I have done that a "1000" times, I won't bother to repeat it.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Mon Apr 05, 2021 9:55 amYou never even worked out if that "all ises exist in reality" thing was supposed to be empirical or true by some sort of definition. You just use that magic mantra of "confirming either empirically or philosophically" to avoid ever working out what sort of claim you are making. Then you treat every claim you've made as just both and neither.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Apr 05, 2021 9:27 amI have not done the empirical testing myself but relied on scientific facts and those that are potentially empirically possible.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Mon Apr 05, 2021 9:05 am
We all know that you created that little slice of bullshit to avoid having to work out whether any particular claim you make is supposed to be empirical or not by the way.
For example if I claim there are human-liked aliens on a planet 1 light year away exists, this is empirically possible [all the bolded variables are empirically possible] whilst awaiting the evidence to confirm or reject it. In contrast if I claim God exists, it would be impossible empirically.
I claimed the moral fact upon a moral FSK is depended on the 'oughtness not to kill humans' is the represented by neurons and chemicals in the human brain, that is soundly empirical. I provide a crude empirical inference of falsifiability in comparison to psychopaths who had damaged inhibitors to kill.
Are you aware of the following,
http://www.humanconnectomeproject.org/
to map the whole human brains neurons and their correlation to human behaviors?
A lot of progress had already been done and when sufficient information is available humanity will be able to verify and justify that moral fact the 'oughtness not to kill humans' & others plus the inherent moral system. I noted a lot of other research that can support my point indirectly.
Btw, what I had presented is merely a small tip of the iceberg of my thesis. There are tons of materials I have not brought up and I don't intend to do so here.
There's nothing empirical about any "oughtness" at all, nor any other evaluative proposition. So you have to keep vacillating, never quite thinking about what sort of claim you've just made at any time, and treating it as whichever suits the moment.
Counters to the Following Arguments?
-
- Posts: 12391
- Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am
Re: Counters to the Following Arguments?
-
- Posts: 12391
- Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am
Re: Counters to the Following Arguments?
Note my response to Flasher on this;Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Apr 05, 2021 11:50 amThe axioms or premises of your invented credible moral FSK can be nothing other than moral opinions: this is evil or not-evil (aka good); this is morally right or wrong; this is 73% evil - and so on.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Apr 05, 2021 8:54 am You keep referring to 'moral opinions' but shut out what I stated, i.e. whatever must be verified and justified empirically and philosophical within a credible FSK.
And that is a defeating counter to your claim about a credible FSK. And it refutes your argument for moral objectivity. So cut the 'where is your counter to my position?' bullshit.
viewtopic.php?p=506209#p506209
-
- Posts: 12391
- Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am
Re: Counters to the Following Arguments?
As I had stated, why you, Peter, Sculptor, Flasher, and others of the same resist dogmatically there are no moral facts is because all you have been brainwashed by the bastardized philosophies of the LPs and classical analytical philosophers.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Mon Apr 05, 2021 12:04 pmYeah, I've pointed that out to him repeatedly and he's yet to really acknowledge it or address it. He just keeps repeating the same talking points like a mantra. That's why I've said talking with him is like dealing with a telemarketer. In telemarketing, a lot of objections are simply ignored in favor of hammering-in talking points, basically with the hope of "beating the potential customer into submission," or more or less "brainwashing" them or something.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Apr 05, 2021 11:50 am The axioms or premises of your invented credible moral FSK can be nothing other than moral opinions: this is evil or not-evil (aka good); this is morally right or wrong; this is 73% evil - and so on.
Point is you are so 'shut-off' you don't even know what you should be looking and how to counter my arguments other than your LP driven mantra.
Btw, I have some sort of foundational support, i.e.
56% of philosophers in one poll agree with moral realism.
-
- Posts: 3732
- Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm
Re: Counters to the Following Arguments?
Not for the first time, I'm noticing VA's apologetic immunity to criticism: 'you don't believe because you're stupid or blind or indoctrinated by devils (viz, the logical positivists and analytic philosophers)'. It's pure deflection, because the light of rational skepticism can't be allowed to fall on the True Belief.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Apr 06, 2021 5:37 amAs I had stated, why you, Peter, Sculptor, Flasher, and others of the same resist dogmatically there are no moral facts is because all you have been brainwashed by the bastardized philosophies of the LPs and classical analytical philosophers.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Mon Apr 05, 2021 12:04 pmYeah, I've pointed that out to him repeatedly and he's yet to really acknowledge it or address it. He just keeps repeating the same talking points like a mantra. That's why I've said talking with him is like dealing with a telemarketer. In telemarketing, a lot of objections are simply ignored in favor of hammering-in talking points, basically with the hope of "beating the potential customer into submission," or more or less "brainwashing" them or something.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Apr 05, 2021 11:50 am The axioms or premises of your invented credible moral FSK can be nothing other than moral opinions: this is evil or not-evil (aka good); this is morally right or wrong; this is 73% evil - and so on.
Point is you are so 'shut-off' you don't even know what you should be looking and how to counter my arguments other than your LP driven mantra.
Btw, I have some sort of foundational support, i.e.
56% of philosophers in one poll agree with moral realism.
-
- Posts: 12391
- Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am
Re: Counters to the Following Arguments?
Why I brought in the LPs and classical analytic philosophers' influence on you is because it is true.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Apr 06, 2021 7:11 amNot for the first time, I'm noticing VA's apologetic immunity to criticism: 'you don't believe because you're stupid or blind or indoctrinated by devils (viz, the logical positivists and analytic philosophers)'. It's pure deflection, because the light of rational skepticism can't be allowed to fall on the True Belief.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Apr 06, 2021 5:37 amAs I had stated, why you, Peter, Sculptor, Flasher, and others of the same resist dogmatically there are no moral facts is because all you have been brainwashed by the bastardized philosophies of the LPs and classical analytical philosophers.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Mon Apr 05, 2021 12:04 pm
Yeah, I've pointed that out to him repeatedly and he's yet to really acknowledge it or address it. He just keeps repeating the same talking points like a mantra. That's why I've said talking with him is like dealing with a telemarketer. In telemarketing, a lot of objections are simply ignored in favor of hammering-in talking points, basically with the hope of "beating the potential customer into submission," or more or less "brainwashing" them or something.
Point is you are so 'shut-off' you don't even know what you should be looking and how to counter my arguments other than your LP driven mantra.
Btw, I have some sort of foundational support, i.e.
56% of philosophers in one poll agree with moral realism.
Note this thread where I traced to the origin of your dogmatic thinking;
Historical Background of the Moral-Facts-Deniers
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=30511
The difference is you are merely making noises while I have always made it a point to support my claims with appropriate references.
I have read a few books on that matter and will prevent a solid argument on how your thinking is influenced by the LPs and the classical analytic philosophers. [note classical].
As suggested you should research and trace how your current archaic views originated from.
I was reading
THE FATE OF ANALYSIS
Analytic Philosophy From Frege To The Ash Heap of History
Robert Hanna
until was side-tracked by Rorty, Hermeneutics, now refreshing Russell's Problem of Philosophy.
Will get back to Hanna's book later which is a solid tracking how the LPs and classical philosophers [you are influenced by] were crushed.
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 4548
- Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Counters to the Following Arguments?
The ridiculous thing here is that you agree with us! All we're saying is that there is nothing that is independent of persons that amounts to moral edicts/maxims/whatever-you-want-to-call-'ems a la "It is morally wrong to commit murder." You agree with this, a fortiori because you don't believe that there's anything independent of persons that amounts to anything. You believe that nothing would be the case if no humans existed.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Apr 06, 2021 5:37 am As I had stated, why you, Peter, Sculptor, Flasher, and others of the same resist dogmatically there are no moral facts is because all you have been brainwashed by the bastardized philosophies of the LPs and classical analytical philosophers.
Point is you are so 'shut-off' you don't even know what you should be looking and how to counter my arguments other than your LP driven mantra.
Btw, I have some sort of foundational support, i.e.
56% of philosophers in one poll agree with moral realism.
Beyond that, we seem to disagree on the implications of (a) normal human genetics and behavior, including (b) widespread agreement about moral edicts/maxims/whatevers in particular epistemic frameworks/systems. I say "seem" there, because you're never very explicit about just what you think those implications are.
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 4548
- Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Counters to the Following Arguments?
Right, akin to traditional religious apologists, or again, similar to how telemarketing works.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Apr 06, 2021 7:11 amNot for the first time, I'm noticing VA's apologetic immunity to criticism: 'you don't believe because you're stupid or blind or indoctrinated by devils (viz, the logical positivists and analytic philosophers)'. It's pure deflection, because the light of rational skepticism can't be allowed to fall on the True Belief.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Apr 06, 2021 5:37 amAs I had stated, why you, Peter, Sculptor, Flasher, and others of the same resist dogmatically there are no moral facts is because all you have been brainwashed by the bastardized philosophies of the LPs and classical analytical philosophers.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Mon Apr 05, 2021 12:04 pm
Yeah, I've pointed that out to him repeatedly and he's yet to really acknowledge it or address it. He just keeps repeating the same talking points like a mantra. That's why I've said talking with him is like dealing with a telemarketer. In telemarketing, a lot of objections are simply ignored in favor of hammering-in talking points, basically with the hope of "beating the potential customer into submission," or more or less "brainwashing" them or something.
Point is you are so 'shut-off' you don't even know what you should be looking and how to counter my arguments other than your LP driven mantra.
Btw, I have some sort of foundational support, i.e.
56% of philosophers in one poll agree with moral realism.
-
- Posts: 12391
- Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am
Re: Counters to the Following Arguments?
I have stated many times, that the judgment "It is morally wrong to commit murder" is not related to morality-proper.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue Apr 06, 2021 12:41 pmThe ridiculous thing here is that you agree with us! All we're saying is that there is nothing that is independent of persons that amounts to moral edicts/maxims/whatever-you-want-to-call-'ems a la "It is morally wrong to commit murder."Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Apr 06, 2021 5:37 am As I had stated, why you, Peter, Sculptor, Flasher, and others of the same resist dogmatically there are no moral facts is because all you have been brainwashed by the bastardized philosophies of the LPs and classical analytical philosophers.
Point is you are so 'shut-off' you don't even know what you should be looking and how to counter my arguments other than your LP driven mantra.
Btw, I have some sort of foundational support, i.e.
56% of philosophers in one poll agree with moral realism.
You agree with this, a fortiori because you don't believe that there's anything independent of persons that amounts to anything. You believe that nothing would be the case if no humans existed.
To me 'whatever is the case' is a human invention.
I have already provided the justifications to the above.Beyond that, we seem to disagree on the implications of (a) normal human genetics and behavior, including (b) widespread agreement about moral edicts/maxims/whatevers in particular epistemic frameworks/systems. I say "seem" there, because you're never very explicit about just what you think those implications are.
It is just like you are unable to align with them [not necessary to agree with] due to a rigid paradigm and selective blindness.
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 4548
- Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Counters to the Following Arguments?
What even are humans in your ontology? They can't be bodies situated in a world where they walk on geological features, where they breathe atmosphere, etc., because how would the first humans invent that stuff (geological features, atmospheres, etc.) to be embodied in the context of?Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Apr 07, 2021 5:56 am
To me 'whatever is the case' is a human invention.
-
- Posts: 12391
- Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am
Re: Counters to the Following Arguments?
I don't have current empirical evidence to confirm the first humans so the most I can do is speculate on them.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Wed Apr 07, 2021 8:13 amWhat even are humans in your ontology? They can't be bodies situated in a world where they walk on geological features, where they breathe atmosphere, etc., because how would the first humans invent that stuff (geological features, atmospheres, etc.) to be embodied in the context of?Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Apr 07, 2021 5:56 am
To me 'whatever is the case' is a human invention.
My ontological approach is to begin from the empirical evidence of things that exist we identify as human beings.
What these human beings has is an empirical-self.
These humans do not have an ontological self that is independent and can survive physical death as a soul.
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 4548
- Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Counters to the Following Arguments?
This is known as completely ignoring what I'm asking you. Humans can't be embodied things existing in a world with geological features, atmospheres, etc. in your view, right?Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Apr 07, 2021 8:28 amI don't have current empirical evidence to confirm the first humans so the most I can do is speculate on them.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Wed Apr 07, 2021 8:13 amWhat even are humans in your ontology? They can't be bodies situated in a world where they walk on geological features, where they breathe atmosphere, etc., because how would the first humans invent that stuff (geological features, atmospheres, etc.) to be embodied in the context of?Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Apr 07, 2021 5:56 am
To me 'whatever is the case' is a human invention.
My ontological approach is to begin from the empirical evidence of things that exist we identify as human beings.
What these human beings has is an empirical-self.
These humans do not have an ontological self that is independent and can survive physical death as a soul.
-
- Posts: 12391
- Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am
Re: Counters to the Following Arguments?
Not sure of your point?Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Wed Apr 07, 2021 8:30 amThis is known as completely ignoring what I'm asking you. Humans can't be embodied things existing in a world with geological features, atmospheres, etc. in your view, right?Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Apr 07, 2021 8:28 amI don't have current empirical evidence to confirm the first humans so the most I can do is speculate on them.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Wed Apr 07, 2021 8:13 am
What even are humans in your ontology? They can't be bodies situated in a world where they walk on geological features, where they breathe atmosphere, etc., because how would the first humans invent that stuff (geological features, atmospheres, etc.) to be embodied in the context of?
My ontological approach is to begin from the empirical evidence of things that exist we identify as human beings.
What these human beings has is an empirical-self.
These humans do not have an ontological self that is independent and can survive physical death as a soul.
So I will not guess and waste time.
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 4548
- Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Counters to the Following Arguments?
The point is for you to address what I'm asking you.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Apr 07, 2021 8:50 amNot sure of your point?Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Wed Apr 07, 2021 8:30 amThis is known as completely ignoring what I'm asking you. Humans can't be embodied things existing in a world with geological features, atmospheres, etc. in your view, right?Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Apr 07, 2021 8:28 am
I don't have current empirical evidence to confirm the first humans so the most I can do is speculate on them.
My ontological approach is to begin from the empirical evidence of things that exist we identify as human beings.
What these human beings has is an empirical-self.
These humans do not have an ontological self that is independent and can survive physical death as a soul.
So I will not guess and waste time.
Re: Counters to the Following Arguments?
Humans can't be embodied in a universe that's not fine-tuned exactly the way it is. That's the implication of top-down cosmology.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Wed Apr 07, 2021 8:30 am This is known as completely ignoring what I'm asking you. Humans can't be embodied things existing in a world with geological features, atmospheres, etc. in your view, right?
And yet, according to your view Cosmological constants and other Mathematical abstractions are not "features of reality" are they?