Philosophy Now Forum

Immanuel Can wrote I am discussing what I think of it, O. I'm saying "I see no justification for believing it." And I'm asking you to provide that justification. It looks to me like you're doing an "end run" around a genuine Atheist comeback, and saying, "the meta ethical j...

Atla wrote What if the idea, that an explanation of being must have something to do with redemption, is just a phenomenologist delusion? Then the question would go to what constitutes a delusion in this matter. If you've read some of the things I've written above, you see the argument. If I drive a...

Skepdick wrote I see no mechanism by which any particular argument persuades. For every argument there is at least one equally powerful contra-positive. And there's no mechanism to choose one or the other. Saying you don't see something is not to take up the disputed parts. Why not take up these? I...

Skepdick wrote How do you ground moral arguments? How do you ground any arguments? First, commit to thinking ideas through. Political ideas are morally ideas as well as practical ideas. These are tied to each other. We cannot, to put it tersely, simply implement a utopia because the world of practi...

henry quirk wrote it's you choosin' to to do this instead of that, choosin' to go here instead of there, for reasons you suss out for yourself; it's the opposite of other-directed, where someone else decides where you go and what you do You have to put a little more thought into it than that. Once ...

Dontaskme wrote No thing cares, means every thing cares. It's a reflex action and reaction in the exact same instant. Can't know action without reaction. Arguing with yourself is a strawman argument because there is no other self. The head is an empty mirror ball. This needs explaining. Is it some ...

Dontaskme wrote All arguments made for things EXISTING or not existing are STRAW. You're saying that anyone who argues about whether something exists or not is trying to defend an untenable position. Not true. But one does has to lay down a defensible idea as to what it means to exist, and proceed ...

Skepdick wrote What is the purpose of thinking, if it doesn't lead to change? I take most of your responses to be complaints about what this argument DOES in terms of its cash value: It is not at all that i think there is no practical end to this. It is rather that such things are not being discuss...

Skepdick wrote This exact same line of attack works against philosophy. What is Philosophy? I mean, apart from the narratives, fictional thinking and bad metaphysics, what is there in the world that Philosophy is all about? If I reject Philosophy exactly like I reject Religion - give me a good reas...

Skepdick wrote That's hardly the problem. The problem is that I can argue the PRO and ANTI objectivist views exactly as well as I can argue the PRO and ANTI subjectivist views. I can argue ALL views, including the view that I can't conclude which view is true. Against atheists I argue a theistic vi...

Sculptor wrote you are confused. This is a typical type of confusion that is an endemic problem. It is the problem of nationalist excpetionalism, racism and other forms of bigotry. It is the confusion of a category with those you choose to associate with that category. SImply put prejudice. Atheism...

gaffo wrote
speak for us, all are individuals.

i affirm Humility, not Pride.

you?

But this in no way responds to the OP.

FlashDangerpants wrote It seems like the best case for that argument is that it ends up claiming an IS from an OUGHT. Some version of there ought to be some celestial undergarments of morality, therefore there is. If I am an atheist just as a matter of non-belief in the celestial undergarments of a...

uwot wrote Well, all my post-grad work has been in philosophy of science, so this should be fun. Fun but exhausting. The idea I defend here is going to be unfamiliar to you, no doubt. This means I have a lot of writing to do, and you will simply repeat, what do you mean by that? you know how philos...

Immanuel Can wrote Right. And I see you don't want to be an ethical nihilist. But what proves to you that that is not the most realistic thing to be? After all, "I don't want to be a nihilist" is nothing to that question. Meanwhile, what convinces you that "experience" has eithe...