Why Moral Realism Is Almost Certainly True

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: Why Moral Realism Is Almost Certainly True

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Terrapin Station wrote: Sun Apr 04, 2021 2:04 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Apr 04, 2021 6:05 am There is no case-in-itself i.e. basically no thing-in-itself.
There is only case-via-a-FSK.
What is "in itself" adding here?

At any rate, the reason you'd believe that there's nothing that's the case aside from human experience of it is?
"in-itself" implies no entanglement with any human conditions at all.
So yes, I believe that there's nothing that's the case aside from human experience of it is
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Why Moral Realism Is Almost Certainly True

Post by Terrapin Station »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Apr 05, 2021 6:08 am
Terrapin Station wrote: Sun Apr 04, 2021 2:04 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Apr 04, 2021 6:05 am There is no case-in-itself i.e. basically no thing-in-itself.
There is only case-via-a-FSK.
What is "in itself" adding here?

At any rate, the reason you'd believe that there's nothing that's the case aside from human experience of it is?
"in-itself" implies no entanglement with any human conditions at all.
So yes, I believe that there's nothing that's the case aside from human experience of it is
lol, what?

I was asking you for the reason that you believe that.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Why Moral Realism Is Almost Certainly True

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Terrapin Station wrote: Mon Apr 05, 2021 11:23 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Apr 05, 2021 6:08 am
Terrapin Station wrote: Sun Apr 04, 2021 2:04 pm
What is "in itself" adding here?

At any rate, the reason you'd believe that there's nothing that's the case aside from human experience of it is?
"in-itself" implies no entanglement with any human conditions at all.
So yes, I believe that there's nothing that's the case aside from human experience of it is
lol, what?
I was asking you for the reason that you believe that.
Principle of Charity?
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3732
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Why Moral Realism Is Almost Certainly True

Post by Peter Holmes »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Apr 05, 2021 6:08 am
So yes, I believe that there's nothing that's the case aside from human experience of it is
I think you don't really believe this nonsense. You've just back yourself into a corner.

And why? You've been excited by the banal fact that we can experience and describe reality only as humans - and then projected that onto the reality that we experience.

Your conclusion?: everything that was, is and will be the case in the universe exists only if and because humans experience it.

It's a sort of secularised and anthropomorphic Berkeleyan idealism. Radically anti-scientific and utterly bonkers.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Why Moral Realism Is Almost Certainly True

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Tue Apr 06, 2021 7:03 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Apr 05, 2021 6:08 am
So yes, I believe that there's nothing that's the case aside from human experience of it is
I think you don't really believe this nonsense. You've just back yourself into a corner.

And why? You've been excited by the banal fact that we can experience and describe reality only as humans - and then projected that onto the reality that we experience.

Your conclusion?: everything that was, is and will be the case in the universe exists only if and because humans experience it.

It's a sort of secularised and anthropomorphic Berkeleyan idealism. Radically anti-scientific and utterly bonkers.
Hey! I thought you apologized for "wherever you have used the term 'nonsense'" on my views. I had not taken your apology seriously because I understand the influenced bastardized philosophy from the LP is very fundamentally embedded in your brain. Anyway just carryon and be the natural you.

Your condemnation above merely exposed your ignorance and the shallowness and narrowness of your philosophical knowledge.
If you can demonstrate and prove Kant's empirical realism is untenable and false, I will concede to your belief.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Why Moral Realism Is Almost Certainly True

Post by Terrapin Station »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Apr 06, 2021 5:49 am
Terrapin Station wrote: Mon Apr 05, 2021 11:23 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Apr 05, 2021 6:08 am
"in-itself" implies no entanglement with any human conditions at all.
So yes, I believe that there's nothing that's the case aside from human experience of it is
lol, what?
I was asking you for the reason that you believe that.
Principle of Charity?
Charity towards what? (lol)
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3732
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Why Moral Realism Is Almost Certainly True

Post by Peter Holmes »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Apr 06, 2021 8:31 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Tue Apr 06, 2021 7:03 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Apr 05, 2021 6:08 am
So yes, I believe that there's nothing that's the case aside from human experience of it is
I think you don't really believe this nonsense. You've just back yourself into a corner.

And why? You've been excited by the banal fact that we can experience and describe reality only as humans - and then projected that onto the reality that we experience.

Your conclusion?: everything that was, is and will be the case in the universe exists only if and because humans experience it.

It's a sort of secularised and anthropomorphic Berkeleyan idealism. Radically anti-scientific and utterly bonkers.
Hey! I thought you apologized for "wherever you have used the term 'nonsense'" on my views. I had not taken your apology seriously because I understand the influenced bastardized philosophy from the LP is very fundamentally embedded in your brain. Anyway just carryon and be the natural you.

Your condemnation above merely exposed your ignorance and the shallowness and narrowness of your philosophical knowledge.
If you can demonstrate and prove Kant's empirical realism is untenable and false, I will concede to your belief.
Your idea that everything that was, is and will be the case in the universe exists only if and because humans experience it - really is nonsense. So I don't apologise for calling it nonsense.

Well now ... empirical realism? Realism is usually the claim that there are real things - things that exist spatio-temporally, such as human beings, 'independent from the mind'. Or something like that. And empiricism is the theory that knowledge comes from experience, usually as sense-data.

So if that's Kant's position, you disagree radically with Kant. And I'm sure Kant would have disagreed with your anthropocentric idealism.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Why Moral Realism Is Almost Certainly True

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Tue Apr 06, 2021 2:00 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Apr 06, 2021 8:31 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Tue Apr 06, 2021 7:03 am

I think you don't really believe this nonsense. You've just back yourself into a corner.

And why? You've been excited by the banal fact that we can experience and describe reality only as humans - and then projected that onto the reality that we experience.

Your conclusion?: everything that was, is and will be the case in the universe exists only if and because humans experience it.

It's a sort of secularised and anthropomorphic Berkeleyan idealism. Radically anti-scientific and utterly bonkers.
Hey! I thought you apologized for "wherever you have used the term 'nonsense'" on my views. I had not taken your apology seriously because I understand the influenced bastardized philosophy from the LP is very fundamentally embedded in your brain. Anyway just carryon and be the natural you.

Your condemnation above merely exposed your ignorance and the shallowness and narrowness of your philosophical knowledge.
If you can demonstrate and prove Kant's empirical realism is untenable and false, I will concede to your belief.
Your idea that everything that was, is and will be the case in the universe exists only if and because humans experience it - really is nonsense. So I don't apologise for calling it nonsense.

Well now ... empirical realism? Realism is usually the claim that there are real things - things that exist spatio-temporally, such as human beings, 'independent from the mind'. Or something like that. And empiricism is the theory that knowledge comes from experience, usually as sense-data.

So if that's Kant's position, you disagree radically with Kant. And I'm sure Kant would have disagreed with your anthropocentric idealism.
Note even a small child can judge the external world is independent from his body, i.e. self and mind.
As such your claim that reality is independent of mind is merely due to habituation without any deep philosophical reflection, i.e. your inability for it.
Can you prove reality is absolute independent of the human conditions?

Note Russell's
The man who has no tincture of philosophy
goes through life imprisoned in the prejudices derived from common sense,
from the habitual beliefs of his age or his nation, and
from convictions which have grown up in his mind without the co-operation or consent of his deliberate reason.

To such a man the world tends to become definite, finite, obvious; common objects rouse no questions, and unfamiliar possibilities are contemptuously rejected.

As soon as we begin to philosophize, on the contrary, we find, as we saw in our opening chapters, that even the most everyday things lead to problems to which only very incomplete answers can be given.
Problem of Philosophy

You don't seem to understand what is real and realism [claims of reality] is independent of empiricism and anti-realism or idealism.

Your views re Kant above is nonsensical and has no relation to Kant's theories at all.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Why Moral Realism Is Almost Certainly True

Post by Terrapin Station »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Apr 07, 2021 6:13 am
Note even a small child can judge the external world is independent from his body, i.e. self and mind.
Actually it's well known that at a much earlier stage of development, babies/toddlers believe what you do--that if they're gone, so is the world. Hence why toddlers believe, for example, that if they cover themselves with a blanket, you can't see them--you've effectively disappeared. If they can't see you (because they've made you disappear by putting a blanket over their head), they figure you can't see them.

Belief in a real, persisting world independent of one's own experience occurs at a later stage of development.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Why Moral Realism Is Almost Certainly True

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Terrapin Station wrote: Wed Apr 07, 2021 8:41 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Apr 07, 2021 6:13 am
Note even a small child can judge the external world is independent from his body, i.e. self and mind.
Actually it's well known that at a much earlier stage of development, babies/toddlers believe what you do--that if they're gone, so is the world. Hence why toddlers believe, for example, that if they cover themselves with a blanket, you can't see them--you've effectively disappeared. If they can't see you (because they've made you disappear by putting a blanket over their head), they figure you can't see them.

Belief in a real, persisting world independent of one's own experience occurs at a later stage of development.
I stated a small child, not babies/toddler.
However I believe there in an instinct and inherent concept of externalness that the mother, the baby source of food for his survival is external within his instinctual grasp of his environment.

Later the instinct of externalness is made more conscious as the child develops further.

It is ridiculous to conclude,
"babies/toddlers believe what you do--that if they're gone, so is the world."
Note
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/believe
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Why Moral Realism Is Almost Certainly True

Post by Terrapin Station »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Apr 07, 2021 8:59 am
I stated a small child, not babies/toddler.
Hence the gist of the criticism. You're knocking a view for being characteristic of a certain stage of "pre-analytic" development , but your view is characteristic of an even earlier stage of "pre-analytic" development.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Why Moral Realism Is Almost Certainly True

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Terrapin Station wrote: Wed Apr 07, 2021 9:02 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Apr 07, 2021 8:59 am
I stated a small child, not babies/toddler.
Hence the gist of the criticism. You're knocking a view for being characteristic of a certain stage of "pre-analytic" development , but your view is characteristic of an even earlier stage of "pre-analytic" development.
Note my view re empirical realism [Kantian] is a later philosophical view of reality which is improved upon the older and other view of mind independent.

Kant called that his Copernican Revolution following Copernicus' turn from common and conventional sense to what is the realistic view.
The mind interdependent turn is after much and deep philosophical reflection;
Hitherto it has been assumed that all our Knowledge must conform to Objects.
But all attempts to extend our Knowledge of Objects by establishing something in regard to them a priori, by means of Concepts, have, on this assumption, ended in Failure.

We must therefore make trial whether we may not have more success in the tasks of Metaphysics, if we suppose that Objects must conform to our Knowledge.
This would agree better with what is desired, namely, that it should be Possible to have Knowledge of Objects a priori, determining something in regard to them prior to their being Given.

We should then be proceeding precisely on the lines of Copernicus' primary Hypothesis. 1
Failing of satisfactory progress of explaining the movements of the heavenly bodies on the supposition that they all revolved round the spectator, he tried whether he might not have better success if he made the spectator to revolve and the stars to remain at rest.

A similar experiment can be tried in Metaphysics, as regards the Intuition of Objects.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3732
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Why Moral Realism Is Almost Certainly True

Post by Peter Holmes »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Apr 07, 2021 9:44 am
Terrapin Station wrote: Wed Apr 07, 2021 9:02 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Apr 07, 2021 8:59 am
I stated a small child, not babies/toddler.
Hence the gist of the criticism. You're knocking a view for being characteristic of a certain stage of "pre-analytic" development , but your view is characteristic of an even earlier stage of "pre-analytic" development.
Note my view re empirical realism [Kantian] is a later philosophical view of reality which is improved upon the older and other view of mind independent.

Kant called that his Copernican Revolution following Copernicus' turn from common and conventional sense to what is the realistic view.
The mind interdependent turn is after much and deep philosophical reflection;
Hitherto it has been assumed that all our Knowledge must conform to Objects.
But all attempts to extend our Knowledge of Objects by establishing something in regard to them a priori, by means of Concepts, have, on this assumption, ended in Failure.

We must therefore make trial whether we may not have more success in the tasks of Metaphysics, if we suppose that Objects must conform to our Knowledge.
This would agree better with what is desired, namely, that it should be Possible to have Knowledge of Objects a priori, determining something in regard to them prior to their being Given.

We should then be proceeding precisely on the lines of Copernicus' primary Hypothesis. 1
Failing of satisfactory progress of explaining the movements of the heavenly bodies on the supposition that they all revolved round the spectator, he tried whether he might not have better success if he made the spectator to revolve and the stars to remain at rest.

A similar experiment can be tried in Metaphysics, as regards the Intuition of Objects.


The claim that features of reality conform to our knowledge of them, and therefore our ways of describing them, is arse-about-face - cart-before-horseplay. And Kant's false analogy says it all. The Copernican revolution was about discovering the way things really are - not assuming they conform to our way of describing them.
Skepdick
Posts: 14366
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Why Moral Realism Is Almost Certainly True

Post by Skepdick »

Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Apr 07, 2021 11:13 am The claim that features of reality conform to our knowledge of them, and therefore our ways of describing them, is arse-about-face - cart-before-horseplay. And Kant's false analogy says it all. The Copernican revolution was about discovering the way things really are - not assuming they conform to our way of describing them.
The "Copernican revolution" simply chose a different arbitrary point in its model-theoretic assumptions.

It tautologically defined the sun as being the centre of the solar system and arrived at some equations.
Similarly, you can tautologically define the barycenter as being the centre of the solar system and you can deduce different equations.
You can pick any point in the solar system as fixed and equations about astronomical objects will emerge relative to that point.

ALL of the resulting equations will have equivalent descriptive and predictive utility from your arbitrarily-chosen point of view.

Which of all those infinite points of view is "the way things really are"?
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Why Moral Realism Is Almost Certainly True

Post by Terrapin Station »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Apr 07, 2021 9:44 am Note my view re empirical realism [Kantian] is a later philosophical view of reality
It's an infantile stage that some people never move past, despite learning things like philosophy in the meantime. They wind up using philosophy to try to justify the infantile stage they're stuck in.
Post Reply