Trolley Problem

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

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Trolley Problem

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Terrapin Station wrote: Sun Apr 04, 2021 2:12 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Apr 04, 2021 8:43 am If you are familiar with 'thing-in-itself' then you could easily relate 'a fact as a thing' to 'fact-in-itself' - apple-in-itself, table-in-itself, car-in-itself, diamond-in-itself, atom-in-itself, and so on.
If you're just saying that there are no facts that would obtain if humans didn't exist, that could only be because you're some sort of ontological idealist (which has zero justification) or you're confusing "fact" with something like "true proposition."
Can't you see I am an Empirical Realist, i.e. what is real is confined to what is empirical, i.e. human possibility of realizing the real. I am relying on empirical-philosophical justifications here.
If there are no humans at all, there is no empirical reality - that is a very logical justification.

On the other hand your are an Ontological Idealist entangled with ideas and ideals in the head only.
You are only ASSUMMING there are real things if there are no humans, i.e. you are relying on ideas and ideals speculated from the past experiences, thus ontological idealism.
What is most real to your is only in your head, i.e. ideas and ideals in your head.

What is fact of reality is You -the subject - is never in direct contact with the supposed object, i.e. real thing out there.
There is always are reality-gap between the subject and the object.
The realists merely ASSUME there is a supposedly independent real thing out there which they are perceiving.
The anti-realists argue there is no such independent real thing out there, rather what is object is always entangled with the human conditions.
Thus what you have experienced is NEVER the the real thing because there is always a reality-gap that cannot allow any conception of a really real independent object out there.

Because the reality-gap, whatever is real is confined to whatever is entangled with the human conditions.
This entanglement with reality [factual] is via a framework and system of reality or knowledge [FSK].
Therefore if there are no humans, then there are no FSK-dependent-Facts*.

*FSK-dependent-Facts are different from your bastardized definition of 'what is fact'.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Trolley Problem

Post by Terrapin Station »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Apr 05, 2021 5:46 am
Can't you see I am an Empirical Realist, i.e. what is real is confined to what is empirical, i.e. human possibility of realizing the real. I am relying on empirical-philosophical justifications here.
If there are no humans at all, there is no empirical reality -
That's not what realism is.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Trolley Problem

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Terrapin Station wrote: Mon Apr 05, 2021 11:22 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Apr 05, 2021 5:46 am
Can't you see I am an Empirical Realist, i.e. what is real is confined to what is empirical, i.e. human possibility of realizing the real. I am relying on empirical-philosophical justifications here.
If there are no humans at all, there is no empirical reality -
That's not what realism is.
WHO ARE YOU to define what 'realism' is. That is the problem with your dogmatism.

The concept of 'empirical realist' was already raised in the 1700s by Kant.
Kant in CPR wrote:From the start, we have declared ourselves in favour of this Transcendental Idealism.
The Transcendental Idealist, on the other hand, may be an Empirical Realist...
CPR A370
Kant of course explained in details what he meant by 'empirical realist' which is similar to what I stated above.

According to Kant you as a philosophical realist is actually a empirical idealist and your realism is transcendent not empirical. Thus you are not aware your claim of external realism is delusional. I have explained this is various posts.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3732
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Trolley Problem

Post by Peter Holmes »

Labels don't matter. It's the truth of premises - and the validity and soundness of arguments - that matter.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Trolley Problem

Post by Terrapin Station »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Apr 06, 2021 5:46 am WHO ARE YOU to define what 'realism' is.
lol--it's not what it conventionally is (obviously). You can make up any alternate, idiosyncratic definition you like, but that's not what it conventionally is in philosophy.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Trolley Problem

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Terrapin Station wrote: Tue Apr 06, 2021 12:56 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Apr 06, 2021 5:46 am WHO ARE YOU to define what 'realism' is.
lol--it's not what it conventionally is (obviously). You can make up any alternate, idiosyncratic definition you like, but that's not what it conventionally is in philosophy.
What kind of philosophy are you doing, i.e. stuck with the conventional.

It is not my definition in this case but Kant's [note the reference above], who is one of the greatest philosopher of all times.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Trolley Problem

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Tue Apr 06, 2021 7:14 am Labels don't matter. It's the truth of premises - and the validity and soundness of arguments - that matter.
I noted the issue is not a matter of validity and soundness of argument in our discussions related to morality and real moral elements.

The problem is more of a psychological issue leading to confirmation bias.
  • Confirmation bias is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms or supports one's prior beliefs or values.[1]
    People display this bias when they select information that supports their views, ignoring contrary information, or when they interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing attitudes.
    The effect is strongest for desired outcomes, for emotionally charged issues, and for deeply entrenched beliefs.
    -wiki
Btw, I have stated your mind-independent views are very obvious where even a small child can sense his body, self and mind is independent from the external world.
It is this deeply entrenched belief which is highly charged emotionally that you are unable to understand the other view of entanglement of the human conditions.

It is not that I don't understand mind-independence of reality since I had grown up with it for such a long time and I did not abandon it, but where it is relevant, it takes philosophical maturity and deep reflection to understand the other perspective of mind entanglement.

Mind independence is the default views but matured philosophers had realized this view is problematic at more refined levels of philosophy thus the explored and discovered the more refined views of mind interdependence.
This is the same as Newton's mind-independent views in Physics, but it does not work with more refined levels of Physical reality, thus we have the observers effect, model dependent realism, etc.

You are insulting your own intelligence by dogmatically clinging to the default, i.e. reality, facts, truth, knowledge are independent of the human conditions.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Trolley Problem

Post by Terrapin Station »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Apr 07, 2021 6:26 am
Terrapin Station wrote: Tue Apr 06, 2021 12:56 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Apr 06, 2021 5:46 am WHO ARE YOU to define what 'realism' is.
lol--it's not what it conventionally is (obviously). You can make up any alternate, idiosyncratic definition you like, but that's not what it conventionally is in philosophy.
What kind of philosophy are you doing, i.e. stuck with the conventional.

It is not my definition in this case but Kant's [note the reference above], who is one of the greatest philosopher of all times.
Kant wasn't defining the term "realism" in some novel, idiosyncratic manner. He had the normal definition in mind for that term. Instead he was inventing the term "empirical realism," distinguished from what he called "transcendental realism." The "realism" part is the same as the normal idea there. The "transcendental" versus "empirical" varieties are what make the difference. You'd have to specify that you're a (Kantian) empirical realist. (And then we could leave it at critiquing his utter conceptual mess, as rather than one of the greatest philosophers in my view, he's a prime example of where things started to go seriously off the tracks, including that he was a horrible writer.)
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Trolley Problem

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Terrapin Station wrote: Wed Apr 07, 2021 8:02 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Apr 07, 2021 6:26 am
Terrapin Station wrote: Tue Apr 06, 2021 12:56 pm

lol--it's not what it conventionally is (obviously). You can make up any alternate, idiosyncratic definition you like, but that's not what it conventionally is in philosophy.
What kind of philosophy are you doing, i.e. stuck with the conventional.

It is not my definition in this case but Kant's [note the reference above], who is one of the greatest philosopher of all times.
Kant wasn't defining the term "realism" in some novel, idiosyncratic manner. He had the normal definition in mind for that term. Instead he was inventing the term "empirical realism," distinguished from what he called "transcendental realism." The "realism" part is the same as the normal idea there. The "transcendental" versus "empirical" varieties are what make the difference. You'd have to specify that you're a (Kantian) empirical realist. (And then we could leave it at critiquing his utter conceptual mess, as rather than one of the greatest philosophers in my view, he's a prime example of where things started to go seriously off the tracks, including that he was a horrible writer.)
Whenever I mentioned I am an empirical realist I often mention it is Kantian or I will explain it in context.

Can you provide a solid argument [no one can counter] on what is wrong with Kant's philosophy?
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Trolley Problem

Post by Terrapin Station »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Apr 07, 2021 8:14 am
Terrapin Station wrote: Wed Apr 07, 2021 8:02 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Apr 07, 2021 6:26 am
What kind of philosophy are you doing, i.e. stuck with the conventional.

It is not my definition in this case but Kant's [note the reference above], who is one of the greatest philosopher of all times.
Kant wasn't defining the term "realism" in some novel, idiosyncratic manner. He had the normal definition in mind for that term. Instead he was inventing the term "empirical realism," distinguished from what he called "transcendental realism." The "realism" part is the same as the normal idea there. The "transcendental" versus "empirical" varieties are what make the difference. You'd have to specify that you're a (Kantian) empirical realist. (And then we could leave it at critiquing his utter conceptual mess, as rather than one of the greatest philosophers in my view, he's a prime example of where things started to go seriously off the tracks, including that he was a horrible writer.)
Whenever I mentioned I am an empirical realist I often mention it is Kantian or I will explain it in context.

Can you provide a solid argument [no one can counter] on what is wrong with Kant's philosophy?
What's wrong with Kant would take tens of thousands of words. There's barely a sentence he wrote that doesn't have serious problems.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Trolley Problem

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Terrapin Station wrote: Wed Apr 07, 2021 8:20 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Apr 07, 2021 8:14 am
Terrapin Station wrote: Wed Apr 07, 2021 8:02 am
Kant wasn't defining the term "realism" in some novel, idiosyncratic manner. He had the normal definition in mind for that term. Instead he was inventing the term "empirical realism," distinguished from what he called "transcendental realism." The "realism" part is the same as the normal idea there. The "transcendental" versus "empirical" varieties are what make the difference. You'd have to specify that you're a (Kantian) empirical realist. (And then we could leave it at critiquing his utter conceptual mess, as rather than one of the greatest philosophers in my view, he's a prime example of where things started to go seriously off the tracks, including that he was a horrible writer.)
Whenever I mentioned I am an empirical realist I often mention it is Kantian or I will explain it in context.

Can you provide a solid argument [no one can counter] on what is wrong with Kant's philosophy?
What's wrong with Kant would take tens of thousands of words. There's barely a sentence he wrote that doesn't have serious problems.
Kant is very difficult to read and understand.
Some of his individual sentences can go on to more than half a page.
That is why I had to take 3 years full time to understand Kant's philosophy thoroughly.
One cannot read and expect to understand Kant easily by merely reading from the published book.
Effectively we have to convert the PDF into Microsoft Words for detail analysis.
The parsing of the sentences itself would take months.

Once understood Kant's philosophy is very valid and sound.
Just show where Kant's view is regarded as stupid?
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Trolley Problem

Post by Terrapin Station »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Apr 07, 2021 8:46 am
Terrapin Station wrote: Wed Apr 07, 2021 8:20 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Apr 07, 2021 8:14 am
Whenever I mentioned I am an empirical realist I often mention it is Kantian or I will explain it in context.

Can you provide a solid argument [no one can counter] on what is wrong with Kant's philosophy?
What's wrong with Kant would take tens of thousands of words. There's barely a sentence he wrote that doesn't have serious problems.
Kant is very difficult to read and understand.
Some of his individual sentences can go on to more than half a page.
That is why I had to take 3 years full time to understand Kant's philosophy thoroughly.
One cannot read and expect to understand Kant easily by merely reading from the published book.
Effectively we have to convert the PDF into Microsoft Words for detail analysis.
The parsing of the sentences itself would take months.

Once understood Kant's philosophy is very valid and sound.
Just show where Kant's view is regarded as stupid?
Just what do you think my background in philosophy is, by the way?
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3732
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Trolley Problem

Post by Peter Holmes »

Terrapin Station wrote: Wed Apr 07, 2021 8:02 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Apr 07, 2021 6:26 am
Terrapin Station wrote: Tue Apr 06, 2021 12:56 pm

lol--it's not what it conventionally is (obviously). You can make up any alternate, idiosyncratic definition you like, but that's not what it conventionally is in philosophy.
What kind of philosophy are you doing, i.e. stuck with the conventional.

It is not my definition in this case but Kant's [note the reference above], who is one of the greatest philosopher of all times.
Kant wasn't defining the term "realism" in some novel, idiosyncratic manner. He had the normal definition in mind for that term. Instead he was inventing the term "empirical realism," distinguished from what he called "transcendental realism." The "realism" part is the same as the normal idea there. The "transcendental" versus "empirical" varieties are what make the difference. You'd have to specify that you're a (Kantian) empirical realist. (And then we could leave it at critiquing his utter conceptual mess, as rather than one of the greatest philosophers in my view, he's a prime example of where things started to go seriously off the tracks, including that he was a horrible writer.)
Couldn't agree more. He recycled some ancient delusions, and added complications of his own that have plagued philosophy ever since.

VA asks what's wrong with Kant's approach. Well, one radical mistake is his distinction between phenomena and noumena, or things-in-themselves.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Trolley Problem

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Terrapin Station wrote: Wed Apr 07, 2021 8:49 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Apr 07, 2021 8:46 am
Terrapin Station wrote: Wed Apr 07, 2021 8:20 am

What's wrong with Kant would take tens of thousands of words. There's barely a sentence he wrote that doesn't have serious problems.
Kant is very difficult to read and understand.
Some of his individual sentences can go on to more than half a page.
That is why I had to take 3 years full time to understand Kant's philosophy thoroughly.
One cannot read and expect to understand Kant easily by merely reading from the published book.
Effectively we have to convert the PDF into Microsoft Words for detail analysis.
The parsing of the sentences itself would take months.

Once understood Kant's philosophy is very valid and sound.
Just show where Kant's view is regarded as stupid?
Just what do you think my background in philosophy is, by the way?
You have given a list of philosophers you read which you did not agree with totally.
Most of them are from the classical analytic era.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Trolley Problem

Post by Terrapin Station »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Apr 07, 2021 9:47 am
Terrapin Station wrote: Wed Apr 07, 2021 8:49 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Apr 07, 2021 8:46 am
Kant is very difficult to read and understand.
Some of his individual sentences can go on to more than half a page.
That is why I had to take 3 years full time to understand Kant's philosophy thoroughly.
One cannot read and expect to understand Kant easily by merely reading from the published book.
Effectively we have to convert the PDF into Microsoft Words for detail analysis.
The parsing of the sentences itself would take months.

Once understood Kant's philosophy is very valid and sound.
Just show where Kant's view is regarded as stupid?
Just what do you think my background in philosophy is, by the way?
You have given a list of philosophers you read which you did not agree with totally.
Most of them are from the classical analytic era.
So is that what you think the extent of my philosophical background is?
Post Reply