What could make morality objective?

Should you think about your duty, or about the consequences of your actions? Or should you concentrate on becoming a good person?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Iwannaplato
Posts: 6656
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Iwannaplato »

Skepdick wrote: Thu Feb 02, 2023 12:32 pm How? "Required justification" is a phrase you are using. I don't know what you mean by it. That's why I put the ball back in your court by asking you to justify the requirement for justification.
You've used that verb with justification. What did you mean? I'm happy with whatever you meant when you used it. Or when you would use it.
Used/mentioned. Potato/potatoh. You are the one talking about justifications.
Right.
Everything is expressive. But when you request things from other people it would bode well to demonstrate how you would go about fulfilling your own request.
I didn't request a justification from you.

I did ask for sentences that you thought required justification, if any.
Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Feb 02, 2023 12:15 pm No, not with me here, but you do use them. Justification is fairly easy to find, and I give a sample below, a little spread out over time. Assertion seems to be embroiled in discussions of assertions in your posts, so I'll leave that out.
That's a moot point. What you consider sufficient justification and what I consider sufficient justification may be very different things.
Sure, but since I didn't ask for justification, but have asked about your ideas about what sentences require justification, that reflects my interest in the latter and disinterest in the former.
That's a different use of "justification" - it's in the context of an argument, not in the context of mere self-expression.
OK; great. Would it be fair to say that you expect or require justification if the other person is presenting an argument?
Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Feb 02, 2023 12:15 pm
This requires justification. For your claim to be true red must be ontological.
That's a different use of "justification". It's in the context of a claim being made.
OK, great. So, what are the signs that something is a claim and not self-expression or just self-expression? This may or may not overlap with the being a part of an argument category?
Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Feb 02, 2023 12:15 pm
If you begin with the ASSUMPTION that "everything is different" then sameness requires justification.
if you begin with the ASSUMPTION that "everything is the same" then difference requires justification.
Naturally. That's how information/synthesis works - by contrasting with the default position.
I wasn't picking examples that I thought were incorrect.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Feb 02, 2023 12:15 pm
It seems like with some statements you expect justification. With others not. What are the criteria?
They vary. Depending on the context. More often than not - the criteria are my interlocutor's own critreria applied back to them. Because recursion/self-application is my thing...
Oh, oh. We might have two facing mirrors.
The higher you expect me to jump to "justify" my self-expression - the higher I'll make you jump to defend yours.
Gotcha.
Then I don't know what you meant when you said "In any case, the justification for these assertions would include ontology."
I was expressing myself. If I want you to justify something, I'll probably ask for it explicitly.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Belinda »

Skepdick wrote: Thu Feb 02, 2023 12:35 pm
Belinda wrote: Thu Feb 02, 2023 12:31 pm I did not intend to be asking you how you or others know what you or they know. I intended to ask you if you agreed that reality is there to be discovered. If existence itself is an ontological question then my question is ontological.
You are basically asking me whether there's an unobservable universe to be discovered beyond the observable universe.

You might as well ask "Does the unobservable universe exist?" I don't know!

Notice how despite your best attempts to ask me an ontological question I've still only managed to offer you an epistemic answer.
In fact, I can answer questions about existence in the affirmative e.g Do planets exist? Yes.
But I can't answer questions about existence in the negative. Do Gods exist? Maybe. Keep searching.

Hence why the onto-theological tradition is misguided...
Without falling down into the Cartesian rabbit hole we are bound to admit something is happening. The big question then is not "What sort of thing is happening?" but " What is the lowest common denominator of happening?"

It's at least possible, and I believe it's probable, that the lowest common denominator is the confluence of how we know and what we know.
Skepdick
Posts: 14364
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Skepdick »

Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Feb 02, 2023 12:52 pm I did ask for sentences that you thought required justification, if any.
Devoid of any context - nothing comes to mind.
Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Feb 02, 2023 12:52 pm Sure, but since I didn't ask for justification
Ok, but you introduced the term into the domain of discourse. And now we are here - having this conversation, talking about "justification".

This is your Creation.
Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Feb 02, 2023 12:52 pm but have asked about your ideas about what sentences require justification, that reflects my interest in the latter and disinterest in the former.
Once again: You have introduced the term "justification" in THIS particular dialogue. In THIS particular context.

What are you refering to when using that term?

The question "What sentences require justification?" is your question. Not my question. I wouldn't ask that question because in this context I am not using the term "justification" and I don't expect any.
Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Feb 02, 2023 12:52 pm OK; great. Would it be fair to say that you expect or require justification if the other person is presenting an argument?
Maybe. Who determines whether the other person is "presenting an argument?"
Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Feb 02, 2023 12:52 pm OK, great. So, what are the signs that something is a claim and not self-expression or just self-expression? This may or may not overlap with the being a part of an argument category?
Maybe. Who determines whether it's a claim; or self-expression?
Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Feb 02, 2023 12:15 pm
If you begin with the ASSUMPTION that "everything is different" then sameness requires justification.
if you begin with the ASSUMPTION that "everything is the same" then difference requires justification.
Naturally. That's how information/synthesis works - by contrasting with the default position.
I wasn't picking examples that I thought were incorrect.
Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Feb 02, 2023 12:52 pm Oh, oh. We might have two facing mirrors.
I know. That's why you are chasing your own tail ;)
Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Feb 02, 2023 12:52 pm I was expressing myself. If I want you to justify something, I'll probably ask for it explicitly.
You've been asking non-explicitly for a while now ;)
Skepdick
Posts: 14364
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Skepdick »

Belinda wrote: Thu Feb 02, 2023 12:56 pm Without falling down into the Cartesian rabbit hole we are bound to admit something is happening. The big question then is not "What sort of thing is happening?" but " What is the lowest common denominator of happening?"
OK, but you wanted an ontological answer. And so ontologically speaking it's not wrong (although not very useful) to say that everything is happening.
Belinda wrote: Thu Feb 02, 2023 12:56 pm It's at least possible, and I believe it's probable, that the lowest common denominator is the confluence of how we know and what we know.
I think Carl Jung called that denominator "Synchronicity". Meaningful coincidences.

But different philosophers called it a different thing. Some called it "experience", some called it "being".

The lowest common denominator may be beyond symbols. So lets assign it the symbol "ineffable".
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Belinda »

Skepdick wrote: Thu Feb 02, 2023 1:09 pm
Belinda wrote: Thu Feb 02, 2023 12:56 pm Without falling down into the Cartesian rabbit hole we are bound to admit something is happening. The big question then is not "What sort of thing is happening?" but " What is the lowest common denominator of happening?"
OK, but you wanted an ontological answer. And so ontologically speaking it's not wrong (although not very useful) to say that everything is happening.
Belinda wrote: Thu Feb 02, 2023 12:56 pm It's at least possible, and I believe it's probable, that the lowest common denominator is the confluence of how we know and what we know.
I think Carl Jung called that denominator "Synchronicity". Meaningful coincidences.

But different philosophers called it a different thing. Some called it "experience", some called it "being".

The lowest common denominator may be beyond symbols.
Synchronicity is mystical. Being

is not explicit. Experience is both explicit and is also common to all life forms.
Skepdick
Posts: 14364
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Skepdick »

Belinda wrote: Thu Feb 02, 2023 1:14 pm Synchronicity is mystical. Being

is not explicit. Experience is both explicit and is also common to all life forms.
You could promote "experience" to such status and project it onto other life forms; or you could recognise it as a merely philosophical/theoretical term with a socially-constructed connotation; yet somewhat absent denotation.

We could pretend that the term "experience" represents something; or we can pretend that it doesn't represent anything.

Either way, this process of identifying/promoting some concept to Ultimate Status, is what we call making first class citizen in programming language design.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6656
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Iwannaplato »

Skepdick wrote: Thu Feb 02, 2023 1:07 pm Devoid of any context - nothing comes to mind.
This could mean you can't think of any now. Or it might mean that generally you don't see what people write (here or elsewhere) as requiring justification.
Ok, but you introduced the term into the domain of discourse. And now we are here - having this conversation, talking about "justification".
Yes, does this mean you expect me to talk about all the words you mentioned?
This is your Creation.
I thought it was ours.
Once again: You have introduced the term "justification" in THIS particular dialogue. In THIS particular context.
And once again, I asked for some things, those things I was hoping you would write more words about. I did not ask you for justification.
What are you refering to when using that term?
Oh, like reasons why someone believes or asserts something.
The question "What sentences require justification?" is your question.
Yes, I asked that question. I was interested in your opinion on that. You've used the phrase 'require justification' here in ILP. I may have, I don't know. But you have. So, I am interested in when that it. It seems from what you wrote earlier that you do not think sentences that are meant as or are self-expressive require this. So, I was trying to see if there were other sentences you viewed this way.
Not my question. I wouldn't ask that question because in this context I am not using the term "justification" and I don't expect any.
I am responding to this....
Self-expression requires no justification.
What did you mean by justification?
Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Feb 02, 2023 12:52 pm OK; great. Would it be fair to say that you expect or require justification if the other person is presenting an argument?
Maybe. Who determines whether the other person is "presenting an argument?"
Good question.
You said, as I quoted before...
That's a different use of "justification" - it's in the context of an argument, not in the context of mere self-expression.
So, who determines if it is in the context of an argument for you?
Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Feb 02, 2023 12:52 pm OK, great. So, what are the signs that something is a claim and not self-expression or just self-expression? This may or may not overlap with the being a part of an argument category?
Maybe. Who determines whether it's a claim; or self-expression?
Well, you said.
That's a different use of "justification". It's in the context of a claim being made.
So, who determines what you consider to be a claim, a claim. It seems like you do decide this sometimes. And what is the difference from other sentences or contexts.

I take most statements here as claims of some kind. That's given the context, a philosophy forum. If they then explain why their statement is true, I am even more likely to.

But if they respond 'that was just self-expression, well, I would view it as self-expression.
I know. That's why you are chasing your own tail ;)
What do you mean? I wouldn't use that phrase to describe my experience. It wouldn't fit.
You've been asking non-explicitly for a while now ;)
How self-expressive of you.
Last edited by Iwannaplato on Thu Feb 02, 2023 2:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Skepdick
Posts: 14364
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Skepdick »

Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Feb 02, 2023 1:48 pm This could mean you can't think of any now. Or it might mean that generally you don't see what people write (here or elsewhere) as requiring justification.
Generally speaking I prefer to avoid generalities.
Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Feb 02, 2023 1:48 pm Yes, does this mean you expect me to talk about all the words you mentioned?
No, it means you are confusing discourse when you are making me answer a question as if I had asked it, but the question contains yours words.

I don't understand the question!
Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Feb 02, 2023 1:48 pm I thought it was ours.
The questions about justification are most definitely your Creations.
Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Feb 02, 2023 1:48 pm And once again, I asked for some things, those things I was hoping you would write more words about. I did not ask you for justification.
I can write more words at any time. But you were sorta explicit in your vocabulary...
Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Feb 02, 2023 1:48 pm Oh, like reasons why someone believes or asserts something.
I am not sure that's always a meaningful request. What's the reason you believe this color is red?

That's just how we use that word to characterise that phenomenon. So I am using the metaphors of Christianity to characterise the phenomenon of reifying knowledge and encoding it into language.
Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Feb 02, 2023 1:48 pm
Self-expression requires no justification.
What did you mean by justification?
A sufficient ontological reason (as per your implication that justification requires ontology).
Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Feb 02, 2023 1:48 pm So, who determines if it is in the context of an argument for you?
Whoever determines it. Sometimes the person says so - and I take them on their word. Other times they don't say so - and I take them on my judgment.

I am consistently inconsistent in this regard.

Much of the context determines how the language game is to be played anyway - cooperatively or adverserialy. Whether you stand to learn something or whether the exchange is mere Eristic.
Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Feb 02, 2023 12:52 pm So, who determines what you consider to be a claim, a claim. It seems like you do decide this sometimes. And what is the difference from other sentences or contexts.
Sure. Sometimes I decide, sometimes you decide. Some times we decide.

It's not like there are any rules...
Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Feb 02, 2023 12:52 pm I take most statements here as claims of some kind. That's given the context, a philosophy forum. If they then explain why their statement is true, I am even more likely to.
But if you are aware that humans usually speak in tautologies then why is an explanation required?
Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Feb 02, 2023 12:52 pm But if they respond 'that was just self-expression, well, I would view it as self-expression.
Well yeah. Everything is self-expression in the most general sense.
Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Feb 02, 2023 12:52 pm Ah, then it's one mirror.
Well, count them - how many do you see?
Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Feb 02, 2023 12:52 pm How self-expressive of you.
Obviously
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6656
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Iwannaplato »

Skepdick wrote: Thu Feb 02, 2023 2:06 pm The questions about justification are most definitely your Creations.
Yes, I was asking about your use of the term in the statement I quoted. I used it in one of my statements, yes.
I can write more words at any time. But you were sorta explicit in your vocabulary..
I don't know how to avoid that. I suppose by being silent.
Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Feb 02, 2023 1:48 pm Oh, like reasons why someone believes or asserts something.
I am not sure that's always a meaningful request.
Might not be, but it often seems to work well in discussions.
A sufficient ontological reason (as per your implication that justification requires ontology).
Thank you.
Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Feb 02, 2023 1:48 pm So, who determines if it is in the context of an argument for you?
Whoever determines it. Sometimes the person says so - and I take them on their word. Other times they don't say so - and I take them on my judgment.

I am consistently inconsistent in this regard.
Gotcha.
Sure. Sometimes I decide, sometimes you decide. Some times we decide.

It's not like there are any rules...
Great.
Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Feb 02, 2023 12:52 pm I take most statements here as claims of some kind. That's given the context, a philosophy forum. If they then explain why their statement is true, I am even more likely to.
But if you are aware that humans usually speak in tautologies then why is an explanation required?
I wouldn't say 'required' But I am interested...because I get an idea of what is going on in other humans. What you said about tautologies is peachy info, but I am also interested in specifics. I am also interested in what happens when people encounter things I write. I want to see what happens for them. Or how they respond, at least. Different interlocutors seem to show more of their processes, in their raw form, than others. But regardless, I find it interesting. Especially if I am surprised.
Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Feb 02, 2023 12:52 pm Ah, then it's one mirror.
Well, count them - how many do you see?
Right now, none.
Skepdick
Posts: 14364
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Skepdick »

Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Feb 02, 2023 2:17 pm Yes, I was asking about your use of the term in the statement I quoted. I used it in one of my statements, yes.
What do you expect me to say about my use of a term (in general) when I am not even using it in the current context (in particular)?

If conversations are about "getting to the point" your question is doing the opposite - it's erradicating any possibility of locating a point.
Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Feb 02, 2023 2:17 pm I don't know how to avoid that. I suppose by being silent.
You can paraphrase your question using a different word to "justify'" ? You could attempt to define your particular use of the term?

About the most unproductive thing you could do is ask for my general use of a term I am not currently using.
Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Feb 02, 2023 2:17 pm
A sufficient ontological reason (as per your implication that justification requires ontology).
Thank you.
I don't know why you are thanking me - I gave you your definition back. Like a good mirror.

But the point being is you are asking me for "sufficient ontological reasons" in the context of a conversation where I am explicitly objecting to ontological reasoning! Can you see how that's counter-productive for consensus?
Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Feb 02, 2023 2:17 pm Because I get an idea of what is going on in other humans. What you said about tautologies is peachy info, but I am also interested in specifics. I am also interested in what happens when people encounter things I write. I want to see what happens for them. Or how they respond, at least. Different interlocutors seem to show more of their processes, in their raw form, than others. But regardless, I find it interesting. Especially if I am surprised.
Ah well, surprise is always a good measure of new information...
Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Feb 02, 2023 2:17 pm Right now, none.
Maybe you are lost in the infinite reflection ;)
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Belinda »

Skepdick wrote: Thu Feb 02, 2023 1:34 pm
Belinda wrote: Thu Feb 02, 2023 1:14 pm Synchronicity is mystical. Being

is not explicit. Experience is both explicit and is also common to all life forms.
You could promote "experience" to such status and project it onto other life forms; or you could recognise it as a merely philosophical/theoretical term with a socially-constructed connotation; yet somewhat absent denotation.

We could pretend that the term "experience" represents something; or we can pretend that it doesn't represent anything.

Either way, this process of identifying/promoting some concept to Ultimate Status, is what we call making first class citizen in programming language design.
Existence itself is inclusive of making first class citizen in computer language. Existence itself is synonymous with experience.
Skepdick
Posts: 14364
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Skepdick »

Belinda wrote: Thu Feb 02, 2023 2:44 pm Existence itself is inclusive of making first class citizen in computer language. Existence itself is synonymous with experience.
An ontologist would disagree.

Even after you cease to experience existence continues.

So existence is a first class citizen, but experience is temporal within existence.

But, of course, if you bow to the ontologist at this point they have indeed succeeded in their onto-theological game. They have appointed themselves as The Voice of Ontology. The Voice of God.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Belinda »

Skepdick wrote: Thu Feb 02, 2023 2:51 pm
Belinda wrote: Thu Feb 02, 2023 2:44 pm Existence itself is inclusive of making first class citizen in computer language. Existence itself is synonymous with experience.
An ontologist would disagree.

Even after you cease to experience existence continues.
Yes, but only as long as there be differentiated experiencers. Inanimate existence has no time, no future but repeats its past and is not an experiencer. The mountain is set to crumble and crumble it does. The bridge is set to fall down sooner or later and fall down it will. These are not experiencers . Experience can never be undone even when all the biosphere has gone because besides subjectively limited, experience is also absolute, it may be forgotten but can't be un-experienced.

Perhaps computer languages can't pronounce the last word in theories of existence. It seems to me computer languages are devoid of subjective experience, but on the contrary pretend for the sake of convenient practicality that existence is objectively quantifiable.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6656
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Iwannaplato »

Skepdick wrote: Thu Feb 02, 2023 2:25 pm What do you expect me to say about my use of a term (in general) when I am not even using it in the current context (in particular)?
You did use it in the current context. You said
Self-expression requires no justification.
I found that interesting. And I asked questions about it. I even got answers.
If conversations are about "getting to the point" your question is doing the opposite - it's erradicating any possibility of locating a point.
Well, I find that odd. I think I got some answers about your use and some of the distinctions you draw between sentences.
You can paraphrase your question using a different word to "justify'" ? You could attempt to define your particular use of the term?
I mean in general. You said...
But you were sorta explicit in your vocabulary...
If I write words, I am explicit in my vocabulary, in all cases yes. If I am silent, well there's no vocabulary. It's the only way I can avoid being explicit: by not communicating. Once I do, I've been explicit, if using a word is explicit.
About the most unproductive thing you could do is ask for my general use of a term I am not currently using.
Again, I was responding to your use of it
Self-expression requires no justification.
in a discussion with me. In a discussion with me you made a statement about justification. And a generalization. In the negative yes, but it piqued my interest and I asked questions. You already answered some. You don't have to say more for my sake.
Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Feb 02, 2023 2:17 pm
A sufficient ontological reason (as per your implication that justification requires ontology).
Thank you.
I don't know why you are thanking me - I gave you your definition back. Like a good mirror.
I just went for a polite tying off the end of that train of thought. I guess I had hoped it would somehow be related to your use of the term, which occurred in our discussion. I noticed you saying that it came from my implication, decided I wasn't going to get an about what you meant when you used the term, and tied it off. In the process I got information about other things, related things; I think. I think it is interesting that you categorized your statements, which others might have meant has claims or assertions and happily justified, as self-expression. Cool. I wanted to know more. These were the kinds of questions that came up: Are most of your comments here not assertions but self-expressive? Do you view all your statements to be self-expressive alone or in any case not requiring justification? Do you view most sentences by other people this way? If you see someone start a thread with a statement or statements about the nature of things, is your default to view them as self-expressive alone or as also claims? If you view them as also claims do you expect justification or arguments in support? Do you ask for these? There's quite a bit else I might have asked, but I started with a couple of questions and it went where it went. (Note: I am now not asking you those questions. Just relating my process. I have moved on) I certainly did mention justification first between us. But you made a to-me-interesting statement which might have led to an interesting discussion. And it did. But it seemed like my bringing the word first up meant that you didn't want to answer some things or it would be impossible without a specific context (though there was one) or felt you couldn't or shouldn't have to explain how you use it and what you mean and how this relates to others here or perhaps some other thing. That's fine, whatever the reason was.

So, yeah. Thanks. It wasn't so literal. It was a signal that I was dropping the process there, or accepting that it was dropped, and I tied up in a polite fashion. Though it wasn't false. I did find the discussion interesting. It went where it went, as discussions do.
But the point being is you are asking me for "sufficient ontological reasons" in the context of a conversation where I am explicitly objecting to ontological reasoning! Can you see how that's counter-productive for consensus?
I think there were some possible interesting discussions there, from my limited perspective. Perhaps your reasons for saying what you did would have not included ontological reasoning. That would have been interesting. Perhaps it would have seemed like your reasons for saying that included ontological reasoning. Then that could get interesting. You might disagree and then I learn what you mean by ontological. Or perhaps you realize that you do have some ontological ideas and reasoning and that could be interesting. I don't know in advance. Or sometimes I am simply expressing something. I didn't have a huge meta-level overview and mulling before I wrote what I wrote. I popped it out. I suppose consensus is not the only or main goal I have. I am exploring. If that seems wrong to you or you would prefer not to interact with me because of that, I trust you take the right steps for yourself.
Ah well, surprise is always a good measure of new information...
Yes.
Skepdick
Posts: 14364
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Skepdick »

Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Feb 02, 2023 3:52 pm
Skepdick wrote: Thu Feb 02, 2023 2:25 pm What do you expect me to say about my use of a term (in general) when I am not even using it in the current context (in particular)?
You did use it in the current context. You said
Self-expression requires no justification.
I found that interesting. And I asked questions about it. I even got answers.
If conversations are about "getting to the point" your question is doing the opposite - it's erradicating any possibility of locating a point.
Well, I find that odd. I think I got some answers about your use and some of the distinctions you draw between sentences.
Well, at least one of us got value out of the conversation...
Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Feb 02, 2023 3:52 pm if I write words, I am explicit in my vocabulary, in all cases yes. If I am silent, well there's no vocabulary. It's the only way I can avoid being explicit: by not communicating. Once I do, I've been explicit, if using a word is explicit.
Obviously, but your choice of words is no less peculiar. You require justification without offering none...
Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Feb 02, 2023 3:52 pm
About the most unproductive thing you could do is ask for my general use of a term I am not currently using.
Again, I was responding to your use of it
That's not true. I was responding to yours.
Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Feb 02, 2023 9:02 am Sounds like ontological assertions. So, then, according to you, religion. In any case, the justification for these assertions would include ontology.
Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Feb 02, 2023 3:52 pm
Self-expression requires no justification.
in a discussion with me. In a discussion with me you made a statement about justification. And a generalization. In the negative yes, but it piqued my interest and I asked questions. You already answered some. You don't have to say more for my sake.
The first use of "justification" was your use...
Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Feb 02, 2023 9:02 am Sounds like ontological assertions. So, then, according to you, religion. In any case, the justification for these assertions would include ontology.
Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Feb 02, 2023 2:17 pm I just went for a polite tying off the end of that train of thought. I guess I had hoped it would somehow be related to your use of the term
I just gave your definitionback to you :lol: :lol: :lol:
Post Reply