I'm happy to not discuss truth, not relevant to my arguments anyway, though it's imprecise to say philosophers never succeeded at defining it... rather they never succeeded to agree with each other. Which is reasonable.
The truth being undefinable is not important from a pragmatic perspective, there are some aspects of epistemology that matter but what does it matter from a causation perspective what the truth is? If I''m using a pan to make some pancakes for breakfast, you're going to tell me "the pan.. might be real might not be... you only think the pan is a pan because of your social connections and you'll never know whether the pan is a pan or something else".
The pragmatist is trying to make some pancakes because he's hungry, what you're talking about, it doesn't impact causation or the results.
Objectivity is an endeavour, don't start talking about whether the individual is doing a good job or not.
Logik wrote: ↑Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:08 am
You lost me. I told you a few pages back that any speak of mind-independence is a religion.
Oh, I remember Logik, I'm remarking the confusing stance you have as someone who believes in objective morality but rejects mind-independent knowledge. Clarify if you want.
I don't really care what kind of epistemology you're talking about, Again, not all epistemology is useless but I really need to be sold as to how I can benefit from an understanding or particular perspective in epistemology.
Well, post-modernism is not just a little different from what you showed me, epistemological constructivism. I won't talk anymore about post-modernism unless you bring it up.
Logik wrote: ↑Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:08 am
And you are also struggling to see that what I am proposing is the exact opposite. Language is a form of expression! A tool for communication.
Use it however works! To insist that "some sentences are true by definition" IS to monopolise language.
It IS giving authority to the Oxford dictionary where it has non
Alright. The main problem here is cure or prevention, if your idea is to throw out the Oxford dictionary and then bombard me with questions to identify the definitions I've decided to use today as you did in "The Limits of Morality" thread then you've allowed me the freedom to define my own words but at the expense of the functionality of language. This is not helpful. I'd rather just make my definitions clear when I know my usage and understanding of the word is contrary to popular use.
All I am doing is holding you accountable to "pragmatism". Concepts are tools.
The concept of "objectivity" is a tool. What is its utility?
You seem to have subjected yourself to it as some sort of authority, merely than recognising it for what it is: a rubber stamp of certification.
When a handful of observers agree to a particular statement we label the statement as "objectively true".
Objective truth == certainty or thereabout.
You can't continue to use the word objectivity if you don't want to talk about what it means. As far as my definitions are concerned, objectivity has nothing to do with objective truth. You said you don't want to discuss the definitions so there's nothing more to say about your comment here.
Logik wrote: ↑Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:08 am
See! We've ended up talking about good/bad.
How do you assess one framework against another? What are your criteria for 'goodness'?
No, you have a quote of me saying that I am not thinking about good/bad but whatever.
I don't measure frameworks against each other. There are two types of frameworks in this world; mine and everyone else's. As far as I care, mine is important, the rest are meh. If I say I hate people who talk in absolutes and you say "but I don't and our opinions are both subjective therefore equal" or some shit, philosophically you might have a point but in reality, it's not important. People who talk in absolutes are bad in my framework, I only operate within my framework, your framework is pretty much completely irrelevant. There are contexts where it isn't like when I'm trying to debate you or understand you but it's never going to rival my framework in terms of importance nor can it challenge my framework in any way.
I am not going to explain my criteria for "goodness", I'm not playing that game with you. All you need to understand is that my criteria is subjective, it's based on my values, preferences and interpretations. It is not supposed to be compelling for you, it is not designed for you and you cannot challenge it without utilising the aforementioned methods of validity arguments and offering new interpretations and it's not a battle for objective right or wrong but whether your arguments are compelling to me or not.
To emphasise this, I agree or assert if you don't agree, that everything at some level, comes down to value judgements and principles. When it comes to epistemology, I have rules that I follow, such as not believing in ghosts because I lack the "necessary proof" which I may as well have just arbitrarily decided for all it matters, assuming what I can see is real and ofc it becomes more complicated than this but you get the idea. These are just my principles, I don't really know anything, I can't disprove solipsism, can't prove God doesn't exist and etc. I only assume things based off my rules.
What's your POINT? Logik? What are you trying to encourage me and others to see by asking all these questions? I don't see it. I don't see subjectivity as a weakness, I don't see principles as weaknesses and I really only care about causation and my framework. Pointing out the subjectivity of my ideas isn't news to me. Can you lay out an argument instead of asking questions and defending your previous comments?
Logik wrote: ↑Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:08 am
That would be a performative contradiction...
Do you adhere to any rules? Rules of logic? Rules of language? Rules of the road? Rules of behaviour?
Have you subjected yourself to any authority for any pragmatic consideration?
That's your moral system...
Another hard comment to respond to when you don't want to define the word "objective". I am not arguing that I reject categorisations, standards, validity, consistency or rationales. I said I reject that these things can be objective, they're necessarily subjective things - I got no problem with that. I think they're still useful and important.
If you don't want to talk about objectivity, objective truth and objective validity then don't, I am okay with that.
You seem to have subjected yourself to it as some sort of authority, merely than recognising it for what it is: a rubber stamp of certification.
LMAO. I either evaluate things by their practical utility as it is defined by me or through my subjective framework, all are my subjective views, MY MY MY MY MY. How's this a sensible response?
I mean you basically repeat yourself a bit here, Just going to ignore most of these comments. I don't even feel that what you're saying is specifically tailored to me, it's just your speech you give everyone.
Logik wrote: ↑Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:08 am
So we have invented a concept that is impossible to exist? Like God?
Why do we keep doing this? Surely there must be some pragmatic utility in our concepts...
WTF are you talking about? I tell you that you're trying to make into a caricature who believes that which you want to argue against, that you're ignoring nuances in order to make convenient, absolute statements and your response is to continue saying "we" i.e all humans and asking ME why WE all worship God? I try to be pragmatic but that doesn't mean other people, whom I don't speak for, try to be?
Why do I, a nihilist, atheist, moral relativist need to answer questions about why all humans believe in God when they don't? Why?
My FIRST language. My native language. The language I THINK in. Is a language I have invented/constructed. It's derived from Mathematics and computer science concepts.
That I am translating between my conceptual schema and English is just you observing the consequence.
What are you getting at here Logik? You create your own language, you've challenged some established definitions and interpretations, now what?
I haven't really seen you give any indication that you are speaking differently to anyone else, you don't explain your own definitions and instead, you just ask others to explain theirs. You clearly have all kinds of opinions about things but you feel they're substantiated without excessive explanation yet when others do the same, you bombard them with questions challenging their underlying assumptions.
Your actions and your arguments stand in stark opposition and they always have been.
You are still stuck in an illusion.
Do you think you can tell the difference between a troll and a gadfly?
Do you think you can tell when you are wrong and somebody else is right? By what criteria for "wrong" and "right"?
Throughout this forum, to me and many others, you've really just been ranting about complete nonsense. You call it pragmatic and act smug. This is epistemology, it's not pragmatic, it's just you making rules for others which are REALLY dumb and pointless and then you proceed to never, ever follow those same rules. I have never seen you preface your argumentation or logic with "btw... this is all bullshit because we can't actually know anything objectively speaking". I mean I'm listening, I'm willing to apologise if you can show me where I'm wrong but atm you're just talking past me, mostly ignoring what I'm saying and acting as though I'm a God-fearing, moral objectivist who hadn't known that interpretation and subjectivity were even noteworthy concepts.
Man is the measure and decider of all things. To draw a distinction between moral judgments and any other judgments is artificial.
I mean it's not an unreasonable claim but morality is an interpretation, value judgement... use broader terms if you don't want to deal with the minor differences between moral distinctions and others.
Logik wrote: ↑Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:08 am
*sigh* No I didn't. What I was doing was appealing to the coherence theory. That once the meaning of a word has been established/decided that it be used as consistently as possible WITHIN the context the meaning was established.
Not the definition of the word - the meaning. consensus at the conceptual level.
Coherence? I called an argument flawed and you proceded to ask me "what is good and flawed" "what is valid" "what is sound" "what is is the objective criterion for proof" and etc. I never changed my usage of any of these words throughout that discussion but you insisted that everything must be defined. Later in the thread, you told me I can't tell the difference between anything without criterion and judgement, don't pretend you didn't have an agenda besides "coherence theory" if we generously assume you even considered "coherence theory" at all.
I acquiesce that you were arguing for universal definitions.