Philosophy Now Forum

And who are "people"? And who are "us"? Those are extremely pertinent questions. You need to explore them further. It's important for you to do so. If it weren't then you wouldn't be asking those questions right now. At least if I were in your shoes, that's the way I would see t...

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Sep 21, 2023 3:02 pm As far as I know for certain, other people tell people what they ought to do. Outside of that, I couldn't tell you.

You seem to be kicking the can down the road.... until it evaporates.

Nobody tells anybody what to do.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Sep 21, 2023 2:59 pm Facts don't tell us what you "ought" to do. People tell us what we "ought" to do.

And who tells people what they ought to do?

And who are "people"?
And who are "us"?

If you are ignorant, then you pause and take your bearings to see if you are/were doing something that ought or else ought not be done. Is doing something under ignorance a wise choice? Are there some things that ought not be done when one is ignorant? You can't derive an ought from any facts. You ...

I am asking where this principle of reciprocity is getting smuggled in from. If, for the sake of argument, I decide that I am some sort of property with a circular belongs-to relationship with myself, that is all I must decide. I don't have to decide that you are my equal any more than I might deci...

Is "moving forward" always necessary? Can you not believe that you don't know something? Is that not an option? No, you can't. To know that you believe that you know nothing is you just re-assirting the fact of your ignorance. OK. You are ignorant. You can redefine it in as many circles a...

"Not all philosophy is just about "winning" arguments." Well goddamit it should be. You'd do well to read Protagoras, young man. Well, if you insist. I can't stop you from doing what you want to do. But if there's one way to make sure you are the biggest loser is to convince me ...

Not all philosophy is just about "winning" arguments. Some philosophy is more directly about exposing bad arguments on the part of others. There's a lot of nuance to philosophy. But there is also the systemic problem. Humans are biased creatures. This is unavoidable. Biases are beliefs. W...

Not all philosophy is just about "winning" arguments. Some philosophy is more directly about exposing bad arguments on the part of others. There's a lot of nuance to philosophy. Sure. I am speaking in context. The way "philosophy" is understood here. On this forum; and how I've ...

morality comes from other people who want to control your actions -Imp Half truth. Why do they want to control your actions? Why do I want to stop anybody from speaking falsehood? It destroys/erases collective memory. The very thing we humans need for effective adaptation. Without quality informati...

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Sep 21, 2023 2:33 pm Why do you say that eristic (debate) is irresponsible use of philosophy? Should people not debate things?

Eristic is not debate. Eristic is winning arguments.

It's about domination and subjucation, not persuasion or truth.

What do you mean when you seem to say that philosophy is an "objectively immoral discipline"? It's not constructive. It's just question question question. Deconstruct. Deconstruct. Deconstruct. Reject. Reject. Reject. It's going backwards in time, not forward. If you're a scientist, then ...

If this is true for him, then it's true for all other persons. Two things then. 1. Some dude knowing a thing. 2. Some ex-nihilo principle of reciprocity. The same dude can know that "his life, liberty, and property are his and no other's" and then from that infer some other principle such...

Philosophy is a tool for affecting other minds.

You can use it responsibly; or use it irresponsibily.

Eristic is irresponsible use of philosophy.

All you did was give me a definition. That's what you asked for. Let me quote you: Then it's on you to define what you mean by "not true". Moving on. Why are you moving on? I know what I asked you. You haven't given it yet. Define "not true". Keep defining. When your definition ...