud.

Do you mean this from:

your perspective?

Some people's perspective?

Every one's perspective?


Thus, is 'your claim' here:

your truth?

Some people's truth?

The actual irrefutable Truth?

There is a difference between the qualified and unqualified versions of the "no fraud" claim, Pete, and it's crucial. Omitting the "nearly sufficient to change the outcome" qualification isn't summarising, it's traducing. Instead of generating a useful discussion of the evidence...

Empathy is generally a good thing. But there are nuances to the concept of empathy, i.e. blind empathy which can lead to very negative consequences. There are parents who empathize with their child for reason X but that could compromise on Y which could be negative. For example a parent may empathi...

The thief has different feelings. How do we know, given Subjectivism, whose feelings are right? Well each thinks they are right, just like it is with objectivism. Not so. Each may "think" they are right. But both cannot possibly "be" right, because they're opposite actions: stee...

How do we know, given Subjectivism, whose feelings are right? How do you know how you currently interpret your Bible is right? I'm not sure how that question relates to Subjective Morality. Maybe you'll explain. Because what is in the bible is subjective morality, obviously. Are you really this bli...

False. The claim 'all humans do not torture and kill babies for pleasure' is not a moral assertion. It's a factual assertion with a truth-value. It has no moral entailment whatsoever - as neither would it's negation: 'all humans torture and kill babies for pleasure'. Although you are right about 't...